Five Ways Obama Can Nail the Next Debate ... And Still Be Obama

A lot of Democrats are saying they wish Obama had "shown more fire" and hammered McCain aggressively last night. It doesn't really matter, though, because it won't happen. That's not who the man is. The overall verdict is that he did well, but there's room for improvement.

Here are five ways Obama can do even better in the next debate, while being true to his own style:

1. Address McCain's Negatives ... in a Positive Way

There are positive themes that would accentuate McCain's negatives, like sunlight casting shadows. They include:

• "A Steady Hand." Given how confused and erratic McCain's behavior was this week - the debate's off, it's not off, the campaign's suspended, it's not suspended, etc. - Obama could've highlighted it by emphasizing his own steadiness and resolve: "In order to manage a financial crisis you need a steady hand." "Resolving the situation in Georgia will require a President who is resolved, unflappable, steady and balanced in a time of crisis ..."
• 21st Century Mindset. Obama's use of the phrase "20th century mindset" was very effective. He should keep using that, emphasizing the positive: "The 21st century has brought us new problems, as well as new opportunities. It's also brought us new tools to solve our problems. We can't solve the problems of the future with the thinking of the past."

  He can use this to contrast himself with McCain on specific issues, too, e.g. "This kind of 20th century thinking won't solve our 21st century terror problem." And Obama should stick with the theme that McCain's economic philosophy is another "20th century mindset." But he can be even more specific: "John believes in the Republican magical thinking that says if you give away the store to the very wealthiest, somehow there will be more for everybody else. It hasn't worked."

• Leadership: Obama can emphasize that Republicans are now following his lead on a broad range of issues, from economics to defense. They're acknowledging the need for a bailout, and even adopting a timetable in Iraq. He can use that to show how he builds bipartisan consensus, while at the same time subtly underscoring their weaknesses.

  When McCain responds by repeating Obama's talking points - "I can make change," "I'll clean up Washington," etc. - Obama can say "I'm glad you've come around to my point of view, John. But it's going to take a new team in the White House to solve these problems."

Which leads us to ...

2. McCain = Bush. McCain = Bush. McCain = Bush. McCain = Bush.

Here's another debate theme: "We can't solve our problems with the people and ideas that caused those problems. Doesn't make sense." But, McCain will respond, I'm a maverick. I opposed that wing of the party. The reply? "Sure you did, John - eight, ten, and twenty years ago. I miss that guy! But the longer Bush has been in office the more you voted with him - now 95% of the time - and you're using the same team of lobbyists and cynical political operatives that have put us in the mess we're in today. That's not being a 'maverick' - that's following the crowd."

Obama should use every opportunity to bring up this issue - and to drive home the fact that McCain's leadership team has more lobbyists in it than any campaign in history (even Bush's). "You can't stand up to the oil companies if you're relying on lobbyists to make your decisions and carry out the tasks of government. We tried it under George Bush - it didn't work."

When Georgia comes up, he can say something like this: "When you have someone like John McCain, whose campaign advisor is a paid lobbyist for Georgian politicians, you won't be seen as neutral or effective - because you're not. That kind of influence peddling won't be allowed in my Administration."

And whatever else he does, Obama should be sure to use the phrase "Bush and McCain" as often as possible.

3. Use concrete examples to make policy issues personal.

Obama's opening comments on the economy were strong: "How's it going to affect me? How's it going to affect my job ... my house ... my retirement ..." He should stick with that. It's effective. But he can now become even more specific:

• When your credit card rate jumps up to 28% and you can't understand why, that's because of the policies put in place by Bush and McCain.
• When you can't pay your mortgage and there's nowhere to turn, that's because of the policies put in place by Bush and McCain.
• When you can't afford to fill your gas tank or heat your house, that's because of the policies put in place by Bush and McCain.
• When your health plan covers even less of your costs and won't provide treatment that you or your kids need, that's because of the policies put in place by Bush and McCain.

Once again, emphasizing "Bush and McCain" is important.

4. Point out the deceptions, distractions, and other political gamesmanship.

McCain used a lot of the classic political tricks last night, and pretty effectively. The best way to respond is call him out on it - every time. How? When McCain says things like "my opponent asked for $932 million in pork-barrel spending," Obama can say: "First of all, that's a distortion. And you know what? That's what the Republicans have been doing for years now in Washington - distorting people's records. That's just smoke and mirrors. It's the politics of the past."

When he repeats the charge, or makes another like it, say: "Look what he's trying to do: here we're talking about an entire economy in crisis and he keeps making distorted political attacks. That's what these guys do when they know they're wrong on the issues. They distract folks with these kinds of misleading and pointless statements. Maybe it's worked in the past, but not anymore."

