Like Dexy’s Midnight Runners, John McCain started off tonight’s debate strong, and utterly failed to follow through. This was, without a doubt, his best debate performance, and Barack Obama’s worst: right off the bat, by CNN’s “instapoll” indicators and simple gut reaction, McCain pummeled Obama. In the face of an aggressive assault, the latter quickly lost steam, interspersing more “umms,” “ahhs,” and awkward pauses in his replies than normal, and generally projecting defeat. Topped with McCain’s zinger of the night – “I am not President Bush; if you want to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago” – and despite Obama’s skillful reply to the same, if the debate had ended there, it would have been a resounding victory for John McCain. Maybe not a game-changer, but a desperately needed injection of… *ahem*… hope into a flagging campaign.
Lucky for America, the candidates went on. McCain got his chance to stick the Ayers connection to Obama, Obama deftly parried, McCain lied to keep the issue alive, and then something amazing happened. Accused of running a negative campaign, John McCain, the persecutor, tried to play the persecuted. Visibly breaking character, he seethed about Congressman John Lewis’ justifiably race-tinged attack on the new, racist Republican base, and suggested – falsely – that Obama had not condemned the nastier portion of Lewis’ allegations. Obama’s final reply on the issue was weak: but the exchange had visibly thrown McCain off-message. The CNN dials went down. For the rest of the debate, he was visibly angry, an emotion that chose to manifest itself in eye rolls -
- catty insults reminiscent of his abysmal showing at the second debate, and backhanded slaps about how Obama’s “eloquence” minced words, and masked a “radical” agenda. Image matters, and because he allowed anger to get the better of his control of his perception, McCain’s performance slipped and never fully recovered. Obama’s, instead, remained consistently respectful. He refused to attack Sarah Palin, repeatedly motioned the moderator to give McCain time to finish his answers, and concluded with a very moderate and “presidential” statement of the abortion issue. This was well taken: as Jeff Toobin pointed out on CNN, most swing voters are moderately pro-choice.
(Nota bene: McCain’s response is first. Look for him to confuse Justice Alito with Justice Breyer. Obama never voted for Justice Breyer, who had been a Justice for eleven years before Illinois sent Obama to the Senate.)
All of this leads to one perhaps surprising conclusion: Obama won. Aside from the ridiculous concentration on “Joe the Plumber” – the apotheosis, perhaps, of Sarah Palin’s ridiculous focus on artificial demographics (“hockey mom,” “Joe six pack”) – this was the most lively, important, and internally eventful debate of the three. Against a strong start, Barack Obama held the line. That should be today’s news story.
Filed under: Author - ACG,Politics | Tags: John McCain, Political symbols, Presidential Debates, Spin
Tell me if you’ve heard this one before: “McCain needs a game changer.” Tired from repetition, perhaps, but no less valid. As tonight is the last time John McCain will have an opportunity to fling lies at Barack Obama’s face – as opposed to his preferred strategy of lying behind his back, preferably through intermediaries – an air of anxiety and desperation appropriately hangs around Republicans and quasi-Republicans. Even Sarah Palin, speaking with Rush Limbaugh, implied that she’s giving up the ghost.
Cornered and sensing defeat, the McCain camp let slip that their candidate will, perhaps surprisingly, bring the nasty and disturbingly personal tone of the past two weeks into the debate hall with him: Ayers is not off limits. In fact, we can expect a mention.
This is a mistake. Personal attacks like the manufactured Ayers controversy are the things you tell your supporters at rallies: without the opponent there to clarify the facts, the tale grows larger with the telling. When you tell it to your opponent’s face, though, he gets a chance to set the record straight. If it’s offered, a politician like Obama will not fail to seize that chance (if you think Obama doesn’t have a whopping solliloquy prepared for the occasion, you’re dreaming). Perhaps more importantly, though, Senator McCain has never successfully pulled of a personal attack at a debate. As much as he tries – God love him for it – it’s just not in him. Like Harry Potter trying the killing curse, it simply fails to convince and, in politics, the only thing worse than a widely-publicized personal attack is a failed personal attack. It fools no-one, and still makes you look like a jerk.
