After the last couple of days, McCain badly needed to win Friday's debate. My immediate feeling was that he didn't even manage a draw.
Obama was on fine form. He did not meander. His responses were calm and focused. He never looked rattled. He seemed comfortable with the issues and unthreatened by his opponent--sufficiently unthreatened to be generous to McCain now and then, an effective Clintonian (Bill) touch. McCain was prickly, rarely looking in Obama's direction, repeatedly accusing him of failing to understand the issues--a difficult charge to make stick with Obama looking so assured. McCain's aggression seemed to me at times to betray a lack of confidence. He had his moments; still, I thought it was a comfortable win on points for Obama.
Now and then I found myself thinking, "Remind me, what is it that they disagree about?" Health care, for sure, but that subject as usual came and went very quickly. Taxes? Again, yes, though both are pitching themselves as tax-cutters. Spending? Harder to say. McCain has his hatchet, Obama his scalpel: they both claim to be fiscal conservatives, intent on getting value for money. Who knows what that would mean in practice? McCain as always tried to make a mountain out of the earmarks molehill--saying it was emblematic of a wider culture of fiscal abuse--but I don't know if that was very successful. He did score a hit on Obama's support for the energy bill, but how many people watching know enough about that pork-laden legislation for the point to have registered?
As ever it was clear that they are guided by different ideologies. McCain is relatively pro-business, pro-market; Obama, despite the intellect and the pragmatic mindset, shows a wide streak of anti-business populism. But the debate did not really get at the practical implications. Questioned about the bail-out, for instance, they were unwilling to get into the details of their differences, if any. I'm sure Obama scores points with his simplistic "blame it all on deregulation", and McCain's pro-business prejudices are a handicap right now. But when the financial regulatory system comes to be made over, it will be a question of getting the quality of regulation right, not the quantity.
Turning to foreign policy, both men seemed intent on exaggerating what in practice might be rather slight differences. McCain still refuses to admit that the Iraq war was a mistake; Obama still refuses to admit that he was wrong about the surge. But that is the past. Looking ahead, McCain wants to wind US forces in Iraq down as soon as circumstances allow; Obama wants a timetable of sorts, but is not promising to get troops out by a certain date regardless. Both want to pour more forces into Afghanistan. Are their positions really so far apart? The long debate about meeting enemies "without preconditions" seemed to me entirely about semantics rather than the nuts and bolts of practical diplomacy. Either administration would make overtures to Iran or North Korea if it thought it might get results; neither would fly the president in for a chat without having a good idea in advance what the outcome would be. Dealing with Russia? Both men want Georgia and Ukraine in NATO.
Their characters and temperaments are very different, of course, but we already knew that. McCain goes by instinct and (yes) experience, Obama more by intellect and calculation. Ideally, one would have all of the above. Forced to choose, I prefer the latter, but can see there are pros and cons on both sides.
I thought the debate moved off the financial crisis too quickly,
though it was not for want of effort by Jim Lehrer, who I thought did a
superb job as moderator--relaxed, funny, courteous, self-effacing. (So
it can be done.) I wanted to applaud as he cheerfully kept pressing his
question about which aspects of their plans would have to change in
order to pay for the bailout. McCain talked about a spending freeze
("it should be considered"). Obama acknowledged that some of his
proposals might have to wait, but would not say which (and then listed
all the main ones as so important they should go ahead regardless).
Neither candidate, it seems, has given thought to the fiscal
implications of the bailout. Perhaps this is a good thing. If either
were to do that, they might wonder if they really want to win.
Mostly agree with your assessment, but not on foreign policy. Obama is deeply wary of foreign adventures and entanglements: aka "the mindset" that got us into Iraq. For McCain, war is all about winning -- he's wary of wars he thinks we can't win, but ready and willing to go to war anywhere, anytime. (Remember "We are all Georgians now?")
Obama's greatest weakness as a candidate, besides an odd name and unusual skin color, is his humorlessness. But McCain can't take advantage of that, because his sense of humor is more scary than genial (what The Onion calls his "creepy grin").
Excellent assessment; it's just where I was. (Perhaps because it's actually descriptive rather than spin.)
I would say it was closer to a draw, if only because neither stood in front of the other on their areas of advantage. Strategically, of course, this could be devastating for McCain in the long run, while containing the bally-hoo'd McCain foreign policy advantage is in pracice a great coup for Obama.
One very key point is made by Ezra Klein: whatever the atmospherics of the evening, Obama retains the huge advantage of holding the better position (politically but I would argue substantively also) on nearly every issue. Presentation takes care of itself to a degree in that circumstance.
If McCain had been able to look at his opponent and refrain from being such a jerk, he might have had the debate at a draw. As it is, I think Obama came out very slightly ahead because he knew what he was talking about on all the subjects and he came across as someone willing to find common ground with his opponent. McCain, wouldn't even look at his opponent and kept saying that "he didn't understand" which was contradicted by the fact that his opponent clearly did understand and was able to refute McCain's talking points. By not looking at Obama, McCain showed that he would make a miserable statesman. Does he expect that everyone he meets as president is going to be friendly to the US? As an American, I'm looking forward to the next president restoring our image in the world and it looks like that's what an Obama presidency would do. McCain might very well end up being Bush all over again.
