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
This was the absolutely fairest and most clear analysis of last weeks debate I have read. Thank you!
PAGE 1 of 3
From Ambassador Holbrooke:
"McCain's response struck me as odd and even ungracious; .....he undermined his own [bipartisan] claim by completely ignoring Obama and his comments..
"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."
McCain's coldness was chilling to me. I had a different take on it. I felt I did understand it. -- He was not angry, why would be be? It was he, McCain, who had smeared and lied about Obama in his ads against him. -- He was calculatingly using 'psychological operations' (PsyOps) techniques, designed to shame and throw off balance one's opponent, disorient him.
He set Obama up with his squirrelly behavior the previous week, up until the debate, all, I think, designed to unbalance Obama, steal a day of preparation and calmness from him by getting him to D.C. to 'a necessary meeting' at which McCain barely said two sentences, holding hostage the nation -- and Obama and Ole Miss. -- by threatening not to attend the debate.
SEE PAGE 2 OF 3 (or 4)
Thanks Ambassador for you insight into McCain. I always thought that McCain's strength in surviving as a POW could possibly turn out to be his weakness as a president, that tendency of his to personalize conflict as was evident in his inability to look at Obama during the debate could seriously cloud his judgement. His solution to adversity is to be confrontational.
"I do not recall any previous major party candidate in a debate volunteering so many instances of common ground with his opponent."
Me neither, Amb. Holbrook. Thank u for yr insightful observation.
I wasn't disappointed to hear Sen Obama agree on several points with Sen McCain. I liked it.
They were points I agreed with or knew were realistic. I do not discredit everything McCain says, or everything the Republicans believe in.
I'm pleased to support a candidate that not only can listen to what a rival is saying but hear the components where they mutually agree. Then to have no reservation of admitting to this common ground. I admire this attribute.
Obama is displaying a temperament that characterizers a leadership quality. This magnanimous trait instills even more confidence that Obama is fair-minded by nature, and will govern as he campaigns. With an open and inquiring mind, not pre-disposed to an ideology.
Such an enlightened change from GW's tenure and McCain's rigid way of thinking.
“Being against something or someone is not a solution, you have to be for something.
Admiral Holbrooke, I'm very glad that I read your commentary. I'm sure there are some McCain supporters who might feel that someone with a military background should support their fellow sailors, regardless.
At this point in time, we do not need a belicose, quick-tempered President. We've been spending billions each month on an unilateral war in Iraq. Prior to 2000, wars usually helped the economy - the Bush doctrine or dogma has wasted money and cost thousands of lives, American and Iraqi.
Admiral, thank you for your service and for your commentary.
AMBASSADOR Holbrooke; I don't think he was also an admiral or even in the Navy.
Thanks for pointing that out. I must have had a moment of lysdexia. ;-)
HuffPost's Pick
Amb Holbrooke,
Thank you for putting into words exactly why I thought Obama blew away McCain in the first debate. Your piece was unbelievably perceptive and points out the hypocrisy and cynical nature of McCain's campaign for president. Obama was much more bipartisan and exhibited better leadership qualities and looked much more presidential than his opponent. Thank you.
In CRISIS can we stand FOUR MONTHS of a POWERLESS PRESIDENT and VICE PRESIDENT?
No! They can not control Their OWN REPUB HOUSE and They are causing MORE DAMAGE!
We MUST START IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS and THE CHARGES ARE:
1. False Statements to Congress and the American People regarding IRAQ.
2. Non-Regulation of Stock, Bond, Banking, and Oil.
3. Non-Enforcement of SEC Rules on "Naked Shorts" that drove Companies to Bankruptcy and Merger.
4. Excessive Leveraging of Oil Market to Force Oil to Record Highs.
5. Non-Regulation of Mortgage Industry that lead to "TRICK" Loans and lost homes.
6. Non-Regulation of Derivatives which combine HIGH RISK LOANS together and Sell as Low Risk.
7. Non-Enforcement of Rules and Regulations in ALL INDUSTRIES.
8. Excessive Executive Pay for POOR PERFORMANCE.
There is literally REAMS of INFORMATION including Video, Audio, Text, Phone, and email evidence to convict these perpetrators.
I wish Congress would have started impeachment proceedings a few years ago. The last 8 years have probably been the most destructive this country has seen without a Civil War. Unfortunately, most of the administration will probably never be held responsible for their criminal actions, they will probably get high paying jobs, book deals, and seats on corporate boards. There should be quite a few Bushies tried for various criminal charges. I believe that Vincent Bugliosi has written about the crimes of the Bush Administration.
One of the first things a President McCain will do is grant pardons for the people Bush was unable to pardon, like George W. Bush.
Why dork around with impeachment? Bush et al. will not be convicted by a 2/3 vote in the Senate where there are 49 Rethug senators. Rather, convene a grand jury and appoint a special prosecutor. If Bush pardons himself and all his cronies, alternatively secure an indictment from Iraq and extradite (or render) Bush and his neocon pals to Iraq for war crimes trials.
I agree, there are many tough guys out there that like McCain's style, but I don't think Americans are ready for all that drama in the WH, and for sure not the constant temper, not working with other countries, it gives me chills to even think of McCain in th WH.
Thanks for a well-thought piece. Just about the only childish behavior McCain didn't display was holding his breath and turning blue. Disgraceful carry-on for a would-be commander.
Thank you sir for your excellent summary of each candidates debate performance. It is obvious that we have gone down this road with a leader like McCain that last eight years. These past eight years have been a disaster for foreign relations and has damaged our standing around the world immeasurably with our friends and have embolden our enemies because of this failure. While Obama is the future leader we need who knows instinctively that the world is now a global community and we cannot just go it along anymore.
Thank you for this article--one of the best I've seen on HuffPost in a while.
Good artible! One thing I have not heard is the fact that McCain was a Navel officer and as an officer their word is law. There is never a place to disagree with an officer even when they're srong. So, now John still thinks the same way. No matter how wrong he is, INHIS MIND HE IS ALWAYS RIGHT.
A gambling, brawling style is attractive to Americans? My God, WHO? We've had a would-be cowboy for eight very long years---hasn't this country grown up yet?
Thank you for such a thoughtful, beautifully written and objective analysis. As an Obama supporter, I was worried about his general attitude; he seems to be too compromising (I agree etc..), but you made me understand the benefits of that. I watched the debate twice and you made me see it in a more enlightened way.
K.
MCCaine kept hammering Obama about how DANGEROUS it would be to meet with Ahmadinejad. OMG! "He want's to wipe Isreal off the map! ". He did his best to make Obama appear naive and reckless. Obama let him ramble on and on then finally said, "Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran". It was brilliant. It totally negated McCaine's entire argument and made him look like he didn't have a grasp of the big picture or the true power in Iran. McCaine never mentioned that again.
I really really hope that Americans get it right this time!!!! It's all right in front of you if you will just take the
time to look carefully!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
