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

[Yola]

I am sorry but you are way off, unless we saw different debates.

[ElBruce]

Look, if you go by analysis, they both won. McCain reversed the "out of touch / erratic" story being told about him by demonstrating a coherent command of the issues.. Obama reversed the "I don't know what he stands for" story that's been following him by being specific and clear.

But analysis don't mean nothing. What counts is the post-debate polls. And the more/less favorable polls went heavily towards Obama. Ultimately what REALLY matters is how many indie voters were swayed, or how many partisan voters on either side were dis/emboldened. And given the recent overall favorable/­unfavorabl­e poll ratings, Obama's winning those too, by a widening margin.

[NTO08]

Drop 5 points for the racism factor...
It's there...it­'s not going away...don­'t be surprised at what it does to his final numbers.

[Hartal]

1. McCain refers to fiscal, not financial crisis 2. M equivocates on whether will support compromise. 3. M continues to insinuate that Fannie and Freddie are behind the financial crisis 4. M wrong that American workers are the most productive per hour. 5. M says over and over spending out of control But Obama shows that earmarks are a tiny fraction of the new spending. Earmarks are a false diagnosis such as scapegoating of Fannie and Freddie. Obama shows that 18 billion cuts cannot compensate for $300 billion in tax cuts 6. M says American business pays 35% taxes as opposed to Ireland 11%.M says need to cut business tax so businesses will remain in US. But O argues convincingly that this is another false diagnosis since real business burden taxation is very low in US given how many loopholes there are in the system. 7. O says that M will tax health benefits and M inexplicably responds by saying that O supported the Energy Bill. 8. M says he’ll cut ethanol subsidies and fixed cost contracts. O says he’ll cut subsidies to private insurers linked to Medicare. O says that that he supported transparency in government with Tom Coburn. 9. M says O raises spending by $800 bn. Obama says not that high and that his closing loopholes and top heavy taxes can pay for it. 10. Obama says deficits will explode with McCain given his tax cuts and even with his promises on spending restraint.

[Hartal]

Obama clearly won the debate. He was right to ask both Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and Obama is right that we should see what diplomacy can get us with Iran given what a hardline got us with North Korea. And Obama knew the details of that failure, and that should have impressed a policy wonk. Obama gives us clear evidence of how counterproductive a hard line is while McCain gave us silly speculations about the consequences of negotiating with Ahmedinejad. McCain's response was emotional bluster. You'll be talking to someone who called Israel a stinking corpse. Perhaps. But Ahmedninejad is not in charge of Iranian foreign policy, so using his statements to bring us to the brink of war with Iran is profoundly irresponsible. Plus even he never threatened a holocaust against Israel. The New York Times clarified this two years ago. Again we are being fed proganda to preven to diplomacy and to take us to the brink of war.

[Hartal]

The US has sunk a lot of costs, i.e. sacrificed a lot of blood and treasure, in trying to create an anti-Iranian, pro American regime in Iraq. But we are not going to get the equivalent of an Iraqi Shah or Somoza. This is twentieth century thinking; it is thinking that belongs to the period of American hegemony. The government in Iraq will not be the mortal enemy of Iran's that Saddam's was. It will have the representation of too independent Shias and Sunnis that it cannot serve as a client state. McCain and the neocons are not willing to accept this, and in the name of the costs already sunk, they continue an occupation that is bound to fail. But the costs and narrow focus are bound to weaken the US overall. I would expect that many in our intelligence community have already reached such conclusions. We are undermining ourselves on the basis of a logical fallacy of sunk costs that McCain is not astute enough to recognize. How could Kuttner say that McCain should win this debate with policy wonks? One should also expect that McCain has lost a lot of money gambling.

[Hartal]

Kuttner was not listening. McCain did not justify his claims. If we leave due to a timeline, what are the gains that we will necessarily sacrifice and why will be most likely compelled to return combat troops soon. McCain made these assertions but he was hardly specific--should turn off a policy wonk. No one thinks al Qaeda will take over Iraq after we leave (especially after the Sunni awakening), so what does he think the consequence of Obama's withdrawal will be? If he argues that ethnic genocide is the likely outcome, how does he prove that prolonging our occupation makes such a consequence less likely (there is of course a good argument that it makes it more likely).

