First Debate: Gotta Give It To McCain
By Brian Lambert
Even though the first impression polls gave Obama a "win" over McCain in the first debate, it didn't feel that way to me. If repetition is fundamental to successful advertising, McCain ate Obama's lunch.
For every time McCain declared that "Sen. Obama doesn't understand," or " . . . is naive," Obama should have—but didn't—rebut insinuations of naivete with . . . "failure of judgment" . . . the single most powerful and punchy rhetorical weapon in his "quiver" (as he did say).
These debates have almost no meaning to entrenched partisans. They/we long ago decided which way we were going in this election. Every day of the campaign and every minute of free national TV is about convincing the so-called "persuadables," otherwise known as the "knuckleheads" who "don't like" politics, don't pay much attention until a lot of obnoxious advertising starts interrupting CSI: Miami, and often end up being too busy to vote on election day anyway.
Frankly, I don't see how Obama could go wrong framing the entire campaign around "judgment." Pick a topic, and he has a straight-line case convincing the public that McCain has shown "failure of . . . ."
Iraq. A failure of judgment in supporting an unnecessary invasion that lacked even minimal coalition building.
Afghanistan. A failure of judgment in allowing resources to be pulled from a war that needed fighting to one that didn't. (And this gross over-stretching of the military from a guy who claims to know every nook, cranny, and code in the Pentagon and is SO sensitive to the "sacrifices" of military families.)
The economy. Twenty-six years of failed judgment arguing for less and less regulation of "financial instruments." Stuff so complex the Lehman Brothers of the world had to hire physicists to understand the algorithms driving the junk.
"Suspending his campaign" and pointlessly intruding on last week's "bailout" compromise. A failure of judgment and a startling example of McCain putting campaign—not "country"—first.
Sarah Palin. In the judgment of a seventy-two-year-old man with a history of melanoma, this person is qualified to be President of the United States? . . . at ANY TIME in our history, much less in an era when we are in a so-called "war of civilizations" with nuclear-armed terrorists and simultaneously teetering on the brink of financial collapse?
I pretty much made a fool of myself shouting, "failure of judgment, FAILURE OF JUDGMENT" at Obama every time he responded to McCain. But it never helped. Instead of a saying something punchy such as, "John, it's hard to take you seriously on how much you've traveled and all you say you know about the Pentagon when you've demonstrated so many failures of judgment at the most critical moments. I'm happy you're so worked up about $18 billion in earmarks. But considering the influence you say you have, you could have saved American taxpayers nearly $1 trillion by showing good judgment, by separating yourself from George W. Bush, and resisting the rush to war in Iraq. But you didn't. In fact, when it really counts, you never do."
Immediately post-debate, (ABC) George Stephanopoulos joked that Obama was probably already getting an earful from his campaign team about the number of times he said, "John McCain is right." Good God, man, let McCain tell everyone he's right. You stick to what he's done wrong . . . which is plenty.
The (NBC) Chuck Todds of the world have given Obama the benefit of the doubt, assuming that he saw Friday's debate as the first of three acts. (Four, assuming Brian Williams insists on coherent answers from both Joe Biden AND Sarah Palin Thursday night.) The expectation being that Obama will ramp up the Big Theme criticism of McCain more and more as we close in on November 4.
Republicans have an advantage over Democrats in this battle for the "persuadables" in that, historically, most so-called "independents" lean Republican. (The usual expectation is that close to 70 percent will vote Republican.) But also, as I say, being genuinely "persuadable" this late in the campaign, after everything that has gone for the last eight years, strongly suggests a crowd that never pays much attention . . . probably to anything other than football and cooking shows. While Democrats remain captive to their high-minded constituency, the one that values precision and something reasonably close to honesty in debates, Republicans in the age of Lee Atwater-to-Karl Rove-to-Steve Schmidt play the game strictly to win and adjust their rhetoric accordingly.
It's tremendously liberating. If you're not burdened by silly notions of shame, you really can claim anything, as McCain does when he presents himself as a "reformer" and a "maverick," or a "regulator" (for his eleventh-hour call for oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). Republicans know that potential voters who haven't paid attention until now aren't going to suddenly start doing their own brain work to find out if any of what they're hearing is true. (Which is why the Democrat has to slap it down then and there, while 100 million are watching.)
Democrats, Kerry and now Obama, give the "persuadable" public credit for way too much critical awareness. They respond to the most outrageous bulls**t with thoughtful, wonky answers, citing House bills and vetoes and votes on legislation so complicated most of Congress never read the damn things.
The great advantage here is that McCain's judgment has been so bad—precisely in matters of foreign affairs and military strategy where he claims to be so much better prepared—that Obama has no reason to inflate or hyperbolize anything. All he has to do is train himself to frame in an easily digestible way—"failure of judgment"—and say it repeatedly.
