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

[23000Days]

Mr Kuttner, I read your posts and many times forward them to friends because I respect your opinion. But in this case perhaps you were trying to view the debate on how it would impact republican voters. I watched on CNN where they had the audience meter and the red line stayed in the plus most times when Obama spoke and sank several times when McCain did.
More importantly, the green (independent) line clearly favored Obama. This is a crowd he needed to reach.
You said "When Obama said "John's right" for the seventh time, I had to be restrained from throwing a chair at the television." Noting common ground before attacking is a very effective debating technique wherein those who think they agree with your opponent are drawn to hear what you have to say. Obama used it masterfully.

[Lindy222]

One thing that libs who've long supported Obama probably failed to appreciate in this debate is that the sight and sound of him on that stage in Oxford, Mississippi put the lie to what Fox viewers have long been told -- he's an empty suit who can't speak without a teleprompter.

And think we underestimate the significance of Obama appearing Presidential because we've long taken that for granted.

[jeg]

A "win" for Sen. McCain's was to convince America that Sen. Obama wasn't ready to lead, that he didn't grasp foreign policy as well as Sen. McCain, that Sen. Obama was naive.

A "win" for Sen. Obama's was to prove him wrong.

Sen. Obama looked and sounded Presidential-- every time Sen. McCain said "You just don't understand", Sen. Obama demonstrated that he really did understand. He kept calm and cool, no matter how offensive McCain was, and demonstrated as complete a grasp of foreign policy as Sen. McCain did, if not more so.

The pundits scored each individual comment, and each section equally-- And largely ignored the body language of the two candidates (Obama: Straight up, tall, looking at McCain, looking at the American People, firm, confident. McCain: Slouching, looking only at Lehrer, muttering under his breath, making forced smiles while staring at his podium, right jaw muscles twitching frequently while Obama spoke...).

The American people scored what they wanted to hear, and what they saw, and liked Obama better.

Finally, in most elections, the issues aren't the issue-- it's the candidates, their personalities, and small technical details in the debates, and on technicalities, McCain won. But Sen. Obama got the soundbite ("You Were Wrong"), and he had the issues on his side.

This isn't 2000, or 2004... This is Big Issues year, and the entire world is watching-- for once, that includes the American electorate.

[IForgotMyName]

McCain's grasp of detail? What debate have you been following? His answer to the financial crisis is not to study the DNA of bears. He thinks that earmarks are the root of all the problems. He just utters typical Republican talking points to every problem (less taxes, less government).

[SEQUOIABISON]

HuffPost's Pick

Robert I share your anxiety that the pundits might report McCain the winner that would certainly qualify as a “near death experience”.

The truth is; our man Barack looked fantastic, he has an exceptional charismatic stage presence, a phenomenal intellectual command of foreign and domestic affairs, exudes decisive confidence and sounded very presidential.

McCain sounded very anachronistic with his Gunboat diplomacy and Cold War mentality, he was feisty during the debate but angry and petulant when he believed strongly in his position; he would grind his jaw and scowl at Obama through his teeth in a condescending incredulous tone.

Obama demonstrated his superior understanding of the intricate problems in the Middle East and justifiably reprimanded McCain for being wrong about the consequences of invading Iraq.

Mr Kuttner, I am not sure what debate your intellectual house guests were watching or why some pundits are claiming McCain won, I think the conservative commentators have allowed themselves to become delusional in their desperation to get their ultra conservative hawk elected, but if I had to sum up Barack’s performance last night I would say he was Brilliant.

Obama/Biden

[NTO08]

The truth is; our man Barack looked fantastic, he has an exceptional charismatic stage presence..

I think not...he bored me to tears...

Exceptional charisma?

Churchill
Mandela
Bill Clinton
Roosevelt
Fiorello LaGuardia

To name a few..these are men who were charismatic...Obama can't even fill their jock straps.

[brettb3]

We get it, you hate the man. Do you have to point that out in response to every post on this thread?

[FatherWolf]

Reminds me of movie reviews I see in my local newspaper.

