McCain-Obama Debate Updated
John McCain won this debate, but he will unlikely win the next two.
September 27, 2008
By Francesca Chambers
John McCain will never be able to match Barack Obama’s speaking skills. Few politicians in the history of the United States were as eloquent as Obama is. So Friday night McCain focused on what he knew he could do better than his opponent- get under his skin- and it worked.
Both candidates’ performances in the debate were mediocre at best. Both refused to answer the questions they were asked, and both left undecided voters as confused, if not more confused, than they were before.
According to Real Clear Politics, Obama is still up four points overall, but he still has only a slight advantage over McCain in key undecided states like Virginia and New Hampshire. In addition, McCain still has the advantage over Obama in Ohio and Florida.
Florida is the state that ultimately decided the 2004 election, and Ohio has voted for the winner of the presidential race the last 11 elections.
In the first segment of the debate, undecideds, Republicans- everyone- was looking to McCain for a solution to the economic crisis. After all, McCain suspended his campaign and threatened to postpone Friday’s debate because of the urgency of the matter.
But the Straight Talk Express was not due to arrive until later in the evening it seemed. McCain repeatedly refused to answer Jim Leher, the moderator, when asked how he felt about the $700 billion bailout and if he would vote for the bipartisan economic solution.
Obama fared no better. Eventually both candidates said yes, they would vote for the plan, but it was only when they had nowhere else to run.
They treated Leher’s question about which campaign promises they would put on the back burner with the same lackadaisical, uncertainty. Though, to be fair, Obama had more to lose than McCain did by answering that question.
McCain has only ever said he would cut spending. He has never previously said he would institute a vast number of new programs, whereas Obama’s entire campaign is built on “Change you can believe in.”
When Obama would not name what programs he would cut, only which ones he saw as essential, McCain cleverly compared Obama to George W. Bush, who has been criticized for clinging to his ideals even after he realizes he was wrong, or truthiness as Stephen Colbert would call say.
To most voters it’s clear that Obama is to Bush as Sarah Palin is to Hillary Clinton, but the argument turn was a classic debate strategy, and it did what is was supposed to- make Obama angry.
Needless to say, this was not a debate that will make its mark in history.
Charles Krauthammer, a syndicated columnist and FOX contributor, said he thought Obama came out neutral in a debate that should have been a clear win for John McCain because foreign policy is his strong point. Krauthammer said Obama tying with McCain in the foreign policy debate, basically translated into a win for Obama because its clear that McCain does not stand a chance against him in future debates on topics like the economy.
However I deeply disagree with Krauthammer. Yes, Obama did come out neutral, but look back to his performance during the economic part of the debate. What was previously his advantage over McCain, his government reform, is now his albatross.
When he was asked about the economy, he too faltered because he did not want to admit to his base that he cold no longer guarantee them many of the programs he originally promised.
George Will, a Washington Post analylist, said he thought the winner of a tie in a debate is the person who looks the most comfortable, so he thought Obama won. But that analysis is flawed as well. Obama did not appear to be calm at all. John McCain had him exactly where he wanted him, and Obama came off as arrogant and disrespectful.
Leslie Sanchez, a Republican strategist, also commented that Obama was on the defense entire debate, while McCain was on the offense.
The Associated Press said it was McCain who came off rude instead because he never looked at Obama, but once again, that is high school debate strategy 101. If you look at your opponent, it becomes personal, and then it shifts from a debate to a catfight.
Jim Leher may not of realized it at the time, but by telling Obama to tell McCain his grievances and not him, he was setting Obama up for failure. Clearly, Obama was fed up with McCain’s false statements and political stunts, and rightly so. But the debate was not the time nor place to let it show.
By calling McCain “John” condescendingly and continually interrupting McCain when it was McCain’s turn to talk, Obama looked disrespectful. He appeared to be the stereotypical youth who thinks he knows more than the older, more experienced gentlemen. He might as well have said, “Times are changin’ old man.”
McCain fed fuel to the fire by repeatedly referring to Obama as naïve and inexperienced, and again, whether it is true or not, it’s a phrase that will stick in viewers’ mind because of the number of times it was repeated. So will the phrase, “ I agree with John,” which Obama mistakenly used many times to start of sentences that ended with him pointing out why he “fundamentally” disagrees with him in another area.
It was also a mistake for Obama to make the statement about taking Pakistan out if it refuse to cooperate with U.S. demands. He gave McCain yet another opportunity to compare him to Bush, and “take ‘em out,” is simply a bad choice of words to begin with. Obama sounded like a mob boss instead of a diplomat.
McCain won the first debate because he used strategic phrases to visibly anger and derail Obama, but it remains to be seen how far the win will take him.
I have no doubt the Obama camp will use the next week and a half to learn from Friday’s mistakes, and the next debate, which will be on Obama’s home court, voters will most likely see the return of Obama, the humble politician with middle class values.