Make no mistake. John McCain is – or was – a great man. For the past six months, political junkies like myself have watched in horror as, in the struggle for John McCain’s soul, his inherent nobility of spirit steadily lost ground to the influences of the modern-day, Rove-built, hate-filled Republican Party. As late as this past weekend, there was still some hope for McCain’s redemption. Tonight we’ll see if that hope remains. If McCain invokes Ayers, he will consummate his union to the “Republican wing of the Republican party,” forsake his noble reputation, and probably lose the election, all in one fell swoop.
McCain could still pull a victory out of this rout, but if he takes that path, it will be a victory without honor, a pyrrhic capture of the office he once deserved, at the expense of his honor, his integrity, and his sacred reputation as a bipartisan consensus-builder. I once respected John McCain, as a true American patriot and one of the few who actually put “country first.” Much of that respect is gone. If he takes the road-more-traveled tomorrow, it will wholly disappear, and I will sadly add another name to the Long List of Good People Ruined by Bush-Era Republicanism.
Filed under: Author - ACG,Politics | Tags: Democracy, Election 2008, Political symbols, Presidential Debates
No, not the debate, the election. John McCain needed a game-changing debate, or a strong performance to remind the American people that he stands for more than just opposing Barack Obama. He did not deliver it (transcript). Barack Obama maintained a statesmanlike presence and, except when the Republican dropped some of the more egregious misstatements of the night, declined John McCain the pleasure of combat, which had the effect of making McCain look like he was talking past Obama… and not in the good way.
McCain’s opener – that it was nice to meet Obama “in a town hall meeting” – highlighted two themes of the night. First, that this was supposed to be where McCain would shine, and second, that McCain’s nastiest attacks against Obama would come in the form of subtle digs befitting a snubbed middle schooler (the Obama campaign immediately jumped on the “that one” line). McCain did not excel on his own ground, and CNN insta-polls suggested a shockingly negative reaction to his attempts to conjure Palin’s folksy charm. Every time McCain dropped the “my friends” line – more than twenty times – voter reactions shot down. And the digs, the attempts at laugh lines at his opponent’s expense (“did we hear the size of the fine?”) fell remarkably flat. As one pundit put it, “I’m not sure this was a good night for Barack Obama, but I think it was a bad night for John McCain.”
All of this leads to one simple conclusion: barring a foreign-policy related, game-changing event… say, a terrorist attack… a major flub on Obama’s part, or a serious case of voting booth racism, the election is his to lose. Nate Silver’s optimistic projection of an Obama win (probability hovering at 90%) begins to seem credible, though as I type this I’m knocking on wood and momentarily shunning my otherwise adorable black cat.
Ahem. That does NOT mean “don’t vote.” It means “vote,” but feel good that you’re on the right side (the left!).
As the future starts to look clearer, we need to start considering what the transition to power will look like. No less, perhaps, than John Adams’ to Thomas Jefferson’s, any “regime change” in Obama’s favor come January will result in a cross-spectrum transfer of power. In this eventuality, we as Democrats must acknowledge in victory the virtues, the absence of which we decried in defeat. Precisely, we must work to build a bipartisan consensus around the new President, and avoid the wedge politics that doomed the Bush presidency’s legacy. I take this as a corollary to what my friend, Progressive Conservative of “The Big Stick,” is calling “the Wendell Willkie Pledge”: namely, the duty of every American dissatisfied with the election’s eventual outcome to form a loyal opposition. While it is every American’s duty to acknowledge the President’s legitimacy, while perhaps opposing individual policies, we as victors must never stigmatize dissent as unpatriotic, and (should it come to that) we as a defeated opposition must never let our differences eclipse our similarities. Bipartisanship, after all, is a two-way street. There is no place in America for Brennus’ cry, vae victis (woe to the conquered), nor is there any half-step between refusing to acknowledge the result of an election, and civil war.
