Contemptuous, Erratic McCain Loses Tactically and Strategicially
Let's look at why McCain lost the debate by a large margin (13% or 14%) in the two insta polls out, from CBS and CNN.
Obama's twin strategies (his goals) were clear -- cross the Commander in Chief threshold and link McCain to Bush. His matching tactics -- what he did to achieve the goal -- were to appear presidential, counterpunch when needed, and repeat the key points that prove McCain was simply being four more years of Bush.
The McCain campaign has become so erratic that it simply has no clear-cut strategy anymore. A long time ago, McCain's goal was to paint Obama as too inexperienced for the job. McCain abandoned that a few weeks ago to embrace a new strategy/goal of being a reformer who reaches across the aisle to bring about change (i.e. stealing Obama's message). A core tactic was the pick of Sarah Palin.
At the debate, McCain utterly abandoned the goal of presenting himself as an agent of change. He reverted to the goal of trying to paint Obama as being too inexperienced. But merely saying your opponent doesn't understand things, is an ineffectual tactic. Obama held his own, maintained his cool, and counterpunched when needed. He showed that he was ready to be commander in chief. Showing always beats telling.
McCain's erratic behavior in the past 10 days meant that one of his goals should have been to show he wasn't an angry hothead. But his tactic of refusing to even look at his opponent, of expressing more pure contempt for his opponent than I believe has ever been shown in a presidential debate, only reinforced the temperament question about McCain.
Worse for McCain, that tactic is completely at odds with his recent strategy, the one the public still thinks he is pushing -- indeed the one he was pushing earlier this week when he erratically decided to suspend his campaign -- namely pretending to be someone who is a reach-across-the-aisle bipartisan guy. How can you be bipartisan when you can't even look at your opponent in the face once in 97 minutes?
So it is no surprise that McCain lost with independents in the debate (by 22% in this poll). Independents don't like partisan politics -- that's why they aren't a member of either party. Showing contempt may make be a tactic your base likes, but no one else.
And yes, as someone who is a student of strategy, who was the final editor for the Department of Energy strategic plan in the mid-1990s, it is really, really worrisome that a man seeking the highest office in the land not only doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy, he actually had the nerve to lecture Obama that Obama was the one who doesn't understand the difference.
This isn't hard. Strategy is the overarching goal, while tactics are the means (the operational plans) you employ to achieve that goal. The surge is almost the very definition of a tactic, since it was a short-term boost in troop numbers. Yes, General Petraeus also permanently changed how we pursued our counterinsurgency effort. That was also a change in tactics, since the strategy or goal -- counterinsurgency -- remained the same. The key initial strategic decision was whether or not the threat posed by Saddam Hussein justified going to war in the first place.
If you have the wrong strategy, it really doesn't matter what your tactics are. Failing to understand that, indeed, failing to have the right strategy, should be disqualifying for any would-be Commander in Chief.
The bottom line is that Obama did what he had to do in the debate -- indeed, he did what he was trying to do in the debate, whereas McCain did not and perhaps could not, given his erratic strategy and the fundamental mismatch between his strategy and tactics.
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
Obama should get some generals or other high ranking military people to make an add explaining the difference between strategy and tactic with McCain's belittling comments mixed in. This is supposed to be the acknowledged military/foreign policy expert in this race and HE HASN'T EVEN MASTERED THE VOCABULARY of leadership!
My head is going to explode.
Jim Vait
Bethel, Alaska
"John McCain may be the first presidential candidate in our history to risk wrecking the country even before being voted into the Oval Office."
Check out this link to find out more, and spread the word!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/opinion/28rich.html?em
Most viewers, and this has little to do with specific political knowledge on their part, recognized McCain's "non-recognition" of his opponent as fundamentally contrary to the mutual recognition expected in a democracy. McCain does have some appeal to those who want a leader who rejects all compromise as moral "cowardice", but his monologue was recognized for just what it was: an exclusively self-reflective egoism that could not recognized the external world, in short "out of touch". Obama's seeming weakness in recognizing an unresponsive McCain ("John is right" or in the actual physical gesture of reaching out), was hardly a weakness. It was a masterful political action which re-enforced the view that McCain was not only "out of touch" but even worse, wanted to remain that way.
Anyone that reject compromise as "Moral Cowardice" needs a reboot, or just a boot, to the head.
Compromise is the key to diplomacy and cooperation. Those are the things that actually build nations. You want a no compromise at any costs leader? Go to Darfur and see the costs of a 'No Compromise" policy!
No wonder McCain was 395th in a class of 399 at the Naval Academy. To be fair, not many laymen know the difference between tactics and strategy. But you should expect the POTUS to understand the difference. It is not really hard except on the rare occasion that your tactics are your only strategy, and well I suppose that that is what Iraq has come to for the Republicans, having never had a strategic goal other than somehow getting control of Iraqi oil.
Another telling moment was when McCain was asked "what did you learn from Iraq?". McCain responded that he learned that we should not make mistakes. Well finally John. Now if we just had time for you to prove that you understand that it is important not to make mistakes.
Is that what Mccain learned at the War College?
