Winners:
- Jim Lehrer. He was successful in not making this an alternate series of informercials.
- Investment Banks. In one of the good shows of magnanimity, both candidates said they would cooperate in getting the bailout passed. Time will tell, but most likely the rest of us will benefit.
Losers:
- Russia. In another show magnanimity, both candidates agreed that Georgia was the victim of Russian (or maybeSoviet given the tone of the two) imperialism. They did this despite overwhelming evidence that Georgia instigated the affair for their own purposes. If the U.S. media could manage to cover foreign affairs competently, there might actually have been a consequence for both candidates belligerence.
- Foreign Policy. This was pretty thin gruel. There was no discussion of South America or our immediate neighbors, Mexico and Canada. Venezuela got a cursory mention as a rogue State by Obama, a simply ludicrous notion. South America and Africa got gratuitous mentions by Obama for their part in being actively engaged by China.
- Trade. Trade was only mentioned twice. The first time Obama brought it up in regard to the Afghan poppy trade. The second reference again was Obama noting Iran’s trade with China and Russia, the latter of which he deemed not to be a democracy.
- Formality. Obama spoke of John without adding McCain 24 times this evening. Is McCain really that hard to say? McCain referred to Obama by his last name the entire evening. If Biden refers to Palin as Sarah, I wouldn’t be shocked if people treat it as condescension. I doubt Palin will be criticized if she refers to Biden as Joe. Particularly in this format, formalism should have prevailed.
Neither McCain nor Obama did anything positively or negatively that will move the polls more than a percentage point. The point everyone will talk about and no one will care about is the dispute over Henry Kissinger. Henry Kissinger is only treated as authoritative by those over age 40; nearly everyone lacks the information to evaluate the truth claim immediately; and most people have their opinions already formed about the wisdom (or lack thereof) of engaging hostile countries.
You said,
Formality. Obama spoke of John without adding McCain 24 times this evening. Is McCain really that hard to say? McCain referred to Obama by his last name the entire evening. If Biden refers to Palinas Sarah, I wouldn’t be shocked if people treat it as condescension. I doubt Palin will be criticized if she refers to Biden as Joe. Particularly in this format, formalism should have prevailed.
Along that line: if you (people in general) were watching it live, you would notice that McCain didn’t look at Obama or really address him the entire evening, even though the moderator was trying to get them to interact on numerous occassions, especially at the beginning when he even said that he wanted them to talk to each other.
On the other hand, Obama was more personal: referring to McCain by his first name throughout the debate, and looking at him constantly, and often talking while looking at him.
I think the use of John’s first name and actually addressing and looking at him showed Obama trying to be more civil and friendly (if you can use that word).
McCain was more cold, didn’t want to look at Obama, didn’t refer to him as “Barack”, etc.
interesting….
All Obama had to do was keep the momentum going his way, in order to win the debate. He did so:
On the eve of the first Presidential Debate, Barack Obama is perhaps in as strong a position in the polls as he has been all year, now projecting to win the election 74.7 percent of the time. Both the state and the national polls that have come out within the past 48 hours have generally been quite favorable to Obama, and suggest that he may gained an additional point or so above and beyond his “Lehman Leap” from last week.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/todays-polls-926.html
One smart “conservative” is realising that McCain’s game is up:
As the evening went on, McCain did better. He started landing some shots against Obama. But I suspect it was too little, too late. It’s always hard to guess what the typical “swing voter”–which is to say, for the most part, people who are ill-informed–will make of a Presidential debate. I hope that some, at least, got a sense that Obama is a BSer who often has little idea what he is talking about and constantly runs away from his record. That’s just a hope, though. I think Obama probably improved his chances tonight.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/09/021623.php
The right-wingers at Vox Nova need to start getting used to the idea of an Obama Presidency.
McCain and Obama are peers, so I don’t see what the fuss is about “formality.”
I have never thought of Obama as a pacifist, nor as an overwhelmingly strong anti-war candidate, but I was definitely surprised in this debate with his hawkishness. The Iraq War is no longer a moral failure, but a mere “distraction;” he insisted that he is the better choice for dealing with “the next conflict,” etc.