And if McCain keeps repeating himself, as he did with the $932 million, address him directly and say "John, the people deserve a real discussion of the issues. Don't just repeat these talking points from your advisors. Let's talk about the issues."

Which gets us to ...

5. Talk directly to McCain.

Jim Lehrer was right: The candidates should talk directly to each other. McCain can't do it - he can barely look Obama in the eye. It could be highly effective if Obama looked directly at McCain and said something like this:

"John, I've admired you and your service to this country. I still do. You deserve to be honored for your sacrifice and dedication. But sadly, you've chosen to join in with a failed group of leaders and a failed political philosophy. I will always appreciate what you've done, but the American people can't afford four more years of the same philosophy and the same crowd of political insiders."

There are a lot of reasons why the Democratic candidate is never going to go for the jugular. But these five approaches, or something like them, could help make the next debate a decisive one - while still letting Obama be Obama.

RJ Eskow blogs (intermittently) at:

A Night Light
The Sentinel Effect: Healthcare Blog
Future-While-U-Wait

Follow RJ Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow

Comments

[GingerB]

Those are all excellent suggestions, RJ. I hope you fowarded them to the Obama campaign. McCain = Bush. McCain = Bush. McCain = Bush. McCain = Bush is my favorite.


Here's George Lakoff's take on what has and should happen in the debates:

A Brief Guide to the Debates
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/01-0

[fairwitness]

Obama's passiveness is maddening--as a candidate, he is weak (not that his message is weak, nor his stump speech, but his presence in an ad hoc, debate-type, give-and-take situation when he is being careful about what he says is weak). He's just not an extrovert, I think, but a socially-functional introvert. Not a bad thing, but unusual in politics, not what we are used to.

Nevertheless, his personal qualties will make him a great president, exactly what we need at this time in our history. We really don't deserve to even have him as a choice, as bad as this country has behaved for such a long time. To miss this opportunity would be an epic tragedy.

[magen]

these are all great suggestions-----

Send them to his campaign!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!­!!!

[bandillero]

Say what you will - Obama's passiveness is driving everybody crazy. This is the reason why he had a bad August. If he refuses to play hardball, he shouldn't be surprised at the results. He should read Maureen Dowd's column of today

[mommamia526]

The personalities of the two candidates came through loud and clear. The answers have already been factchecked afterwards. What I have not seen mentioned anywhere, so far, is the empathy and kindness of Obama. And he was talking often to McCain, facing him, trying to bring him out and elicit responses as a teacher would do with a pupil. McCain is one angry oppositional *child*, not willing to listen and interact. Such a person can not be a leader or be involved in international diplomacy and politics, nor can he lead a group of people, or the troops. Anyone who is that angry and obstinate, and spends that much energy at *fighting * another person, closes himself of and can not hear what is being said, nor see what is going on. Just try that for yourself one day. Pretend to be angry and offended and in a fighting mode, and then read something with the intent to retain it. Does not work!

[mommamia526]

The format was NOT A DEBATE. There were two separate candidates, standing each at a lectern, answering questions by Jim Lehrer, more or less, throwing in a stab at the person standing at the other lectern. Apparently, Americans do not know how to debate. I learned to debate in High school, and it would be good if that would be added to the curriculum. We invited guests, high officials at famous institutes, asked questions, debated the guests, and debated ech other. We were seated at a round table. That is the first thing that should be done: change the format and setup.The questions should be shown on a large screen, and the moderator should be part of the debate, leading the debate and also asking questions. Essentially, though, the participants should debate each other, and yes, face to face, looking each other in the eye. It would be easy to make that one of the conditions. You fail to do it, you are out and lose!! It could be made more interesting by having *factchecks* appearing on the big screen, for further debate and elucidation. Telling the candidates what to do and how to do it is not recommended, Mr. Eskow. It is leading!!

[feyangel]

I like these suggestions. I think it is important to realize that if Obama acts like McCain and all the rest of the down-in-the dirt, do-anything-to-win, including lie, distort and gut the other person to win-- then he is no longer Obama and he is no longer MODELING the values he talks about. Obama would not be capable of accomplishing what he talks about accomplishing in terms of bi-partisanship to resolve national issues-- and creating a more peaceful and cooperative planet if he just does knee-jerk reactionary counter-attacks. One of his greatest strengths is his ability to think through situations and NOT react emotionally and personally to other people's negativity. Look up the Harvard Negotiation Project he was part of-- I guess he, more than anyone else on the project, was able to stay neutral in highly volatile situations and work out agreements between acrimonious parties that worked for both sides and brought about greater Peace.