I get the impression that McCain has joined Phil Gramm's nation of whiners. Obama thrashed him on the economy, which is the key issue, and got a good solid draw on foreign policy. Style-wise, no contest: McCain came across as an unhappy, petulant and ungracious prick. Obama seemed calm, reasonable and even gracious, in a word, presidential.
Great assessment. Sort of similar to what I posted last night as well. I thought Obama could have done a better job of drawing out the "you supported it in the first place" as his answer to McCain's surge defeatism.
Oh, and your closing line is depressing, true, and hilarious (in that dark, knowing kind of way).
Very fair assessment, but I take issue with this:
Here Mr. Crook is looking at paper policies rather than visceral approach. McCain is not inclined to negotiate; his basic mode of action is coercive. The whole thrust of his policy is to try to cut Russia and China out of world decision-making at a time of waning U.S. influence; his approach to smaller menaces is to cast them as Hitlers to his own Churchill; his reflex is "bomb, bomb." Obama's reflex is to build coalitions and negotiate effectively. Whether this might translate into Carteresque indecisiveness remains to be seen. But the difference is real, and huge.
I'm with Asp in disagreeing with with your analysis on the topic of Russia.
Obama said that when Russia is wrong, we've got to make it clear what we think. But then he went on to identify some times when he thinks we must work with Russia - loose nukes and Iran, i believe. Very much a 'realist' posture - no wonder he was citing Kissinger.
By contrast, recall McCain's line about Putin, "I look into his eyes and I see three letters - K G B". This is of a piece with McCain's statement about wanting to throw Russia out fo the G-8.
It seems that McCain has identified Russia as a country he simply won't work with.
Rod - of course Obama has to be a realist on Russia. If he walks like he talks on Pakistan, we're going to need Russian support to continue any large effort in Afghanistan.
I am an Obama supporter, but I really would like to see him pinned down on how he plans to proceed on Pakistan, and I'm sort of disappointed this debate didn't do it. I also thought that framing budgetary sacrifices in terms of spending was going a bit too easy on McCain - what about sacrificing tax cuts as well?
Overall I agree with Mr. Crook's assessment though. McCain wasn't as disastrous as the rest of his campaign has been in recent days, but he lost with independents and did not do anywhere near enough to reclaim the ground he's lost.
Clive,
Is it true you have three testicles?
McCain's rudeness, combined with his drama-queen tendencies before the debate, can't have done him any favors with undecided voters. I was profoundly disturbed by his Iraq fervor; and I'm unable to reconcile it with the my shame that we ever invaded Iraq. His best debate moment didn't jibe with my understanding of the real world. A subtle loss of trust on top of a growing feeling he's unstable leads to assessment of a McCain loss.
I expected more from Obama. I expected more eloquence, more oratory. But in retrospect, for undecided voters, that's probably a good thing. I kept thinking of Palin's hands as she said "talk, talk, talk," in that derogatory way. Had that Obama shown up, it would have been a problem. I wanted Obama to attack more, but he didn't. Had an angry black man shown up, it would have been a problem. Instead, President Obama showed up. Someone who cares about my middle-class life. I'm only beginning to understand how much skill that took. Obama won, hands down.
"Obama still refuses to admit that he was wrong about the surge."
Oh please. Did you miss his interview on O'Reilly where he admitted just that? Actually, I think he was wrong to go as far as he did in agreeing with the claim that the surge has worked--because IT HASN'T. Juan Cole has noted numerous times that the reduction in violence in Bagdhad was on its way to being a fait accompli by the time the surge began due to ethnic cleansing of Sunni neighborhoods: "the violence fell in Baghdad because the Sunnis were massacred or chased to Syria, leaving few mixed neighborhoods, not because of 'take, clear, hold' (which is in fact a tactic, not a strategy). Satellite pictures show Sunni Baghdad dark now."
(www.juancole.com). As for other parts of the country, everyone knows by now that the so-called Anbar Awakening was already underway in 2006, months before the surge was proposed.
In addition, if a successful "surge" is to be measured against its originally stated goals (to allow breathing space for a political solution), what, exactly, has been gained? It's been a failure. No political solution in sight, no "victory" anywhere.
Remember, many people only know Obama from speeches and rallies on TV, and the narrative that he's a celebrity, an empty suit, etc. We know different, but we're not typical voters.
Obama didn't need to win - he just needed to overturn those prejudices against him. Maybe the next two will play differently, but here he only needed to not lose his stack of chips, because most people figured that he'd be an easy mark for McCain - the elder statesman, the military guy, the foreign policy guy. Obama mostly just needed to stand his ground and if he could do that, he'd 'win' relative to what people knew of him. He did exactly that. This wasn't an all-in kind of debate for him.