I can usually tell when a movie is going to be a big box-office hit. The intellectual, intelligent and learned reviewers invariably pan such movies as shallow and derivative, pointing to inadequate character development, prior & better precedents in previous movies, and pointing out flaws in the writing, the acting and the directing. Sometimes they'll praise a modest little movie for its brilliance and originality.

But Sen 08ama isn't running for Secretary of State or President of Harvard. He needs a box-office hit from lots of people who don't care about policy nuances.

There's a much more astute analysis in the LATimes, by a Columbia Univ. professor, no less:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-gitlin28-2008sep28,0,7896539.story

It argues that presidential elections, especially this one, are about contending mythologies. This election (to simplify) pits the ideal of the Old West against the multi-racial untested future. John Wayne against a young Tiger Woods.

Debating points don't matter much. Conservative white men admire Palin because she hunts. Young people look to 08ama because he smashes old categories.

The past against the future. And at the moment, the future is winning.

Will 08ama be successful as president, or will he fall flat on his face? Only time will tell. But the heroic deeds and myths of the 20th century are fading before a 21st century future.

[SmallTownAtty]

This line says it all; "But then, after a restless night, we awakened to find that we had been living in a parallel universe."

Yes, you DO live in a parallel universe, and you have no idea what voters want. Mostly, at this point, we want a president who doesn't scare the dog crap out of us. And on that scale, McCain just doesn't cut it.

[Innisfail]

YES!!

And another thing - McCain did not define Obama. McCain defined himself. As someone who, yeah, scares the dog crap outta us.

[dishnit]

"Why does Barack Obama and the left for that matter continue to let the neo-fascist GOP use the term liberal as a derogatory term."

lmao

One could use the same ignominious reasoning why the left says nothing about Al Gore using outrageous amounts of jet fuel in his private planes while telling the rest of us to ride a bicycle!

[Freesia2]

HuffPost's Pick

But Mr. Kuttner, Obama didn't need to define McCain. McCain hunched over and grimacing, whispering a profanity under his breath and offering nothing but smugness and condescension, with 100 year old anecdotes to accompany offers of 100 year wars....he summed himself up very well. That may have been Obama's brilliance, to offer graciousness and allow McCain to out himself as a hateful and uninspired old man.

I don't know what debate you watched or who your friends are but there wasn't much of Reagan there. McCain was not folky he was hostile, and he wasn't reassuring - he was troubling.

[Innisfail]

Exactly!!!

[TaosJohn]

Amazing. I think your take on this debate is 100% wrong!

Obama SLAUGHTERED McCain. Not on "points," but by being presidential. How in God's name did that fly right by you?

[FatherWolf]

For most people, it's not a boxing match but an audition. 08ama showed himself capable of playing the Big Role.

[NTO08]

The only thing he SLAUGHTERED was my ability to stay awake during this snoozefest...

Two uninteresting and worthless corporatists...

[omaro]

I give you great credit for your wonkiness, a quality that most Huffington Post readers share to some degree. It's hard for us all to get outside our own skins and put ourselves in the place of an undecided voter. We wonder, how could anyone "not know" Barack Obama yet? Obama, playing chess in a three-game match, knew what he had to do the first time out, and apparently he accomplished it in the only forum that counts--the persuadable voters.

[NTO08]

Yet Obama has yet to move the numbers among Hillary supporters...he has gained NONE since June.

[brettb3]

Uh, what polls have you been looking at? Some now have Obama being supported by a higher percentage of Democrats than McCain has of Republicans. I say just get over your bitterness and get on the train, or it will leave without you.

[respectingothers]

I'm so sick of you people all thinking you could do it so much better... Obama is our man for a reason. you are not! have faith in him. he was great and he still has two debates to go!
Mccain stepped out of his eccentric irrational behavior for one night and you'd think he was a saint.

do something useful for a change.

you might start by checking out the commentary by Michael Seitzman

[SaltySaltillo]

I agree with respecingothers. Although my own anger makes me thrill when I see Obama lash back at McCain occasionally, I think he chose to behave to draw a contrast between an angry, ill-tempered old man, and the congenial young man. It was a lot smarter than the no-it-alls in the blogosphere realize. Obama chose to be nice, and I realize now that his choice was a smart one.

