Obama vs. McCain. The Conclusion.

Last night's event concluded this election cycle's series of four presidential (and VP) debates. Its reception followed a pattern that was established during the first one, and continued throughout. I was happy with the performances of Barack Obama and Joe Biden in each of the installments. Still, after each contest, pundits consistently insisted that they were draws. But a strange thing happened when the viewing public was consulted- American voters (both decided and uncommitted) overwhelmingly reported a clean sweep for Obama. I'd like to say that the corporate media's refusal to choose a winner in this series will finally put to rest the oft-repeated rightwing notion that the press has a liberal bias. However, I'm not nearly so naïve as to believe that this pattern will be widely acknowledged.

Regardless, as I've said before, the debates really aren't about "winning and losing". They are about meeting expectations. In this case the objectives of each candidate were well known. Both the McCain campaign and the candidate himself promised that the Arizona senator would come out especially aggressive. Conventional wisdom said that this was his last chance to change the momentum of the race. We heard that McCain would finally bring up Obama's "suspect associations" with Ayers and ACORN, and we waited to see whether he would follow through. Moderator (and CBS anchor) Bob Schieffer left him with no other option when he asked the rivals to address the perceived negativity flowing through the race.

So John McCain came out swinging hard, the way Mike Tyson used to do before he tried to bite off Evander Holyfield's ear. For the first half hour of the debate, he looked feistier than we have seen him look at any time since 2004. He attempted to make populist appeals, using "Joe the Plumber" as a prop. He tried to pin the big-spending tail on the donkey. And he trotted out the timeworn "class warfare" red herring. But then (apparently) his advanced age and flagging endurance made him stumble, and from there on out Obama looked in control of the match. Ironically the turning point occurred with his introduction of Ayers, a subject Republican extremists insisted he include in the debate.

The absolutely unflappable Obama laid out, in the very simplest terms, the facts about his "association" with Bill Ayers. Not only did he convey absolute sincerity, but he even turned the narrative on its head, pointing out that the educational reform panel that he sat on with Professor Ayers contained folks like the "the presidents of the University of Illinois, the president of Northwestern University, who happens to be a Republican, (and) the president of The Chicago Tribune, a Republican- leaning newspaper." Then he put the nail in the coffin of the McCain/Palin attack ads by saying that his campaign has no connection to ACORN- an organization he represented (in the early 90's) only as an attorney working with the US Justice Department to ensure that the state of Illinois complied with the motor voter law.

After that turnaround, McCain was completely incapable of sustaining any momentum, and clumsily returned again and again to his "Joe the Plumber" gimmick. It was clear that John had "jumped the shark" when he began talking directly to the unseen "Joe", and congratulating him for being "rich". I think he realized too that he had blown his "last best chance". His eyes started flittering back and forth like he was lost and scared, and he began to make the faces that have been the source of so much speculation regarding his temperament and stability. By the end of the night, it was clear that Obama had succeeded from the first to the last in his mission to prove himself presidential. Meanwhile McCain was left to pick up the pieces of his shattered campaign, which has run nothing but attack ads for the last few weeks.

Obama VS. McCain, Round 2.

The two presidential candidates met in Nashville last night for Round Two of their three-part match. This time the event was moderated by NBC's Tom Brokaw, and featured a "Town Hall" format. It seems to me that this style of debate should entail more interaction with the audience, but the eighty observers on hand appeared intensely somber, if not plain uptight. They read their questions off of cue cards, and there wasn't a moment of spontaneity during the course of the evening. John McCain did seize the opportunity to do a bit of bonding with a Chief Petty Officer in the Navy. While this might play well to McCain's diehards, I don't think it will add much to the understanding of the undecideds. McCain has ties to the military? No way?!

