Ambrose Aban
Chief Blogger, QueerGam
New York | San Francisco
McCain (left) punches Obama in the face, blow by blow, in first debate in Mississippi
While there is now a mad scramble to spin who won or who lost, folks ought to step back and realize we saw one of the better "first" presidential debates in this modern era in quite some time. Neither candidate was "off," neither candidate was nervous. Both were on message (sometimes painfully so for those of you who have now witnessed your 38th presidential debate of the cycle). In fact, the primary debate practice clearly had them both prepared tonight. But for me, and I am saying this personally, it was clear. Common. Obama couldn't even sell his eloquence. McCain won.
Did McCain look like someone ready to buck the status quo?
It's hard to argue that he wasn't showing himself as someone wanting to shake things up. For every time Obama attempted to link McCain to Bush, the Arizona senator had no qualms going after his own party. In fact, Obama's "John is right" mantras were usually connected to one of McCain's anti-Republican establishment points.
Did the viewers (and you) get turned off by McCain's sometimes dismissive treatment of Obama or will they start asking themselves the same questions? While this was a very heavy and substantive debate, I do wonder if on style (cos looks count even in the boring hetero world), McCain lost a point or two, and that may explain why he's not staying even in some of these insta-polls. But Obama is not all that either.
Who will the voters-viewers (and you) punish for what seemed like a completely tone deaf conversation between the two candidates on the economy? Neither candidate emphasized jobs and instead allowed themselves to get bogged down on taxes and spending, two issues that don't rank nearly as high with voters as other economic issues. Bottom line on the economy: they both need work.
There are some who believe a "draw" is better for the candidate perceived to be ahead. If that's the case, then the polls will continue their Obama drift. But I wouldn't be surprised if the polls don't move much in either direction because neither candidate gave a reason why voters ought to stop listening and make their decision now. There are two more debates and this one was good enough that they may see audiences build on this one.
At least six times McCain said Obama did not understand something. First on tactics vs strategy; and then on Pakistan being a failed state when Musharraf took office; then on the connection between winning in Iraq and in Afghanistan and about meeting with a leader like Ahmadinejad without preconditions and then on the Russia-Georgia conflict; then again on the need to succeed in Iraq so al Qaeda doesn't establish a base there. And make that seven times if you count McCain near the end saying more generally that Obama doesn't have the knowledge to lead due to his responses on Russa/Georgia, and his failure to acknowledge surge's success.
If McCain's argument in the first half of the debate was all about earmarks, in the second, it seemed to be about Obama's lack of understanding.
The question is whether viewers will agree with him on these specific points or just internalize his oft-repeated argument.
In the debate over Obama's position that he would be willing to talk to unsavory world leaders without precondition, Obama brought up that Henry Kissinger -- an adviser to McCain -- actually favors that. That is true. Kissinger favors direct talks -- without preconditions with Iran -- but he prefers doing at the Secretary of State level.
UPDATE
The McCain camp sends along the following statement from Henry Kissinger:
"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."
Kissinger: "Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic..." Sesno: "Put at a very high level right out of the box?"
Meanwhile, team McCain has just unveiled a new web video, featuring clips of Obama agreeing with McCain throughout tonight's debate.
McCain also slammed Obama for threatening to "announce military strikes" on Pakistan.
"I'm not prepared to threaten it as Senator Obama apparently wants to do, as he has said that he would announce military strikes into Pakistan. Now, you don't do that," he added. "You don't say that out loud."
Is that what Obama really said in August 2007?
Not exactly. Then, Obama said: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
So Obama said that he'd go after al Qaida targets within Pakistan's borders, not attack the nation itself. That's a move that the Bush administration actually approved this summer on at least one occasion -- to much objection by the Pakistani government.
The longer format appears to be working for Obama, who tends to be long-winded. He hasn't been forced to give a quick answer yet. He's on message, hitting his talking points on the contrasts with John McCain on taxes, his plans for healthcare and energy independence. He seemed to cover more ground than McCain whose main points were about cutting government spending. For several minutes, Obama was the only one to interrupt his opponent, which seemed to be an attempt to show his willingness to fight back.
OTHER OBSERVATION:
Obama took 34 minutes for Iraq to be mentioned (unless I missed it before). Obama pointed to ending the war as a cost savings. The strongest exchanges were on Iraq. Obama seeking to point out areas where McCain was wrong and McCain accusing him of not admitting the United States was succeeding in Iraq and talked about him voting to cut off funding for troops. McCain clearly doesn't like Obama questioning his knowledge, understanding or positions on the war in Iraq...he's getting that uncomfortable smile again.
OUR VERDICT:
It wasn't a draw. Common! It was clear. Obama couldn't even sell his eloquence. McCain won.
