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.
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
You may be over thinking this thing -
Why swing for the knockout when you are winning the fight and risk the chance of whiffing and leaving yourself open for a sucker punch? No way, make a few points here and there, add to the final totals and wait for the next two debates. He could not have played it better knowing that the Biden-Palin interview is coming next and he has two more shots at McCain. He can go nuclear at either of those and at the rate McCain is gaffing and flailing about, he will have plenty of ammo. Some things should be left to the press and the surrogates to identify.
All of you policy wonks missed it. This debate was for the middle class people sitting on the fence or who had only heard the McCain side of Barack Obama. This wasn't to beat McCain, he was doing that for himself. This was to introduce Barack Obama to Americans who didn't really know him or his plan. On foreign policy all he needed to do was show knowledge and conviction - he did that.
The important thing was to set the record straight on the key Republican attack against hims nad he did. Did you miss the part where he got to tell the American people he would cut there taxes and what his tax plan was and John McCain could not deny it. THat he got to establish the lower than $250,000 dollar threshold and McCain let him do so and could only then come up with a weak sounding argument about once votoing to raise taxes on people making as little as $42,000. Republicans have hammered that Obama would raise taxes - when confrotetd with Obama directly he could not keep the lie going.
And he started the McCain health care attack. He got the payroll tax out there and people are thinking about it. Wathc ads for hte next 2 weeks.
These are the two most improtant things to Americans right now. Health care is why the Republicans I know are planning to vote for Obama. This is where this election will be won.
The Neo cons have done a good job of controlling Americans through FEAR. That's what McCain set out to do with his condescending snide remarks. i.e. paint Obama an angry black man.
Obama was there to build Trust. He stood like cool steel knowing exactly what John was attempting. This old white women would have let john have it, but I was so proud of Obama for being who he is, which is the next president.
The polls say more people have come to trust Obama. So how could one think McCain came even close to winning the debate.
Keep in mind that McCain had a horrible week, damaged his own campaign, made tricky negotiations worse and America knows it. If Obama was too strong it would seem like he was beating up on the man. I agree he said "John's right" too much. Then again IIRC McCain never said "Barack's right". Maybe that actually hurt him just a little. One might think that McCain scored with the 'naive" arguments but perhaps due to Obama's likability it didnt do as well as one might think. The word itself might have been seen as condescending and rude.
McCain also perhaps went into more detail than many people wanted to hear. Also, how many people 40 and younger know what SDI or 'cost plus' defense contracts are? Policy wonks love that kind of stuff. It's been a long time but I also think Reagan always kept it simple. Lastly, image matters and McCain didnt come off very well.
I think the "naive" and "doesn't get it" lines were failures. We may have wanted to attack more, but think of the on the fence voter, the moderate or independent. I am assuming that they must have felt it was uncalled for, b/c while they may not agree with his views or plans, I don't think anyone who saw Obama and heard him talk felt like he was ignorant or unprepared.
I think he would have got more mileage out of saying, "Obama is wrong because...
Why Obama's fans do him a GRAVE disservice:
http://www
I think Obama is playing it right. McCain looked like a petulant version of King Lear - a fool who had just suspended and unsuspended his campaign.
As in all good action movies, the hero cannot coldly slay the villain.
Obama needed America to see for itself what a reckless fraud John McCain is. To understand that John McCain feaking outrage at what is actually McCain's OWN voting record.
More than half of independents saw more wisdom and dignity in the young hero than in the ex-hero .
Yes, Obama must eventually go in for the kill, but America needed this chance to see that Obama's intelligence, compassion, and groundedness are qualities that will serve the nation well.
Obama MUST lose the professorial airs...it turns off MANY voters...M
Problem is, some of those speeches have become addictive and habit forming to his sheeple.
Sheeple. I guess we are to take you as an objective observer.Y
According to the polls, it turned ON way more voters than it turned OFF. No matter how the debate made you feel, you can't argue with the results. The fact is that you are wrong, and you refuse to admit it because you're colored by your hatred for Obama.
Robert, I felt about like you did after watching the debate. But as I saw the results of the polls coming in, I was quite happy - and this is a rare feeling - to be contradicted by the majority of reviewers and respondents who gave the debate win to Obama.
Whatever it takes. I can handle being wrong for once!
Mr Kuttmer,
I am a hard line Obama supporter but i don't agree with much of your article. Attacking Palin and his judgement on that is a tricky thing at best and just the kind of thing that Obama has rightly avoided in this whole campaign. This kind of thinking only drags down the debate. Palin is doing just fine sinking herself and those who do have any inkling to question McCains judgement have had plenty of opportunities and will have more.