[v6scotter]

Democracts would probably be better served if they were as critical of republicians as they are of their own. Why is the base assumption that the republicians always have the best approach? While I was looking at the debate, I thought Obama was talking directly to the middle class and that is always a winning strategy. No way is Obama going to be the angry black man. The republicans have been trying to get him to explode all summer. When that did not work, they tried to make his wife out to be an angry black woman. What he is doing is letting McCain hang himself by being angry, combative, erradict and negative. Or in other words, scary.

[Alonso Quijano]

Here are a few more paragraphs of suggestions to Barack Obama for his speeches or the next debate . . .

(1) John, can you explain why, more than seven years after 9/11, Bin Laden is not captured or Dead?
To me it seems that we have had rampant incompetence in the leadership of our defense forces. I might define Victory as having captured or killed Bin Laden, inasmuch as we were at war with Al Qaeda and not with the Irakis. If our armed forces haven't captured or killed Bin Laden, it isn't because they lack equipment or bravery, it's the fault of the leadership.

(2) John, lengthy experience is normally a good thing, but please explain how it was that the very experienced team of Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney, with your wholehearted support, and years and years of experience, have been unable to get to Victory in Irak in seven years. After all, from Pearl Harbor to VE day was less than four years . . . Bottom line, it is good judgment that counts for the most. What good is experience to someone who can't learn from his mistakes?

(3) John, you should learn from history. Some of the best Republican presidents had even fewer years of elected office when they ran for the Presidency than I do. Look up Lincoln orTeddy Roosevelt.

[hoopesaz]

Everyone seems to forget that Bush had Biden's "wholehearted support" for the "irak" war too.

[CarmenCameron]

Mr. Kuttner, your age is showing. Senator Obama's popularity is actually BASED on ending precisely the kind of political aggression you felt he was lacking. Even older Americans (like myself at nearly 60) are fed up to the gills with the belief - and its RESULTS - that our civic arenas can and "must" be won through coercive communication.

The majority of us, apparently (if you believe in polls and grassroots efforts), are hungering for a far more civil society than we've had - and that you so clearly miss, sir. But this election is about the future. Not nostalgia.

It's not that you're a "policy wonk". It's that you're an adrenalin freak.

[hoopesaz]

"The majority of us, apparently (if you believe in polls and grassroots efforts), are hungering for a far more civil society than we've had "

And yet, the bulk of the comments from Obama supporters on this site would soundly contradict your assertion.

I'm not so sure that you are right about the majority of americans hungering for a more civil society...­I think they want change and they want their guy on top. However, I DO BELIEVE that YOU personally hunger for a more civil society. And I gladly join you in that regard.

[NTO08]

It is a dream you wish for that is not going to come to pass anytime in the near future.

[BearsLeft]

A combative black man hammering away at an elderly white war hero would have been an unmitigated disaster. Obama did exactly what he needed to do, look like a thoughtful, mature, and even polite candidate that people could see as not exotic or scary. Undecideds need to begin seeing him as the next president before they can make the leap to vote for him.

Us liberals have long ago accepted Obama as presidential and now want him to draw some blood in retribution for the past 8 years of losing battles. It's not gonna happen like that. He will win, he will consult with republicans and he will make compromises to get things accomplished. It's not everything we wanted in a champion but it's far superior to sitting by helplessly watching the crooks and liars make off with the furniture and the fixtures.

[hoopesaz]

I hope your right about compromise and moving forward. Don't ever forget that the crooks and liars parade as both donkeys and elephants.

[ruthinking]

don't you remember who stole the furniture when they left the WH?

[NTO08]

A combative black man hammering away at an elderly white war hero would have been an unmitigated disaster

There is still time for this to happen...o­ne MINOR slip will be far more costly to Obama than Mack...it'­s the way it is.

[veracity]

Thanks for that, Robert Kuttner! I felt the exact same way (and spilled my guts out here in HuffPost comments.)

But the larger point is that DC Democrats have GOT to STOP AGREEING with Radical, right-wing, reactionary, Bush-Chene­y-Rove-Gin­grich-DeLa­y-Lott-Fri­st-Gonzale­s-Mukasey Republicans.

We Democratic voters and supporters NEED A PEG we can hang our hat on... SOME RED MEAT!

SOME BULLET POINTS painting Republicans as BAD GUYS, who WANT TO RUN UP the nation's deficits, LOOT the nation's treasury, STACK the criminal justice system with partisan hacks; SABOTAGE alternative energy on behalf of oil company billionaires, and hack public education and health care into the gutter.

It is ONLY MASSIVE Republican GREED and INCOMPETENCE that has brought Dems the majority in Congress (and a tiny majority in Senate), and brought the 2008 campaign within reach of Dems.

