Right on Hilzoy.

McCain just proved, beyond a doubt, that his "reach across the aisle" rhetoric is just more campaign noise.

Obama proved he IS willing to reach across the aisle.

If the electorate is at all concerned with this issue, the difference was striking.

some liberals appear to have internalized the notion that the way to beat the gop is to behave just like it. these people are wrong, and they are therefore wrong to be concerned about obama agreeing on certain matters.

O please turn your TVs on to watch Barack in NC.

Man he is in his element.

Great job last night Hilzoy btw :)

This is another example, or metaphor, for the differences between the two campaigns/men/consituencies - McCain's being a very low threshold for tolerating information, and Obama's being empirical, based on information. Other examples include the staffs they have assembled, their attitude towards drama, their process for picking vp (and vp choice) - many others come to mind, including the amount of hard data in the answers they offered.

it undercuts one of McCain's main lines of argument: that he is willing to reach across the aisle

Great point. I would go one step further and argue that the whole maverick theme undercuts the same argument. When he says he was not Mr Congeniality or that he has taken on his own party, the message is that he really doesn't get along well with others. And while Dems like to use him to create the aura of bi-partisan support, he very seldom changes anybody's mind.

Hilzoy, as long as you got your dictionary out, what's the difference between "maverick" and "erratic"?

Agreed completely. How is it, exactly, that you build consensus if you cannot ever agree on certain points? You don't. Getting things done anywhere in the world means that you work with people to build consensus, you don't decide what consensus is and say do it or else, which is the Bush/GOP way of doing anything.

One party of the rich in this country--2 branches--

Obama reinvades Afghanistan while McCain reinvades Vietnam. Same old, same old tragedy..

With Obama, the old Cold War Democrats/DLC ( the Senator from Boeing, et. al. )are back!

and speaking of tragedy repeating itself:

Same old, same old going on with the Wall Street Crisis

Yes that Republican turkey Gramm did author that odious bill deregulating Wall Street, but that turkey Clinton did sign it into law with Wall Street heavy hitters Summers and Rubin cheering it all on.

(Sad to say that these Cold War Dems, non-regulators, free-market fanatics will return when Obama becomes President.

I'm with howard and am worried when liberals seem to think the way to beat Republicans is to act like them. It's not. They've got their set of cards to play with and we've got ours, and if we play our cards with their strategy, they win. And I wouldn't trade cards with them in a million years.

As I keep saying, Republicans need to make this election personal and it benefits them greatly to have a disgusting slogfest that turns off non-partisans. And Democrats need to make this about issues and it benefits us to have non-partisans see what jerks the Republicans are and who the real leaders are. It might make you feel better to poke your opponent in the eye, but it's a losing strategy for us. For Republicans, because of the political landscape they created with a shrinking partisan base, it's the only strategy they've got. And it'll work less for them with every election.

The more people who show-up on election day, the better it is for us. We want voters to see that elections aren't about two sides attacking each other. We want them to see that it's about the future of the country. Obama helped do that last night.

Yes, this is a well-known style of debate wherein first the person concedes and even confirms and appears to agree, then he moves in with where he disagrees...

But I still think Obama did this too much and too emphatically--I didn't like it, and it took him too long to reach his point of disagreement (I think it thereby got too readily lost in the shuffle with his bending over backwards to say he is right on this and he is right on that....

IMO, the overall feeling was that he was somewhat equivocating, and I don't think that plays well with folks who have short attention spans or live in heart of Scranton PA where the undecided underbelly is listening carefully and tends to identify with a different style (more direct and clealy decisive) than this.

But McCain's approach is very much of a piece with how the Republicans have acted for the past 8 years. Nuance is for sissies! We're the Daddy Party, not the Mommy Party! Look at how self-assured we are! (Pay no attention to whether we're wrong or right; being right is just for liberal intellectual elitists!)

Fortunately the polls seem to indicate that people have had enough of this kind of government, but who knows how they'll feel on Nov. 4?

I was at work during the debate and was listening to it rather that watching it. I was among those who felt that the "John is right" statements was a mistake, because I thought that people like Chris Mathews in the media would translate McCain's interruptions and unwillingness to follow the debate format as strenght. And, I thought they would translate Obama's "John is right" phrasing into de facto concession.

I hope this is simply a manifestation of worry on my part about the inclinations of the undecideds out there. I appreciate the clear articulation of Hilzoy and others that people - particularly after eight years of it from Dubya - can recognize bullying and bluster for the unattractive TACTICS that they are. I have come to the realization that the choice in this election has been so obvious to me for so long that I simply cannot walk in the shoes of those who have not made up their minds.

Wrong.