"This election is about judgment, and when you look at the truly epic disasters of George W. Bush's term in office, John McCain's judgment has failed this country over and over again."
© 2008 MSP Communications, Inc. All rights reserved
I don't disagree with your point that Obama failed to, ad nauseum, go for the jugular. But he came across as cool under pressure, unflappable when insulted, and met the so-called Presidential test. McCain, in contrast, was condescending, grouchy and old. Ultimately what seems to stick with viewers are not the sound bites but rather those idiosyncratic pieces of body language, like Al Gore's repeated sighs. McCain's failure to ever make eye contact with Obama seems to have struck such a chord. Disrespect? Dishonesty? The laughable "I was focused on speaking to the audience" claim that he used in response to George Stephanopoulos' question Sunday? There is something primal about looking someone in the eye, and something equally revealing about not doing so. I think this remains the biggest takeaway from the debate.
LAMBERT: Since I believe Obama is a fast study, I'll be surprised if he doesn't apply a few new twists the next time.
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on September 29, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Debates can be difficult contests to handicap and after McCain delivered his first "What Senator Obama doesn't understand..." to bring each rebuttal, I mentioned to my wife, that line is going to be McCain's main rhetorical tactic and he has been trained by debate coaches to repeat it as often as he can.
Each time McCain pulled that phrase out of his arse... I mean arsenal... we chortled and rolled our eyes. But debate judges would give McCain marks for staying on message, even if he sounded like a broken record.
During the debate, there were a number of moments when, judging McCains pained facial expressions, it looked as if he was having problems with his Metimusal dosage. He graveled, hissed and growled and then eventually admitted openly to not being "Miss Conviviality."
At that moment, I was cued to recall that Richard Nixon everlastingly claimed to have "won" the 1960 debate against Kennedy except that, by Nixon's own assessment, Kennedy looked better, was more attractive and had a striking youthful image for the TV camera. Kennedy's youthful appearance, as historians point out, launched the era of Camelot (for better or worse) and transformed American into a romantic exuberance for justice, bravery and truth.
I suppose it is all about how you define winning or the term "won."
I wasn't so certain after the debate ended which candidate actually won. The reason these answers don't come easily is because you cannot pick a winner based on intelligence, conviction, integrity, and decency - those elitist qualities are no longer predominant values in American politics.
We don't have the perspective of hindsight like we have today with Nixon/Kennedy. However, in the first debate, the fresher face and young candidate usually enjoys the advantage of being able to connect with the electorate in the first person whether it be a dashing David Durenberger in the late 70s or a refreshingly unknown Jesse Ventura in 1998.
I did find this observational take interesting:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2008/09/-when-the-comme.html
Posted by: Robb on September 29, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Great post today.
Besides either candidate not answering the questions (how many times did Leher have to ask if they supported the bail out bill) what was disappointing to me is that the candidates did not embrace the "debate to each other" as much as they could have. Leher had to remind them a few times that they could respond to one another.
I am guessing you would have to agree that nothing really new came of this debate, it was really the same talking points we have heard from both camps - in what should have been one of the more interesting debates of our lifetime was about as exciting as the Clinton/Dole debate.
LAMBERT: In the body language department I believe Obama took Lehrer up on the challenge to speak directly to McCain. McCain seemed to prefer talking to Lehrer.
Posted by: Namzso (Tom O) on September 29, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Quite frankly, I hope we are at the end of gotcha, go-for-the-jugular, partisan politics. Yes, it sells papers, gets pageviews, and employs thousands of online/offline pundits. But look where it has gotten our country.
It is in America's best interests if this election stays presidential and does not degrade into this worst of the worst in american politics. Stay boring, talk issues, talk deeply into this bailout, into foreign policy, into energy...until all the pundits who are not economists or policy wonks turn it off and go to bed early. I want complex solutions, not quick bailouts and earmark backslaps. I want government to force businesses away from corruption and vice versa...what comes first, the politicians, because we can vote them out; or is it the businesses, because we can stop buying their products...but I digress.
The Republican Party wanted a character-based election--SO THEY HAD BETTER ACT LIKE IT DURING THE DEBATES IN FRONT OF THE WORLD. And the Democratic Party wanted to focus on the issues and their 'change' platform they have to improve things--SO THEY TOO HAD BETTER KEEP THEIR FOCUS, because they can't afford to divide americans in the process of winning this election.
Personally, as far as political debates go, I think both candidates surpassed my expectations. Most surprisingly was McCain, given his erratic week I thought he might dissolve into stuttering; and Obama on the other hand was steady and presidential, nice given this is the big time and he showed no choke. I thought both candidates mistakes were certainly within the realm of being human...it is so tough to eliminate that aspect regardless of preparation hours.
I actually thought both candidates were at their worst when they dissolved into their sound bites, just like Dave and his wife, I rolled my eyes each time one of those obvious pandering statements rolled off their tongues.
