Calm, Methodical Obama vs. Angry, Ungracious McCain
Friday's unique free-form debate format offered the best insights so far into the vast differences, values and style of Barack Obama and John McCain, and how they would approach the challenges that only a president can decide. It was the stunning contrast in personal behavior, not their answers, that was most revealing.
Given the time spent on the economic crisis, Jim Lehrer had time for only five "lead" questions on national security--on Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, and homeland security. Other major issues will have to await later debates. But there was enough time for many intense and revealing exchanges. With a command of both the facts and the underlying issues, and a reassuring manner, Obama convincingly passed the key test of the debate--is he qualified to be Commander-in-Chief? But the real insights came in the revelations about the way each man thinks under pressure, and the way they interacted.
First, note a recurring pattern: With the exception of Iraq, where the disagreement began with Obama's opening sentence, Obama usually began by laying out broad themes, often mentioning instances of agreement with McCain--frequently using phrases like "John is absolutely right"--before going on to stress their differences. This is unusual, and part of what makes Obama a unique leader; I do not recall any previous major party candidate in a debate volunteering so many instances of common ground with his opponent. McCain's response struck me as odd and even ungracious; he has often proclaimed he would work across the partisan divide, but he undermined his own claim by completely ignoring Obama and his comments. Instead, he attacked Obama repeatedly, using phrases such as "Senator Obama just doesn't understand. . ." at least ten times.
The manner in which each man approached problems was strikingly different. McCain understandably emphasized his own personal experiences, but almost never made clear what he thought was the larger purpose of policy. Each problem was treated on its own, and McCain's proposed policies were invariably confrontational. John McCain's world focuses almost entirely on threats. Obama usually agreed with McCain on the nature of these threats, but his proposals for action were more insightful, sophisticated, and comprehensive, and, unlike McCain's, included the use of diplomatic and economic and moral power.
These striking differences were not simply debate tactics; they highlighted differences between the two men that are in their DNA. One is the product of the brawling traditions of the United States Navy, and survival under unimaginable conditions in a Hanoi prison. John McCain has prevailed in life not by seeking common ground (ironically, the most notable exception was his historic voyages of forgiveness to Vietnam). What has kept him energized (and alive) is his enormously combative style, which he proudly calls "maverick," and his quick, sometimes pre-emptive attacks on opponents. It is not a criticism to say that he is a gambler; he said so himself in his memoirs and in the debate.
Although Barack Obama articulates his positions in a calm, methodical, and understated way, he is clearly just as tough as McCain, or he would never have come this far in life, against unbelievable odds. But he thinks about how to solve problems in a manner much more conducive to successful governance than McCain. While he made clear he is ready to use military force if necessary, his life and career embodies the search for common ground between peoples of different backgrounds, different races, different points of view. During the debate he often emphasized the non-military aspects of American power--including diplomacy backed by American muscle, the restoration of respect for the nation, and the direct link between America's economic strength and its national security.
Astonishingly, McCain had virtually nothing to say on any of these issues--yet these are the tools that must be precisely balanced and deployed with skill if the nation is to regain its leadership position in the world.
This difference was reinforced by the much-noted failure of McCain to look in Obama's direction or address him directly during the debate, and by the grim looks that left many viewers with the impression McCain was just plain angry.
The overall effect was exactly the opposite of what McCain hoped to achieve: Obama showed that he could handle the frontal assaults of an aggressive and seasoned senator-war hero in the very area McCain was perceived to be strongest. Obama offered the larger vision for the nation--and a reassuring sense he would approach issues with the seriousness they required. The gambling, brawling style of John McCain has its attractive side to Americans, but it is not what we need in the White House in these troubled times.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
A thoughtful and detailed analysis by Mr. Holbrooke that any psychologist would be proud of. His insighful analysis provides us independents with a sobering contrast between these two candidates.
When the proverbial and actual telephone ring wakes either "president" up in the middle of the evening, during and unforeseen "dark hour," only Obama should respond, for our sake.
Chitola Utsanami
Coming from Kansas, I had the honor of knowing Obama's Grandfather. I was only ten years old, but he made a huge impression on me which I still vividly remember.