Chief Blogger, QueerGam
New York | San Francisco
McCain (left) punches Obama in the face, blow by blow, in first debate in Mississippi
While there is now a mad scramble to spin who won or who lost, folks ought to step back and realize we saw one of the better "first" presidential debates in this modern era in quite some time. Neither candidate was "off," neither candidate was nervous. Both were on message (sometimes painfully so for those of you who have now witnessed your 38th presidential debate of the cycle). In fact, the primary debate practice clearly had them both prepared tonight. But for me, and I am saying this personally, it was clear. Common. Obama couldn't even sell his eloquence. McCain won.
Did McCain look like someone ready to buck the status quo?
It's hard to argue that he wasn't showing himself as someone wanting to shake things up. For every time Obama attempted to link McCain to Bush, the Arizona senator had no qualms going after his own party. In fact, Obama's "John is right" mantras were usually connected to one of McCain's anti-Republican establishment points.
Did the viewers (and you) get turned off by McCain's sometimes dismissive treatment of Obama or will they start asking themselves the same questions? While this was a very heavy and substantive debate, I do wonder if on style (cos looks count even in the boring hetero world), McCain lost a point or two, and that may explain why he's not staying even in some of these insta-polls. But Obama is not all that either.
Who will the voters-viewers (and you) punish for what seemed like a completely tone deaf conversation between the two candidates on the economy? Neither candidate emphasized jobs and instead allowed themselves to get bogged down on taxes and spending, two issues that don't rank nearly as high with voters as other economic issues. Bottom line on the economy: they both need work.
There are some who believe a "draw" is better for the candidate perceived to be ahead. If that's the case, then the polls will continue their Obama drift. But I wouldn't be surprised if the polls don't move much in either direction because neither candidate gave a reason why voters ought to stop listening and make their decision now. There are two more debates and this one was good enough that they may see audiences build on this one.
At least six times McCain said Obama did not understand something. First on tactics vs strategy; and then on Pakistan being a failed state when Musharraf took office; then on the connection between winning in Iraq and in Afghanistan and about meeting with a leader like Ahmadinejad without preconditions and then on the Russia-Georgia conflict; then again on the need to succeed in Iraq so al Qaeda doesn't establish a base there. And make that seven times if you count McCain near the end saying more generally that Obama doesn't have the knowledge to lead due to his responses on Russa/Georgia, and his failure to acknowledge surge's success.
If McCain's argument in the first half of the debate was all about earmarks, in the second, it seemed to be about Obama's lack of understanding.
The question is whether viewers will agree with him on these specific points or just internalize his oft-repeated argument.
In the debate over Obama's position that he would be willing to talk to unsavory world leaders without precondition, Obama brought up that Henry Kissinger -- an adviser to McCain -- actually favors that. That is true. Kissinger favors direct talks -- without preconditions with Iran -- but he prefers doing at the Secretary of State level.
UPDATE
The McCain camp sends along the following statement from Henry Kissinger:
"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."
Kissinger: "Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic..." Sesno: "Put at a very high level right out of the box?"
Meanwhile, team McCain has just unveiled a new web video, featuring clips of Obama agreeing with McCain throughout tonight's debate.
McCain also slammed Obama for threatening to "announce military strikes" on Pakistan.
"I'm not prepared to threaten it as Senator Obama apparently wants to do, as he has said that he would announce military strikes into Pakistan. Now, you don't do that," he added. "You don't say that out loud."
Is that what Obama really said in August 2007?
Not exactly. Then, Obama said: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
So Obama said that he'd go after al Qaida targets within Pakistan's borders, not attack the nation itself. That's a move that the Bush administration actually approved this summer on at least one occasion -- to much objection by the Pakistani government.
The longer format appears to be working for Obama, who tends to be long-winded. He hasn't been forced to give a quick answer yet. He's on message, hitting his talking points on the contrasts with John McCain on taxes, his plans for healthcare and energy independence. He seemed to cover more ground than McCain whose main points were about cutting government spending. For several minutes, Obama was the only one to interrupt his opponent, which seemed to be an attempt to show his willingness to fight back.
OTHER OBSERVATION:
Obama took 34 minutes for Iraq to be mentioned (unless I missed it before). Obama pointed to ending the war as a cost savings. The strongest exchanges were on Iraq. Obama seeking to point out areas where McCain was wrong and McCain accusing him of not admitting the United States was succeeding in Iraq and talked about him voting to cut off funding for troops. McCain clearly doesn't like Obama questioning his knowledge, understanding or positions on the war in Iraq...he's getting that uncomfortable smile again.
OUR VERDICT:
It wasn't a draw. Common! It was clear. Obama couldn't even sell his eloquence. McCain won.
Comments
Post a Comment
What do you think?