You don't win close campaigns by being "gracious."

Obama missed all sorts of "pin the Bush tail on McCain" opportunities.

It is good news for his campaign and backers that he's apparently changing his mind about 527s, but he should have done this three weeks ago, when all sorts of personal foibles of Sarah Palin and her Alaskan Addams Familyâ„¢ was fresh meat. The Palin affair and other stuff had great legs, but is exactly the type of stuff you want surrogates, ie 527s, attacking and not a campaign itself. (From a purely strategic standpoint, I HUGELY disagree with people who say delving into personal issues is bad pool; the GOP has made antiprivacy a campaign issue for more than two decades, especially the Religious Right wing, so hoist Palin by her own petard.)

Otherwise, Obama needs to continue to read more Clauswitz and Sun-Tzu, and less Kumbaya.

I agree. It also demonstrates credibility. If you disagree 100% of the time and attack, attack attack, it lacks credibility, just as agreeing 100% of the time seems fake, insincere. If you're willing to say, look, I agree with that, but I disagree with this it shows you're confident enough to concede similarities with your opponent.

Very good post. One further thing: McCain's opinions morph daily--towards Obama's. A lot of what Obama agreed to was his own platform.

I like this perspective.

To add another layer, I think that Obama was aiming his remarks toward the undecided voters, and that giving ground to McCain was done deliberately and thoughtfully to demonstrate his reasonableness and willingness to reach across the aisle. He essentially role played the bipartisan president last evening.

Of course the already committed Dem. voters don't want Obama to give ground as that to them appears unnecessarily weak.

I perceive that it makes him appear stronger and more palatable to voters who come from conservative areas, are exposed to conservative-dominated TV, print and radio media, and who attend evangelical and authoritarian/dominionist churches.

He also used language which was reassuring - I guess that he's targeting women and heads of households whose jobs aren't secure, whose mortgages are becoming untenable and whose health care costs, gasoline and utility bills are far outstripping their earnings.

His messaging was consistently about reassurance and facing threats in a calm, reasoned fashion as opposed to McCain's invoking of fear and danger and perceived threats under every rock and behind every tree.

Obama is offering light/beacon/hope imagery.
McCain is offering fear/danger/threat/warning/intimidation/war imagery.

And this debate was the most burdensome for Obama since he had to prove his bona fides. McCain should have been able to coast.

I think that Obama appeared most presidential, hopeful and visionary. He's making it OK for resistant voters to vote against their party, against their pastors and against their local culture.

I think he accomplished what he set out to do.

Maybe someone needs to point out where "John" was wrong.
In his eagerness to paint Obama with "Nai-Vi-Te", as he says it, John showed a clear misunderstanding of Pakistani history, war tactics vs. war strategy, and the idea that Iraq can be won or could possibly be a vitory.
Pakistan was not a failed state when Musharraf took power in a coup in 1999. The Current President is Zardari, not "Qadari".
The "surge" was a military tactic designed to give breathing room to the strategy of offering stability to Iraq's fledgling gov. In addition, most analysts agree a surge style tactic wouldn't work in Afghanistan where the enemy is too spread out.
Gen. Patraeus has said about Iraq, "This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade."

Wow, Annie. That was the post of the debate! Great points.

Dr. Wu, above, is spot on.

To add to that, for whom did Rubin work before Bill Clinton? The same place as Paulson — No. 1 Obama campaign donor Goldman Sachs.

Who's the top Republican officially backing Obama?

GLB co-author Jim Leach.

No wonder Obama claims "we don't have time" to tie regulatory reform to the bailout.

Go ahead and continue to unthinkingly pull the "D" lever without looking at third-party options, folks.

I've heard other commentators make an important point about this: this approach of agree-and-point-to-differences seems to be playing well with independents. And after all, that's really all we care about at this, right?

"McCain claims that he can truly reach out to his opponents and work with them, while Obama cannot. It's hard for me to think that his performance in this debate didn't seriously undermine that claim."
---
I think this is an important point. On McCain's night at the republican convention, he bizarrely pivoted to some sort of non-partisan statesman, which was ridiculous giving not just that the prior three days of the convention were disgustingly partisan, but his entire campaign to that point was centered on baseless partisan attacks. It is clear his campaign feels this election is less about consistency than even issues.

Regarding the glee the campaign is feeling about Obama's supposed agreement with their candidate's statements, (I haven't read the transcript) I would be so sure. One such example was Obama agreeing that the 'President needs to be prudent in his statements regarding world affairs,' which was a set-up to point out McCain's bellicosity and threats to eradicate N. Korea and singing about bombing Iran.

