It was Obama’s until he opened the door to the “meeting without preconditions” debate: while Obama’s position is defensible, it’s too nuanced for debate airtime… Primary violation of Rove’s Law. Obama needed to shout McCain down and get his points in: he didn’t. Obama’s working his way back up now, but that was a bad exchange.
Update: Tie Goes to Obama
After a debate that I, personally, would call a tie, I’m surprised to see that the opinion polls are giving it to Obama. In the era of the 24-hour news cycle, it’s more important to note who the media views as the winner than it is to see how the candidates actually perform… so this is a good sign.
A couple of notes. Obama clearly won questions on the economy. More importantly, he got to directly rebut McCain’s old lie about the effects of the Obama tax plan on the middle class: in unequivocal terms, Obama spelled out how his plan benefits middle America. No attack ad will be able to claim that turf again.
He was significantly weaker on foreign policy, but foreign policy, of course, is traditional Republican turf. If McCain was looking to obliterate Obama on foreign policy, he did not succeed. On account of the expectations game, then, McCain does lose.
Two comments on demeanor: McCain was downright odd, vacillating between contempt, anger, sneering laughter, and some legitimately strange expressions (what was that face?). Obama, on the other hand, was too frequently conciliatory. At various times, Obama agreed with McCain on some fairly basic valence issues (earmarks are bad, responsibility is good) and, in truly contemptible but predictable manner, the McCain camp has tried to characterize Obama’s polite & statesmanlike endorsement of basic, abstract principles of good governance as surrender. For shame – but predictable shame. McCain, the bipartisan “maverick,” mocking bipartisanship. Obama should know by now that the McCain camp will stoop this low, and he should avoid giving them the opportunity
How cool is it, though, that the McCain camp is trying to ride Obama’s coattails to victory!?
Also, at some points of disagreement, Obama let McCain shout him down, which is (1) bad debate and (2) not the image he needs to project. When McCain got hold of a point, he wouldn’t let anyone – moderator or Obama – stand in the way. Obama played by the rules, and looked like the weaker (albeit more honorable) party. That was good form but bad debate.
That said, the polls show what the polls show. At this point in the cycle (as tmtoulouse points out below the line), tie goes to Obama.
And, while we debate the debate, lurking in the background is the fact that McCain’s campaign is in shambles. Conservatives are deserting Palin in droves, disappointed with her truly shocking ineptitude and inability to field even basic questions. And conservatives are referring to McCain’s endorsement of the bailout as “the last straw.” All the goodwill McCain reaped by picking Palin is draining away. He needed a game-changer, and this was not it.
Watch the debate below the line, on an embedded video from CNN. Comments, as always, are welcome!
Update #2: see our article on McCain’s newest TV ad, “McCain is Right,” here.
Embedded video from <a href=”http://www.cnn.com/video” mce_href=”http://www.cnn.com/video”>CNN Video</a>
The SDI issue was ridiculous: McCain repeating the old lie.
Posted by Ames | September 26, 2008, 10:32 pmAll in all I think it was basically a wash. Not a “wash” in the sense that they both did great or they both did bad. They both did “ok”, I don’t see this having much of an effect. We are back to external issues defining the momentum and the polls.
Posted by Tmtoulouse | September 26, 2008, 10:46 pmMcCain’s bringing up SDI *was* really surreal. Was he actually making the point that Obama was wrong for requiring missile defense functionality, since Reagan didn’t have that criterion? That’s what it sounded like.
Posted by thoughtcounts Z | September 26, 2008, 11:46 pmIf perception is really heading towards Obama that is huge. Unless Palin manages a miracle we are looking at the second week October polls being strongly towards Obama. At which point I will start to get excited…but not yet…not yet.
Posted by Tmtoulouse | September 26, 2008, 11:57 pmOne last point for tonight. I thought the format of the debate was one of the best I have seen in my life time. The moderate was not a limiting factor. Cheers to that.
Posted by Tmtoulouse | September 27, 2008, 12:43 amReally? I didn’t think the moderator was good at all!
Posted by Ames | September 27, 2008, 1:02 amTo me the moderator might as well not have been there, that is ideal in my book.
Posted by Tmtoulouse | September 27, 2008, 1:28 amI rather liked the moderator, particularly when he kept on asking “Yes, but what of your programs would you cut due to our poor economy?”, though I think he could have pressed it even further.
Also, debates + drinking games = win.
Posted by Anzezzle | September 27, 2008, 2:02 amYes, I am currently commenting rather drunk because of the drinking games involving this debate. “Main street” and “Next question” really did a number on me.
Posted by Tmtoulouse | September 27, 2008, 2:15 amI agree with you on that I initially thought McCain did better. So did someone I was watching with it who’s hired by the Obama campaign. We were pleasantly surprised that the polling went to Obama.
I had expected that I would naturally think Obama won because I agree with his ideas and stances, but that wasn’t the case. Which made me nervous while watching.
I did start getting angry at that smug grin on McCain’s face the whole time.
And I did expect Obama to call McCain out more for his claims. I saw the opportunity several times. For example, when McCain was berating Obama for his Georgia response, why not bring up that days after McCain’s response he backed off the Russia attack and said they should wait to see who was really to blame. And more challenges on McCain’s record. But maybe that wasn’t where Obama wanted to go.
Oh and I wanted Barack/McCain bracelet show down.
Posted by Oneiroi | September 27, 2008, 9:06 amAmes – you should re-read the article you cited you say calls McCain’s endoresement ‘the last straw’. It doesn’t say that anywhere in the article. The only reference it makes to McCain is that Boehner was ticked because the Dems tried to push the bill through before McCain got there.
The Dems have more than enough votes to pass their plan now. So why aren’t they doing it? The answer is pretty clear: they want Republicans to sign on as well so if the ship goes down, they all go down together.
This so-called ‘revolt’ is really good news. Conservatives are finally standing up for conservative principles and hopefully the American people are going to be reminded that this was NOT a failure of the free market. this was a failure of liberal ideas on socialized economics.
McCain really disappointed me in the economy discussion because he failed to take the opportunity to frame the difference between liberal and conservative economic policy. So in lieu of him fighting the good fight, Obama gets the point, even though he completely dodged most of the questions during that period.
As for the rest, McCain has more experience and he was more than willing to mention it. On the question of attacking in Pakistan when need be, point to Obama. McCain did a pretty good job of pointing out that Obama was mentally absent during the georgian conflict.
Overall I found the whole debate painful to watch and I found plenty of fault with both of them. Obama could have been crucified on the economic stuff with someone like Romney up there…but McCain let him slip. On foreign policy they were both all over the place and I considered turning it off a couple of times.
Let’s hope the Palin / Biden debate is at least more fun to watch.
Posted by Progressive Conservative | September 27, 2008, 10:58 amExcept that the crisis was caused directly by a failure of the free market, it was deregulation that caused this. More oversight and more regulation would have prevented it.
Posted by Tmtoulouse | September 27, 2008, 12:58 pmF & F are the two most regulated companies in the country. If regulation is the answer…then why did they fail? And if regulation is the answer then why did Democrats oppose two attempts at more regulation for them, once in 2003 and once in 2005?
Posted by Progressive Conservative | September 27, 2008, 2:51 pm