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.

Comments

[cher514]

I couldn't help going away from the debate feeling that McCain was still fighting the Vietnam war. That he wants to feel his imprisonment was not in vain. His incessent relating of his POW experiences and his insistence that we win in Iraq at all costs may be his way of trying 'win' the war in Vietnam.

[Garvagh]

Bravo! McCAin admits his continuing fantasy that the US could have "won" the Vietnam War! As with the Iraq War, he is constitutionally incapable of admitting the military intervention was a catastrophic mistake, only made worse by not getting out.

[hangdogit]

McCain asserts, incongruously and without being challened, that he "knows how to win wars." Does he mean Vietnam? Being a POW in a lost cause hardly qualifies as a win. Does he mean Iraq? Even General Petraeus avoids the word "victory" when discussing Iraq. What wars has he won?

[PeaceOnEarth62]

Agreed.

[AuOso209]

I'm convinced we began succeeding in Vietnam when we withdrew. Foreign policy should be oriented toward success. Success isn't the same as "winning." It's accomplishing our goals. Take a look at Vietnam now. Is it a democratic nation? No. It wasn't then, either. But now American and other companies are operating there, and we have an opportunity to influence them toward more trade and political liberalization. And Americans and Vietnamese aren't dying to do it.

We didn't win the war, but we're on the path to policy success.

[kjwhite]

Thank you for so eloquently expressing what so many of us watching the debate observed. You put into words the feelings, it seems, of nearly everyone.

I was incredibly uncomfortable with Senator's McCain's warlike stance on seemingly everything. His condescending manner did not come across as "experienced" or "presidential". To the contrary, his performace was rather cringe-inspiring. We found ourselves looking at each other asking--Is this how he would negotiate with a foreign leader? Listening to Senator McCain, one could only envision America at a continual state of war with *someone*.....

Our collective American spirit is rather beaten down. The world seems to hate us and our leadership has virtually ignored us. Senator McCain, displaying such obvious disdain and disregard for Senator Obama, (a very educated and accomplished man), made Americans wonder... If he can act that way to a man like Senator Obama, then what chance does the average American have of getting any respect from him? Surely we "average Joe's" will come even LOWER on his emotional totem pole.

America has had eight years of "Maverick" attitude already from the White House. We are tired of "my-way-or­-the-highw­ay leadeship. Senator Obama seems far more in touch with the needs of the country. I would much rather have a statesman with a cool head and a fearless heart, than a hot-headed old maverick that loves a good war.

[QuestionAllAuthority]

My wife sat down as an undecided voter to the first debate. After 45 minutes, she looked at me and said that she had seen enough. She was going to vote for Obama.

If Sen. McCain had the same effect on the rest of the undecided voters, he's doomed.

[ClearMind]

Holbrooke always offers insightful analysis. This piece capsulizes the profound differences perfectly. There is a profound difference in the candidates DNA that drives their world view and management styles.
Obama is thoughtful, deliberative, consultative and seeks common ground. McCain is impulsive, emotional, aggressive, headstrong and reckless -- a toxic mix for a president.

One of the most telling exchanges, that did not receive much press was when Lehrer pressed for details on what would be cut in their plans if the bailout and Iraq wars continue to drain the budget. McCain thought he saw an opportunity to appear a decisive leader and blurted out: "I'd put an across the board freeze on govt programs." (I'm paraphrasing here). Obama's more thoughtful rejoinder to that: "That's like using a hatchet when a scalpel is required." Beautiful! Thoughtful, succinct response that absolutely conveyed a sense of management style.

[gladys46]

Ditto !!!

[Anthrofreak]

Yes. That was a very pivotal moment in the debate for me. I was originally an Edwards supporter, but when it was clear that Barack was going up against Hillary, I joined the Obama camp. This debate reminded me of why Obama is the right person for the job. To all those people who say that Obama supporters are delusional, I think they should turn that lens on McCain supporters who are obviously willing to ignore the lies, dangerous temperament , terrible VP choice and constant back peddling just to vote for someone who they pretend they identify with. 13 Cars, 9 houses and a beer heiress for a wife? Right. He's knows exactly what I'm going through.

[intopolitics]

Amb. Holbrooke is a generally right. But there is nothing wrong with saying the other person don't "get it" in a debate. You are supposed to disagree. Its a contest. I prefer Obama but this criticism is weak.

[MarieNat]

I see what you mean, but I think his point is not about the debate, but about what their temperament and problem-solving style tells us about how they will govern. And in that regard, I agree with him. When folks say that Obama should have been on the attack more often, I think they miss the point - that is simply not his nature, and we should be relieved that he does not attack unnecessarily, because it tells us something about how judicious he will be as a President about when to go on offense and when not.