John McCain has the ability to say the right thing, but he rarely if ever (at least recently Mr. Brooks) follows suit with his actions. Agreeing with a principle or philosophy before pointing out that neither applies to Sen. McCain, is a brilliant strategy, er, tactic!

Some conclusions I've come to accept of McCain:

McCain is not bi-partisan. McCain has his own ideas of how things should work - whether they are ideas on the right or the left. He'll "buck the system" if it fits his agenda, he'll give you the cold shoulder, call you a "chicken shit" or tell you to piss off if you don't agree with his "bi-partisan" agenda. Truth of the matter is he is completely inflexible once he embraces an agenda. What scares me is had to embrace far right ideology to secure the nomination.

McCain's cold shoulder/contempt/resentment stems from the fact that he truly does believe it's his turn to play president. He's put in his "dues" - he was a POW, so presidency please. The way he presented himself shows Obama as a roadblock, not a person with valid ideas that need to be debated to see who is best qualified. This was reinforced by his "naivete" mantra that seemed hollow as Obama came back with counterpoints that punched holes in McCain's position. This also reinforces the idea of why McCain runs such a shitty campaign that focuses on Celebrity, etc... He actually believes that Obama is an uppity celebrity trying to steal the McCain glory. When he realized that's a popular thing with the kids, he gets his own celebrity in the form of Palin to try to get some of the thunder back. He's become transparent to me and pretty much lost all crediblity as a bi-partisan champioin or maverick with me, and I used to like him.

Go ahead and continue to unthinkingly pull the "D" lever without looking at third-party options, folks.

Well, I live in a safe Republican state, so I'll be voting Libertarian with a clear conscience.

If I lived in a swing state, I'd probably vote for Obama despite wishing we had more viable options.

You don't win close campaigns by being "gracious."

You can win campaigns. Reagan was a small-minded small town hater with a list of resentments as long as your arm -- that's how he governed -- but he looked like an affable elder relative. The twinkle in that callous bastard's eye was gold.

All the logos-persuadeables (position papers) are committed.
All the pathos-persuadeables (biography) are committed.

What's left are the ethos-persuadeables. From here on in, affect is the only thing that matters.

Affect, affect, affect. I wouldn't even automatically nail McCain on a statement that 2+2=5 until I had thought 'How will this make me look?"

The press this morning is all about what last night looked like, what the players looked like. How they acted.

Near-zip on policy. Obama's people read Somersby on the 2000 debates, and took notes.

The thing that struck me most about McCain's behavior was his constant unrelenting *smirk*. UGH! As if we haven't had enough of that from Dubya. I cannot bear another 4 (or 8!) years of a smirking, lowbrow "Decider".

IMHO, Barack Obama is a man, and acts accordingly.

McCain, on the other hand, behaves like a spoiled child.

One of Obama's "John is right" bits had to do with corporate tax rates, and was actually used as a rhetorical device to show that McCain is naive or clueless about what actually matters -- effective tax rates (rather than the tax rates in the code, before loopholes and what not). McCain had made a point about how the enacted tax rates on businesses are so high in the US, and Obama corrected McCain about the effective tax rate, which is actually rather low once deductions and loopholes are taken into account. Obama was saying that McCain was right about what does not matter, and quite wrong about what does.

Having watched the McCain campaigns post-debate advertisement, my point above was spot on. Each of the examples used in the spot highlighted a huge difference in approach between the candidates. Each, to me says: John McCain is all talk, it may be good talk, but its all talk nonetheless and here's why...!

Obama seized on McCain's own statements to highlight how out of touch his policies are. 'On paper we have the highest corporate tax rate (you're right, but..), we are NOT seeing that revenue due to a corporate driven tax code full of loopholes that allows corporations to sneak past!'

Go ahead and continue to unthinkingly pull the "D" lever without looking at third-party options, folks.

Well, I live in a safe Republican state, so I'll be voting Libertarian with a clear conscience.

If I lived in a swing state, I'd probably vote for Obama despite wishing we had more viable options.

From a purely strategic standpoint, I HUGELY disagree with people who say delving into personal issues is bad pool

SocraticGadfly - Have you ever spoken to an undecided voter? If so, do they indicate to you that they'd be more likely to vote for Obama if only they knew more dirt on McCain and Palin? Becausee the ones I talk to always have a "pox on both their houses" sort of attitude and don't like immature mud wars. They like to think of themselves as above petty politics and like to look down upon partisans who are more interested in scoring cheap points. Sure, they're full of dooky when they say that, but by engaging in mudslinging, it helps reinforce their point. Hatred is how you get a partisan to vote against your opponent, but it's not enough for undecideds to dislike McCain. They need to have a reason to vote for Obama, and having him act mature and gracious is the way to go.

