Notes for Next Time

I had the near-death experience of watching the first presidential debate with a small group of hard core liberal intellectuals. The consensus in the room was that McCain won, and that Obama was surprisingly weak. McCain stuck to his message that Obama was naïve, that he "didn't get it." McCain was surprisingly lucid and forceful. He reminded us of Reagan. His manner was folksy and reassuring, but tough. He knew his subject. He spoke fluidly, and didn't come across as reckless or over-the-hill.

Obama did score a few strong lines, but the overall impression was that he was on the defensive more of the time than McCain was. When Obama said "John's right" for the seventh time, I had to be restrained from throwing a chair at the television. The only comforting thought was that in twelve hours, few would be thinking about foreign policy, since the financial crash would be back center stage, and Obama is handling that well while McCain isn't. Indeed, the first third of the debate, we felt, was Obama's. And next week, we can look forward to Sarah Palin coming apart in primetime.

But then, after a restless night, we awakened to find that we had been living in a parallel universe. Evidently, it was only a bad dream. Somehow, the rest of America thought it was a draw at worst, or gave it to Obama on points. Even the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal scored it about even.

I can only conclude that my friends and I are policy wonks, and were surprised and impressed at McCain's grasp of detail. But the average viewer didn't hear what we heard. The typical viewer heard a blizzard of obscure, inside-Washington references, and saw a garrulous old man, who occasionally stepped over the line into mean or condescending.

Obama had a few great moments, but only a few. This was his best:

John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong. You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong.

But Obama almost seems uncomfortable being this directly critical. He passed up several opportunities to take it to McCain. I don't know whether this is result of bad debate prep, or whether it reflects the candidate's own reluctance to be pugnacious. I suspect the latter.

It is possible, and necessary, in a debate, to tell an opponent when he is way off base, in a way that sounds resolute rather than nasty, and communicates leadership--the kind of leadership Americans expect in a commander-in-chief. Obama did that only reluctantly, and under duress, which made him seem defensive. Obama is still determined to use debates to communicate his own positive vision, which is fine up to a point--but not when the other guy is using you as a punching bag.

What might have Obama said?

Senator McCain, your first decision as a potential commander-in-chief was to pick Sarah Palin as your running mate. As America has gotten a better look at her, there are serious doubts emerging about whether she could really be our commander-in-chief. I expect people will get an even closer look at the vice presidential debate next week, and I'd urge everyone to watch. If our people are weary of Dick Cheney serving as George W. Bush's de facto president, God only knows who'd really be in charge if Sarah Palin was president. Senator, you are the oldest man ever to run for president. I certainly wish you good health and long life. But what could you have been thinking?

Senator McCain, I'm really glad that you're here. This is a critical election, and the American people need to hear us debate. But you very nearly backed out. You said that you wouldn't debate because we needed to put the financial rescue package above politics. But few people believe that. Your involvement, meeting with far-right House Republicans prior to our White House meeting, very nearly killed the deal. That wasn't putting country above politics. And tonight, we are no closer to final legislation than we were when you tried to avoid appearing tonight. So why did you want to deny the American people this important debate, and why did you change your mind?

Senator McCain, you prize your reputation as a "maverick." In my dictionary, a maverick has two possible meanings. It can mean someone who goes his own way, who doesn't follow the herd, in this case it means a Republican not tainted by George W. Bush. But a maverick can also mean someone who is reckless, and arbitrary, and inconsistent, and unreliable. Senator, I admired you when you stood up to George W. Bush on the torture at Abu Ghraib; and when you stood up to the far-right on the question of whether immigrants should be treated like human beings. And when you resisted the ultra-right wing zealots on the issue of reproductive rights. But you've reversed course on every one of the issues. You caved in to President Bush on the issue of torture. You now oppose the bipartisan immigration bill that you drafted, the McCain-Kennedy bill. And you and Sarah Palin are now the darlings of the far-right. Senator, just what kind of a maverick are you?

A presidential campaign is a battle for definition. Barack Obama dodged a bullet Friday night. But McCain did a better job of defining Obama than Obama did of defining McCain. With the economic disaster, this election and the nature of his opponent are now Obama's to frame. Voters are not just looking for an admirable and polite young senator. They are looking for a little more steel.

__
Robert Kuttner, co-editor of The American Prospect and Distinguished Senior Fellow at Demos, has just published Obama's Challenge: America's Economic Crisis and the Power of a Transformative Presidency (Chelsea Green). He is blogging daily about the election and the economic crisis at www.obamaschallenge.com.