In assessing the outcome of this second debate, we must once again return to expectations. Obama had the easier task last night. All he had to do was continue to look presidential and consolidate his lead. By all accounts he did just that. He reassured me by identifying alternative energy as the number one priority of his prospective presidency. He deftly fended off attacks (most of which were repeated word-for-word from the 1st debate), and even made a point of directly addressing some of McCain's distortions. The old warrior himself needed a game-changer, and I couldn't find a single media source (no matter how biased) that suggested he achieved that objective. Meanwhile, mainstream media sources have been quick to point out that the dynamic of this race remains the same. They did seem hesitant about proclaiming Obama the outright victor, despite what viewer polls indicate (this one in particular seems telling).

There weren't a whole lot of new ideas introduced in the debate. McCain tried to hit for the fences with a suggestion that the government should buy subprime loans directly, rather than dealing in mortgage securities. There were a few problems with that proposal. To start off with, one wonders where this idea was when McCain was making his high-profile visits to DC (during his so-called "campaign suspension") to negotiate the bailout bill. The reality is that John McCain didn't favor this approach previously because it was actually Barack Obama that first suggested it. Also, it's clear that the national will would likely not support spending another $300+ billion of taxpayer money to purchase what many have characterized as loans to folks that couldn't afford them in the first place. This is a fundamental contradiction of the GOP's message of personal accountability.

And while we are on the subject of accountability, John McCain notably failed to level the kind of charges that both his running mate and his campaign have been flinging at Obama this past week. There wasn't a single insinuation of treason, nor any suggestion at all that Obama likes to "pal around with terrorists". In fact we didn't hear any mention of names like William Ayres or Jeremiah Wright. Nor did McCain go into specifics when he spoke of his opponent's purported links to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But Obama wasn't shy in his response. He was upfront in pointing out that McCain's own campaign chairman, Rick Davis, was a paid lobbyist for that very corporation up until a few months ago. Actually, I think Obama showed unwarranted mercy in not mentioning the fact that McCain currently employs at least eight other former Fannie/Freddie lobbyists. But he obviously wanted to deliver a different message.

While we heard a lot of the same lines we've been hearing for weeks, it's notable that there were a few things that went completely unmentioned. John McCain didn't mention the name "Sarah Palin" a single time during the debate. Perhaps that is because he feels a need to distance himself from his attack surrogate, who has been extremely irresponsible on the stump since her handlers decided it was time to "take the gloves off". Palin has been appealing to the lowest common denominator of the Republican base- the embedded racism and the abject fear of people that differ from them. In doing so, she is treading on very dangerous ground. I was appalled yesterday to see videos of her smiling without comment as her supporters shouted cries of "treason", "terrorist", and "kill him" in response to Barack Obama's name.

One has to wonder- is this the position that McCain thought he'd be in a month before the election? Did he know that his loyalists would stoop to this level of hateful invective in the absence of a substantial counterargument to his opponent's platform?

Sarah Palin Proves She's No Quivering Mass of Jelly.

The much-anticipated VP debate is now history, and the spin cycle has begun. Obviously both sides are proclaiming victory for their candidates. But as I said in my post after the first Presidential showdown, I think talking in terms of overall winners and losers is a bit of a distraction. I believe it's more important to look at expectations and measure performances accordingly. So what were the respective expectations for Biden and Palin? There's no doubt that one of the candidates is credited with experience, knowledge, and a lengthy record of service, while the other is not. Perhaps it was appropriate (as one poster did in a thread on this blog) to characterize Biden as a man with "everything in (his) favor".

So what about Palin? What were people looking for? No doubt a significant portion of America tuned in to see if she would be as inarticulate as she was in the Couric and Gibson interviews. It may not be admirable, but schadenfreude is very much a part of the modern political landscape. Of course the McCain campaign couldn't allow that kind of embarrassment. That's why they fought so hard with the Commission of Presidential Debates to set a very tightly structured format for this debate. They understood from the start that this was the condition that would maximize Palin's ability to deliver the ticket's message. A free-flowing discussion would have been disastrous for Palin.

I clearly communicated my thoughts on this matter in the comment thread of a post from two days ago. I wrote:

"All Palin needs to do is sound reasonably articulate, not make any fatal gaffes, and avoid answering every question by parroting talking points, clichés, and platitudes. She's a former sports broadcaster and beauty queen, and she's used this very strategy to great effect in her Alaskan debates (just YouTube them). If she manages to execute this completely undemanding strategy, her supporters and campaign will declare her a huge winner, the media will go along with it so as not to appear sexist, and viewers with 'concerns' will think that she's not so bad as they feared."