The Rove strategy has always been to turn these people off, by making politics an ugly event that only partisans would enjoy. I think that's a stupid strategy even for Republicans, but it's the one they've chosen. But it's an even worse strategy for us, because most folks agree with us and just need a reason to vote for our candidate. This has nothing to do with avoiding "dirty pool." It has to do with smart strategy. Tearing down McCain personally is bad strategy. It's the one the Republicans have been using for years and it gets harder for them each time. As I said earlier, it might be more fun to attack McCain, but it's smarter to keep this on the issues.

And I'm not sure which Sun-Tzu you've been reading, but the one I read didn't think that full-on offensives were always the best strategy. McCain is destroying himself while Palin becomes a bigger disgrace every day. The best thing Obama can do is to let that happen, rather than engaging in a personal firefight.

I wish people who are not undecided voters in Scranton would stop trying to analyze the debate from the perspective of whether undecided voters in Scranton would appreciate them. A hint: you are probably not very good at assessing what undecided voters in Scranton think.

"The idea that McCain won the debate seems not to have crossed the minds of anyone not already deeply committed to stopping Obama, which suggests that McCain’s performance was worse than it might at first appear."

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/26/tie-goes-to-the-challenger/

Tend to agree, but still, there are under 40 days to the election, and Obama simply should not have been using that phrase as much as he did. There are plenty of ways to respectfully state that your opponent may be right on one small aspect of the issue under discussion and that your opponent is way off base on the larger picture. Starting off sentences with "John is right" is not the optimal way of doing that. Obama should know better by this point. I sure hope that over the next three debates Obama and Biden learn from this.

Graciousness is not highly valued in these here United States. The graciousness vote has been estimated to comprise 0.05 % of the total vote, as compared to 30% thug vote.
e

The graciousness vote has been estimated to comprise 0.05 % of the total vote, as compared to 30% thug vote.

Perhaps, but we've already lost the thug vote. 0.05% could be enough to win us the election, though I doubt it'd be necessary as long as Obama avoids acting like a thug.

I really don't understand why people are so obsessed with getting Obama to use a strategy that can't possibly work for us. Hell, it doesn't even work for Republicans in the long-term! All the Republican thugs are disgraced losers who can only make a living due to the conservative pundit welfare system. There's a reason why thugs like Gingrich and DeLay will never be president: They're hugely unpopular! And the "genius" Karl Rove is so radioactive that he can't openly help McCain.

Even Bush and Cheney are disgraced thugs who will go down in history as incompetent jerks. Why should we want to emulate this? Sure, thuggery worked for them in the last two elections, but it should be remembered that it was election theft that won it for them; not thuggery. Most people hate thugs.

It reminds me of when they tried to accuse Obama if voting with Bush almost 50% of the time. And Obama stated that W is not wrong all the time - and if he is right Obama will support him. How partisan do you look if you can not agree with anything your opponent says. In that case you are not even fighting for your ideology only fighting against your opponent.

If you can even acknowledge once that the leader of the opposing party is correct on any position there can be no possible way to work or negotiate with them.

Functional relationships are all about respect and accepting the necessity of compromise.

Dysfunctional relationships are about self and dominance.

Consider: If McCain were capable of reaching across the aisle he would probably still be with his first wife.
He needs his second wife's money and connections.

By the same token he crashes into a meeting that already has a compromise that he did nothing to formulate (granted, a compromise most Americans hate), that Obama supports, that Bush supports, that most in Congress support, that Paulson supports, but that McCain doesn't support, and low and behold by the end of that meeting, no comprise. John Dysfunction walked in and Comprise Dysfunction walked out.

I was at work during the debate and was listening to it rather that watching it.

It's interesting that I've seen several people who only heard the debate rather than watched it say that they think McCain won it hands-down.

Don't forget, though -- everyone who listened to the Nixon/Kennedy debate on the radio thought that Nixon had won it easily. Visuals really do matter, and McCain's visuals were awful.

Obama appeared to be a real gentleman and called McCain by his first name as well as actually looked at him instead of pretending he wasn't in the same room. Obama is a mensch.

Dr Wu: That turkey Bill Clinton signed the deregulation bill into law against a veto-proof majority. The vote in the Senate was along party lines, with only one Democrat voting Aye.

Conclusion: Democrats were against deregulation, but they did not control the legislative branch. Try being a Chicken Little re: something you have a chance of being right about.

Obama played it exactly right. Like it or not, in today's America he had to scrupulously avoid creating the impression of an Angry Black Man beating up poor grandpa. That McCain was unable to provoke him into doing so was a credit to Obama.