Comments

[CellarDoor]

With respect, I disagree 100%. It's one thing if the country thinks McCain is old...another entirely if the country thinks YOU think McCain is old. Mention the world 'old' and 'age' in a debate with McCain and the "offense-hawks" will pounce and you loose huge swing blocks of the older voters.

If you question McCain's actions as if speaking to the people watching at home while McCain is standing right next to you, you will look pretentious, arrogant, and abrasive. Even if you are 100% correct.

One way to win is to define identity politics under the progressive philosophy (just like the conservatives have been doing for decades) and to be merciless against policy. Republican policy, Bush policy, McCain policy, neo-con policy, etc. There are reams of material that are non-negotiable (non-spinnable) historical facts that you can use to derail any valid talking point McCain has...you out-speak him on the points, not out-talk him.

"Senator, just what kind of Maverick are you?"

With respect, that would totally backfire. Those are lines for political ads, not a debate. In the debate, if you want a zinger, merely describe his 90% voting record point by point and then contrast and compare. Let the people determine that McCain isn't remotely a "maverick". Do NOT pander ever. A debate is not an audience of acolytes nor is it a pep rally. Even hinting at it smacks of arrogance and then we're done: President Palin.

[AnotherToerag]

While watching the debate, I too thought that McCain did really well while Obama was mostly on the defensive letting himself get beat up. I was astounded by the post-debate coverage and polls saying that Obama did well.

One thing that give me solace is that most of the debate was on foreign policy - which is supposedly McCain's forte. If that's the best McCain can do regarding a topic that's his strong suit, things are looking good for Obama.

[Julietta]

McCain NEVER once "resisted the ultra-right wing zealots on the issue of reproductive rights." He has a 100% anti-choice voting record.

[Camel54]

Oh, and Obama definitely needs to point out repeatedly that the Iraqis want his time-table no matter what John McCain thinks.

[Camel54]

You're dead wrong when you say Obama should bring up McCain's age. That would turn most people off.

Plus, he should not use the word maverick. Not once. That's just a bad idea. He should use more negative versions of that--out of the mainstream; inflexible; disagreeable, etc.

Obviously Obama had a good strategy since he has been declared by most as the winner. Even if he not technically the winner (if there can even be such a thing these days) he is not being torn down by the analysts, which is the smart thing. Could he have done one or two things better? Sure. I agree he should not say his opponent is right, not ever. He should not only attack the choice of Sarah Palin as a failing of McCain's he should point out that per person her earmarks were higher than his own. He should have pointed out McCain voted for the bear DNA earmark. But over all his strategy was a good one for this debate.

Watching a debate with a crowd of hard core liberals/policy wonks is a bad idea. Talk about cynicism. They're terrible about expecting the worst and not hoping for anything.

[Lauramd]

What? Bring up Sarah Palin? Why on earth would he do that? It would be viewed as an attack against her not McCain, not matter how it was phrased. Encouraging people to watch the VP debate so they could essentially see her fail would be a horrible set-up....and if she did better than expected Obama would look foolish. Plus, it would have given John McCain an opening to talk about how he supports women etc.

Yes, the Palin pick was a poor choice, but it would have been out of line and made Obama look foolish to bring that up at this stage.

[Ponzipuppet]

I loved Obama's stump speech line during the primaries, and I'd like to see him trot that one out again:

"If the only quality you're looking for in a President is Washington insider experience, I guess Cheney would your man."

However, I strongly disagree every single one of the tidbits of advice in the article above. I did not feel that Obama had done as good a job as I had hoped either, but he cannot go too much on the offensive. This country will not vote for a black man if he looks "angry." It's a double standard.

Take this example: The character of Palin's soon-to-be stepson includes knocking up her daughter, and on his myspace page, writing, "I'm a redneck and don't f*ck with me or I'll f*ck you up." Rather than be castigated by the press for being an angry, ignorant thug, Palin's family has been hailed as a responsible, all-American family. In contrast, imagine how quickly Obama would be railroaded out of the race if either of these things were true about his family. Black families are held to a totally different standard than white families. And so is Obama.

[FargoRanger]

What you suggest would make better theater, but the independents would see only partisanship. Obama played it exactly right. Like a skilled wrestler, Obama let McCain exert the force while Obama controlled the center of gravity.

[donkeydoodle]

Maybe you are just a tad too negative for your own good. You should get out and talk to a few regular folks, you know...people who don't introduce themselves as "intellectuals". Get out of your own head and watch the next debate wiyhout cringing in fear of failure and you will probably see what most people saw...a nasty old man who seemed on the verge of blowing up. But yes it would be good if Obama were a little more aggressive.

