- BIG NEWS:
- Iraq
- |
- Health Care
- |
- Mitt Romney
- |
- GOP
- |
 |
||
These are the words I kept waiting for Barack Obama to say while I listened to Friday night's debate. I lost track of how many times John McCain called Obama naïve, but it seemed like at least a dozen. You can be certain that some Frank Luntz type within the McCain campaign did focus groups and other tests and determined that voters could be persuaded that Obama is "naïve." The Republican logic behind this is understandable. After all, Obama is a skinny 47 year-old who looks younger than his years, has never served in the military and seems to believe that we should take an approach to foreign policy that is less militaristic and confrontational. In McCainland, this makes you naïve.
By not fighting this label, Obama seemed to almost concede the point. Nobody wants a naïve president; and Obama should have challenged this label-especially because it is wrong. Obama won the Democratic nomination largely because he was not afraid to challenge the Bush administration on foreign policy, but unfortunately, that Obama was sometimes hard to find on Friday night. For me, listening on the radio, the two most memorable sound bites from that debate were McCain calling Obama naïve and Obama saying "you're right, John."
It is certainly possible Obama used this phrase as often as he did because it is so unusual that McCain is right about anything, that Obama couldn't contain himself, but Obama can't run against McCain by saying he would be a third term of President Bush on one hand while on the other hand telling McCain he is right. Obama's best moments were when he pointed out just how wrong McCain was. A few more of those moments only would have helped Obama.
The approach McCain took during the debate suggests that his would be a presidency that, like the Bush administration, would be particularly dangerous because it would allow little room for reflection or thought, behaviors that are, apparently, viewed by McCain as naive. For example, when discussing Iraq, McCain constantly described the surge as working but never addressed critically important questions such as to what end, whether the progress is sustainable after the US leaves or whether it is replicable elsewhere. Instead, we are told that US troops are brave, honorable and making great sacrifices and that General Petraeus is a great general, and therefore we should stay in Iraq. I am sure the first is true, and will give McCain the benefit of the doubt on the second, but to base a major policy decision on these criteria is to overlook a myriad other important and more relevant questions, which McCain seems to dismiss as naive.
In some sense, of course, it is McCain whose world view is characterized by naivete. He still sees the world largely in black and white with no real ability or willingness to see shades of gray. In his world, the US is always right, never makes mistakes and always has the moral high ground. Perhaps the most striking example of this during the debate was that when asked what lessons he took from the Iraq war, McCain's response was bizarre and bordering on nonsensical "you cannot have a failed strategy that will then cause you to nearly lose a conflict."
Leaving aside the notion that it should not have taken the Iraq war to figure out this truism that is about as profound as saying "winning is better than losing," it is unbelievable that the Iraq experience has not taught John McCain that we should make sure we have structures in place to get proper intelligence, or that winning the peace is more difficult than destroying another country's third-rate military, or that many foreign countries do not greet Americans soldiers as liberators especially when they never leave, or that building democracy is difficult, or that in the post 9/11 world military might alone cannot guarantee our security, or that some wars are too costly in life and treasure. Instead, McCain learned simply that failed strategies are bad. McCain's unwillingness to confront the complexity of the situation, and his ability to ignore the bad news strikes me as dangerous and, yes, naïve.
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
"I'm not naïve senator: you're just wrong"-- that would make a great rejoinder by Obama. Obama did make a great quip when he said that Senator McCain likes to pretend the Iraq war started in 2007 and not in 2003. Sadly, Obama thinks that it is real debate and not a collection of soundbites. I think the public recognizes Obama's grace as a strength.
Obama should say
"Naïve! you seem to have me confused as a republican VP candidate"
It has become so obvious to me that McCain's strategy in this campaign has been to target we Americans with Obama negatives often enough to brainwash us or subliminally affect our decision.
Feeding our minds over and over again absolutely can have an impact. We must all see through this ugly strategy. We are not stupid! The only thing that comes to mind in Obama's strategy in this regard is consistently telling Americans we don't need four more years of Bush.
McCain has run his whole campaign on personally attacking Obama instead of talking about policies and what we need to do to change our future. And I absolutely agree that being a POW does not make a person qualified to be a commander-in-chief of our nation.
Do you ever want a leader that will never look you in the eye? Do you want a leader that will never show you any respect? Do you want a leader that will tell you how naive you are, etc . etc. etc. ? If this is how he treats someone with some impressive credentials[even if you don't like him you must give him that].Can you imagine how he might deal with a person that needs some kid gloves ?.Poor judgement with a bad attitude is not what this country needs...Vo
Excellent piece, and I agree 100%. Bravo.