No fuss on formality, just an observation. Nothing else really to talk about. :)
“Neither McCain nor Obama did anything positively or negatively that will move the polls more than a percentage point.” (If that).
I completely agree with you. Nothing exceptional transpired in this debate that would cause a measurable fluctuation in poll numbers. Having said that, Obama did seem more assured and direct when challenged by a question or an accusation than did McCain. All that might be inconsequential.
I would imagine the Palin/ Biden debate to be more revelatory than the stalemate we saw tonight.
Wow! Finally the folks at Vox Nova wake-up and realize that Obama is not their dream anti-war candidate after all. European observers, by the way, have long noted this.
As for McCain not looking at Obama, I agree that this looked bad for McCain. I don’t think I saw him once look at Obama — very odd.
As for the debate in general, McCain clearly beat Obama. If Obama didn’t have “the last 8 years of Bush” trump card, then he would have had almost no arguments.
Kevin,
Just so you know, I am not for Obama or McCain…
I am interested of your thoughts on digbydolben’s post (above, top) regarding McCain supporters thinking that McCain lost and diminished his chances for the election at tonights debate, in light of the fact that you feel that he “clearly beat Obama”.
I personally don’t really know hot to quantify anything in a debate to be able to determine a “winner”. Perhaps that is why I don’t like debate formats.
I think that McCain does better in settings like the Saddleback forum. Which, by the way, I thought was much more revealing, interesting, and it was easier to listen to. :)
jn
Justin,
digby can’t be taken seriously. It’s pretty obvious that he is just using whatever he can find to demonstrate the strength of the Obama campaign and make McCain look weak. Conservative commentators are, by and large, confident that McCain did better (no surprise). Liberal commentators believe Obama did better or just as good. Moderates largely believe either McCain did better or they did the same, with a few believing Obama did better. This, by the way, is just from what I’ve observed on television and the internet.
While I do think that McCain clearly did better, it was not a “knock out” or anything of the sort. Obama did fairly well, as is to be expected. Both McCain and Obama are fine orators — they both have the ability to sound intelligent and convincing even when they are speaking bull. And make no mistake, most of this debate was bull.
I don’t think there will be a bump in the polls for either candidate, but I could be wrong — these swing voters can be swayed by anything. McCain was not as personable in the debate and a little too forceful. Obama mostly spoke, as far as substance goes, out of his rear end, but he was more personable. However, Obama also tends to sound academic and indirect. I think the pros and cons balance each other, such that there probably won’t be a bump for McCain even though there should be.
One more thing: At the least, we should be able to gain from this debate that Obama is nothing special — he’s just a politician, with no remainder. For all those Catholics (and certain evangelicals) who want to “trust” and “hope” that Obama will be different, they need to re-watch the debate. At least with McCain, we know what to expect — above average mediocrity. Yes, I’ve voting for “above average mediocrity.” Why should I give the Democratic party the benefit of my vote with their entrenched special interest in Planned Parenthood and the LGBT lobby? I’ll take the GOP with their NRA lobby any day.
[...] Vox Nova – 12:23 AM – Debate Wrap Winners: Jim Lehrer. He was successful in not making this an alternate series of informercials. Investment Banks. In one of the good shows of magnanimity, both candidates said they would cooperate in getting the bailout passed. Time will tell, but most likely the rest of us will benefit. Losers: Russia. In another show magnanimity, … [...]
The debate seems to have vindicated my opinion that Obama will be little different than McCain when it comes to issues of war and peace.This is not a good thing, though.
I don’t think we should have expected anything different – the Democrats were elected in 2006 to get us out of Iraq and they continue to fund the war this day. They aren’t interested in acting on principle, only the power that comes from winning elections. Bad news for America.
It has become quite standard for the candidate who is perceived in lacking stature to treat his opponent as a familiar peer, while the latter will do his best to pretend the other is not really there.
Both candidates thus employed standard tactics in this regard. Absolutely predictable.
