« Be sure to register... Deadline? What deadline? DOH!!! | Main | Palling around with terrorists in S.C. »
Tuesday, 07 October 2008
What did you think about the Nashville debate?
Well, I'll go out on a limb and say something contrary to the "instant analysis" I just heard on PBS. I think McCain did better in this debate than Obama. I didn't feel that way about the first debate, in fact I was at times put off by McCain's condescending attitude toward his opponent in Mississippi, the repeated charge that Obama didn't "understand"...
But this time, I think he caught Obama, and the professional observers, off-balance. Obama obviously came out expecting McCain, running behind, to be aggressive, so he started counterpunching before McCain could come after him. But McCain, comfortable wih the town-hall format, focused more on the questions rather than scoring points.
At no point was this more in evidence than in response to the first two questions, when McCain responded directly, including offering a new proposal to buy up bad mortgages. He said nothing critical about his opponent at all at that point, concentrating on the questions. Obama came out swinging with the usual stuff about "eight years of failed policies" causing the current financial crisis, as though John McCain had been president the last eight years (as he SHOULD have been, I might add), rather than McCain's old rival, W. The really bizarre thing was the Obama kept doing the class warfare thing with accusing his opponent's party of caring only for Wall Street and not Main Street, but in order to do that, he had to completely ignore the proposal McCain kept repeating about buying troubled mortgages. It was weird, as though Obama had gone deaf and couldn't react to what was actually being said.
On the third question, McCain finally said something critical about his opponent. After that, things were more evenhanded, and I think both men did reasonably well, with some false notes (such as when McCain called Obama "that one," which contributed to the "frosty" tone described afterward on PBS).
At the very end, though, McCain again demonstrated his greater comfort with his surroundings. Obama simply didn't answer the question about "what don't you know?" As he was going on about his childhood, I remarked to my daughter that I knew how McCain SHOULD answer the question, but I doubted he would think of it. I was wrong. He answered along the lines of what I would have done in his shoes. He said the main thing he does not know is what the future holds, and suggested he believes he is ready to deal with what will come. That's a particularly appropriate answer for a guy who touts his experience, but is not guided by an ideology. McCain approaches issues pragmatically, depending on what comes down the pike, rather than according to an overall program or philosophy. He didn't develop the thought the way I would have, but in essence he got it right.
Now, do I think this reversed McCain's fortunes? No. But it sure made me think better of him than if he had done what so many had said he HAD to do, which was to attack Obama's character. And Obama, seeming to expect a fight, was thrown off-balance -- for him. As always, he was poised, but he was off-point more than usual.
But enough with that. What did YOU think?
Posted by Brad Warthen at 10:07 PM in 2008 Presidential, Barack Obama, Elections, John McCain, Spin Cycle, The Nation
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4ea353ef0105356b84d1970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What did you think about the Nashville debate?:
Comments
Let the love-fest continue.
Three incidents standout that undermine Brad's wishful thinking:
McCain's reference to Obama as "that one"; Talk about condescending! That reflects a serious problem with temperament and gives support for the "eratic" charge.
Obama counterpunching on who has the judgement to deal with international military affairs in reply to McCain's Teddy Roosevelt big stick philosophy; Obama points out it was McCain singing Bomb Iran and talking about annihalating N Korea. This is important because it contrasts McCain's reckless attitude with Obama coolness.
McCain talking about buying up bad mortgages AFTER this massive bailout - Hey Cak, your boy wants you to shell out another half trillion dollars!!
Posted by: Randy E | Oct 7, 2008 10:29:21 PM
McCain Won Hands Down
Posted by: GeraldD | Oct 7, 2008 11:03:35 PM
Randy, you pick out very minor points except McCain's statement about the home mortgages which is huge. The bailout/rescue and other fed efforts are very expensive but don't fix the root problem. There are tens of millions of americans still in homes they can't afford. These homes are the next wave of the financial crisis. If we don't fix the bad mortgages, this thing is far from over. I don't know if McCain's proposal would work, but we somehow must shore up existin mortgages and stop new bad mortgages from being orignated. If we don't, this thing is far from over.