The fact that McTunnelVision couldn't look Obama in the eye isn't just a character flaw; it denotes something much more serious, a level of fear that no nation should want in a leader---especially in these troubled times that we, as a People, now find ourselves. America does not need a President who hides behind the myriad mendaciousness of his surrogates, the blind-and-blatant stunts of the hybrid neo-fascist/Stalinist wet dreams of the Right wing noise machine, and the skirt of a closet Pentecostal priestess bent of delivering the Republic up to those who, given their previously-announced goals, would seek to inflict upon that very Republic an Armageddon-like rapture event of their own design and implementation---and then blame it on their own deity as "his will being done."

That being said, one should note that the multiplied evils that constitute what may legitimately be labeled as "McCain/Palinism" will go to any lengths to win in 38 days---by going to any lengths top make Obama/Biden lose in 38 days. Should they and their cohort of criminalistic "voyeur capitalists"---the "Peeping Tom" profiteers who breach every facet of one's own privately-held rights and beliefs for their own selfish gain---it can be said with a measure of certainty bordering on the absolute that they will not go quietly into the night.

Beating McCain and his rabble is the easier task; dealing with a defeated McCain mechanism after the election is synonymous to putting saddles on six wounded tigers and using them for a children's pony ride at a county fair---you wouldn't wish it on your worst enemy's family, let alone your own....

"There will be those, like the oaf Chris Matthews, who will think that McCain's attitude shows him to be a leader."

Even "the Oaf" found McCain's attitude despicable. It won't play well at all with women voters, who've been on the receiving end of being ignored like that their whole lives.

BIG mistake on his part, and I can only think he didn't trust himself not to blow up if he actually looked at that "whippersnapper" who deigned to challenge him.

Obama calling McCain "John" didn't signify any sense of respect - kind of like how McCain didn't look over at Obama during the debate. Both of them made it clear they weren't trying to make friends.

Obama's "bomb, bomb, bomb," comment was obviously snarky while McCain's " you own presidential seal" comment was only good if you knew about the flack over Obama's made up seal.

It just reminded me that most people are holding their nose and voting for president.

Courtesy aside, you would HOPE that on an area like national security, the two candidates agree on quite a few things! The normal, sensible way to proceed in a discussion is to specify areas of agreement and use that to narrow differences.

Obama did that. McCain didn't and that's what viewers picked up on.

People who think you win by yelling nonstop insults are idiots.

David H: Two-thirds of HOUSE Dems voted for the original GLB, not the post-conference version. (And the House reported its version out of committee FIRST, so you can't even claim House Dems were swayed by Senate vote.)

Besides, already pre-95/Congress turnover, Senate GOP had shown it could play the "threat of filibuster" card; why couldn't Senate Dems.

Nice try at ass-covering for corporate sellout Dems.

You're not the first person on threads, on GLB, to point ONLY to the Senate vote.

Nice try, but false, false, false.

Also, 40 percent of Senate Dems and a majority of House Dems voted FOR Newt's tort reform bill in 1995 — one of two Clinton vetoes to be overridden.

Dr. Biobrain: Clinton/Carville had a "war room" -- and won. Other Dem candidates had "rapid response rooms" and lost.

It's all about the mindset.

Why didn't Obama point out that McCain voted against the veterans' bill? I kept waiting ... and waiting ...

It was an opening to drive a truck through. Doesn't Obama realize EVERYONE wants to support our veterans?

That failure was really galling to me.

Let me name one other area where Dems are as bad as the GOP financially:

I assume the $25 million "loan" bailout for the Formerly Big Three is on. Both parties are down with it; and, despite that Japan's Big Three of Toyota, Honda and Nissan all have plants here in the U.S., as well as already making more environmentally friendly cars than the Not so Big Three, and despite the deliberately antienvironmentalist history of the Not so Big Three, both parties are going to bail them out.

I'd add it's not just the "John is right on this and that" that was the problem alone.

Look, I love Obama and he has had my vote for a long time. But this is the honest take on what I saw, heard and felt at a visceral level last night

His speaking style and content need help in these areas:

** taking too long to get to his point
** lack of intonation or inflection --too rote
** not emphasizing the talking points often enough (they were just sort of inserted in the end--he should start AND end with them several times)
** speaking too professorily
** speaking too densely and too quickly
** next to NO use of emotionally connecting annectdotes and
** no clear, succinct values/vision statements

I think he didn't do much damage, but he lost out on many good opportunites. All in all, I see this debate as being pretty much a wash.

But I didlike Biden's statements afterwards and I really like what Obama is saying today on the campaign trail about the debate!