UPDATE:
Filed under: Author - ACG,Politics | Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain, Political symbols, Presidential Debates
Defend the lead.
Last week, the vice presidential candidates exhibited a degree of finesse, polish, and (yes) coaching, as both Sarah Palin & Joe Biden strained to avoid their own personal weaknesses. Palin, obviously, had to struggle to stay on-topic and not look ridiculous, while Joe Biden tried to limit his frequent abuse of the word “literally” (invented example: “I’ve authored literally millions of Senate resolutions”). For Palin, the struggle was obvious throughout; Biden’s hyperbolic tendencies only peeked through twice, albeit conspicuously, before the Senator mastered them.
Tomorrow night, the Presidential candidates would do well to learn from their running mates’ examples. Both Barack Obama and John McCain exhibited significant weaknesses in the last debate; despite Obama’s perceived victory (fine by me!) and his commanding lead in the polls, a weak performance could still shift the narrative against him. Similarly, tonight is John McCain’s last best chance to pull his campaign out of the tailspin it currently finds itself locked into. A perceived defeat would be devastating, a knock-out blow to his campaign and, to some extent, his ideology (more on that later). Some tips for the campaigns:
Barack Obama: Stay Positive
- Avoid agreeing with John McCain. Ever. Couch agreement in disagreement. Not, “I agree with John McCain, but…” – rather, “while John and I share a commitment to [value]…” Quote mining the latter would be more difficult than the former.
- Take Biden’s cue in attacking while appearing gracious. Cultivate McCain’s negative perception by conspicuously taking the higher ground except, perhaps, to implicate his devious tactics.
- Draw attention to McCain’s negative campaign: not the substance of its allegations, but the fact of its existence. “John will tell you, he doesn’t want to talk about the economy. He’d rather play guilt by association. That’s not what the American people want to hear.” For effectiveness, and to maintain poise, make this the one poitned attack of the night.
- For a real trump card, ask McCain to set the nastiest of his supporters, the ones calling Obama a terrorist Muslim, straight. On a related note, keep in verbal stock pithy, short, powerful replies to the Ayers, Wright, Rezko association attacks. Improve on the answers you gave O’Reilly (covered here, transcript here) to not only discredit the “guilt by association” strategy, but also speak to the depth, or lack thereof, of the relationships.
- Relentlessly keep the focus on the economy. The “town hall” format will give ample opportunities for distractions; consciously steer the discussion back to the economy. Voters will want to hear the most about that, anyways.
- Cut the “umms.” Stay on topic. Never stall in giving an answer. Answer questions completely. Demonstrate grasp of the issues and respectful disagreement.
John McCain: Don’t Reinforce Your Negative Image
- Last debate, voters responded negatively to the rote Republican approach to Obama (“He doesn’t get it”; “he doesn’t understand”). A repeat performance of this little verbal polemic could reinforce negative voter perceptions emanating from the campaign’s new negative turn. (Update: CNN agrees)
- Similarly, don’t use any of the talking points you use in your ads. Keep distance between your campaign and yourself. Abandoning synergy between debates & stump speeches is the cost of negative campaigning, and key to maintaining a doublespeak that lets you seem respectful while vigorously attacking. Bush did it; you can always try.
- Discount “rumors” that you want to avoid discussing the economy. For the love of God, find a new way of attacking Obama’s economic policy, besides the $42,000 tax bracket lie. People are starting to catch on.
- Tone down the “maverick” line. We’ve gotten all the information we’re going to get from that little talking point; now it’s just becoming comic.
- Praise Palin. People like her more than you.
I think less often about John McCain’s best strategy than I do about Barack Obama’s… accordingly, these may not be the best or most notable lines of discussion for McCain to pursue. The first point, though, is mandatory. If Obama repeats Joe Biden’s performance (strong, effective, but kind) and McCain reprises his first debate, the election will be over. Oh, and don’t forget buzzword bingo!