Dr. Donk Phd

[gobarackgo]

Do you really think a former University of Chicago law professor didn't consider all of the possible arguments before mapping out a strategy for the debate? Get real. Senator Obama came off as pragmatic, smart and tough when necessary -- just the qualities non-partisan independents are looking for in the next President. And it is these independent voters who are going to decide the election.

[Ciganka]

A few weeks back, I heard Paul Begala declare that David Axelrod could kick Karl Rove's ass. I think that this is what we see happening, but so many of us are so into policy that we expect a different presentation - which basically would mean preaching to the choir - which is not going to accomplish much.

I think that Obama has a pretty solid lead among the liberal intellectuals. Thus, I think it is important that other voters are able to see the difference in the character of the two candidates. The contrasts in style were shocking and even frightening to some extent, but remember how often we scratch our heads and wonder why people can't see the difference? Well, they saw it on Friday night. Obama did not get down on that level.

Another thing going on, but a bit off topic that irritates the hell out of me is the media constantly complaining about not hearing plans from the Obama campaign - as if the problems this country faces can be put in a soundbite. Voters chasing soundbites is what got us into the current mess.
America is going to have to grow up and face the fact that policies cannot be summed in the last few minutes before we cut to a commercial break.

[Butter]

Obama's best 'moment' in the debate was when he responded to McCain's claim about "most liberal': had to vote so many times against George Bushs's wrong headed policies.

The liberal-conservative divide in the country has pulled the whole political spectrum to the right. today's 'moderate' is Nixonian, and far to the right of Eisenhower. Obama in one sentence tied McCain back in to Bush and deflected the attempted liberal slander.

McCain and Obama both debated well, but McCain did not look like the calm decisive leader Americans know we need now. Obama was comfortable playing in McCain's court of foreign and military policy. Uncommitteds and independents who watched the debate were 2 to one more impressed with Obama than with McCain.

There were a lot of nice strong points Obama could have made that Democrats might wish he'd made:

"John, last week you said the fundamentals of the economony are strong; this week, you said it's the greatest crisis since World War II;" "John, it must be hard for you to rail against 'sleaze' and lobbyists when it turns out your campaign manager has been taking so much money from Fannie and Freddie right up to the day the government had to take them over."

"Bipartisan" McCain 'reached across the aisle" to call his opponent names; while Obama stayed on message and above the bickering. Impressions are non-verbal as well as verbal. Obama won the impressions game, and the policy debates. What more do you want?

[RickO]

In the next debate, especially if the format permits, it would be powerful stuff not just to have a few zingers ready, but a serious dressing down of McCain, such as the examples you gave. Not just a quick quip, but an on-the-ropes pummeling that leaves McCain punch-drunk and unable to counter. Then, just before he recovers, do it again. It's like the boxing match where the opponent doesn't even know where he is anymore and they have to call the fight.

[shaunmarie]

Gosh - Im glad I am not the only person in the world who felt this way. I listened to, rather than watched, the debate.

McCain was clear spoken, had an excellent grasp of details, and sounded firm. Obama stuttered his way through this debate - he allowed McCain to bully him, he allowed McCain to lie on several occasions, and he allowed McCain to repeatedly challenge him on experience.

KNOWING that McCain was going to hit that theme over and over again,why was there no ready answer? "I bow to your experience Mr. McCain. 72 years old is a long time to be on this planet. You have certainly had more experience being a washington insider, more experience taking money from lobbyists, more experience in playing politics. However, it is time for change...." etc

[AlphaDoc]

When I read a piece like this one, I find myself wondering if the writer and I watched the same debate. McCain did indeed come off as a garrulous old man, lurching into old stories, relying on lines memorized for his stump speech, tossing in seemingly irrelevant details (the people af S Korea are on average 3 inches taller than those in the North), and at one point, surprised to find a Sharpie in his hand, rather than the pen Ronald Reagan supposedly gave him. McCain's refusal to look at Senator Obama struck me not as dismissive, but as cowardly . . . the kind of ignoble behavior of one who knows he has lied and is afraid of facing the person he's lied about. Any bit of respect I'd once had for John McCain was completely erased while watching his performance.

[greginwva]

Your right Doc.These supposed liberal intellectuals this guy's talking about must be a sorry brow beaten much defeated by neocon talking points bunch of people.Barack Obama is comfortable in his own skin and very confident in his ability to communicate with American without being a overbearing ,showboating inside the beltway thinking,politician or columnist type.