Thank You Hillary
I mostly agree with the other TMV posters about the debate. On substance it was mostly a draw, with each candidate showing strengths in different areas. If the debate had to go to somebody, it would be Obama because McCain’s tone suggested condescension, and that turns off a lot of Independents. Saying “you don’t understand” doesn’t mean Obama does not actually understand what he’s saying. It was much like the infamous sighing of Al Gore in 2000, which voters also found bothersome.
The one thing I want to add though is just how much better a debater Barack Obama is now compared to the primaries. If you watch his earlier debates you see a halting, professorial, and often stuttering candidate. In contrast was the smooth, professional and on-message Hillary Clinton. As time went on Obama got sharper and learned to look at the camera.
But it was not until tonight that voters got to see a man who learned so much from Hillary Clinton on debating. Obama looked right at the camera many times – especially early in the debate – and spoke forcefully on his own terms. He didn’t waste time actually answering Jim Lehrer’s questions – yes, debates are absurd this way in that you score better by sticking to your talking points and not getting trapped in the moderator’s queries – and instead drove every point home about the future vs. the past and judgment capability. He showed command of detail without falling into Senatorial jargon. And he eliminated the “umm, uhh, umms” that so often plague his impromptu engagements. As a college professor myself. I know that it takes lots of practice to eliminate those filler utterances.
I can only conclude that Barack Obama did as well as he did because of Hillary Clinton. By watching her and sparring with her through 21 debates, Barack Obama learned from the debating master. She made him tougher and more convincing. She made him Presidential.
As an Obama supporter, I say “Thank you Hillary!”
opinions powered by SendLove.to
9 Responses to “Thank You Hillary”
Obama's debate skills have improved IMMENSELY since the primary days. I do find quite funny the notion that is being put out there by the McCain campaign (and supporters) that Obama's “John is right” made Obama looked weak. McCain is asked first about the nutjob Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, answers that he is a nutjob, and Obama says “John is right”. And what is wrong with that?? It looked like Obama was trying to appear more bipartisan and was showing McCain respect (which McCain did not reciprocate).
I was very turned off by McCain's”condescending old man routine. McCain had some good points many times but lost me with constant “you don't understand young grasshopper”. If you take CNN's “live tracking” during the debate at face value, many independents did not like McCain's routine as well.
[...] I mostly agree with the other TMV posters about the debate. On substance it was mostly a draw, with each candidate showing strengths in different areas. If the debate had to go to somebody, it would be Obama because McCain s tone suggested Read More Here [...]
I am not an Obama supporter, but one thing that has always impressed me about him are his manners.
Look at the photos of him in the White House meeting this week. He knew his place, as a junior senator invited as a courtesy by the president, and didn't swan about.
Of course, Obama could be a raging ego-maniac in private . . . but Senator Obama does show good manners and respect in public.
Like T-Steel, I find it odd that people — not only McCain supporters, but also Obama supporters — have been critical of Obama's agreeing with McCain as a sign of weakness.
Is Obama supposed to automatically say the opposite of whatever McCain says? I thought people in America were getting sick of that stupid partisanship.
In the end, as long as Hillary supporters get behind Obama, the drawn out primaries will be very good for Obama. It unearthed his dirty laundry at a time when it couldn't kill the Democrats, it made him a better debater and it helped him create organizations in just about every state.
I was scanning a few dozen news articles this morning, curious to see whether or not the “media” had reached any sort of consensus on the debate result. Fortunately I didn't have any serious expectation this would be the case, and If I hadn't actually seen the debate myself it would have been hard to get an accurate picture from weighing all those differing articles. I even saw one article claiming Obama was the condescending one, rather than McCain, a claim that almost made coffee go up my nose. So… I wonder what makes a writer interpret a debate in a particular way? Specifically why would a writer interpret a debate in an inaccurate way? I suppose there are a number reasons, here are a few that come to mind:
Conscious bias leading directly to spin
Subconscious bias leading to tunnel vision
Emotion winning over objectivity
Physiological inability to credit the opponent
Compulsion to cave to PC balance
Fear of antagonizing one party or the other
Whistling in the dark dynamic
Nationalistic paranoia dynamic
Bias toward reason and knowledge
Inability to detect reason and knowledge
Lack of need for reason and knowledge
Admiration of posturing over substance
Admiration of substance over posturing
OK, enough already. All this exercise shows is how difficult it can be to reach any sort of consensus on a debate result, because A.) so many people take their cues from the pundits, and B.) because those cues are not informed primarily by the sort of professional ability and integrity most of us would (presumably) like to see in the media. If nothing else, this points up why it is so important for the citizens in a democracy to be educated and learn how to develop a modicum of critical thinking ability (if they are going to be capable of separating the wheat from the chaff), and therefore successfully perform their duty as citizens. Sorry about diverging from the topic, but that's what kicked off my line of though.
Too bad Obama turned down those ten townhouse meetings McCain proposed early on. Then we could have had a more accurate appraisal of the two candidates, instead of having to micro-analyze body language and phraseology.
Nobody was so wretched as Gore with his walking over in a [unintendedly comical] menacing way toward GWB. Plus the sighing and the earth toned wardrobe. The guy was committing seppuku in public.
Even so, he would have won had not Swamp-Thing Reno gone down to Florida and supervised Elian Gonzalez' return to Castro's workers' paradise. That cost Gore at least 100K votes in Florida, miinimum.
Decent post, however, the following quote is quite the stretch. “It was much like the infamous sighing of Al Gore in 2000, which voters also found bothersome.”
Ditch comments like that next time, and people of both sides will read your entire post.
elrod, “As an Obama supporter, I say “Thank you Hillary!”'
I agree with you that Obama has improved his debating skills. But I never would have thought to thank Hillary for them and you are so right on that point, so thanks for pointing that out!
Marlowecan, I agree with you… Obama does have good manners and his ability to say, “McCainis right..” is important. Both characteristics are important in reaching true bipartisan consensus and building a foundation for future successful working relationships.
McCain talks about reaching across the aisle and reaching a bipartisan consensus but I can't help but wonder about the manner in which McCain has done so.
In McCain I see a “My way or the highway” approach, which may get a bipartisan agreement through (if by bipartisan means getting just enough support from the other side to reach an agreement). But if you don't show respect or build a positive foundation in your approach or encourage the input of others' opinions, then any future agreements you need to reach will seem like uphill battles. I don't think McCain cares about building successful working relationships. I think McCain just bullheads his way into getting “bipartisan” legislation passed.
True bipartisanship requires finding common ground on the issues and making all parties feel that they are being listened to. Obama has these skills (and I've seen Obama exhibit the same skills in previous debates). McCain does not. I've watched for any sign of McCain's ability to foster a positive debate and McCain's behavior towards Obama last night pretty much sums my views on McCain: he is unable to see the common ground he shares with the “other side” (much less acknowledge the other side has a good point), he does not treat Obama with any respect, he wants things his way (whereas Obama has always said that he will compromise, as he did on the offshore drilling), and McCain is grouchy.
I know grouchy is sort of a minor concern, but seriously, would you rather do business with someone who looks you square in the eye, understands what you need and is willing to compromise? Or would you rather do business with someone who openly disdains you, can't even look at you (much less in the eye), does not want to compromise and on top of all that is just in a bad mood? Given that the president of the US has to deal with every world leader from all sorts of cultures, McCain's approach is not conducive to constructive dialogue. No wonder McCain doesn't want to talk to world leaders- he doesn't have a clue on how to do it.
Thanks, Marlowecan…. good points.