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

[DieHardObamaSupporter]

The only consensus I have with you and your group is the "John is right." It day.um near drove me crazy. As a result, I ended up finishing an entire bottle of Merlot by myself. That being said, O was the winner here (I refute the tie bs) because this was Mc's supposedly area of expertise. Being that Mc did not knock it out of the park, h3ll he almost didn't show up for the game, O held his own. Keep in mind, you do not have to deliver a KO to win the fight.

[Bright Creature]

Yeahhh im in the "Lucid? WTH??" camp here too. I think the people heard better than you this time, I fear. It was really battle of ideas and people could just tellthat Obama was making more sense that McCain was. McCain was just tryign to score cheap shotsof Obama all evening...and Im SURE you noticed or someone told you that McAngry didnt look Obama in the face all night. He just came off very very badly. Obama couldnt attack McCain too forcefully or else risk a rascist "angry black" man assault from the R's He was in a bind.

But he played his hand very well and conveyed a better, more stable, image. O deserved his win.

[carolinacal]

I don't know which debate you saw, but in the one I saw, Obama beat the pants of McCain.

McCain was dated, crabby, feeble and filled with old stories and anecdotes.

He reminded me of someone long past it who is still trying to be relevant. He looked and sounded old.

Obama was calm, courteous, resolute and he treated McCain with great respect.

No, Obama didn't attack McCain and he was right not to, Obama does not want the American people to be afraid of him, he wants them to see him as a mesured and reasonable man who will be thoughtful in his actions, not pugnacious.

America has had enough of the shoot first mentality,

Do you understand now?

[zann]

The Republicans have their Bad Obama. The progressives like Obama but wish he was a little different in some way or other, or want to put words in his mouth. I disagree with him on lots of issues, but I think I'll just write him in my very very minor voice and let him speak with his.

[monoxboogie]

Lucid? How can confusing Pakistan as a failed state seem lucid? pervez musharraf, if i'm not mistaken, pulled a military coup. Thus causing Pakistan to become unstable. Sorry Johnny boy, wrong. I thought Obama had great restraint. And seeing as how this was a bunch of American's first time seeing Obama, I thought it well played he didn't get angry. Let McCain roll his eyes and utter "horse s@#!" under his breath

[picard922]

I had the same immediate reaction. As a former corporate speechwriter, my second thought was more considered. When it comes to speech making styles, these guys are apple and orange. McCain speaks to perception, giving a stump speech that hits hot buttons for conservatives - reduce spending, shrink government, cut taxes, gut earmarks, rah rah rah.

Obama speaks to policies. It's smart. It's spot on. It's way too cerebral.

In marketing, people do not buy things; they buy the essence of things. Not what a product does, what it means. So Revlon makes lipstick, women buy sex appeal. I fear that this holds true in the political arena as well. Voters vote perception, not policy. So Senator Obama needs to loosen up. We hear the words, where's the music?

[NTO08]

Great analysis...this has been Obama's problem from the get-go...like past Presidential eggheads, he speaks to the intelligentsia who ooh and aaah at his turns of phrase (which arguably are neither clever or unique).

[knighthowl]

When you use neither, it is to be followed by nor, not or. Your grammar is as faulty as your reasoning.

[Perla]

My goodness, I can hardly believe we watched the same debate.

If Obama chose to pull some punches (and I agree with what some have said about his needing to be conscious of the fear of "angry Black men"), I think he was wise to show himself as the strong gentleman he is, one ready to firmly but respectfully call McCain on his misinformation.

For many viewers, this was probably their first sustained introduction to BO, and he would have erred by coming across as too aggressive. After all, the debates really are for the uninitiated. People who are passionate and informed about politics already know who they are voting for.

[NTO08]

I turned off when both accused the other of being wrong...

Not fruitful debating points...

[hlhicks]

The scariest part of this article was that a group of policy wonks thought McCain sounded lucid. He often went to an obscure point that did not substantiate what he was trying to say. His constant references to the past also showed how old he was. It was clear that he has not shifted from a cold war mentality and that came across loud and clear. I found it laudable that Obama did not feel the need to disagree for the sake of disagreeing, isn't that what bipartisanship means? I thought Obama displayed an impressive array of knowledge about every subject and he realized he didn't need to be pugnacious and condescending in order to score points in the debate. It was important that Obama show that he understands the complexity of the issues and he did that. And I did not feel that Obama was on the defensive at all, quite the contrary. How can the guy who is calm, cool, and collected be viewed as on the defensive? I'm sorry, but the guy frothing out the mouth and swearing under his breath came across as slightly unhinged and not in control of his faculties.

[Bright Creature]

I very much agree !

[lemonyashes]

Oh and the smile Obama gave when McCain tried to pin Obama to Bush was geniuine and it made me smile and everyone else smile, and Obama needed to do nothing more than that smile and it won people over. He could've gone for McCain's juggular over that but then it would ruin the smile. A picture speaks a thousand words and I hope he smiles again in the next debate.

[Guinevere]

I thought Obama was not to aggressive, not too submissive, he was just right. McCain is an older man, with 26 years in the Senate. He is a POW. Obama has to treat him with respect and even some degree of deference. I think it is wise to treat elders with respect. However, it is obvious that the younger man is more capable for the challenges that we face in this century.

[liz]

Yes, he had to come across as more mature and more intelligent. (which he is despite chronilogical age.) His beginning his rebuttal with the phrase "you're right about X " is a good technique. However, he has to follow up with a very obvious BUT . . . and then succintly blow him out of the water, in a cool informed way. The fact that people counted the number of "You're Right" statements and not the BUT statements shows he used the technique weakly.
He should have won easily. I was very frustrated by the end because I thought of so many things I wished he had said, or said more sharply.