I realized that I had predicted the outcome correctly as soon as Palin, in the midst of dodging another inquiry, said, " And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear". Um, yeah... Exactly. Who cares if it's a "structured debate" when a candidate can simply ignore the questions and talk about whatever he/she wants? No follow-up means no accountability.

So this tactic seems to have worked for the night. Palin was able to continue promoting her GOP-created persona. She was folksy, decidedly not an intellectual, and more interested in her image than the issues themselves. And we'll have to wait a few days before we learn whether or not her audience bought into her act. Certainly she showed herself once again adept at memorizing talking points. But that's not to say that she didn't make any significant gaffes. She was just able to keep a continuous flow of words coming out of her mouth so as to obscure them. Palin was doubly wrong when she tried to claim that "McClellan" (a long-dead US civil war general) said that surge principles would work in Afghanistan. Still, this likely went over the heads of Palin supporters, as well as those still "on the fence".



On the other hand, Joe Biden (who had merely to avoid losing his temper and acting condescending to his opponent) did a stellar job. Viewer polls demonstrate that the vast majority of observers thought that Biden "won" the debate. Still that's likely to be seen as a minor point. The McCain campaign is no doubt expelling a long sigh of relief. Palin didn't collapse into a heap of quivering jelly, and for that she deserves a "Gold Star". All they have to do now is keep her from doing any more interviews with interlocutors who will actually make her answer questions. They'll simply put her on FOX and the Right Wing talk radio circuit. In this respect, Sarah Palin's performance can be called successful. She has transformed herself from being a millstone around the neck of the ticket, and she can now resume her role as "ordinary hockey mom".

Setting the Palin Narrative. Part 3.

In the previous two installments in this series, I outlined the basic story of the Palin experience since she was chosen to be John McCain's running mate. I've also attempted to explain why the McCain campaign has gone to great efforts to keep the media from questioning the Governor from Alaska. If there is any possibility that Palin won't be able to deliver the core message and talking points, her handlers will try to keep her under tight control. Of course she is running for a high national office, and they haven't been able to completely eliminate her media appearances. But the ones that have gotten through have proven to be completely disastrous and she is increasingly drawing criticism.

When I first heard that McCain asked Sarah Palin to join the ticket, I almost couldn't believe it. It seemed to undermine his reputation as a "maverick" within the Republican party, and his promise that he would select a highly qualified candidate that was able to step in if he was able to fulfill his duties as president. The more I learned about her, the more I expected her to be gone by the Republican convention. Obviously I misjudged the GOP commitment to Palin, and this incorrect speculation reinforced my reluctance to make predictions for this race. Now the McCain campaign is facing the prospect of a VP debate that they were unable (despite obvious efforts) to delay or cancel. The nation anticipates this event with a mix of excitement, fascination, and trepidation.

Some political commentators still expect Palin to be removed from the ticket. If McCain was to choose this option, it might make sense for her to be withdrawn before the debate. Palin's supporters tend to believe that it is the "liberals" drivingthis sentiment. But a growing number of "conservatives" are calling for her removal. A short list includes Senator Chuck Hagel, George Will, David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, and Kathleen Parker. These aren't lightweight pundits like Hannity or Limbaugh... these are serious journalists. And contrary to what the McCain campaign has tried to suggest- they are not criticizing her to create lower expectations for Sarah Palin's performance in her debate. They want her to go back to Alaska.

I have to wonder if this would be political suicide for McCain. Certainly he would risk losing the support of the Palinmaniacs. They probably wouldn't vote for Obama anyway, but they might just stay home or choose a third party candidate on election day. Regardless, there is no way to tell how many of these people actualy exist. We have to operate under the assumption that Palin will be showing up to confront Joe Biden. Apparently the McCain campaign has whisked her off to Arizona for what some have referred to as "deabte camp". Do they plan to continue cramming her head with the type of talking points that she has consistently mangled so far? Palin loyalists suggest that is why she has performed poorly in interviews. They want a change too.