[huffy2001]

I think this post hits it right on the head. I would have loved to have seen him make these references. I remember cheering when he mentioned bomb, bomb Iran. I remember feeling relief when he went through the you are wrong litany. And I remember feeling the same way about his and McCain's performanc­es...McCai­n seemed much more comfortable in parts than Barack, I thought the way he opened with thoughts of Ted Kennedy was a master stroke. And I though he seemed to identify more with the listener.

I was so relieved he refused to look at Obama. And he appeared angry and resentful much of the debate. I think if Barack would have addressed some of these areas we might have been able to get him to lose it. I hope Obama's handlers are reading this post.

[NTO08]

Your idea of faith is any sane person's definition of falling in love with a cult figure...wake up, see him as a MAN, a fallible one, and then you can talk.

[GarthR]

The demographic the networks are focused on are the dolts who are "undecided". We have seen Obama many times and saw nothing surprisingly positive in the debate. Others, seeing Obama for perhaps the first time, are seeing what many of us became aware of starting with his 2004 convention speech: he is qualified for the presidency to a greater extent than any candidate in any of our life-times.

[PleaseMakeItStop]

Yes he most certainly is. And what a refreshing breath of air he brings to America!

[DavidNOE]

In your lifetime, maybe. While I'm an avid supporter of Obama, and he's the most qualified person for the presidency since I became old enough to vote, I can't really say that he's more qualified than Roosevelt in 1940 or 1944, or Truman in 1948 (though more than he was when he succeeded Roosevelt), or Eisenhower in 1952. (I didn't agree with Eisenhower's politics, but he was superbly qualified for the job, even though I'd have voted for Stevenson if I'd been old enough).

[NTO08]

He certainly isn't as qualified as quite a few Presidential candidates.

[gulopartisan]

The "dolts" who are undecided are citizens with a right to respect. I've spent the last two weekends talking to those "dolts," and most of them are people who have serious doubts we need to address. Precisely what Obama has been doing. Assuming those doubts are stupid is a great way to get them to slam the door in your face. I'd rather discuss the issues with a "dolt" than listen to a boor insult people for disagreeing with him.

[NTO08]

The demographic the networks are focused on are the dolts who are "undecided".

This is precisely the attitude that makes people despise Obama supporters.

[customgreen]

You are right about one thing. You are a pundit and to "inside" to be objective. Your suggestion to bring up Plin is the third rail in this election. Go after her and you piss off 20 million women in a heart beat. BAD IDEA, REALLY BAD IDEA. Tagging McCain on the drop in Washington and cancelling the debate and siding with the Republicans is also wrong. The media has beat that drum for Obama and he doesn't need to keep flogging it. That type of thing only works for far left and pisses off the Independants. It would make him look like a street fighter which he is not. A Daniel Webster description of the meaning of Maverick would sound like a school teacher belittling a student. A younger man cannot do that to an older man without pissing off millions of older Americans. No one likes to be talked down to, and no one likes to see others talked down to. Trying to score knock out punches is last weeks ideas, leave them there where they belong.

[NickHP]

I also thought Obama didn't win, and that generally McCain argued more forcefully than I expected. But the vox populi was looking for something else. My feeling is that they have already picked Obama and the fact that he survived last night was enough to have them declare him the winner.

It wasn't the arguments but the debaters themselves that were judged. Obama is my pick, and McCain is too old and decrepit to put into the position of president. I just didn't pick up the cues that others saw in this performance.

Nick

[NTO08]

I really thought both of them were lousy. McCain is looking very down and out, not healthy and not with his heart in this fight...Obama has been repeating the same tired talking points that just turn me off...that's why, unless some monumental event changes things, I am voting for Cynthia McKinney. I cannot vote for either of these tired-worn Washington politicians who are steeped in all the people who have made poltiics so foul and toxic in recent years.