[AlaskanWannaB]

Ditto!!! You, MarieNat, are so insightful.

[JustMyWords]

The purpose of a debate is not to disagree - the fact that debaters are on opposite sides is actually incidental. The purpose of a debate is to make and support a particular position. True, nothing wrong with saying your opponent doesn't get it. But after you say that, you have to support that statement - and McCain didn't do it.

[AuOso209]

If it were the only criticism, you'd be right. But his comments about Barack "not understanding" was shown to be part of a pattern of closed-minded anger, a dismissal of the other guy without considering his point of view.

I like John McCain, but this is a real problem for him. It causes me to worry about whether he really has learned from our experience in Vietnam.

[troika]

Intopolitics, ambassadors are generally diplomatic, hence the usage "the other person doesn't get it". Hope Obama keeps him in his administration. We need people like him.

[cjger]

Very thoughtful analysis, Ambassador Holbrooke. You are, after Senator Lugar, the most qualified person to be the next Secretary of State. I hope you accept the job if it is offered. United Nations representative would be a good place for your talents too. The country needs you very badly.

[Bftsplk]

He was the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. already.

[BPCentrisAmerican]

McCain and his plastic surrogates are trying to make the case that Obama exudes the same stubborn resistance to ideas and change as Bush. Good luck pushing that rock up hill.

[piquet]

Well thought out assessment...Thanks

[DoTheMath]

Theodore Roosevelt used to like the West African proverb, “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." John McCain, on the other hand, seems to prefer speaking belligerently while carrying no stick at all since it is on loan indefinitely to Iraq.

[RJII]

good one. scary truth

[dudexxx]

Neither one of these clowns are any good. McCain seems to not want to make up his mind sometimes, and Obama and the liberals are trying to turn this into a socailist country. I can't see how either one of them got nominated. We MUST have better qualified people than this!

[jhwkr]

Don't like it, then stay home and don't vote.

[Rosie2]

That's a real American statement, Jhwkr. You've got to be a Republican.

[brownswan]

Lincoln was called a clown -- and much worse -- so Senator Obama is in good company.

McCain is not a clown. There is nothing funny about his myopic view of the world and the baggage he will bring to the office of President -- including Sarah Palin.

[Anthrofreak]

Get a new line of attack. No one is buying that socialist crap any more. Nothing can be more socialist than expecting the government and tax payers to absorb billions because banks were let loose to do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted to.

So socialism is good for corporations but bad for citizens? Socialize loss and privatize profit?

I won't expect a response from you any time soon. I'm sure it will take some time to wrap your head around that one...

[troika]

Hey anthrofreak, I agree with you in toto. Dudexxx, I feel does not know the definition of SOCIALIST. He keeps yapping at this. He needs to get off the computer and learn civics and forms of government across the globe.

[pbfishtaco]

Thanks for the clear analysis of both content and character. You can't separate one from the other.

[doctormark]

McCain acts before thinking.

Obama thinks before acting.

[troika]

Absolutely so TRUE !!!

[harriettubman]

If no one saw McCain gritting his teeth while Obama was speaking, looking directly ahead and not at his debater; smirking; and constantly saying "Senator Obama doesn't understand or just doesn't get it, then they were looking at a different debate.

[Trinite]

Your brilliant article is right on. Thank you.

[Novoski]

Thanks Rich. Interesting observations!

When the debate was over, I thought both camps will say that their candidate won the debate. And they did. From my point of view, McCain's hard-nosed and unforgiving dialogue will energize those on the far right. Obama's all-encompassing and thoughtful performance will appeal to those on the left (and more of those in the middle).

The debate and the follow up analysis shows the start differences between the two schools of thought. The left being progressive, considerate and authoritative and the right being immovable, emotional and self righteous. It reminded me of the debates (or arguments) I have with my Dad. :-)

You can't fight them and you can't beat them. Let them just fade away and we'll manage to keep the house from burning.

[SShaw490]

Very well-written and well-thought out post, Ambassador Holbrooke. In this election, we're being presented with two men who could not possibly be more different; the intellectual, patient and strong Obama, and the impulsive, passionate, emotional McCain. Hopefully, America will favor the former, but recent history would tell me America generally votes for someone who feels his way through decisions rather than thinking his way through them.

[DoTheMath]

Let's hope Americans have the capacity to learn from their mistakes. (I should say "our" mistakes since I'm an American, but I refuse to take responsibility for a president who "feels his way through decisions" and for whom I definitely did not vote). The single factor that made the most difference in convincing me to select Obama last December was THINKING.

[hockeymom huh]

Or someone they can have a beer with.