Finally, Dems can be WORSE than the GOP at times.

The new copyright czar bill is bad enough, as is.

Senate Dems wanted language that would mandate DOJ itself sue violators, rather than just private suits filed by plaintiffs. It was so bad the Bush Admin insisted that provision be junked.

But, IMO, people who don't look beyond the two-party duopoly, including not supporting Instant Runoff Voting, fusion tickets, public financing of Congressional campaigns including provisions for third-party candidates, etc., are all part of the problem.

So too is the Democratic willing to go along with Republicans on continuing to grow "Presidentialism." See "Bad for Democracy, just reviewed by me on Amazon.

"Why didn't Obama point out that McCain voted against the veterans' bill? I kept waiting ... and waiting ..."

You're not alone. I was wondering why he didn't use that. Big mistake. He should have also mentioned McCain's just published article on healthcare where he suggested doing with healthcare the same thing we've done with the banking system. NcCain's responce in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 ("On to Baghdad.") was clearly an example of his poor judgement.

Obama did wlell but he missed several oportunities to decisively put McCain away.

Speaking of gracious, by my count, the number of times McCain said some form of the phrase "Senator Obama doesn't understand" or "Senator Obama doesn't get": 10

Looks like McCain wants "Obama doesn't understand" to be his cover version of "There ya go again." To me it just makes him look like and arrogant prick. Excuse me, and arrogant old prick.

That should be "an" arrogant old prick. (I hate that typo and I do it all the time.)

They're fucking peers Eric. They're allowed to call each other by first names.

Maybe you will have to hold your nose to vote for that drunken old cooter but I suspect you do that quite a bit. Probably got a permanent close-pin firmly anchored. However I will proudly and loudly pull the lever for Barack Hussein Obama, and laugh my ass off at poor idiots like you who'll be left in the lurch, clutching their bitter pills.

When Phil Gramm spoke of a "nation of whiners" he really meant YOU.

And to the ever pompous *socratic gadfly*, no one here has ever claimed Obama was perfect. What's your point?

R. Porrofatto - could you fix my typos too?

;_

remember the one of the main points of the debate,
for a smart politician,
is to reach out to the undecided voters.
Looking petulant, angry, aggressive, and put-off
will not do it. nope.
McCain's performance tells me that he is not
campaigning smart.
no surprise there.

as this campaign rolls on and on, I am more
convinced then ever that McCain is an idiot.

Dr. Biobrain: Clinton/Carville had a "war room" -- and won. Other Dem candidates had "rapid response rooms" and lost.

SocraticGadfly - Bush Jr. stole both elections through election fraud. Bush Sr. and Dole didn't. It's all about the election fraud.

And as a reminder, both Gore and Kerry got a far larger percentage of the vote than Clinton did in 1992, and had comparable percentages as Bill in 1996. Let's not pretend as if Clinton had some huge victories compared with Kerry or Gore. Had Ross Perot been grabbing votes against Bush Jr, things would certainly have turned out differently. And then there was the Nader thing. You can pretend as if this is all about political attacks if you want, but it's clearly more complicated than that.

John McCain has less expertise in foreign affairs than I do. I don't know why anyone would think this is his strong point beyond the fact that the campaign and McCain says it is. Other than his time as a POW, has McCain spend any real time in a foreign country? Does he have an advanced degree in international relations? Does he speak a foreign language?

Whistle-stop tours through countries does not make one experienced in foreign affairs.

Think about it: McCain couldn't even bring himself to look at Obama. He was consistently contemptuous and dismissive.

Which proves that McCain is still using the literal "bully pulpit" to play to his base -- dunderheads who get their rocks off just because McCain acts mean to a liberal. But he can't win the election with just the John Birchers of the modern Republican Party. McCain utterly failed to reach the middle by acting like such an asshole.

Meanwhile, Obama was gracious yet forceful. He needs to show that he isn't a scary, angry black man, and he did so last night. And if the polls are right, people noticed.

Let's face it -- Obama knows McCain, and Republicans in general, will not argue in good faith. In a way, just as McCain refused to look at Obama, Obama also refused to acknowledge McCain's game, because doing so is a sure loser.

It's not just the "Your right on this and that" alone-- but that he started with it and it took him too long to get to his important critical differing view. I think instead he needs to start AND end with his point of contention, his talking point.

It was this combined with other things:

* too professorial
* too long winded
* not enough inflection/intonnation in his voice when making critical points
* spoke too quickly and rotely
* responses were too dense --needs to develop one or two points more instead (as in: Keep it Simple and very real)
* Not enough personal stories about/annectdotes re: folks suffering with health care, with returning from war, with their jobs...with gas prices and groceries...etc.
* No concise, poignant outlying of values/vision

I don't think he made any huge mistakes, but these were lost opportunities.