I wonder what the media reaction would have been had McCain repeatedly referred to Obama as “Barack.”
I agree that Obama seemed fairly hawkish at points in the debate. The question is how much of that was for show, and how much represents his real beliefs.
Right, maybe it’s like that time the Obama told people in Ohio that he was very opposed to NAFTA but then had his campaign go to Canada and tell the people there he was just foolin’.
Conservative commentators are, by and large, confident that McCain did better (no surprise). Liberal commentators believe Obama did better or just as good. Moderates largely believe either McCain did better or they did the same, with a few believing Obama did better.
Kevin… take a look at the post-debate polls. They show something very different.
My thoughts dovetail with one of the above comments that McCain and Obama’s visual or nonvisual contact with the other waspart of a strategy….in the recesses of my mind there was something similar that happened with Bush I and Clinton–maybe someone here can recall the specifics.
I thought the debate was pretty much a wash–Obama won on eloquent verbage and he appeared to dominant in terms of the amount of time he spoke, but McCain made points on foreign policy. When McCain went into specifics of Europe and Lehrer turned to Obama, he truly looked nonplussed and said that he agreed with everything McCain said. McCain IMO was showing a warmer,more personal side in his presentation.
As far as any President being non-hawkish: unlikely. These individuals spend hours a day listening to generals, security briefing, intelligence reports, etc. The sense of being at constant war is overwhelming. And they have the nuclear launch codes. (A power which dulls the moral senses even if the new civic commentarian Archbishop Chaput can’t find it in his heart to support his fellow bishops on the moral failure of nuclear weapons-check out his wimpish responses to Peter Robinson on the NRO website).
Yes, do check out Archbishop Chaput at NRO-TV. And when you’re done keep in mind that no president can simply decide to avoid war on his own – especially when he telegraphs weakness, inconsistency, and self-doubt in troubled times.
Some things you can count on, others you can’t. At least Obama’s position on abortion is unambiguous.
What the rank and file who are giving the “win” in the debate to Obama are basing their judgment on is the contempt, masking genuine fear that McCain showed in refusing to look Obama in the face:
According to this scientist mentioned here:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/220226.php
…McCain gave away to the audience his impression of himself as a “low-ranking monkey” in comparison with Obama, the “higher-ranking monkey.”
Andrew Sullivan is exactly right; the “body language” has ALWAYS mattered in these somewhat farcical “Presidential debates”:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/why-obama-won-b.html#more
Compare McCain’s creepy, disdainful treatment of Obama last night with the gracelessness of Nixon vs. Kennedy in 1960, and you may be able to recognise the reason for the dramatic shift in polling numbers that Nate Silver is reporting:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/why-voters-thought-obama-won.html
The “Big Mo” is with Obama now; only a miracle can give McCain the Presidency.
dave, I have no reason to think this debate poll data varies much from others:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/27/debate.poll/index.html
And if you scroll way, way down you’ll see it’s skewed:
” The results may be favoring Obama simply because more Democrats than Republicans tuned in to the debate. Of the debate-watchers questioned in this poll, 41 percent of the respondents identified themselves as Democrats, 27 percent as Republicans and 30 percent as independents.
The best estimate of the number of Democrats in the voting age population as a whole indicates that the sample is roughly 5 to 7 percentage points more Democratic than the population as a whole. ”
Something to keep in mind when looking at the post-debate polling data.
Obama is the “higher-ranking monkey”? I suppose if a “scientist” said it, it must be true but…
Hey, this site isn’t hosted in Canada, is it? There could be trouble.
Wow! Finally the folks at Vox Nova wake-up and realize that Obama is not their dream anti-war candidate after all. European observers, by the way, have long noted this.
I have actually criticized Obama for this from the beginning, so I don’t know what you’re talking about.
The debate seems to have vindicated my opinion that Obama will be little different than McCain when it comes to issues of war and peace.
