Excuse me for the 700 billionth--to use a popular number--diary on this subject, but HONESTLY!!! I can't take any more diaries or comments that miss the obvious--that OBAMA WON THE DEBATE IN EVERY WAY!!! I DO understand, however, why some people here can't see this, and I'll be glad to explain it. It helps, though, to watch the debate twice through. The second time I watched it was on CNN, which showed the focus group reactions in a running graph at the bottom of the screen.
So why have many on the (liberal) left been unable to appreciate how well Obama did? In essence, many people (here and in the commentariat) have become so conditioned by years of propaganda from George Bush, Karl Rove, et al, that they are used to hearing claims that up is down and black is white, and so immediately assume that since some Republican jerk has made a laughably absurd claim, the undecideds and independents out in TV land are going to buy it. We saw it happen with the Iraq war, right? We saw it happen with Kerry in 2004, right?
Ultimately, this kind of thinking is premised on the idea that people are SO UTTERLY STUPID that they'll swallow any Republican b.s. someone throws their way. SO FOR EXAMPLE: a Repub tells them a Republican president is going to win the war, achieve victory, and bring the troops home with honor, and they'll nod their heads, as though hypnotized, and say, Right! Of course! We're America! We have to win the war! And with honor! It's as if the average person's brain were simply incapable of critical thinking, right? And academics such as George Lakoff ("Don't Think of an Elephant") have helped to convince us of something along these lines.
Well, people are NOT that stupid. Once we disabuse ourselves of the notion that you can tell Americans absolutely any nonsense as long as you wrap yourself in the flag, we'll be able to start thinking about the debate more clearly.
I could elaborate further, but I'll move on for now, with a brief return to this argument where needed later.
Here it is. Obama won the debate:
- on the merits
- strategically
- stylistically
And these three points are closely related.
Another diarist argued that McCain won the debate because he controlled the narrative and the time. Without even wishing to dispute whether this is true, I'd simply say that these alone would not win a debate.
- THE MERITS
This is the MAJOR OBVIOUS POINT THAT EVERYONE FORGETS. I mean, did you disagree with what Obama said? Do you imagine most people did? (What, maybe Russia isn't really so much to blame for what happened with Georgia, and maybe Iran isn't such a menace? OK. If you disagree there, I'd call his comments strategic concessions, which I'll get to later.) Basically, just about everything Obama said was correct, and McCain's arguments were extraordinarily weak. In terms of foreign policy, McCain's supposed strong suit, McCain was in the position, essentially, of defending the indefensible--such as the Iraq war, just to take the most obvious example.
Well, you say, we've seen that for years now. Republicans get away with defending the indefensible. Look, they sold us the war to begin with, righ? Actually, the majority of people were against the war even before it began, but even leaving that aside, you have to rememmber that around 70 percent of Americans are now against the war. McCain's already losing that argument as soon as he opens his mouth. And winning? Victory? People have heard that nonsense for too long. Even people who haven't been paying attention realize that "victory" is a meaningless concept here--except for the Republican hard core, of course. But Obama's not getting their votes anyway. You say the surge has worked? Fine! Let's just say it has. (Obama has already conceded that point--strategically, of course, because it hasn't really worked.) But so what? That doesn't mean "winning the war."
And brilliantly, like the extraordinarily skillful politician he is, Obama slammed McCain almost as soon as McCain reached for the surge argument. This came early on, and Obama replied, "You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003.... When the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong! You said we would be greeted as liberators. You were wrong!" And on and on while McCain stood there grimacing helplessly.
This more or less incapacitated McCain's Iraq arguments from this point on. Try as he might, McCain was just digging a deeper hole for himself. HE WAS JUSTIFYING THE IRAQ WAR, FOR GOD'S SAKE! And we knew he would, of course. But this has become the argument that no longer works. It fails on the merits, and it fails on an emotional level with the target audience.
So what's his last resort? His bracelet, given to him by the mother who didn't want her son's death to be in vain! But he had used this line too many times before, and Obama was ready for it. "I have a bracelet, too," Obama parried, from the mother of a fallen soldier, a mother who wanted Obama to make sure no other mother had to go through what she was going through. And then, brilliantly, Obama adds that NO SOLDIER DIES IN VAIN! They are carrying out their mission, and they have performed brilliantly! And this matches his concession that the surge has worked, so his argument is consistent and logical--and persuasive.
At this point, Obama has demolished the last shred of any argument McCain can make. The audience was already predisposed to reject McCain's war rationales, and at this point, he's just dead in the water. Now, Keith Olbermann made much of the fact that McCain said it wasn't so important how we got into the war but rather what we were going to do in the future. But Obama has already made clear what he wants to do--end the war. Set a timeline. Get the troops out. McCain himself had already done his best to let everyone know Obama wanted to get out. Furthermore, McCain's point was self-defeating: by saying it didn't matter how we got into the war, he appears to be transparently trying to make people forget that he was a cheerleader for the war. And Obama wasn't going to let people forget it.
This was the number one foreign policy issue that really mattered. I'll cover a few of the other points just to keep this from getting too long. Obama linked the resurgence of al Qaeda to the war in Iraq (and his argument was solid, of course, and one many people are sure to have heard already). He made it clear that the war in Iraq essentially helped al Qaeda to "get away," so to speak. This matters.