With an odd twist upon Campbell Brown's call to "Free Sarah Palin", her supporters are pleading with the McCain people to "Just Let Sarah Be Sarah!". They point out that she wasn't chosen to be the source for facts and information about policy, but rather in order to personalize the campaign and give the "good folks" someone to relate to. While this may be true, it reveals a particularly problematic and cynical strategy. Does America care about who Sarah Palin really is? Do her positions and record as governor and mayor matter? Do we want someone that close to the presidency that lacks crucial knowledge of policy and facts? Maybe you do, but I don't. We'll have to wait-and-see how willing moderator Gwen Ifill is to indulge Sarah Palin's "I'm Just Like Y'all" act.


NOTE: I had to throw this in here... I really can't tell whether McCain is joking in this video... or not. What do you think?

NOTE #2: I keep finding this stuff, so I might as well post it. I'll come out and say it directly- I don't care that he spent five years as a POW, it doesn't excuse this attitude.

Setting the Palin Narrative. Part 2.

It seems strange to feel compelled to address a vice-presidential debate in the midst of such economic chaos. For a long time throughout American history, the selection of a VP was treated as an afterthought by the vast majority of the public and media. Of course the danger has always existed that one day a man (or woman) might be called on to fulfill the most important obligation of the #2 executive- getting that last promotion to the Oval Office. In fact I count nine men who have had to assume the responsibilities of the presidency unexpectedly. This exclusive group included such luminaries as John Tyler, Chester Arthur, Gerald Ford, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, and Calvin Coolidge. It's hard to imagine the voters would have chosen them to execute the duties of the Chief Executive.

While some have suggested that it's in poor taste to point out that John McCain presents a particularly high risk of expiring in office, the reality is that if elected he would be the oldest president ever to assume the position. It's difficult to believe that the candidate himself hasn't thought about this possibility. He could hardly ignore the repeated requests from reporters and opponents asking for the release of his medical records. But on the other hand, many are scratching their heads over his selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. Quite a few commentators from both sides of the aisle have leveled charges that John McCain has exercised poor judgment in making his very first "executive decision".

Yesterday I published a post that outlined the GOP creation of a public persona for Sarah Palin. That formulation is increasingly coming under intense scrutiny. You can't convincingly argue that your state's proximity to Russia makes you a foreign policy expert, especially if you've never even crossed that "small maritime border". It simply fails to inspire confidence in any rational citizen. If you do slip up and try to make that case, you certainly don't repeat it ad nauseum until you have become a laughingstock on a national scale. Similarly, when asked to give one single example of an economic reform that your running mate has accomplished, you don't respond with generalizations and clichés. You just answer the question. If you can't, then you have no business representing a ticket promising "change" in Washington.

I think that the McCain campaign realizes all of this. That's the reason why they have gone to great pains to keep Sarah Palin from being freely questioned by the media. It's not to develop an "air of mystery and seduction". It's not to give her time to "get up to speed". It's not to allow her time with her family. The truth is that McCain and Co. realize that they risk embarrassment every time that they send Palin out alone to another interview. That's why John McCain is always at her side when she's making stump speeches to her rabid followers. That's why the McCain campaign won't allow her to do press conferences. That's why John McCain felt compelled to return to Katie Couric's soundstage and interrupt Palin's answers to reasonable questions.

Some critics have suggested that the McCain campaign's strategy of protecting Palin from the media is sexist at its core. I'm not sure if I buy that. To my mind her gender has NOTHING to do with the fact that she is unprepared, uninformed, and inarticulate in unscripted conversations. There are just as many men who evince these traits, and just as many women that are certifiable geniuses when it comes to political communication. I'm sure that Palin being a fundamentalist Christian woman with extremely socially conservative views made her initially attractive in "the vetting process". But the bottom line is that the McCain campaign could not have known what they were getting, or they would have made an alternative choice. They are stuck. As you know, you have to go to war with the Sarah Palin you have, not the Sarah Palin you thought you were getting.*

*My apologies for evoking memories of Mr. Rumsfeld.