I taped the debate off CNN so I could go back and watch how the audience reacted. They had a focus group twisting dials to show their reactions and put it on the screen in real time. Often, when Obama would start an answer by agreeing with McCain, they'd like it. But each answer was an "I agree with you John, but..." and often as he would state the "but.." part, the meters would go even higher. Specifically when Obama agreed that earmarks need to be be cut, then made the key point that McCains tax cuts for the rich are 10 times all the earmarks added together.
Obama was seen as disagreeing with out being disagreeable. The independents, particularly, loved it. McCain was just disagreeable.
The end result is the Republicans got some video for their ads, while Obama scored a win and got a dramatic increase in the way people view him, while McCain's number on that stayed flat.
Obama consistently held the higher ground; McCain smirked and made mockery, he twisted words and meanings, took things out of context and in doing so he wasted valuable time. Obama remained calm and cool in his rebuttals, stuck to his principles and proves once again that in our present world, we need to elect a President who is skilled in the art of diplomacy, now more than ever. We need a President who is willing to sit down with an adversarial leader and be able to talk face to face, not roll out pre-conditions as if he were a King. America has lost its way, and our standing in the world has plummeted. Most of Europe is hoping for an Obama win; electing a grandstanding old man like McCain will drive us right into the ground.
topazz: After perusing your profile I found that I really appreciate your unique point of view. Your clarity and strength ring through loud and clear. I hope we hear a lot more from you!
Obama seems to know what he's doing. I think we need to trust the candidate, he's been right about a lot so far.
I am guessing he was very deliberate in his approach to Senator McCain at the debate.
I looked into McCain's eyes and I saw three letters...
Folks, Obama keeps on WINNING. I remind you of this fact. If you kept or your strategies kept on winning, YOU'D be running for president, not him.
He beat Hillary Clinton by staying himself while she strobed through personalities, identities and strategies trying to attack him, (often successfully) until she just looked weird and unstable--a person that no one, herself included, had any idea who she was. The irony of Bill declaring after New Hampshire--months and many personae from the endgame--that Hillary had "found her voice" should be lost on no one.
Obama remained the same man through this entire process, and as time went on, that became more and more reassuring. On his game, he can't be beat. Why change it weeks from the end?
A: Obama said that McCain was wrong on the one issue enough people agree on, that the decision to go to war in Iraq was fundamentally wrong. Right now it looks like consensus has been reached on this central point.
B: Obama's letting out enough rope so Captain POW can hang himself.
PLEASE, would someone tell Barack Obama to hone his killer instincts for the next debate - he's a smart guy and clearly can think on his feet. Tell him to put that to good use and go for the jugular. If I hear that old guy call Obama naive or he doesn't understand once more without the kind of response that that merits then I'm going to have to question Obama's ability to sit down at the table with Iran, North Korea etc.
I question John McCain's ability to sit down with an adversary, with or without preconditions, based on his performance last night, where he could not even look his adversary in the eye. Obama doesn't have to be told this: he did what he needed to do on Friday, which was make a connection with undecided, persuadable voters, not with his base. According to the polling results, he succeeded. Remember, there are two more debates.
excellent points made about McCain being naive. He was naive enough to call Bin Laden and co 'Freedom Fighters' for driving the Russians out of Afghanistan. It shows how his miguided view of good vs evil is.
Read About it Here
http://www
I disagree. Senator Obama was able to win the debate precisely because he *did not* appear naive. In order for a narrative to work, no matter how well it has been researched from a marketing perspective, is must be based on an actual perception of reality. Senator Obama succeeded because he is not naive and did not in any meaningful way validate the charge of naivete.
I don't agree that it would have been particularly useful or convincing for Senator Obama to respond to accusations of naivte by McCain by saying the equivalent of, "No, I'm not! You are!" Using a similar accusation as a rebuttal risks reinforcing the the narrative of naivete with what could easily come across as a juvenile response from a younger to an elder.
By demonstrating that he didn't fit the narrative, Senator Obama not only rendered McCain's argument useless, but his opponent''s credibility was brought into question. The problem with a line of attack that is not based on at least some truth or perceived truth is that it always costs the accuser some credibility. Trust requires demonstrating dredibility over time, and if you lose too much credibility too quickly the trust turns to cynicism.
I suspect that McCain's trust has been seriously undermined by his erratic behavior that has not matched his original stated purposes. Everything he says and does is greeted with increasing skepticism while at the same time Senator Obama is increasingly earning trust by acting consistently over time.
Obama looked and sounded presidential, the old man looked....
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
