It dragged. Obama and McCain both concentrated on talking-points that are, by now, tiringly familiar. And the format encouraged them. Neither man was ever asked to develop or elaborate. Moderator Tom Brokaw's chief concern was time-keeping, as if covering the ground and squeezing in a couple of extra lame questions from the audience was more important than subjecting any of the answers to examination. He might as well have said: "Please state your position on the economic crisis. Thank you. Please state your position on Pakistan. Thank you." At least Jim Lehrer tried to get them talking to each other in their first debate. Brokaw actually seemed keen to prevent it: pressure of time.
Though both candidates spent a while (and it felt like longer) on the economic emergency, I didn't feel that either's comments advanced the discussion, or seemed equal to the gravity of the situation. Almost the first words out of McCain's mouth were "energy independence"; almost the first words out of Obama's were "blame deregulation". We know, we know. Neither gave much indication that the crisis was leading them to think things through afresh; one wonders what it would take to do that. (Correction: both seemed keen to make Warren Buffett Treasury Secretary. He's too smart to take the job.)
Neither helped viewers to understand the rescue package or how it might be improved; neither conveyed much sense of understanding it themselves. Perhaps McCain was on to something with his idea about doing more to prevent mortgage foreclosures. (The idea is not new, but the emphasis was.) He said so little about what this might mean in practical terms, though, that I'm guessing that the idea just drifted past most viewers.
The most lively clash was, again, one we have seen before. McCain attacked Obama for his rashness in saying he would attack inside Pakistan to get bin Laden if the Pakistani government was "unwilling or unable". Obama reaffirmed the position, noting how odd it is for McCain to chastise him for such undiplomatic talk--as though "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" McCain was more given to gentle persuasion than he was. (a) Most Americans support Obama on this, and are right to. (b) Are we seriously asked to believe that McCain would not also go after bin Laden if the target presented himself? McCain wants to make his charge of "inexperience" stick. This is not the way. He loses this exchange every time he initiates it.
Obama as always was calm, collected, reassuringly intelligent, and vague. McCain seemed less confident intellectually, and a bit more given to bluster in compensation; he also looked old. What else is new? Neither seemed to me to score a decisive hit or make a big mistake. Few if any voters will have switched allegiance--which makes it Obama's night, given his recently widened lead in the polls. McCain needed a clear win. He got a draw, at best.
McCain's chances are tanking along with the Asian equity markets as we speak. The upsetting thing is that it may not matter - the crisis we're entering, which may last years, may prevent Obama from reaching his potential as a president unless he gets a second term. One can only hope things have turned around sufficiently by 2012 to allow for this. And that voters cut him some slack on what he's able to accomplish in the first 3 years or so of his presidency, because all bets are off now.
By the way Clive --you approve posts personally? A little defensive, aren't we?
Well it's well earned defensiveness.
Clive,
Is it true you have three testicles?
Mark,
I was hoping that you might have given up by now, but since you are insistent, I will answer you in the hope that you will stop asking.
No, I do not have three testicles. I do have one testicle which is more than twice the size of the other.
This gives the impression of three. This is not something that is common knowledge, and unless you went to university with me, I really do not know how you have found this out.
I will leave this message up for a few hours and then will consider this matter closed.
Clive
Analysis from political commentators needs to acting like everything the candidates say is "tiringly familiar". Why in the world should they be changing now. If they offered something unfamiliar, wouldn't you wonder why they were throwing something in out of left field at this late date?
Look at what McCain did last night... as ever, he tried to "make news" by dropping in an entirely new proposal. It didn't work... it felt in appropriate and uncomfortable. It was the wrong forum.
More importantly, I'd imagine that there are plenty of folks who haven't hung on every word these guys have been saying for the past year.
But agreed about Brokaw...He must have been browbeaten beforehand about keeping the debate within the rules... the listeners' questions were OK; his were awful. With the rules, though, the debate might as well have been moderated by some sort of DebateTron 2100 Robo Host.
I'm with you Clive, I was hoping the Mark would let the matter drop. I find the insistence on requiring the answer to such a question rude in the extreme, even for a blog.
@1: I don't want Mr. Obama to "reach his full potential as president"; and I do not think that this waste of potential is a significant contributor to the undesirability of a long global recession.
Wearisome indeed. I think the air got sucked out of the studio. Brokaw reminded me of Dennis McQuaid as the would-be hijacker of Kevin Spacey and Judy Davis in "The Ref," vainly trying to get their attention while they tear into one another in the front seat ("Jesus Christ, I hijacked my parents").
It's all too clear what we can expect from the third and, mercifully, last of these, unless McCain has an on-air meltdown: more of the same. Obama is playing it just right, avoiding mistakes and protecting his lead (no one but the naive expects these exercises to be genuinely substantial exchanges), and the visuals, as we now call them, are entirely on his side. McCain looked at times as though he needed to be pointed in the right direction. Old, old, old. The contrast was almost cruel to the eye.