On the issue of negotiating with Iran and other such countries, Obama was once again on solid ground, and McCain was reduced to defending the Bush policy of refusing to talk. Now, here I understand that people have been conditioned by years of Bush-Cheney-Rove propaganda, but the idea of absolutely refusing to talk to hostile or enemy countries until they give you everything you want is bizarre on the face of it. Here again, most people who are not hardcore Republicans are used to this argument and no longer buy it, since they have seen how badly this has worked and they have seen most recently that the Bushies have had to back down (notably with North Korea). In any case, on the merits, it fails. On top of that, Obama was able to point to the fact that Kissinger advocated talking to Iran without preconditions.
Before leaving foreign policy, don't forget that McCain was unable to pronounce Ahmadinejad, mangled Pakistani President Zardari's name, and claimed, strangely, that Pakistan was a failed state when Musharraf took over. Now, you say, the average couch potato just tuning into the debate won't know all that. Well, no one could miss McCain's spectacular inability to pronounce Ahmadinejad, and the pundits quickly pointed out the rest. And the average Joe or Josephine might well think, What? I don't recall hearing that Pakistan was a failed state. But even if not, everyone pointed out he was wrong.
On domestic policy, McCain tried his usual lies about Obama's tax plans, which allowed Obama to spell out the truth, which he did calmly and well. McCain's bs had already been so widely debunked that Obama didn't have to do much here. BUT Obama made the excellent point that McCain wants to tax health benefits. McCain had no rebuttal. That must have come as a rude surprise to a lot of people.
Long story short, McCain was flailing, while Obama spoke intelligently and hit him when it was really needed...
- STRATEGY
...Which brings me to the objection a lot of people had: Obama didn't counterpunch enough. WRONG!!! Obama counterpunched just enough and where it really counted. For example, when McCain went on about Obama's requests for earmarks, Obama could have countered with an attack on actual earmarks McCain has requested, but Obama let it go. Why? To respond on this terrain would have allowed the debate to descend into what would ahve been perceived as arcane squabbling and would ultimately have hurt Obama. Most people just aren't that concerned (or informed) on the subject. Even the term "earmarks" seems obscure.
Obama agreed with a number of McCain's points and even conceded a few. OK, do you really think it would be worth going into the details of what happened during the conflict in Georgia and South Ossetia? I mean, in the format of this debate, that would be a lot of time explaining the truth of something that most people are actually unaware of since the media really blurred the distinction between the invasion of South Ossetia by Georgia (the start of the conflict) and the subsequent attacks on Georgia by Russia. In any case, Russia did invade Georgia, so Obama's remarks about Russia were on solid ground. We really wouldn't want Obama to go into nuance here. His instincts were just right.
A lot of people had thought up some great objections to McCain's spin that they were virtually screaming at the TV and wanted Obama to hit him with. Well, if THEY had been on that stage in Obama's place, that is, debating WHILE BLACK, so to speak, they would have failed miserably with the target audience. Obama is extraordinarily skillful here, and too many among us just fail to realize it.
Just imagine for a second: Obama slaps McCain mercilessly for every stupid thing he says, getting in all the excellent objections and zingers everyone on Daily Kos could think of. Now think of all the independents and undecideds out in Middle America, and especially in the battleground states. They would be saying, Oh my God, there's that scary angry black guy disrespecting a war hero! On a gut level, that would be their reaction, and we all know that. Obama avoided that. He was polite and calm...
- STYLE
...Which brings me to style, which is related to strategy. Obama's remarks that he agreed with McCain helped him, contrary to the worries of many. For example, when McCain took Obama to task for saying he would go after al Qaeda inside Pakistan (a position that most Americans would support), Obama countered by agreeing that a president should speak prudently but McCain had gone so far as to sing "Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran," so this was hard to swallow from him. Conceding the point allowed him to make the attack without sounding disrespectful. AND DON'T FORGET FOR A SECOND THAT A HIGHER BURDEN WAS PLACED ON OBAMA IN THIS REGARD. McCain can get away with racial innuendo in his campaign ads, but Obama is expected by whites around the country to be respectful to the "war hero" and show that he is not an angry black man.
Chris Matthews, ever the incisive political observer (cough), asked at one point whether McCain was too hot while Obama was too cool (!). On he contrary, Obama's coolness provides the perfect contrast to McCain's tendency to lose it. Obama's coolness makes McCain's hotheadedness all the more apparent. And in a week when McCain was flying around in all directions, displaying more impulsiveness and less judgment than the average teenager, almost running away from the debate, Obama's steadiness and even-tempered approach were all the more obvious and refreshing.
THE UPSHOT
So people were surprised by the snap polls. And by the reactions shown on the bottom of the CNN screen. But Obama knows what he's doing. He's punching just enough to make McCain's arguments fail with independents and undecided voters. We might have a hundred good zingers and counterpunches for McCain, but just try to gauge the reactions of people who aren't exactly as liberal or as informed as we are. Just remember that for many people not so long ago Obama was the angry Muslim black guy who maybe wasn't even born in the U.S., went to school in a madrasa, and whose pastor said, "God damn America," and maybe Obama was there too, and maybe his wife went on a rant about "whitey." I mean, basically, some scary Black Panther muslim type from Chicago--maybe even a Marxist.
Well, Obama showed people he was a statesman and a thoughtful, reasonable guy who empathizes with the middle class, has good ideas about alternative energy sources (which people loved), and, basically, wants the same things they want. And finally, he showed that McCain wants the opposite of what they want--unless they're hardcore Republicans.
That's why Obama won the debate--in every way. It's almost as if McCain never had a chance.