What was Obama's position?
And as for Obama's coolness, is that what he was trying to say for 3 minutes when he completely dodged the question about going to Israel's aid if Iran attacked? He did the same thing on meet the press 4 months ago. Oh, and the "Obama Doctrine" was classic as well. Can someone explain that answer to me.
Obama's McCain is a deregulator argument is tired and shallow. Almost as bad as "8 years of failed policies". Does a "deregulator" propose rolling a publicly traded company under government control. I think not. He certainly is a deregulator by principle which works sometimes and other times does not. But he approached the financial crisis before it happened as a regulatory enforcer. Obama wrote a letter that no one has seen.
My favorite comment was Obama's stirring "rebuke" of McCains comment about raising taxes on companies. Obama claims he won't raise taxes on companies that make less than 250K. Well good lord, how many companies make that little and how many people do they employ. That's pathetic and increasing taxes on companies that make more than 250K would have a devastating impact on jobs. Nice policy in this environment.
As to McCain's restraint, you can look at his almost three decade record. An off the cuff comment that was clearly in jest (watch the video) means little. Obama is just talk.
Posted by: Jimmy | Oct 7, 2008 11:12:37 PM
That's pathetic and increasing taxes on companies that make more than 250K would have a devastating impact on jobs.. - Jimmy
Jimmy, think again: "He claims 23 million small-business owners would pay higher tax rates under Obama. He's wrong. The vast majority would see no change, and many would get a cut."
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html
Posted by: Randy E | Oct 7, 2008 11:37:31 PM
"minor points" Jimmy? The problematic temperament and eratic behavior of our possible president is minor? I guess McCain wouldn't be involved in any sensitive discussions with foreign leaders. Even Pat Buchanan believes the Obama rebuttal citing the Bomb Iran jingle and destroy North Korea was huge.
Jimmy, your conservative brethren are loving the half trillion dollar mortgage buy out!
GeraldD, McCain won? You are part of that 30% in the poll who concluded that. I guess you are also part of that 25% that thinks W is doing a good job.
Posted by: Randy E | Oct 7, 2008 11:46:26 PM
I thought Obama did better. McCain sounded annoyed and frustrated. It's sad that candidates say so little and just repeat it over and over again, but McCain made that worse because his tone was full of frustration. He reminded me of a pissed off teenager - my wife and I laughed that he sounded like Napoleon Dynamite - "But my lips hurt real bad!" McCain harped on his points while Obama played it cool.
Posted by: SC | Oct 8, 2008 12:19:11 AM
McCain's view of the world can be summed up by his statement (made twice) that "America is the greatest force for good in the history of the world."
I guess that means America is now more powerful than God, but let's leave that concept aside for a second.
The statement is not a basis on which to run a foreign policy. That's because it bespeaks an arrogance that says "Since we are THE force for good in the world, anything we do militarily in the world in justified." In other words, it becomes a rationalization for anything.
The truly greatest force for good in the world doesn't go around mindlessly, smugly, arrogantly repeating that statement. It says instead "We have usually tried to be a force for good in the world, have often succeeded, but often have not. Whether we have or have not been the greatest force for good is not as important as being the best citizen of the planet we can be from this point forward."
Also, some more questions for John McCain:
What country DOESN'T think it's a force for good?
What if a country thinks it's doing good but opposes the US course of action?
If America is this "greatest force for good," how come so many in the world today do not see it that way?
In the places where America IS admired (much of Africa, for example) is it because of our military actions or is it because of other factors? Could George Bush's one good legacy in world affairs be his increase in AIDS funding in Africa rather than the way he responded to the terrorist threat?
Even if you accept John McCain's statement, I feel that McCain's focus in that sentence is too wrapped up in the word "force."
Barack Obama's focus, by contrast, is on the word "good."