"Neither seemed to me to score a decisive hit or make a big mistake. Few if any voters will have switched allegiance..."
I think in a few days we're going to find this is not the case, that in fact among indeps/undecideds BO creamed McCain and the race is over. I'm a repub, and I think JM defined cowardice last night -- his ads and his running mate have been warning me relentlessly that BO is a terrorist, a traitor, etc, yet John stood 10 feet away from him for 90 minutes last nite and didn't say a word about it.
I find that gutless in the extreme and it tells me that John himself either doesn't believe the info his own campaign is promoting, or that he's ashamed of himself for participating in this garbage. Either way, not very leaderly.
After seeing McCain and Obama head to head two times now a picture is becoming clear.
Want to know why McCain has adopted Clint Eastwood’s ‘man of few words’, anti-diplomacy policy of “bomb first and ask questions later?” It’s partly because McCain doesn’t present himself well---not in a manner befitting an American President--and he knows it.
Imagine yourself a foreign leader who is called upon by Barack Obama or John McCain. In Obama’s case, you may not agree with what the man has to say, but at least he comes across as befits a dignitary of his stature. Calm, mature, self-assured, not easily rattled.
In the case of John McCain, you find yourself asking yourself, “Who IS this clown?”.
Recognition of this reality, consciously or not, is why Obama keeps winning these debates so decisively in the public’s eye despite not doing so in the view of many so-called “experts”.
The gaffe of thecampaign was mcCain's "That one." In a dull affair, it is the only moment that will be remembered, and it did McCain no credit, however it is interpreted.
Clive,
I'm a little disappointed by your analysis. This was hardly a dull, pointless affair as you characterize it. There were several interesting exchanges that said a lot about where these men and their campaigns - and the country - are heading.
* Each took a frighteningly harsh tone on Russian relations with McCain the more aggressive and abrasive. New cold war? Hot one? Boy we need those kind of problems right now.
* John McCain offered to buy up all those failed mortgages and refinance so people can stay in their homes. I'm no economist but I'd say that sounds a wee-bit expensive. Is McCain suggesting we dump another trillion or so dollars (paid with debt, I'm sure) on this crisis?
* The Pakistan-Afghanistan exchange had an interesting moment when McCain cited how actions by terrorists in Afghanistan forced us to take military action there. Oh, you mean September 11th? Is that what 9-11 is now - the moment we had to send troops to Afghanistan? I seem to remember it being a far bigger deal than that. Seven years, all of those dead Americans, all of that money down the drain and its like September 11th is an after-thought. Nice work, Bush.
"Neither seemed to me to score a decisive hit or make a big mistake. Few if any voters will have switched allegiance..."
True, voters who have their minds set will not have switched allegiances after last nights debate. Voting for McCain though is not getting any easier. If the McCain campaign sees its best chance in attacking Obama's character, McCain must exemplefy honor, patriotism, good judgement, morality, likability. In this regard, he was at his worst last night (angry, dismissive, bitter, undiplomatic). Obama was, as several, commenters have noted, calm and mature.
I actually think it's a bit much to expect incisive financial analysis rom candidates on essentially a brand-new, developing issue in real time. Campaigning is a full-throttle enterprise. You pick a message (or in McCain's case a new, contradictory message each day) and go with it. I actually think it would be rash and irresponsible for either of these ment to go out and pretend with any confidence that they can either explain the crisis adequately or say how it will affect priorities three months down the road in two-minute snippets. I actually appreciate the uber-basic, vague, and patient explanation offered last night by Obama to "Oliver." (Oliver being the young African-American man who asked how the crisis really was affecting him and was roundly lectured by McCain to care more about the older, white man who asked the same basic question but geared toward retirees.)
There is simply nobody who can confidently provide a satisfactory account of the causes and consequences of the crisis to the broad audience that listens to a presidential debate in terms that are at the same time adequate and understandable. And by nobody, I don't just mean the candidates. I mean nobody. Those who understand it well enough to get it right are not able to boil it down to lay language; professional communicators who are sophisticated enough to grasp it know that such boiling is impossible. I appreciate that the candidates don't blithely claim to be able to bridge the gap.
Steven Pearlstein laments today in the Post that they aren't outlining visions for a new-functioning capitalism at these debates. I'm sorry, the guy is nuts. At a debate with Brokaw breathing down your neck for time and peremptorily declaring your every other proposal an outright lie because the bailout just blew the budget to hell? And he wants visions of a new capitalism? Get real. We have an actual president today; it's not the candidates' fault he has destroyed his authority. Wait until January -- we'll hear where things really stand then. And there's no shame in it for either candidate.