Repubs won (or stole) the "SUPER-TRIFECTA" of government power - House, White House, Senate, USSC, federal judiciary, government bureaucracy, corporate America, and 4th Estate (press/media) from 2002 to 2006 via RELENTLESS RED MEAT ATTACKS on Democrats - many of them sheer FABRICATION ("White House Travel Office 'Scandal', "Lincoln Bedroom 'Scandal',", WH TRASHING SCANDAL" all sheer fabrications)

- while corporate, DC Democrats are INCAPABLE of CONNECTING Bush & Cheney to the Enron (Ken Lay), Abramoff, and Scooter Libby Criminal Convictions!

[truthiness]

I had to laugh as I read this post. McCain stumbling through the names of foreign leaders, getting the leader of Pakistan wrong, calling the democracy Musharraff took over by mlitary coup 10 years ago "a failed state" and all the while condescendingly angry towards Obama.

'What. Senator. Obama. Doesn't. Understand­." just came off as angry old man as Obama was holding his own and demonstrating that he, indeed, does understand.

I think McCain was angry that the Democrats called his bluff in the White House meeting on Thursday and had Obama question him in front of his own party: Who do you support, John? The Hank Paulsen plan or the House Republicans? McCain wouldn't answer and ran out of the White House alone before the rest of the meeting was completed. Go read the WaPo article on the showdown for more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/26/AR2008092603957_3.html?nav=hcmodule

I'm glad you're a pundit and not a politician. Your tactics would have lost the debate Obama won. Anger doesn't win over undecideds. Quiet mastery does.

[NTO08]

Obama may not lose a debate, but his supporters do a good job of turning off the undecideds.

[JenIA]

Why is a knockout punch always required? Why does Obama need to "hit" harder and harder? A steady stream of jabs or body blows can be just as effective but for so many, that isn't enough. A few weeks ago Al Giordano, who likes to reference boxing terms for the election, wrote a great piece.

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/the-post-convention-roadmap-real-knock-out-punch

"The beef is in the ground game. And the rank-and-file volunteer making phone calls and going door to door is a hundred times more important this year than any fool shouting "'hit them' is a strategy" from the bleachers. Register someone to vote: that's the square hit to the jaw, and multiplied by millions, it's the knock out punch. This year, the boxing gloves are not in one man's hands. They're in yours."

[gulopartisan]

Thank you for this excellent riposte to the "Murder da' bum" coaches wedged in the bleachers, eager for someone else to shed their enemies' blood. Obama is a real man, not one of these overgrown boys obsessed with each other's "cojones." He reminds me of Caine in Kung Fu... a man whose confidence and identity were not entangled with his ability to harm people. In the real world, we seldom solve problems with "a knockout," even though "knockout punches" like the "shock and awe" of murdering civilians appeal to the knuckle-draggers of both parties.

Canvassing the neighborhoods, getting out the vote, helping people make informed choices, reminding them that voting is a duty, not a gift -- those things are McC*n's doom, absent massive election fraud. And if the election is going to be stolen, "knockout punches" will make no difference.

[JayinVegas]

I, too was a bit frustrated by Sen. Obama's reluctancy to pull the trigger. Sen. McCain could have been left signed, sealed and delivered if Sen. Obama had been a little more relaxed instead of trying to remember all his debate prep facts. I did like Sen. Obama's body language and some of the lines did resonate but I'm sorry, I'm going to have to demand a little more from him.

[Aleka4]

Or else what?

You will vote for McCain?

Come on. I wish you people would use a bit of common sense. And I wish my post would post.

[JayinVegas]

I'm firmly with Sen. Obama, Aleka. All I hope for is that looking back at this debate helps Sen. Obama loosen up. I hope that Sen. Obama sees and senses the the gaping holes in McCains double talk next time and that Sen. Obama seizes the oppurtunities to pluck this Sen. McCain like the "chicken" he is. Undecided's are who we're after. Thanks for the reply though.

[izAriver]

"...a small group of hard core liberal intellectu­als." "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."

Doesn't sound like you and your friends are honestly liberals.

[NTO08]

Doesn't sound like you and your friends are honestly liberals..­.

There is a difference between being a liberal and being a partisan..­.too many suffer the latter malady.

[brettb3]

You are also a partisan. Unfortunately, it's toward a losing senator from New York, and your bitterness couldn't be any less transparent.