Actually, he was 895th out of a class of 899 at the Naval Academy.
Good analysis Joseph. Quite insightful. Thanks.
Ditto.
ditto ditto
mccain also said "horsesh*t not once but twice under his breath.
Great blog Joseph. I've followed this campaign extensively, and for my money, this defines as succinctly as I can, why Obama is by far better suited to be president. Do you want someone who relies on a strategy, who then determines his tactics, or do you want someone who acts on a series of tactics, and then defines the strategy as he goes? For anyone who is interested James Fallows wrote an equally good blog for The Atlantic.
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/on_strategy_and_tactics.php
mcCain is just scary.
no coherence during the week:
- monday: the fundamentals of the economy are strong
- tuesday: we are in a deep crisis
- wednesday: i am coming to Washington to save the world. by the way i haven't even read the 2 pages document about the bailout, thus i do not have a clue about the problem and a possible solution.
thursday: i suspend my campaign.
friday: i go to the debate. i hope i do not mess it up.
can we really have a person like that in charge of the nukes? worse than doc strange love.
oh my god.
As Bill Marer said on Friday night: "If a typical 72 year old man started to act this erratically, the family would be looking at a nursing home".
Great article.
Mr. Obama cannot define himself as a "angry black man" that would give the repubs the ultimate juice to frighten the unsure voters. I appreciate that he has used cunning and street smarts to make mcduck look like a used up last century politico. Keep watching he will deliver the sucker punch soon enough.
Mr. Obama was honed and well polished in Harvard. He will use those "Chicago" skills to his advantage in the debates very soon, he cannot let his best material out yet.
I predict at the 3rd debate, Mr. Obama will knock mcducks lights out.
Amen. This was supposed to be McCain's best debate, and it was a disaster. All the liberal hand-wringing should be over by now. To echo Joseph's article, Obama has an effective strategy for the debates, and his choice of tactics is towards that end. It's like watching an Aikido master: the opponent may be bigger, stronger, and angry, but the master will let the opponent throw himself around instead of trying to fight it out.
When the debates are over, McCain will be thoroughly discredited by his own performance. Obama will not "need" to knock McCain's lights out; he will let McCain knock himself out, and save his best material for the coup de grace.
What really worries me, though is Thursday night's Palin-Biden debate. As I've said in my own blog, the danger is that Biden will be too aggressive when what he really needs to do is give Palin all the rope she needs.
It's no good that a man who wants to be a Commander-in-Chief and he was in the navy but do not know the difference between tactics and strategy. Adding insult to injury, he laugh at his opponent for such shortcoming! McCAIN-PALIN: COUNTRY LAST, RECKLESS JUDGMENT, BIGOTRY, LIES, SECRECY, CRONYISM. Vote for OBAMA-BIDEN: INTEGRITY, KNOWLEDGE, GOOD JUDGMENT, BY PEOPLE & FOR PEOPLE.
And McCain's campaign has the nerve to make an ad clipping together all the times Obama, being gracious and bipartisan, agreed with McCain. After all, nobobdy is wrong 100% of the time. McCain never paid the gracious compliment back to Obama. Never called him "Barack," only (begrudingly) "Senator Obama." Even disregarding content (which Barack seemed more more prepared), McCain's body language, vocal tone, and demeanor reminded me of an old man complaining about how things were better in the old days. There was nothing presidential about MCain on Friday.
How can you shake hands with a man and not look at his face?
McCain showed dismissive contempt for Obama, while going through the motions. Did any one else notice the self aggrandizing gesture McCain made when Leher said "One of you will be the POTUS" ?
Joseph, thanks for all your efforts. I'm in the middle of you excellent book "Hell and High Water". Previously I read Spencer Weart's book "Discovery of G.W." and also Fred Pearce's "With Speed and Violence". I'll also be spening a lot of time on ClimateProgressorg, RealClimate.org et al. Please keep up the great work.
Just LOOK around YOU !
Piss-Poor State-Craft...
A Bungled Economy...
Is this the America you remember growing up?
So where does the Buck Stop NOW ?
Why would America REWARD complete Republican failure ?
We wont.
YES! bernj said:
McCain did not look at him because he was offended that this "uppity" you know what
was even on the stage with him.
You know, that is TOTALLY how it seemed to me -- like McCain's handlers said to him, "don't even acknowledge his presence," and he obeyed. Obama had no trouble addressing McCain directly, and McCain wouldn't even LOOK at him. Fear? Contempt? -- doesn't matter! McCain is Bush, only WORSE.
McCain did not look at him because he was offended that this "uppity" you know what was even on the stage with him. McCain, and most republicans for that matter, are racist neo-nazis hiding behind the word conservative. Admittedly, there are even some black folks who are so full of self hate and / or a plantation mentality that they call themselves republicans.
Obama offers a chance for all Americans of all races, creeds and religions to work together for the common good. We can put an end to this horrible war of aggression in Iraq and start working on fixing things here at home.
Lindsey graham more or less suggested after that O was saying 'John this and John that..in other words,the nerve of this 'you know wha' dude! It's in their DNA they cannot help their bigotry!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