Filed under: Author - ACG,Politics | Tags: Joe Biden, Presidential Debates, Sarah Palin
Good for her; Sarah Palin beat the spread (she could hardly have failed to!). However, taking a novel & interesting narrative direction (for a change), the media, in their initial reactions at least, are parsing the debate into two separate questions: (1) whether Palin reclaimed her dignity and; (2) independent of the first question, whether Palin won. Preliminary punditry points to (1) yes, and (2) no. (transcript)
This approach matters for one major reason: it separates the narrative about Palin’s low expectations from the narrative about her performance. Perhaps that’s the key to busting the expectations game: talking about it ahead of time, so people start separating the two mentally. In any event, the pundits seem to be taking Palin’s mediocre performance as going to her ability to reclaim her credibility in Republican circles, and not going to her debating vís-a-vís Biden. That’s good for Democrats, and bad for Republicans.
Of the major moments, there were certainly a few. First, it’s a good day to be a gay American, when even a fundamentalist Christian from a rural community recognizes limited same-sex civil rights, though she and Biden both stopped short of affirming a right to gay marriage. Followers of this site will recall that, though I for one fervently support gay marriage and believe it to be constitutionally compelled, I would counsel any Democrat to avoid the issue, and leave it to the judiciary. Biden took that course. Good lawyer. Have a fee.
Palin attempted to drop two show-stealing lines – first, “say it ain’t so, Joe, there you go again,” in response to Joe Biden’s attempts to tie McCain to Bush; second, “I guess it’s obvious that I’m a Washington outsider,” before critiquing Biden for “voting for Iraq before he voted against it” – but both fell flat. The first was a good ploy, and the best attempt I’ve seen from a Republican to moot the Bush Issue. But, as Biden replied, “the past is prologue” – with something like 80% of Americans saying America is going in the wrong direction, and Bush’s approval ratings down to 22%, it’ll take more than “move on, buster” to drain that line of its appeal. The second failed because Biden explained the difference between his vote & his intention before Palin dropped the Kerry line. The Kerry line doesn’t work if it’s explained well first.
On the other hand, Biden had two fairly effective moments. The first, an extensive indictment of McCain’s “maverick” credentials, was well taken, strategically sound, and tactically proven (hit the opponent where he’s strong).
The second, Biden’s attempt to lay claim to women’s issues by emotionally explaining the challenges of single parenting, struck home. It’s something people will be talking about.
There were a few failings on Palin’s part, but not as bad as you’d think. First, she misstated the name of the commanding officer in Afghanistan… and Biden let it slide (good call). Then, asked what promise she might not be able to fulfill because of the financial crisis, she made the ridiculously awkward statement that, since she’d been at it for only five weeks, she hadn’t made any promises. Fail. Way to remind us of your inadequacies. And third, of course, there were the usual lies, notable among them the old discredited canard about Obama raising taxes on the $42,000 bracket.
This, of course, leads into a discussion the candidates’ general style. Palin stuck to her talking points, dodged tough questions (rewatch that debate, or look at the transcript, and see if she ever answers the questions or talking points about regulation), and hammered the far-right message (“white flag of surrender”). Without the teleprompter spelling it out phonetically this time, she pronounced “nuclear” as “nook-ya-lar,”and she remained an expert panderer, describing herself as middle class (false: she’s a millionaire) and mentioning, at different points, both “hockey moms” and a third-grade class in Alaska. On the other hand, Biden was fairly highbrow – I heard a LOT of numbers – but still remarkably effective and accessible. He stuck to the top of the ticket, and didn’t let go. He was a respectful but full-throated attack dog.
Of course, McCain’s campaign has already released Google ads calling Palin the winner, for lack of failing. That’s fine; at least they waited until the debate was over this time. But all in all, this was not a big deal. Biden is a known quantity; Palin snatched mediocrity from the jaws of defeat. At most, this moots Palin’s failures of the previous week. But that’s not enough.