While I think Obama presented himself more hawkishly, and while I think Obama is certainly open to military actions that would be unjust, to say that there is “little difference” between the two remains an absurd claim. Obama is clear where he stands on the Iraq War. He is ambiguous when he talks about future “threats.” McCain is unambiguous about both.
The question is how much of that was for show, and how much represents his real beliefs.
Exactly. I tend to think last night was more of a show.
Digby:
The eye contact tactics were part of each candidates overall strategy. Here is an article re: debating*:
http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_590226.
* I loved McCain’s comment re: Obama not knowing the difference between tactics and strategy!
I just posted another comment that hasn’t appeared…is this in the spam filter again?
Were those commenter who had previously expressed concern over Mr. McCains perceived stance on torture mollified by his strong denunciation of torture during the debates? His stating that water-boarding was torture?
Michael,
“to say that there is “little difference” between the two remains an absurd claim. Obama is clear where he stands on the Iraq War. He is ambiguous when he talks about future “threats.” McCain is unambiguous about both.”
Obama wants to have troops in Iraq nearly as long as John McCain wants to. Obama thinks the war should be waged principally in Afghanistan. This is hardly what can be called a substantive difference, or a difference in perspective. Because of this, mine is not an “absurd claim”. I’m also not sure why you would take Obama’s ambiguity as a sign that he is less prone to the use of coercive force. Ambiguity is a good cover for any course of action, including a war-centric one. And it also leaves him open to do whatever he wants.
Exactly. I tend to think last night was more of a show.
Do you approve, then, of his dissembling? I’m sure you don’t, but why don’t you blame him for it? Or maybe you do?
If you’re anything like me, you’d want a total repudiation of “nation-building” mindset. More generally, I’d like the candidates to reject the foreign policy of global amelioration. McCain and Obama both share this understanding of foreign policy, and it is awful.
In terms of tone, the big news was not the use of first names but that the grumpy senior citizen was so filled with contempt for the younger man that he couldn’t even look at him once.
I think that Morning’s Minion may be right…
If interpreted in that light, what of Obama’s demeanor towards McCain?
jn
Obama wants to have troops in Iraq nearly as long as John McCain wants to.
I didn’t hear Obama say anything about 100 years. Did you?
Demeanor, tone, style . . . . As Tom Smith says:
If these were the Lincoln-Douglas debates, or even the Kennedy-Nixon ones, I’d wholeheartedly agree with you. However, we live in the era of the “sound-byte,” where the questions are so shallow, the format so contrived that the medium HAS become the message.
Also, I can tell you, as a sponsor and coach of forensics activities in high schools that even the National Forensics Association puts far too much weight on “body language” and “expression” (NOT “expressiveness”) and “tone of voice” than it used to–thus vastly dimishing the importance of logic and exposition. This is happening EVERYWHERE in a culture that is becoming far more visual and far less literate.
This is the culture in which McCain and Obama must operate–one in which analysis of gestures, tone, demeanour, etc. are as much of an obsession with the “chattering classes” as are “issues.” Beyond that, I would suggest that you read a little of the literary characterisations by the great late-19th and early 20th century novelists, such as Henry James or Marcel Proust. They, too, put a great deal of effort into analysing the grimaces, gestures, “demeanors” and vocal intonations of their characters, in order to depict those charaters’ values, fears, attitudes, etc.
However, I agree with you that it’s a grave pity for America that the CONTENT of these debates aren’t being analysed by the “chattering class” dispassionately and objectively. If they WERE doing that, both Obama and McCain would be FORCED to adhere to an exposition of policies.
“Also, I can tell you, as a sponsor and coach of forensics activities in high schools.”
Is spelling an important part of these activities ? If so, I hope another teacher is part of the team.
To criticize comments for their spelling is petty. When done only in cases of comments you disagree with, it is a lazy way of saying you disagree with the commenter’s ideas without having to go to the trouble to refute them.
Little Gal, to what spelling errors do you refer?
* I loved McCain’s comment re: Obama not knowing the difference between tactics and strategy!
The problem, of course, is that McCain was the one who didn’t know the difference.
Anyone who would vote for McCain after that debate is a fool of the first water.