Of course, I am naive and am forgetting the lessons of Atwater and Rove and how they won elections with lies and distortion...funny how those elections won on lies and distortions end up with administrations that the other party no longer trusts or is willing to work with afterwards, isn't it.
If 'Country First' is going to be more than a hollow Rovism, I suggest the election season embrace it more fully. Either man, upon winning, will need the other man working 'country first' in the senate, no?
LAMBERT: I can't disagree with you. But first you gotta ... win. And winning means persuading the "persuadables" who I'm guessing have far less considered opinions about this stuff than you or I.
Posted by: The Other Mike on September 29, 2008 at 9:33 PM
If anything, the debate was pretty even, and--borrowing from CNN's David Gergen on Friday night--this was the debate McCain needed to whack out of the park. He certainly didn't. To be honest, I don't think I've seen Obama do that well in any debate. He's sharp, articulate, but never on-the-spot clever, as in the difference between tactic and strategy. Given his position, he could have said the surge was a desperate tactic in an attempt to save a failed strategy, which was the Iraq war.
Despite the lack of real specifics from either, Obama was much more focused on the economic part of the "discussion", as opposed to McCain rambling on about fixing things. There's way too many comments about his age in my opinion; I'd rather folks just evaluate WHAT he says. There's plenty to digest there without the speculation of WHY he's saying it.
LAMBERT: "Even" means advantage-McCain. By all indications Obama didn't hurt himself and it seems did just fine, poll-wise. I'm simply registering my frustration at the unwillingness (it isn't inability) to emphasize what is indisputably true and I think effective with the "persuadable" crowd.
Posted by: Peter Weinhold on September 30, 2008 at 6:36 AM
I agree with Peter and Other Mike. Focus on the critical issues before the nation instead of pointing the finger of blame.
Secretary Paulson's arbitrary $700 billion bail out plan was a huge failure from inception. But it seems there is an incredible opportunity for one of the candidates to hit it out of the park by proposing a solid solution.
LAMBERT: The most practical solution is I think the "new" Democratic strategy of passing this thing almost entirely with Democrats -- which would mean significant money for major infrastructure repair (jobs), FDIC coverage of the works, and food stamps, heating assistance. The infrastructure move is a no-brainer, as far as I'm concerned. After flushing away $1 trillion in Iraq, let's try "emergency funding" of a major jobs and improvement package right here.
Posted by: Robb on September 30, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Again and again - THANK YOU BRIAN LAMBERT.
Commentary with a a brain, a heart and passion gives the grateful reader something to think about, discuss and debate. The great gift is that he is here for us to read, the great shame is that he isn't in the national arena where he belongs.
LAMBERT: And a big kiss to you, Nancy.
Posted by: nancy nelson on September 30, 2008 at 10:26 AM
If I might clarify a couple items related to my post and Robb's comment that followed--
--I am actually all for pointing fingers--but the fingers who should do the pointing are not those of our candidates mixing up election campaigning with developing legislation, that is two worlds of sausages that don't mix and it risk alienation and partisanship in the midst of negotiations on a critical piece of legislation.
(I've actually thought the legislators actions on this bill has been the most healthy--focused goal-oriented while still considering broad areas of concern--legislative work that has been done in Washington in maybe 7 years. They have worked hard in both houses across both aisles and the only finger I will point at them is to salute their efforts and wish them continued strength in this bill.)
But I do want finger pointed, those of regulators and FBI investigators and special prosecutors and oversight committees AND Wall Street Boards of Directors AND their Accounting Firms--whose jobs involve pointing fingers; and the fingers should be pointed at those rapacious Wall Streeters who torn down our financial solvency AND so called financial leaders who did nothing to stop this wholly undisciplined behaviour.
--As for the candidates in the election cycle--at all levels of this race, they had better start talking about their solutions for all these major issues that they are going to take up in Washington, hadn't they?
And it damn well better be 'by-partisan'.
Frankly, as Brian pointed out earlier, McCain's two-faced comment where he pointed fingers at the Democrats before saying there should be no finger pointing didn't win him any points.
AND then there's our great senator from MN--Norm's been quiet, hasn't he, at a time when he really could stand up for something meaningful. And that is exactly why I cannot fathom voting for him.
Where does he stand, what is his thinking on this matter, what can I count on him to do for us and our country?
This is the Norm I remember through the years--When he is needed most, he is quiet, looking for someone else to tell him his position. I want a senator who represents the people of MN, vocally, intelligently, and constituent/issue-based not special interest-based.
And when he has tough news to deliver--I want to hear it from his mouth, not some press release a day later or through some aide or media contact. Senator should be a leadership position, they should be visible leaders in good times and especially in bad.
Posted by: The Other Mike on September 30, 2008 at 5:39 PM