He was always well dressed in a suit and tie with his shoes shining, although none were fancy or new. He was genuinely interested in me and always had a big smile and a hug.
I looked forward to seeing him when our family visited the small town of Augusta, just outside of Wichita. He was just a great guy.
Some might call it "good manners", American values or just a person that understood that you treat people like you would like to be treated, but fifty years later I still remember him.
One day when we were visiting Augusta, I stopped by to see him at the furniture store and was told that he no longer worked there and that he and his family had moved to Hawaii.
My excitement and big smile disappeared immediately and I just drooped, my shoulders falling. It had never occurred to me that someone could move, let alone to some place as far away as Hawaii.
I think Obama is much like his grandfather and it is one of the reasons I am supporting him.
His character, upbringing, good manners, brains, concern for others and yes, his belief in treating others like they would like to be treated showed through, inspite of the tormented, and tacky behavior of McCain.
My people are from Sedan Kansas so I know exactly what you mean. My dear grandparents were so gracious, kind, and bright. They died many years ago.
I remember whenever we went to visit them in Sedan, they always dressed to the nines even to go to the local 5 and Dime. When they came to visit us in California, they were so excited to go to San Francisco and Telegraph Ave in Berkeley to see all the "kids". This was during the height of the Flower Power movement. They thought it was great and didn't see this type of thing back in Sedan!
I can see that Senator Obama was raised by these types of people. Hard workers, open minded, no excuses.
My grandparents taught me acceptance over mere tolerance. Loved them and wish they were still alive to see Senator Obama out in the light with hope for our future.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and calmness can be a perfectly acceptable response of no response of note, while excitement can easily speak for understanding. As objectively as possible, one could just as easily note that Mr. McCain proved knowledgeable and Mr. Obama vapid and with little substance. Mr. Holbrooke is of course a partisan and party operative, and this is perfectly appropriate, but he is hardly nonpartisan.
Simialry, in a time of stress, one would expect a bit of animation if not determination. Mr. Obama has a style that is first passive, and second, not knowledge or experience based. Experience and knowledge are not his strong suits, style is. Mr. McCain lacks style or rather that is his style. But he is much more experienced with regard to issues and has a substantive knowledge base. Which of the manifestations prevails in the election remains much the question of the day.
Oh, come on! That is BS. McCain is clearly unhinged and dangerous. There are so many instances where he has lost it in completely inappropriate circumstances that nobody with a truly non-partisan opinion could doubt the fact.
If there was (as I believe there should be) a required psychological examination for anyone seeking any of the highest positions in government I believe that McCain and Palin would fail the test - and we would never have had Bush and Cheney at the helm these past 8 years either!
Again, there is illusion and delusion; reality and deficient views of the world and people. Why would a heroic McCain be more "dangerous" than a less than educated or awar Mr. Obama. Mr. McCain knows how many states we have; Mr Obama apparently does not. Mr. McCain understands the horrow of war; Mr. Obama has retired terrorists for friends. Again, one must look at what passes for "fact" these days. The delusion that by some deficit of morality, Mr. McCain is somehow danergous is a dangerous perception of reality itself and says more about the person making such a charge that anything else.
So you're saying "experience" is important.
Let me see, McCain can't even use a computer even though we live in a digital age.
So, is his experience as a war prisoner more important than knowing how the world works NOW?
We don't live in 1967 anymore, how is his "experience" from 30 years ago help this technological world that moves amazingly fast?
Sure, he has experience, but so do many old people then, and that doesn't mean they are qualified to run a country that needs to go FORWARD with their BACKWARDS experience.
This of course is nonsense (and I am not a Mccain supporter)--the candidate has difficulty raising his arms because of injuries that can never heal. By the way, digital age is a term that means with the fingers: try sitting at a desk and using a keyboard if you have trouble bending your elbow (like where the radius and ulna meet the humerus). There is also no evidence Mr. Obama uses a computer. Mr. Biden might claim to have invented computers, while Ms palin would shoot one.