[BethStuart]

I recall in 1960 watching the Kennedy and Nixon debates. Nixon probably won the debates on points but Kennedy won the election in part because he came across as the calm confident leader.

Friday's debate between Obama and McCain was a kind of deja vu.

[NTO08]

Obama is no Jack Kennedy.

[Osprey3]

INeither Obama, nor anyone in his campaign has attempted to liken the candidate to JFK. Obama is his own man, and I believe a transformative figure in American politics.

[RegLib]

Sorry, but you're quite wrong. McCain needed to score points against Obama, because he's down in the polls. But Obama didn't need to score points against McCain; he needed to look presidential, to get doubters to begin seeing him speaking for all of us. He did that admirably. He was forceful but respectful, calm and reasonable.

[jeanrenoir]

Sorry, Bob. Not for the first time, Boston area "wonks" have turned out to be clueless about the American public yet again. Virtually all the polls--most crucially the Gallup Daily Tracking poll, which has Obama up again by 8 after the debate!--show that Obama won the debate handily. Maybe it's the growing power of women in the electorate which makes Obama much more appealing than the equally calm and rational Dukakis twenty years ago. Of course, Obama's also much better-looking, sexier, simply more attractive to women than the terminally dorky Dukakis. Whatever the explanation, Obama got it totally right by NOT "going for jugular" all night as all of us male wonks wanted him too. Obama and Co. were much smarter than the Clintons; now they are much smarter not only than McCain and Co. (no big feat!) but also than the Democratic-leaning pundits. The times they have a changed, and Obama, not the pundits, is the guy who "gets it."

[NTO08]

You are living in an alternate universe of campaign spin...

[Osprey3]

I suppose the major polls (all showing a post-debate bump for Obama) were sampling from the "alternate universe of campaign spin!"

[AMERIKA]

I wish Obama said: After 8 years on the wrong side of history, you promise to continue the failed policies of the Bush administration. You are wrong on fiscal and tax policy, foreign affairs, domestic and judicial policy. We deserve better. You are running a dishonest campaign under the guidance of the same people who brought us George W Bush and you are surrounded by lobbyists. Your tax plan will push us further in debt, devalue our dollar even more, and will do nothing to help middle income Americans or reduce unemployment or stop foreclosures as our economy spirals downward. Your health care policies will reduce access to health insurance for average Americans, and your record on womens health issues is appalling. You have promised judges who favor corporations over the individual, and you have consistently opposed equal pay for equal work. And now, you stand there as an angry man, ranting that I don't get it, well let me tell you, I do, We need diplomacy to restore our place in the world, we need tax relief for average middle class Americans, we need to pay women equally for the work they do, we need to stop the influence of Washington lobbyists, we need to bring the war in Iraq to an end and we need to make Afghanistan the central front in this epic battle. So stand there and rant all you want, but you are wrong on every single issue, and the American people know it.

[MichaelDeane]

Well done. I couldn
t agree more. Let's hope someone in his campaign gets a clue.

Michael

[Antifascist-08]

Amerika:

Great speech. Maybe we will hear that at some point down the line, but the strategy here was to give the public, and the independent voters, who consider themselves to be normal, civil and discriminating people, something to latch on to. Some people, believe it or not, have not being paying a lot of attention so far.

This seems to have been carried out.

If i were you, i would send that speech to the Obama campaign (link below) and see if you see it down the line sometime. It would make a nice stretch run speech if we can be sure it won't offend the "uppity" crowd.

Obama has run an incredible campaign. He has beaten the most daunting odds and faced the most horrible of slander. Yes, he needs to stay strong, but McCain did leave himself open to attack in that debate and I believe we will see some "drilling down" on certain subjects in the next debates and I believe the vets are going to come in soon on their own with McCain's voting record on veteran benefits, which was my main criticism of Obama in this debate. But i am happy with the results so far.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/contact2

[sphinxy]

I would have loved to have heard that too. Bravo. But I think Obama knows that this is a game of chess. Sometimes, the best tactic is to do no harm. Well said, though.

[JanetF]

There are many different objectives that one may want to achieve in a debate. Could it be that your objectives weren't Obama's? Maybe his objectives were political persuasion, not policy one-upmanship. For example, the undecided voter comes into this most likely having heard that foreign policy is McCain's strong suit (I don't happen to think he's all that swift, but hey I'm not a policy wonk), and has listened to a million "empty suit Celebrity" ads by now. Perhaps what Obama really wanted to prove was that he was intelligent, knowledgeable about the issues and pass the "Commander In Chief" appearance/feel test.

He did all of those things for the average voter.

Policy wonks should have already made up their minds, as it is clear where these two candidates stand on the issues.

[woodnthrifty]

Well said. Thank you.

[S1m0n]

"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."

Or most likely, the candidate's every-present need to walk the racial double-standard: with even a fraction of McCain's constant rage, Obama would become the angry black man that guilty white america fears, and would lose the election in a flash.

At this point, baiting Obama into showing too-much anger (any is too much, for some) is McCain's only hope. He's already lost on points; his only hope is to gamble on luring Obama into a fatal mistake.

See Sullivan for a discussion of the factor that keeps getting ignored by angry liberals who want to see Obama kick republican butt: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/obama-and-debat.html

[CrankyCurmudgeon]

Shouldn't that read "angry white liberals"? Just saying.