Defining "Maverick" and getting onto some obscure analysis of his part in the bailout are just off topic and nit picking in the overall picture. I'm sorry but I support the more mature approach that Obama took, and it is fairly clear that the people he was aiming at, the Independent voters who are the only votes left to get, found him to be the more attractive candidate. First debates ARE about style over substance.
I contend that the "gotcha" phase of this campaign is pretty much over, and staying in that mode when you have a lead is a waste of time. Now is the time for "Presidential" activity and debate. Finish off the old goat in style.
I hate to break it to you, but Obama knows exactly what he is doing.
I believe his goal for the debate was to show people who were not
familiar with him, what he is like. I believe he achieved that goal.
He comes out swinging when he needs to. He also is able to
communicate his intelligence, thoughtfulness, and grasp of the
issues when he needs to.
He won the debate. The polls have reflected that.
The problem is we always talk about wanting to see a politician like Obama....c
We are the ones where the problems lie. Instead of saying how civil Obama is he is derided for being to civil. We are fond to calling these debates knife fights....
The problem is with most of us. When a politician finally tries to raise the level of the discourse all we can do is tear him down and deride him for missing his knockout blows.
As long as we use boxing terms.....
You are not a policy wonk. You are a someone that thinks in order to win it takes a knife fight....b
Maybe the fact that so many wonks got it wrong finally means the American people may finally be getting it right.....
"Grasp for details'"?? You must've been looking at the same thing Mcsame was looking at all night.
(Which was everything but Senator Obama)
Help me understand. How does eliminating earmarks will put wall street in check?
And did anybody else gasp at his freezing spending with everything accept for the Department of defense and for the veterans???!! ? Did he declare war on government employees?
I agree what policy issues did McCain win on? Huh? Hard core "liberal" intellectuals, really?
Well I always say there's a difference between intellectual and intelligence you just proved my point! And your remedy for Obama ain't going to happen. It was also the independants that gave Obama the win for the night and that is exactly who Obama was going after.
I guess that's why we all get a chance to vote. There are moments when mean and nasty is just that. You can call it pugnacious but it's just a nice name for mean and nasty. It's not necessary to be condescending to get a point across. It would have a better effect if McCain wasn't treating his opponent as though he were a little boy. Whenever I hear him say Obama is naive or he needs to teach Sen Obama...it sounds like disrespect to me or maybe it's my female sensibilities. Sen McCain acts as though he has disdain for Sen Obama and that seem to reflect itself especially during the handshake before and after the debate. I'm glad you and you buddies got this wrong. I for one heard and saw it differently than you and your buddies and I'm glad my opinion counts for something. I am learning to drown out the pundits because I have to remember -- it's just a job to all those who have an opinion about both men. I wonder how easy or difficult might it be to remain neutral when you have chosen a candidate though?
the logic of this piece seems to be:
A. Me and my friends that Obama lost the debate
B. It turns out according to all the polls he didn't
C. Nonetheless I have some advice for Obama about how to debate
Obama's principal goal in this debate was to assure the unpersuaded that he is a rational thoughtful person whom they can trust. I think he did that. And he won the temperamen
The lines Kuttner suggests are great for the primaries, stump speeches, and commercials. They are not necessarily the best debate strategy in this particular circumstance.
So far Obama has shown time and again he knows what he's doing in this campaign. I'm going to give him the benefit of any doubt and stay out of the advice-giving game. Kuttner should haul himself and his Cambridge friends up to New Hampshire to go knock on some doors if he wants to be helpful.
You're really getting beaten up here, Bob. To be honest, I had the same first reaction that you had. It took me about 30 minutes of pondering, after the debate, to realize that Obama's demeanor was deliberate and planned. Those of us on HuffPost are not his audience. There's a darn big, crowded country out there full of folks who don't think like us for the most part. And he was talking to all of them, the way a president should. I say should, because we haven't seen behavior like his in a long, long time. It was not bad prep. WE all know what he could have said. Do you think he doesn't. He taught US the comeback lines, on the stump. He is also not, as you said, "reluctant" to strike. He can throw a punch as well as anyone. He has a capacity to be unbelievably restrained. And it's deliberate and purposeful. First, he has to get elected. Considering all of the obstacles in his way, and how far he's gotten, I think he knows what he's doing. His campaign has been simply remarkable.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