He's doing a great job today on the campaign trail, though--and Biden is coming out strong too!

Speaking of good faith - did you see the Missouri prosecutors threatening to prosecute people who run adds? I wonder if Obama knows they are doing this in his name.

The Gov. of Missouri has called Obama out.

McCain is still playing to his base. Obama is talking to independents trying to make up their minds.

Let liberals fret a little. Are they going to vote McCain because Obama says McCain was right about some small thing or another? No.

But independents recognize which man is more likely to bring solutions to Washington.

McCain: tactics
Obama: strategy

It is good news for his campaign and backers that he's apparently changing his mind about 527s, but he should have done this three weeks ago, when all sorts of personal foibles of Sarah Palin and her Alaskan Addams Familyâ„¢ was fresh meat.

Uh, the news reports of Obama's course-change on 527s were in just about every political media outlet on Sep. 9, nearly three weeks ago. So it seems to me that you are criticizing Obama when he in fact did exactly what you say he should have done, almost exactly when you say he should have done it.

Let's not pretend as if Clinton had some huge victories compared with Kerry or Gore.

Clinton did have huge victories compared to Kerry or Gore. First of all, because he had victories at all.

Had Ross Perot been grabbing votes against Bush Jr, things would certainly have turned out differently.

Actually, polling in 1992 showed that most likely Perot had no effect, at least on the popular vote, on the winner; of the Perot voters that would have voted if he wasn't in the race, they were equally split between Clinton and Bush as the candidate they would have voted for.

That ad this morning's of McSame citing places where Obama agreed with him is also one which clearly misuses some of the quotes shipped from last night's debate:

The worst of it is the last item where Obama appears to agree with McSame that the U.S. has some of the highest tax rates in the world (and therefore, McSame argues - disproves the claim that tax laws favor the wealthy and corporations.

The clip shows Obama saying he agrees we have the some of the highest RATES....but it then halts, just before Obama made the rest of his statement which points out that massive loopholes in the tax law mean only idiots pay those high rates and that those loopholes more than ever favor.....the wealthy and corporations.

So much for the Straight Talk Express!!!!

Where is the logic in insisting all night long that your opponent doesn't understand anything, and then trumpeting how much he agrees with you?

Where is the logic in insisting all night long that your opponent doesn't understand anything, and then trumpeting how much he agrees with you?

Pretty much this whole campaign, McCain has relied on each statement, ad, etc., he makes not being considered in light of anything else he's ever said or done in the past, so this is really just part for the course.

Sure, it makes no sense, but it is unsurprising nonsense given the rest of the campaign.

um, cmdicely, that was a rhetorical question...

In relation to one of Pat Lang's points, talking about someone in third person while you're debating them is a standard rhetorical device. For example, it is how all politicians refer to each other in the British House of Commons, even when they're looking each other in the eye or the person is of the same party.

As for McCain, he just looked angry to me. Not dismissive or contemptuous, just plain ready to blow a gasket. Let me say the unsayable, McCain belongs to a generation that believed that people of color had a place. It could be that McCain just doesn't like a black man ripping on him and calling him 'John'.

Repulsive bullying hack ghouliani berated Obama last night about saying McCain was right, what a disgusting creature that man is when he's on the attack. A person who can admit others are right is just what we need for President, especially after the last eight years.

I said in another thread last night, Obama could say "the first step in reaching across the isle is looking your opponent in the eye."

The coming debates will be worse if McCain can't handle looking at Obama. Plus he has already burned through all his material. It will be as old as Palin's stump speech next time.

We have lived with presidents who love to belittle their opponents and I've been on the receiving end as a non-Republican for a while.

Maybe Obama can bring back a country of laws, not men. He said we need a Pakistan policy. We need an Iran policy as well, and a Russia policy. McCain always personalizes his policy by attaching it to the leaders.

Obama is offering light/beacon/hope imagery.
Pure smoke and mirrors!! Not even up to the level of The Wizard of Oz.
McCain stresses his experience, and it works
He made “I know how to…” type statements ten times. Obama did not make a single one.

Obama is very self-referent
He says “I think” or similar (I believe) 26 times.
McCain says it 13 times.

Both use the “I” word 120 times, a clear tie.
Obama uses “we” 140 times and McCain 90 times. The use is complicated because frequently Obama is doing the “imperial we.”

Obama says “I agree with John,” about five times

Obama refers to what he will do when he is President five times: McCain three times.

