On the Debate

A few moments of the debate that stuck out to me:

When the candidates were asked why their respective VP choices were qualified to be president, I had to pause the Tivo until I stopped laughing. I wanted Obama to say "Not only would Joe Biden be a fine president...but he's also a member."

I did start drinking around an hour in, when John McCain insisted on having us examine Joe the Plumber's* pipes one more time. Hooray, Scotch!

Was McCain even trying to win over moderates? He spoke in this weird shorthand that I don't think translated well to any but political junkies. I thought that when he scoffed during the abortion discussion and said "health of the mother," it came off especially dickish... like womens' health doesn't matter to him. I know that's not what he meant by that, but it's how he came across. Women's health is obviously a liberal issue, because vaginas have a well-known liberal bias.

And Ayres. There's just so clearly nothing there. All McCain has is the man's name and a 40-year-old rap sheet. I thought Obama's retort—here's who I associate with—was really well presented. The Ayres association is like a prop gun on a theater stage. Wave it around all you like—pepper his name in shady email forwards and 527 commercials—and it looks menacing. The name conjures up radicalism, but the reality is something as boring and normal as an education committee. There's nothing damaging in the association, other than implication of the association itself. It's a popgun, offering a loud noise but no result.

Ultimately, I'm not even sure the policies of the two candidates matter at this point, in terms of us making up our national mind. There's a sense of the personalities of the two men that trumps all their promises. Obama is analytical and intelligent, young, vital, and cool in a fight. He's strong, charismatic, and in control.

McCain has consistently shown himself to be his opposite in almost all ways. He's not particularly charismatic, but he's used to being thought of as such, and interrupts with little barbs and goofs off after the debate in a way that lets us know that he thinks we think he's adorable. He's whining and cranky and simply can't believe he's losing to Obama, when it's obviously his turn to be President. He's an old soldier who has already given his country his best days, and he's running against a man whose best days are still ahead of him, and are ours for the asking.

As Americans, we don't always vote with our heads. But this year, our gut is pointing us in the same direction.

Rob

*Note: Not an actual plumber. He just plays one during presidential campaigns.

More on Last Night's Debate

James Fallows has some really interesting analysis of Obama's real job in the debate last night -- and why giving me (and viewers like me) a satisfying knock-out punch wasn't the priority:

Obama would have pleased his base better if he had fought back more harshly in those 90 minutes -- cutting McCain off, delivering a similarly harsh closing judgment, using comparably hostile body language, and in general acting more like a combative House of Commons debater. Those would have been effective tactics minute by minute.

But Obama either figured out, or instinctively understood, that the real battle was to make himself seem comfortable, reasonable, responsible, well-versed, and in all ways "safe" and non-outsiderish to the audience just making up its mind about him... The evidence of the polls suggests that he achieved exactly this strategic goal. He was the more "likeable," the more knowledgeable, the more temperate, etc.

Meanwhile, 538.com has an analysis of the post-debate polls: Why Voters Thought Obama Won. Here's a sample:

McCain’s essential problem is that his fundamental strength – his experience -- is specifically not viewed by voters as carrying over to the economy. And the economy is pretty much all that voters care about these days.

And Steve Benen has a post about McCain's "spending freeze" comment:

It's probably considered passe for the media to care about a policy pronouncement made during a debate, but this is a fairly big deal -- which, in theory, could be devastating to McCain. As Yglesias noted, his proposed spending freeze would, in real terms, mean "less money for your local police department. Less money for the FBI. Less money for Head Start. Less money for Pell Grants. Less money for infrastructure. Less money for everything except failed banks and endless wars."

My main concern about it is something Benen says earlier in his post:

Now, as far as I can tell, a spending freeze has never been part of McCain's policy agenda. In all likelihood, he came up with it on the spot and will never repeat this again.

McCain ad-libbed something as monumental as spending freeze. When under pressure, he goes for the Hail Mary pass. Like choosing Sarah Palin as a running mate. Like "suspending" his campaign, and trying to cancel the debate. It's about all the razzle-dazzle with him, with no thought to its consequences.

We'll see if he backs away from this idea in the next few days. But his m.o. tends to be, when caught in a mistake, or when vamping because he's not quite sure what to do, he'll double down on his original statement. Don't believe me? Just ask the Prime Minister of Spain.

Rob

Debateable

Apparently, CNN and CBS have conducted polls that suggest that Barack Obama won tonight's debate. (CNN has Obama winning, 51%-38%. CBS's poll says Obama won, 39%-24%.) I'm not so sure.


In one of McCain's lists of his accomplishments--I think it was the one that began with the military action in Lebanon--he made me really consider the value of his experience. It made me think, yes, he has seen a lot, and done a lot, and that is a good quality to have in a president.

(He's also apparently been more places than Carmen SanDiego and Where the Hell is Matt combined.)

Anyway, my point is that I think he came off pretty well. Part of that might be that President Bush's oratory skills have substantially lowered the bar on how well I expect Republicans to articulate their positions. McCain seemed mostly conversant on the issues. Of course, foreign policy is supposed to be his strong suit, so I don't know why I was expecting otherwise. But I had been so frustrated--so frustrated--by Bush's sheer aura of dullard in the 2000 and 2004 debates, that having someone articulate up there came as a refreshing surprise. Also, I didn't throw anything.

But ultimately, no matter his experience, McCain didn't sway me. (Big surprise, right?) Because recent experience has shown him to have very poor judgment on everything from invading Iraq to choosing a vice president. It's not an ungrateful what-have-you-done-for-me-lately attitude that propts these thoughts. McCain has made some good decisions in the past, and some bad ones. But looking forward, I see fewer and fewer good decisions from him on the horizon. He tends to act rashly in tight situations (choosing Palin, "suspending" his campaign, etc.), and a president's appointment book is filled with tight situations. Obama keeps a cooler head. Regardless of his ideas for his presidency (and I think they're good ones), he has the even, steady temprament for the job.

Anyway, despite the polls I thought the debate itself was pretty much a draw; it could be that I'm giving McCain too much credit for not coming off as a brush-clearing boob, though.

Rob

What a Surprise

McCain's debate-bailout stunt might be used to postpone the Palin/Biden debate.

McCain supporter Sen. Lindsey Graham tells CNN the McCain campaign is proposing to the Presidential Debate Commission and the Obama camp that if there's no bailout deal by Friday, the first presidential debate should take the place of the VP debate, currently scheduled for next Thursday, October 2 in St. Louis.

In this scenario, the vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin would be rescheduled for a date yet to be determined, and take place in Oxford, Mississippi, currently slated to be the site of the first presidential faceoff this Friday.

She's not ready.

Rob