Posted by: Phillip | Oct 8, 2008 4:15:22 AM
Randy,
Yes, I believe your points are minor and no I won't think again. Some "fact check" sight doesn't matter when common sense and Obama's comment tell a much different tale. I don't know the number of small businesses but I represent enough in the columbia area to know that the vast majority make well above 250K a year. That is small business that almost certainly employs a small number of people. But the true impact of Obama's tax policies are the Google's, IBM's, AT&T's, Lexington Medical Center's, and other businesses that employ the vast majority of americans and that will deal with sudden decreases in profit the way every business does. Cutting jobs. Or at best, not hiring. This is common sense and is above you apparently.
So what happens in a struggling economy when the people who spend lots of money (those making above 250 who pay about 60% of the taxes in this country) and the companies that are the backbone of our economy (ever heard of the GDP or unemployment rate) see a marked increase in the taxes they pay? I can promise you they don't spend more and hire more. But that probably won't matter because Barack Obama wouldn't have voted for Iraq.
The inredibly subjective reasons he "won" the debate posed by those on this blog and in the media are fine. Each person must vote the reasons that matter to them. But the fact is, Obama is trying to win this election on the economy now and his answers suck.
Nobody wins these debates. McCain laid out how he (and the republicans) foresaw the problems the GSE's presented and tried to fix it by overegulating by proposing legislation. Kind of kills that "deregulator" always being bad. The Dems fought for the GSE's like they were their children. Obama wrote a letter.
Obama will play Robin Hood and overtax the wealthy and big businesses. I have never seen an argument that gives me any hope that it will do anything but drive us further into the economic abyss.
Bring on the subjective and contrived BS. But let's try to go with what they actually said or their record. That may be tough though.
Posted by: Jimmy | Oct 8, 2008 5:56:34 AM
AS a life long republican that has been voting straight republican for 30 years I have decided to stay home on election day.
The republican party no longer represents me, and to continue to support it is not a moral choice. Perhaps 4 years of Obama is what we need to reform the republican party.
Posted by: Chris | Oct 8, 2008 6:19:05 AM
This is a beauty contest.
McCain looks and sounds like history, a stiff old guy calling a black man "that one," playing a war hero card to which no one under the age of 50 can possibly relate (and as fellow POW Jack Van Loan told me, sorry, but there's little heroic about getting shot down and captured).
Obama lacks specificity, but he looks and sounds like the future, a positive one, a generational shift, youthful, unflappable, ostensibly thoughtful, clean, articulate, new, different.
People want the latest model, not a used one that's been wrecked a few times. The race is over.
Posted by: James D McCallister | Oct 8, 2008 6:24:53 AM
Nice race baiting there James. Good to see that has made it here from the idiots in the media on both sides. You just marginalized yourself and your comments. Again, like Obama, no facts. I do appplaud you for admitting that though.
And considering almost every major poll is within the margin of error, this race is far from over. Anyway, the polls have been dead wrong how times in a row now? Obama is looking strong, but is not over.
"and as fellow POW Jack Van Loan told me, sorry, but there's little heroic about getting shot down and captured".
Wow. Any POW is a hero, plain and simple. Can't speak to Jack's experience but we can see the hell McCain went through first hand. Will that make him a good President? No, but it can't hurt. Kind of like why all policeman get tazed and maced before they can carry the same. It helps to know what you're in for before you can wield that power.
Posted by: Jimmy | Oct 8, 2008 7:32:07 AM
Brad,
You apparently didn't hear the rest of the last question asked. You got the first part right ("what don't you know?"), but there was a second part: "and how will you learn it." You say that "[McCain] answered . . . the main thing he does not know is what the future holds, and suggested he believes he is ready to deal with what will come." That didn't answer the question any more than Obama's answer did.
Posted by: Jon | Oct 8, 2008 7:52:53 AM
McCain looked stiff and uncomfortable. The mortgage proposal had a hint of desparation about it. Given McCain's recent history of going off half-cocked this idea came across as more of a campaign ploy than a well vetted proposal. And it runs counter to McCain's campaign theme that he's fiscally responsible. It was a typical McCain moment where we really don't know what to believe. Talk about talking out of both sides of your mouth. But Obama didn't counterpunch well on that question. He probably was caught off guard.