Obama says “That’s not true (or not the case)” nine times in reference to four remarks:
• McCain says Obama will increase taxes
• McCain says Obama refuses to acknowledge progress in Iraq
• McCain says that Admiral Mullen suggests that Senator Obama's plan is dangerous for America.
• McCain says Obama is against nuclear power
I do not have enough information to know if Obama is correct but mostly it sounds like he is not.

Obama tries to “parse” his position on speaking to Ahmadinejad without cxonditions, and fails.

McCain makes Obama look like a lightweight without having to say he’s a lightweight.

On the bracelet issue (“I have a bracelet given to me….”) Obama says “Me. Too!”

When you read through the transcript as carefully as I did you see that McCain has much more substance than Obama. Much more.

I wish Obama didn't show his bracelet, but perhaps for another reason. When MCain showed his, I wanted to groan. It's such a cliche, these bracelets. I think they trivialize the very real issue of memorializing those who've given their lives.

The last thing I would want to remember my passed loved-one is that some politician is laying claim to his/her name by wearing it on a cheap piece of plastic.

Obama: I'm glad the Senator McCain brought up the bipartisan history of us engaging in direct diplomacy. Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger who is one of his advisors who along with 5 Secretaries of State just said that we should meet with Iran; Guess what? He said without preconditions. This is one of your own advisers...

McCain: Look. Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve a face to face meeting between the President of the United States and Ahmadinejad. he did not say that. He said there could be lower level meetings. I've always encouraged them. The Iranians have met with Ambassador Crocker in Baghdad. What senator Obama doesn't understand is that without precondition you sit down with someone who has called Israel a stinking corpse and wants to destroy that country and wipe it off the map, you legitimize those comments. This is dangerous. This isn't just naive... By the way, Dr. Kissinger who has been my friend for 35 years would be interested to hear Senator Obama's depiction on the issue. I've known him for 35 years

Obama: (interrupting) Lets take a look.

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...
(CROSSTALK)

SESNO: Put at a very high level right out of the box?

KISSINGER: Initially, yes. And I always believed that the best way to begin a negotiation is to tell the other side exactly what you have in mind and what you are -- what the outcome is that you're trying to achieve so that they have something that they can react to.

Last time I checked, the President was not Secretary Of State.

John continues to be right.

g,

Your statement got me thinking that this was sort of the flatness, the staleness, the playing it safe that left me kinda disappointed.

See, that's where Obama could have talked about how troubled it makes him to have to wear a bracelet of such incredible suffering, but pledge as our next President he will do what he can to wear many such more bracelets of a different sort--ones that stand for true unity and strength of of family, of community,of country.

Obama proved in the debate that he is not crotchety enough to be President.

Neo: that's a pretty dumb-assed assertion. Wow.
The Secretary of State would be the highest level of negotiation that takes place prior to a presidential meeting. Unless you want to drop Bush into Tehran with a dry-eraser board and a copy of "Diplomacy for Dummies."

I'm a Washington Monthly reader that lives overseas. From here, it's incredible how simplistic and slanted becomes the analysis most people make, depending on who they favor.

The article in question is one side of the analysis on the debate and, as the saying goes, there are always two sides to an argument.

To those readers that refer to one or the other candidate in despective terms, let me say to them that the US is the greatest country in the world and has had, for the most part of its history, great political leaders.

Most of the times, any US President, no matter how terrible he's done in office, is much better than his counterparts from other countries, with few notable exceptions. This has been true in the past and it's true even today.

In this election, one of these two men will become the next President of the United States and one of the most important world leaders. You cannot make it this far in an election if you don't have what it takes, in all terms. The same is true for a Vice President.

Having said this, I believe that most of the comments above do not reflect the intelectual level of most readers of the Washington Monthly. A good analysis needs to be less about insulting one candidate and glorifying the other, but needs to present the ideas or policies each one has and why you agree or disagree with them.

Needless to say, in my opinion, both candidates are very intelligent and smart and the fact that they are today at this point - almost in a tie -speak well of both as politicians, in the good sense of that word.

In real terms, both had a very good performance in last week's debate, in terms of not saying the wrong things (while presenting their positions on the issues) and both behaved very courteous, as the ocassion demanded.

From the comments posted above, I found very interesting the analysis done by Clifton Chadwick on his post of September 27, 2008 at 9:36 PM. That sort of analysis is good to start an intelligent discussion.

I also found helpful the comments from:
bubba posted on September 27, 2008 at 1:40 PM
bdbd posted on September 27, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Jim posted on September 27, 2008 at 1:14 PM

Now lets watch and listen to the VP debate this week and see its outcome. I can only hope that, if the Washington Monthly readers make comments, these are more intelligent and informative than the ones above.

Thank you.