McCain's Tactics Expose Unsuccessful Strategy at Debate.

As anyone who has made up their mind already about who should be the next US president should be able to admit, it is awfully difficult to analyze a debate with a large portion of objectivity. That's why I have a bit of hesitation about declaring a "winner" in last night's event. I think the best way to assess the performances is to consider what the expectations were for each candidate before they stepped up on stage. The McCain campaign's initial efforts to make the subject of the first debate "foreign policy" was telling. Clearly they believe that this is McCain's strength, and I don't think you'd find many impartial observers that would suggest that the GOP candidate hasn't put his focus on overseas issues throughout his career.

On the other side, there was a lot of talk about Obama's lack of experience in world politics, and therefore an accompanying expectation that this would not be his strongest in this series of three presidential debates. Obviously his opponents expected an easy win for McCain. That's what makes the responses after last night's contest so notable. I was hard-pressed to find anyone claiming that McCain had won a significant victory, despite his supposed strength on foreign policy issues. To be fair, the first 40 minutes or so incorporated discussion about the crisis on Wall Street, and how it effects national standing. There is no one (except for perhaps his campaign) claiming that this is a particularly strong suit for John McCain. But still, the "more experienced" candidate should have had a distinct advantage, given the theme. If he did, he failed to fully capitalize on it.

I find it telling that several major media sources came out and called the debate in Obama's favor (including Time Magazine and The New York Times). Meanwhile the CNN viewer poll "had Obama winning overall by a margin of 51-38. Even more problematic for the McCain/Palin ticket, a CBS poll found that thirty-nine percent of uncommitted voters who watched the debate thought Barack Obama was the winner. Twenty-four percent thought John McCain won. Thirty-seven percent saw it as a draw. While the conventional wisdom says that the initial reaction to debates can change over a few days, it's going to be hard for the Right Wing media machine to spin this to McCain's advantage. They will likely just cite "liberal media bias".

Unfortunately for the political dialog in this country, a lot of Americans make their judgments on superficial criteria. I suspect that this (for a change) will also hinder the perception of John McCain. His campaign tried to make the case that Obama looked defensive by agreeing with his aggressive opponent on a number of issues. While they suggested that this made Obama look "weak", the approach may end up making the Illinois senator look less "extreme" and more open to bipartisan diplomacy- which has been a big part of the strategy all along. On the other hand, I thought that the attack-dog version of McCain came off as more peevish than decisive (partially because he refused to look Obama in the eye). There have already been comparisons to the 1960 debate between Nixon and Kennedy. I wouldn't be surprised if that narrative reference sticks to this one.

As far as the specific content of the arguments presented by each side, there was nothing new for the informed viewer. Obama tied McCain to Bush's disastrous presidential agenda, and directed attention to the Arizona senator's unstinting commitment to a very unpopular war. McCain called out Obama on his opposition to the surge and continuously repeated the talking point that his opponent "just doesn't understand". I did find McCain's references to his record as not being the "Miss Congeniality" of the Senate puzzling. And his attack regarding Obama's supposed confusion over "tactics" and "strategy" was not only condescending, but flat-out wrong (I found it surprising that someone with an undeniable history in the military would screw that one up).

Overall, I can't see how anyone could come to the conclusion that this debate will be viewed as an asset for McCain in this race. This was his opportunity for an "early" knock-out punch on his chosen ground, and he failed to deliver it. Contrary to the claims of the McCain/Palin ticket, Obama came across as reliable, unflappable, and "presidential". Now the question of McCain's stamina rises to the forefront. He's behind and has to mount some sort of comeback. He's employed a few stunts that have largely fallen flat. Next up we have the confrontation between Palin and Biden, and the nation will be watching to see if McCain's running mate will be able to reverse the growing questions of her capabilities. That should garner a huge audience.


NOTE: If you are interested in reading an analysis of the various "misrepresentations" delivered in the debate, this site is a relatively unbiased one.