But what really stood out was the breathtaking condescension throughout the debate on the part of McCain. Saying to Obama "that one" was really quite petty. Then he suggested to an African-American questioner that he had probably never heard of Fannie/Freddy. That came across as flagrantly elitist.
Frankly this was no contest. Obama was poised, calm, and in command of the facts. McCain looked stiff, old and not a man with the energy needed to guide us through the 21st century. He kept repeating his campaign mantra about how he reaches across the aisle to work with Democrats. Given his recent voting record that is in agreement with Bush 90+% of the time that claim seems disingenuous. At least he didn't call himself a maverick or claim he's not miss congeniality.
Obama's best moment was when he countered McCain's claim that he's reckless with his dialogue regarding Packistan when he pointed out McCain's bomb, bomb Iran "joke". Clearly Obama is the 'safe' choice now. Obama didn't come out with anything new. That was a good thing IMHO. Obama knows his stuff and he is obviously well qualified to lead this country. His overall excellent performance during this debate shored up his credentials as a leader.
Posted by: bud | Oct 8, 2008 7:53:57 AM
Jimmy, I consider the perseverance the POWs showed to be demonstrably heroic (and I've researched this extensively). Exploiting said experience for electoral gain? Meh, not so much.
And as for race baiting, how about fear baiting? "That One" = "the other."
Posted by: James D McCallister | Oct 8, 2008 8:13:51 AM
Obama came out swinging with the usual stuff about "eight years of failed policies" causing the current financial crisis, as though John McCain had been president the last eight years (as he SHOULD have been, I might add), rather than McCain's old rival, W.
-Brad
You miss the point on this. Obama is pointing out how McCain generally supports policies that deregulate the economy, agreeing with Bush most of the time. He doesn't have to be president to be wrong. That is illustrated with huge red flags by his association with Phil Gramm. Obama correctly makes that connection. And the voters seem to understand that as well. If anything Obama was too easy on McCain's economic policy history.
Posted by: bud | Oct 8, 2008 8:23:04 AM
The debate was boring.
The audience, supposed hand picked as "independents", where threatened with removal if they made any overt response to either candidate.
Tom Brokaw, who admitted after retiring from NBC News that he was a life-long Democrat, screened the questions down to a replay of the first debate, and removed any that could raise the ugly issue of Obama's poor judgement and character in so many close friendships with murderers, terrorists, radical Muslims, haters of Jews and Christians. McCain failed to raise that very important issue.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Oct 8, 2008 8:31:46 AM
"And as for race baiting, how about fear baiting? "That One" = "the other." "
I didn't say those things and I didn't say Obama was race baiting. You said it and you were race baiting.
Posted by: Jimmy | Oct 8, 2008 8:45:49 AM
Lee, it's interesting that you keep accussing (falsely) Obama of close associations with "haters of Jews". Apparently your gal Palin was in attendance while a guest preacher in her church in Wasila, on 2 separate occassions, suggested that we need more Christians to replace the corrupt Jewish CEOs on Wall Street. He also stated that Jews were largely responsible for being on the receiving end of terrorist activities in Isreal. Did Palin leave the anti-semetic tirade? NOOOOO. She stayed until the end.
Lee's rants do something important here. They illustrate just how little the McCain campaign has to offer the voters. They're reduced to fear tactics of the lowest order. Everyone recognizes Lee's nonsense for what it is. Sadly, McCain's campaign is starting to sound more like Lee every day.
Posted by: bud | Oct 8, 2008 8:54:37 AM
Pick one and defend them:
Jeremiah Wright - hater of whites and Jews
Obama's mentor and pastor for 20 years.
Father Hagee - hater of whites and Jews
Longtime supporter of Obama, and fundraiser.
Kahlid Monsour - hater of whites and Jews
Paid Obama's way through law school.
Robert Malley - denouncer of Israel.
Obama's official foreign policy advisor.
Obama's father - communist, hater of whites and Jews.
Frank Marshall Davis - communist, hater of whites and Jews.