For McCain, I think he needed to destroy Obama on this, and he just wasn't able to do it. The town hall will be fun to watch. McCain loves those things, but they tend to center around 'back home' issues, which really aren't his suit.
I wanted to add...
"The long debate about meeting enemies "without preconditions" seemed to me entirely about semantics rather than the nuts and bolts of practical diplomacy."
But I think it's an asymmetrical debate. One class of Republicans really seem to care about this issue and just do not want the U.S. to talk to states like Iran *at all* - so Obama drawing McCain toward him hurts McCain with them. I don't think many Democrats care about these distinctions all that much. Yes, most feel that we should engage with Iran, but I don't think they care that much about whether it's high or low level or conditions or whatever. Just get something done that doesn't involve people dying, please.
Oh, and where did that 'League of Nations, er, Democracies' come from? For a guy from the party that generally despises the U.N. for blunting U.S. independence, that suggestion was absolutely bizarre.
Obama showed us how as President he could listen to someone who held differing opinions--even someone who treated him disrespectfully--and politely find common ground by acknowledging the aspects of their comments he agreed with ("John was right about that..."), while still putting forward his own views with confidence and clarity. That is the temperament of a President, and those skills are necessary to reach good decisions, inviting all viewpoints, with a willingness to hear what others have to say.
When McCain stumbled pronouncing Ahmadinejad's name, rather than laugh or sneer, Obama graciously offered that yes, it was a hard name to pronounce. This is common decency, and hard to muster in the face of such extreme competition, and under the stress of such a public battle. But Obama has the inner confidence to be able to extend a compassionate hand to even his opponent. McCain, by contrast, was profane (muttering "horseshit" at one point as Obama spoke), snide, and condescending, and clearly uncomfortable looking Obama in the eye.
For me, I want a highly functional President, who is emotionally mature, and not an erratic shoot-from-the-hip ideologue, who demeans opinions he does not agree with. We've seen where that kind of governing style has gotten us.
The best news for McCain is that the debate got the news away from his quixotic behavior of the past week and erased the meme "has McCain lost his mind??"
The bad news is that his overall campaign strategy failed. He highlighted his theme that "Obama just doesn't understand" over and over again, but voters didn't buy it because Obama is far too intelligent for that to work.
Since July, McCain has been trying to portray Obama as an effete, glamorous pretty boy who is in over his head in Presidential politics. Ironically, he chose a running mate who fits that description (but female) to a tee. What he doesn't realize is that while Obama has a shorter resume than him in the Senate, Obama masterminded one of the biggest upsets in US Presidential Primary history. Not only did defeating Clinton prove that Obama is bright enough to run the government, it also honed Obama's campaigning skilss.
McCain needed to disqualify Obama. Instead, Obama bested him, if only slightly. McCain displayed an unlikeable tone of disdain for Obama, while Obama was respectful even when disagree with McCain. I think McCain hurt his image with his contemptuous attitude and at the very least, it was a lost opportunity to make up ground he desperately needs in the polls.
I looked Putin in the eye and I saw three letters, K G B.
I looked Obama in the... oh wait.
I know it is different in some Eastern cultures ... but in Western Civilization, the old adage was best expressed by the English-born Graham Nash:
I don't think it's fair to call Obama "anti-business." At this point in time, I might be fair to call him (and most Democrats) an anti-financial industry populist, but why must we conflate the finance/investment industry with business? If anything, McCain is anti-business because his tax codes favor investment, not work, wealth, not labor. Trickle-down/supply-side economics is ultimately bad for most businesses because it so strongly favors an intense concentration of capital. Is there really any doubt that a truly pro-business position in the US now includes universal health care, a more progressive tax code, heavy investment in infrastructure, and bringing home a bunch of highly productive young workers from a stupid war?
Having watched the videos about The Real McCain, makes it more clear when John McCain is saying whatever suits the moment and, during the debate he appeared to be making up his mind on the fly and to make himself seem more in line with what Obama was expressing so adamantly and informatively.
Even those who have not yet seen the video http://therealmccain.com to see him "flip-flop" his stance about major issues within minutes or moments, must have felt uncomfortable when his answer to, 'Are you going to vote for the plan?' was "I hope so. Sure." But even better was near the end when McCain floated the random idea on national TV, during a debate, "How about a spending freeze?" Uh yeah, that's the ticket!
As Obama continues to be ever more informed, eloquent, and direct, it's getting to be more fun watching the Loose Cannon spout out his maverickisms, and doubly fun to see Palin try to follow in his footsteps.
"Listen," they say, like they're gonna' sum it all up--but all you hear is static.
Clive, I do not understand your conclusion that any belief that certain processes are better off regulated than left entirely to the market must be held in spite of, rather than because of, intellectual capacity or pragmatism. On the contrary, if you don't think the evidence of the need for certain regulations (particularly in banking and finance) is utterly obvious and irrefutable at this very moment, I have to wonder which planet you're writing us from.
Is it "anti-business populism" or just a recognition of the need for reasonable regulations? I believe business needs to be regulated--we don't want a return to the 1920's or 1900's