I think he can do that same sort of thing in many arenas once he is in the Oval Office.

If he operated like McCain and Palin and many others-- he would simply be demonstrating that what we had to look forward to is more conflict and discord-- or life as usual in USA and the World.

[desertbloom]

For the past eight years, our nervous systems have been bashed and brutalized by the politics of fear and meanness.

The power of Obama is that he stands firmly and confidently in his own truth. As a result, the contrast with McCain is clearly revealed. At the debate, McCain showed himself to be ornery and cantankerous.

Obama had to convince the American people that he is knowledgeable, thoughtful, and measured in his decision-making in order to gain our confidence in him as commander-in-chief. He accomplished that.

On the other hand, McCain seemed confrontational and smug. How can you build consensus if you can't look the other in the eye?!

Obama doesn't resort to the "dagger" because he doesn't believe in that approach and because he trusts us to come to our own conclusions. Wow. A President who would treat us like responsible adults! What a concept.

[DAVESEAN]

OBAMA SHOULD ASK MC...DRAMA TO APOLOGIZE FOR THE IRAQ WAR VOTE

[SpencersMom]

RJ, why are you not an Obama advisor? I hope you at least have the ear of someone on the Team.

What I'd like to hear is less "I agree with John, but" and more "This is another point on which John and I have a fundamental disagreement."

This single debate was supposed to be focused on the single area of what was perceived as McCain's strength, but with Obama's showing as equal or better than John, it was certainly a net win for Obama.

I wonder what McCain's next "Chicken Little" or "Mighty Mouse" stunt will be?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yfsrg28jE7k

PEACE

[justaskinman]

Reagan, Bush I, ClintonI and Clinton II all made great use of canned one-liners. There's no compromise in integrity, and there's not necessarily a dumbing down of ideas. But they make great sound bites.

I for one think that the five debates need to roll out like a narrative--with a beginning, a middle and an end.

The beginning of the narrative: Obama is an intellect who was right on the war and the economy, who respects the other 45% of America and maintains his dignity under fire.

The evolving narrative: Obama has a sense of humor, he can throw a punch and make news with the kind of Straight Talk that McCain has left behind.

The closer: Obama has a vast, optimistic and centrist vision for the country... best days ahead, opening new economies, education, education education.

[3rdOption]

These are all good points, with one exception:

"sunlight casting shadows" - RJ Eskow

Please.

"Old" politics or "New" politics, politics is politics, and it is always a contact sport.

That doesn't mean you have to soil yourself to win, but it does mean that you must have the where-with-all to deliver the knockout punch when your opponent leaves you the opening.

This election should have been OVER last Friday night.

McCain was shaking with anxiety for the first 5 minutes. His voice was QUAVERING UNCONTROLLABLY, he was so scared. He knew Obama had him dead to rights on the first batch of questions about the economy.

When Barack let him off the hook, and refused to hammer him as The Master Deregulator, McCain visibly sighed with relief. He knew he was going to be ok, because his opponent did not know how to step on his neck and administer the coup de grace.

McCain is a VETERAN at this. He knew he was toast, and Obama did not.

After what the Republicans have done to this nation, THEY DESERVE NO QUARTER. To give it, when it is not appropriate, is weakness.

Obama does not have to betray his principles by resorting to Rovian-style filth to win. And he must not be the ugly bully. He just needs to cleanly beat McCain down. Obama has the moral high ground here. The majority of the country craves witnessing the spanking of these fools.

Fair. Square. Definitive. Overwhelming.

Justice.

[JimR]

"When your credit card rate jumps up to 28% and you can't understand why, that's because of the policies put in place by Bush and McCain."

Didn't Obama vote against a provision in a bill that would have capped credit card interest rates? He might not want to use that example...

[shel3364]

I think Obama needs to ask McCain a direct question and FORCE him to acknowledge him.

[Praxxus]

Or perhaps something along the lines of, "John if you're going to distort my record with me standing right here, you should at least have the decency to look me in the eye when you do it."

[janeInCA]

Very constructive positive suggestion; Obama's camp, please take note, it could only get better and win win. He could change from saying "John" to "Senator McCain" too.

[janeInCA]

Also replace "John, you're right" with "with all due respect"; since we can't deny that McCain is a POW and repeatedly self proclaimed maverick.

[xenofile]

No, I prefer "John"...
McCain uses the stuffy formal title, and it goes right along with his inability to look Obama in the eye. It's a cowardly formality. And cold.
Using the opponent's first name is at once friendlier and dismissive. That is: based on his behavior, McCain does not deserve the honor of his title.