The "age" issue is also silly. Mr. Biden is almost as old as Mr. McCain. Mr. Biden has had two life threatening brain issues and one life threatening lung embolism. His health may well be more fragile than that of Mr. Mccain. At 72, Mr. McCain has a life expectency of 85. Age is not an issue.
So your saying one of the major qualifications of being President is to be able to use a computer????????? I have a four year old that can use the computer, but it dosn't mean she's qualified to be President!!!!!!!!
Your idea of Sen. McCain having a wide range of experience has really put us in the shambles we are now in. He was for the war while Sen. Obama was against the war from the beginning. Twenty seven years of experience (McCain's) has yielded loss of precious lives of both Iraqis and Americans, trillions of dollars in debt and a financial disaster. Arguing about McCain's experience, determination and substantive knowledge makes no sense at all.
In my opinion Obama seemed more interested in the big issues when they asked McCain he mostly just repeated himself over and over again. I still don't agree with how many people are saying the McCain did a great job in the debate. The poor guy just said how he loved America and War blah blah but he hasn't even thought of any new ways to make the bad economy situation any better.IF mCain and Bush had listened to Obama the money going to war would be in better use right now. I just don't agree with any of my classmates. They are always trying to see Obamas flaws but never McCains. i JUST hope McCain wins and McCain doesnt so we wont go through those rough years like when Bush was President.
JessicaGuns- i JUST hope McCain wins and McCain doesnt so we wont go through those rough years like when Bush was President. But if McCain was to win we would go thru even more atrocities then we've gone through with Bush, because as you seen in the debate McCain LOVES WARS at any cost. he doesn't give a kitty about middle-class Americans nor will he hesitate to murder innocent people in this country and the other countries he hatefully evades in the name of justice! He doesn't want to protect the American or bring diplomacy to this country, he doesn't!
Everything Holbrooke wrote is clearly accurate and most thinking folks will agree. However there are a lot of folks who, nonetheless, vote Republican. These folks pay no attention to well crafted arguments and vote with their gut. Google "What makes people vote Republican" and read another thoughtful, well crafted argument, from www.edge.c
Another thing, McCain is suppose to be the guy that looked you in the eye and "talked straight". Yeah right. He couldn't even look Barack in the eye or even glance in his direction. How rude. How desperate. HA. This debate proves what an horrible man this guy actually is. No way, no McCain. We have had enough of this.
their 'mannerisms' are just as noticeably different in their reactions to the 'rescue' plan. obama cool calm collected and focused on getting everyone on board. mccain floundering on a beach, pointing fingers at obama. this is a great post and you are a good ambassador!
Amb. Holbrooke has brilliantly synthesized two related but disparate aspects of the debate: each man's manner and each one's substance. Those of us who labor in the "reality-based community" experienced some cognitive dissonance while watching last week's debate. While most people I spoke with immediately after the debate thought that Obama's manner AND substance were far more appealing, I found that most of these same people felt that McCain had "won." This was the result, I believe, of the fact that we have been so pummeled into believing that aggressiveness carries the day in these situations. The post-debate commentary fell predictably into two camps: those focused on style and those who dealt with the underlying views each man presented. Amb. Holbrooke is the first person I have read who has examined both in a way that not only makes sense, but also explains the somewhat surprising results of post-debate polling that gave it to Obama on points.
McCain is just a angry little old man with a bad temper to boot......
Very well said.. I couldn't agree more.. that fact that McCain wouldn't even look at Obama during the debate was sickening.
http://gra
My opinion is that John McCain did smile too often when B Obama was replying
One's debate posture and facial expression can be risky;
I totally disagree that McCain's style was that of Brawling and gambling. OBAMA is intelligent and inexperienced and those who wish to may vote for him.
McCain has much knowledge and that can not be taken away by someone from the Clinton Administration ABOVE or any comments on the huff and puff post.
Inexperienced? Obama got this far by running the most successful political organization in history. A grass roots movement wherein most of his donations were in smaller than $100.00 increments, and yet he raised more money than the political machine of Hillary Clinton.
Inexperienced? He spent twenty years of his life helping people and local government and local businesses come together for the common good.