Helped raise Obama.
Cornell West - socialist and hater of whites and Jews.
Obama believes and parrots his "Afro-centric Socialism".
Posted by: Lee Muller | Oct 8, 2008 9:08:24 AM
I listened to the first hour of the debate on the radio and thought Obama was clearly the winner (even though I don't agree with his policies and will not vote for him).
McCain came off as chippy, unfocused, and scripted. And if I heard him say "My friends" one more time, I probably would have driven off the road. Even on the radio, the "that one" comment stuck out as a sign of McCain's obvious contempt for Obama.
The other thing that struck me was that McCain kept talking about all the various things he had attempted to do as a Senator over 20+ years but he never talked about actually getting any of those things done. Do we really want a President who can't even convince his own party that he's right on an issue? And he invoked the names of Ted Kennedy, Tip O'Neill, and Joe Lieberman more than any conservative legislators. Maybe instead of being a "maverick", McCain is just a loose cannon.
Now that it is apparent that Obama will
win the election (perhaps in Clinton-Dole blowout proportions), I would suggest that true conservative voters send a message to the Republican party by either sitting this one out, voting for a third party candidate, or writing in "None of The Above". Your vote for McCain will do no good at this point. Unless you think Sarah Palin is the savior..
Posted by: Doug Ross | Oct 8, 2008 9:40:27 AM
The mortgage 'buy back' talk by McCain threw me from the very beginning. I didn't like the talk by Biden last week of allowing bankruptcy court to determine the principle that a borrower owes.
The question I have with this is how will it be applied? If two people bought houses on the same street for a similar inflated price, but the current 'value' of each has declined, will they both be eligible for re-evaluation if one is making the payments and the other is not? If the person who is making the payment on a house that they overpaid for, but could afford, should the government pay them the difference of the purchase price and the current 'value'? Should the government pay the difference to the person who bought an equivalent house but couldn't afford it? Should this only apply to homes bought as a primary residence? If the delinquent buyer's mortgage is renegotiated, and the 'value' of home return to their high points and they sell, who gets the profit? The responsible buyer will still not be able to sell the house without taking a loss. Is this fair? There are too many questions with this for it to be floated as a 'solution' by either party.
As usual, the 'debate' was full of empty talk and repetition and no good answers to hard questions. It seems that, at some point, all of the questions and comments that get made 'off the record' by surrogates should be presented directly to the candidate to be addressed. That will never happen though it seems.
Posted by: KJ | Oct 8, 2008 9:43:58 AM
Somebody needs to coach John McCain about that annoying "My Friends" comment. The condesending tone of it really grates after a couple of times. After the 10th time my brain simply refuses to acknowledge anything further McCain says. He could be brilliant but I'd never know it.
Posted by: bud | Oct 8, 2008 9:58:59 AM
Doug,
Clinton won only because of large 3rd party votes taking votes from the GOP candidates.
I agree that the GOP needs to be taught a lesson, but they seem to be unable to learn from their mistakes. They will just rationalize away the lost votes, because the dimwits who run the campaigns would otherwise have to admit they had no strategy, or the wrong strategy and couldn't execute a plan.
Right now, I am trying to communicate to Republicans and the McCain campaign at all levels that the Democrats would be extinct if the GOP was at all competent, and let them know who I am supporting, and why, and who I am not, and why not.
However the election comes out, non-Republican conservatives and libertarians need to take over the GOP, just as the socialists and communists have taken over the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Oct 8, 2008 10:12:23 AM
Well, it's good to see everybody feels the same way coming out of the debate as going into the debate. Duh.
I think James McCallister referring to Barack Obama as "clean" and "articulate" is about the most tragically funny revelation of racism since the "Was anybody hurt?" moment in Huckleberry Finn.
Some people's feet (most liberals', in fact) fit marvelously well into their mouths.
Posted by: p.m. | Oct 8, 2008 10:49:05 AM
Obama supporters can't even come clean and articulate why they really support Obama: the money they expect to get, taxed from someone else.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Oct 8, 2008 10:52:17 AM
