McCain vs. Obama in Ole’ Miss. Brief Post Debate thoughts
UPDATED BELOW:For the first portion, dealing with the economy, both candidates surprised me. The chief goals I saw for the Senators were that McCain needed to avoid blowing up and getting flustered, and Obama needed to avoid the long pauses and pensive consideration and filtering before each answer. Obama needed more passion than he’s shown in previous debates, and McCain needed to be engaged while not being overly confrontational. Both of them stepped up to the plate on those counts. In terms of the economic crisis, it is still a cloudy, complicated issue which most Americans don’t fully understand, and I’m not sure if the candidates do either. I would have to call that portion a draw. Obama used a few too many “umms” and “errrs” but McCain also had a few moments of ire. Neither went over the top.
When they got to Iraq, that was a battle which I feel McCain was destined to lose given broad American opinions. McCain gave a very well-presented argument, but Obama wisely fell back on the question of whether or not we should have ever gone there in the first place. That’s going to play well across the country, and Obama seemed to surge during that portion (pun intended) and spoke knowing that he was on solid ground.
The Afghanistan argument was far more cloudy. I felt McCain was stronger on the facts for this portion, and both of them seemed a bit vague on how success would be achieved. McCain seemed to know the turf, but tried to claim that “his” strategy in Iraq would work there, but you can’t transplant an urban war strategy into the mountains of the Pakistan border. Obama, on the other hand, seemed to stumble a bit on the cultural aspects of the whole “winning the hearts and minds” question. That section I would give to McCain by a slim margin.
On Iran, Obama rallied. This is a point where he needed to make McCain look like he was going to open up another front in the war and not be willing to talk and use diplomacy. He accomplished that. McCain’s failure to pronounce the name of Iran’s president on three tries seemed to stand out and make him look fumbling. When McCain tried to use the “would meet without pre-conditions” argument and Obama tore him to pieces, bringing up Kissinger’s advice on the prerogative of presidents to make the call on the diplomacy field as needed. McCain came off as the warmonger, which I think was exactly what Obama wanted.
When Obama brought up the “meeting with Spain” point, McCain was knocked back on his heels.
It was only during the final phase of the debate when I saw some daylight opening between the two. As well as McCain seemed to do for the first 75 minutes, he began cutting off Obama during his answers, almost like a daytime talk show shouting festival. He seemed like a man who felt he was behind and had to score a knockout punch. Obama, on the other hand, went back to some of his most solid talking points on his record and remained poised. McCain went to insults, calling Obama “naive” among other things. He began rattling sabers against Russia and tried to look like the muscle man.
Obama’s closer, talking about a “wider view” of global issues was possibly his best moment of the night. He forced McCain back on his heels and had him talking about “wrong ideas” on Iraq. The close, for those who watched to the bitter end, had to go to Obama.
Is there a winner? If I absolutely had to make the coin toss call, the ending would give a slight edge to Obama. They both performed a bit better than my admittedly low expectations of both, but in the end I think Obama walked away looking a bit more like a president and McCain let a bit of the “angry old man” meme out of the yard before they finished.
UPDATE: One of Obama’s strong points, with Kissinger, will be dealt a blow with this report.
Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized. He says: “Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.”
If this receives coverage, it’s going to let some of the air out of the tires. I won’t be surprised if Dr. Kissinger makes the rounds this Sunday to clarify.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
20 Responses to “McCain vs. Obama in Ole’ Miss. Brief Post Debate thoughts”
I agree Jazz – a draw for the most part. neither changed any minds. The bad news for McCain – he needed a win. McCain lost the economic part simply because most of the voters agree with Obama's positions. The good news for McCain is he didn't look like a crazy-angry old man.
Nice early round-up Jazz. I'm very interested in your take as a “certified” moderate and centrist, to help balance my own view of how it played out as an Obama supporter.
Great analysis Jazz. I would almost have to call this a draw in terms of substance. But I did notice that Obama would talk directly to the camera more often than McCain did, and he was better able to hold my attention to what he was saying.
I was more impressed with McCain than I thought I'd be. I thought he connected well with the audience. Obama needed to be a little more hard-hitting. Honestly the biggest thing I have against McCain is his terrible choice of a VP. National security seems to be very important to him- so why pick Palin who makes Obama look like a seasoned pro?
I think Obama won on substance and McCain won on style. Too bad I think style matters a lot more in our current political atmosphere.
More of my conclusions here…
John McCain totally lost me — he seemed stuck in the past, relying on anecdotes, rehashing the same tired set of points that I could not even agree with.
Obama came with facts, figures, records and a clear bulleted list of policies, ideologies and priorities.
Everyone is calling this a draw, but as an undecided voter, my confidence in Obama as an able leader was greatly increased by his mastery of the current situation of the global economy and foreign policy challenges and my confidence in McCain decreased dramatically because he came off as a condescending warmonger who will not improve, change or revise the divisive and detrimental foreign policy of the past 8 years.
McCain already has an ad up on his website highlighting how many times Obama said that McCain was right.
McCain got killed. He couldn't make a single point stick. The 18b to 300b comparison what as solid point for Obama, and McCain could only grimace. McCain couldn't even look at Obama, his contempt was palpable. Obama came off as unflappable and ready for any challenge.
I thought McCain seemed direct, Obama pleasant but too collegial.
Sadly, from the body language point of view, which actually means something to most eyeballs watching without much background on the issues—McCain seemed stiff & unwilling to look Obama in the eyes & kept looking at Lehrer or his notes.
Otherwise a draw.
I found myself agreeing more with McCain- but I am still so angry about what his party has done to this country that I don't think I can vote for him.
Also, I think his VP choice is one of the worst decisions he's made.
“McCain already has an ad up on his website highlighting how many times Obama said that McCain was right.”
Absent of context… of course.
Given the belief among many people that Henry Kissinger is a war criminal, maybe it shouldn't be considered so important what he thinks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#Ac…
Jazz, from your update about Kissinger…. funny thing about it is that I too thought Kissinger had said what Obama claimed. And I think it's been within the last three months….
But I can't recall the exact comment and I might be dreaming (so take my comment with that in mind). But when Obama said it my reaction was, “Yes, Obama is right on this. I remember reading about it in the paper.”
With the way Obama delivered it and made it into a big point, I think that Obama was telling the truth… Obama knew he would be called on such matters and he is usually careful about such things.
This will be interesting to see it play out….
I think it's very important to note the source of that Kissinger quote (my point being, there is no actual source except someone who says Kissinger said it – when? to whom?). I would not take at face value any second-hand quote from the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes. Please look at some of Hayes' past writings to see what his agenda is.
Here's what Kissinger said:
McCain, and now Kissinger, are trying to spin Obama's statement into something it wasn't… stripe out a few sound bites and you can make it sound any way you want but re-read / re-listen to the exchange as a whole. Obama's intent v. McCain's spin is obvious.
Stockboy, here you go:
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/fact-checking-the-…
Obama's only misquoting if you insist, as McCain and Kissinger are doing, on mischaraterizing his position as the president meeting first, without preconditions. I'm biased here, but I think Obama was clear that underlings would go first. McCain, to me, came off as a little, “nah nah, I can't hear you!”
jspencer—
Unfortunately any administration official or ex official who has been tied closely to US foreign policy (including the current batch) is probably considered a war criminal somewhere!
Yes, kritt, either by those who are actually war criminals or by nanny-state assisted-living-facility dwellers in EU-nuchland who lost all cred in the 20th c. by defining the outer limits of war criminality.
[...] McCain vs. Obama in Ole’ Miss. Brief Post Debate thoughts [...]