Inexperienced? He saw first hand as he was growing up how hard it is for a single mother to struggle against economic hardship.
Inexperienced? He fought his way up through tough elections in a tough state, and then worked many years at the state and national level bringing people together to pass legislation.
I'd love to know why Republicans like to keep spreading the misinformation that Obama is inexperienced.
Some just NEEEVVVVEERRRR get it. Or why would they support or trust thieving McCain while knowing about his Keating Five involvement? Do they understand the problem with McCain? Sure wonder.
These McThief lovers must Google "Keating Five" to refresh their memories of how this self perclaimed pitty party cried about being a war hero and a straight talker after being caught helping Keating hide his thefts from investors for something like six months, thus losing the investors many millions more. How in the name of God, do McThief lovers think he would help solve the collapse of financial institutions when he, himself helped protect thieves of the Keating Five financial collapse? Like the fox guarding the chicken house. Get the real information, people, and NOT from Fox news or Limbauch.
McClain was not smiling. He was smirking. I can't stand smirkers.
Call a spade a spade. McCain wanted to dispense off with Obama, by saying he did not understand and he was naive, but too bad!! Obama had all the qualities and the knowledge to punch back. McCain lacks grace.
If McCain can work across the aise, why can't he glance across the stage?
GREAT LINE !!!!
dudexxx wrote: "and Obama and the liberals are trying to turn this into a socailist country." First, check your spelling, dudexxx. Second, the $700 billion bailout proposed by the Bush administration is a 100% socialist concept.
I find the Raging Right's attacks on Obama as a "liberal" endlessly amusing. Lincoln was considered a liberal -- a point in his favor among Republicans of the day -- and he did not reject the mantle. He knew the dictionary definition, for one thing, and that his party represented progress, social and economic.
Times have changed, indeed!
Socialism? Only frightening to those who imagine all people are just as they: greedy, selfish, putting their personal comfort ahead of the common weal. There are some things that do not belong in the market place, that are too important to put on a profit basis. The regulation of society demands police and fire protection; we need to provide for the common defense, and so we have our armed services. Social Security enables the elderly and retired to receive benefits based on their contribution through a life of wage-earning and tax paying.
It could be further argued that the health and education of our citizens are extensions of national defense. Neither health nor eduction should be considered marketplace commodities, both are crucial to sustaining our civilization. A healty food supply, affordable shelter, potable water, and a clean environment are also essential, and should not be left to the whims of the marketplace, along with a well-maintained infrastructure of roads, railroads, bridges, tunnels, and various means of communication.
The rest is entertainment: the good's and services that make life more than basic survival. This is the provence of the marketplace.
Have a ball.
well said.
I agree McCain's body language and apparent inablity to look at Obama during the debate reveals character traits that might well prove disastrous if McCain were to get into the White House. Hundreds of millions of people in the Middle East fear and hate the US because of its abuse of military power. McCain would be sure to exacerbate this situation.
Yes, it's become rare to see a debate analysed in terms of content rather than soundbite. I'd supposed a few people would remark on Obama's observation that McCain would use a hatchet as a tool in situations that call for a scalpel, which sums up the entire campaign, as well as the debate ...or does the media believe the public's too dumb to get the analogy?..
The media don't think we get anything. Aren't you tired of being referred to as "Joe and Jane six pack" Joe and Jane six pack just won't get it. Who are Joe and Jane six pack? No one I know. The media better take a good look at "the regular guy" the "everyday Joe" We understand more then you will ever give us credit for, just read some of these comments. WE ARE paying attention, and WE DO get it. Sometimes I wonder where you guys come from.
Probably a third world war beginning in the middle east!!!
Obama should get this Holbrooke guy back on Ambasadorial duty
"This Holbrooke guy" has served admirably in the State Department during both Democratic and Republican administrations and should be strongly considered for Secretary of State.
I try to read what he writes and if I know he's going to be on television (Charlie Rose, etc.), I try to watch. This isn't fan worship (I do the same for Brent Scowcroft and others). It's because his analysis is usually of the quality of what he wrote here. It's okay to disagree with him. It's better to base it on substance, as I have not seen in any of the comments here.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