If Obama can stay calm and ignore McCain the way McCain ignored him Friday and provide straight answers about the policy promises he plans to amend, he will easily win the debate, and probably the election. But if not, and John McCain continues to repeat his message that he plans to cut spending, not increase it like Obama, Obama will probably begin to lose his momentum.
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
The credibility of your analysis is undermined by your not-very-good use of the English language. Let's chalk it up to a late night and me being a language prude, but here goes:
I am completely mystified by this analogy. "To most voters it’s clear that Obama is to Bush as Sarah Palin is to Hillary Clinton" Let's see . . . Obama is dumber than Bush the way Palin is dumber than Clinton? Obama is hotter than Bush the way Palin is hotter . . . ? Obama is way more conservative than Bush the way Palin. . . . I dunno.
The moderator's name was Jim Lehrer, not Leher.
"Jim Leher may not of realized it at the time"?
"George Will, a Washington Post analylist"?
"which Obama mistakenly used many times to start of sentences"
If you want to blithely call Will and Krauthammer and the Associated Press and Obama mistaken, you've got to have your own stuff together.
Now let's look at the forest instead of the trees.
The Maverick regularly excites Republicans by reminding them how often he has differed with Republicans, because he is not "Miss Congeniality." He claims he is ready to work across party lines. Judging from last night, it appears McCain plans to "work across party lines" without actually looking at anyone across party lines using his eyeballs. "I agree with John" seemed a whole lot more bipartisan to me.
You say Obama's interruptions of McCain looked "disrespectful." You partly ignore, though, that each question was supposed to include a five-minute "free for all" period, which Lehrer tried to encourage.
It's interesting that you use the word "stereotype" in reference to Obama and not McCain, on the topic of youth/age. You might as easily have said "McCain fit the stereotype of the know-it-all senior with his repeated line 'he just doesn't understand.'"
I, for one, do not want a president who "ignores" (to use your word) people on the other side of the aisle the way McCain ignored Obama last night.
Were you watching the same debate as the rest of us? Most of the media has called it a solid Obama win.
I myself call it a devastating McCain loss. He's kept the campaign close thus far by casting Obama as a crazed radical who is just too risky for the Oval Office.
Last night we saw Obama calm, cool, and collected as ever. We saw him thoughtful and every time McCain tried to say "he just doesn't understand" Obama's answer instantly proved McCain wrong. What we didn't see was a crazed radical.
For McCain's part, he was rude and dismissive. He refused to look Obama in the eye. He lost his cool on several occasions, and on other times seemed like someone's weird uncle that had wandered onstage.
In a modern Presidential debate, the perception is not about the answers. George W. Bush lost the debates in 2000 and 2004 according to the pundits, but according to the people he won, because of Gore's poor body language and Kerry's aloofness.
Friday it was Obama who won the personality contest. He looked McCain in the eye, threw a rope when McCain failed to pronounce "Ahmadinejad," and in every way came through as being the bigger man. Add to that the fact that the commentators are almost uniformly calling it a technical draw and what you end up with is what is really a blowout Obama win.
I think Obama won the debate because it's clear that this was supposed to be McCain's strongest subject area, and he wasn't able to beat him.
Since Obama held his own most of the time, people would say that it might be a tie, but due to the nature of the topic, Obama won.
sirbaihu,
The credibility of your analysis of the analysis is undermined by your not-very-good use of the English language. Let’s chalk it up to another lonely night and you being a language dud, but here goes:
1)
“I am completely mystified by this analogy.”
What analogy? Oh, I see. You should have put a colon after analogy, since you haven’t established the analogy yet.
STRIKE 1
2) “’…it’s clear that Obama is to Bush as Sarah Palin is to Hillary Clinton’ Let’s see…”
Wait, where’s the period after Clinton? Actually, since that was not the end of her sentence, you should have put “Clinton….”
STRIKE 2
3) “…blithely call Will and Krauthammer and the Associated Press and Obama mistaken…”
When you have more than two items, you’re supposed to use commas and not the word “and” over-and-over-and-over-and-over again.
STRIKE 3
The next time you get giddy about the prospect of trashing a blog about 3 mistakes in a whole entry, grab your English book that’s still in the wrapping and review the chapter on proper grammar. Anyone can use spell check or “The Google.”
And to completely debunk your content analysis:
1) The point of the Obama:Bush and Palin:Clinton argument was to show that the two examples are different ideologically, and Obama & Palin are newer faces to the national stage. Stop trying to reach.
2) You’re questioning McCain’s bipartisan background? In the past two congresses, McCain has had 55% of his co-sponsors on bills be Democrats, while Obama has only had 13% of Republicans be co-sponsors on bills with him. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/15/records-show-mccain-more-bipartisan/
Oh, and if there are spelling or grammatical errors in this….I don’t care because I’m not some discussion board elitist.
Share your 2¢
(Requires free registration.)