Democratic Convention Watch: Them and Us

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Them and Us

WE'VE MOVED! Democratic Convention Watch is now at http://www.DemocraticConventionWatch.com

Ben Smith put up an interesting tidbit about an hour after the debate. He said:

The mild consensus in the press file was that McCain won, if not in particularly dramatic fashion. The two insta-polls out -- from CBS and CNN -- found the opposite: That Obama won by a wide margin. CBS had it 39% to 25% for Obama, CNN 51% to 38%.

As an aside, if you want to read a round-up of the instapolls, you can see them here.

Once again, it's very interesting how "they", the professionals, differ from "us" the regular folks. Today, we'll likely see "them" pounce on McCain's gaffes about Pakistan, and his lack of engagement with Obama. "They" will also bring up the things that Obama should have said.

But "us", especially those of us who are NOT junkies, don't know what a "failed country" means, and therefore missed the Pakistan gaffe. They can't pronounce Ahmadinejad, so John's struggle won't resonate with them. They don't know that McShame consistently votes against Veteran's benefits (in fact didn't even show up this year for the vote on upping Vet benefits after speaking out about how the bill was flawed because it would encourage people to leave the military early), so they won't notice that Senator Obama didn't make that point.

But there are two more debates left (we'll get to the Senator Biden/Sarah Palin one in other posts), so here's the question: If you could give one piece of advice to Senator Obama for the last two debates, what would it be?

Comments are open.

Comments (28)

Logging you in...

Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout

Logged in as

Login or signup now to comment.

0 Vote up Vote down

Karen Anne · 859 weeks ago

Hmm. Anyone blogging would know McCain is awful on veterans and could say why. Maybe they should have a blogger (or, more accurately, a commenter) make up a list of likely gotchas for Obama to be aware of.

Reply

0 Vote up Vote down

Mithras · 859 weeks ago

Dear Sen. Obama:
You did well to remain calm and thoughtful in the first debate, while Sen. McCain insulted and attacked you, even though it's likely you felt provoked. This served to make you seem more "presidential", confident. In future debates, you'd do well to respond with more emotion when you are attacked, and when speaking of the failures of the past 8 years that have harmed ordinary Americans' lives. It may not be your style, but we your supporters - and I think, some of the undecided voters out there - would prefer to see you show it when you are justifiably angry. We're angry too.

Reply

0 Vote up Vote down

ahoff48 · 859 weeks ago

I watched until 2:00 am eastern last night. it seemed that the longer the coverage went, the more postitively Obama's performance was received. Pat Buchanan seemed to switch to being more high on Obama's debate performance each time msnbc went back to him. I personally was a little disappointed that Obama was belittled and derided and at times couldn't get a word it because McCain seemed to go on interminably. But in retrospect, I thought at times McCain sounded like a doddering idiot - some of his answers seemed to come from nowhere - particulalry his (fake) love of veterans. He also seemed fixated on Iraq, rather dealing with the rest of the dangers in the world. I certainly liked Obama's demeanor more, but I wish he were able to put McCain in his place more, as he did by telling him he was wrong, wrong, wrong.

Reply

0 Vote up Vote down

Harriold · 859 weeks ago

I know that in the heat of the moment one sometimes forgets the best rejoinders, but Obama let McCain off too easily. For instance, during the "economic" debate, Obama should have turned to McCain and said, "John, your continued and strong support of deregulation contributed greatly to this mess. I think it entirely fair for the American people to lay this blame at the feet of you and Bush and your party for making it easier for the financial industry executives to get rich at the expense of middle America."
During the Iraq discussion, he should have turned to McCain and said, "John, what the American people need is not a good soldier who can "take a hill", but a wise leader who knows when not to enter into a useless and unnecessary war in the first place."

Reply

0 Vote up Vote down

GoThen · 859 weeks ago

I disagree with Jess. The Presidency is not about pronunciation. The Constitution allows for the President to mumble, to stutter, even to be completely mute. And politics allow for the President to speak not one second language (and thus show some respect for Hispanics, Natives, Cajuns, Mennonites, whoever, or, horribile dictu, some of the other 200 countries out here).
Although I hoped for gaffes by McCain, the "failed country" isn't one, either. The actual term is "failed state" but McCain can't know that. The is a widespread misconception, shared by Europeans, that Pakistan is a succeeding state because it's a U.S. ally and it has nuclear weapons. But the Pakistani government doesn't control all of Pakistan's provinces. In fact, Tribal Areas and parts of Northwest Frontier seem not to be governed at all. That's what they call failed. And that's one reason why the Pakistani nukes are not a success but dangerous (and a threat not only to India but, yes, to Iran as well). Interesting that McCain somehow seemed to perceive some of that.
More interesting that, concerning Pakistan, Obama and McCain changed roles. Here, the sabre-rattler suddenly was all for diplomacy whereas Obama made himself look like a warmonger.
Which goes to say that, while McCain isn't an option, you should see the whole picture and see the flaws in Obama, too.

Reply

1 reply · active 859 weeks ago

+1 Vote up Vote down

SLCScott 74p · 859 weeks ago

My advice to Obama for the remaining debates: don't worry too much about the advice people are giving you. You're succeeding in convincing people that you're a competent, authentic intellectual who is a little aloof. That's unusual for a politician, but not disqualifying. SurveyUSA polls show more than 70% of likely voters in the states they surveyed consider themselves to be intellectuals. If you try to be someone you're not, you'll look like a phony, and EVERYONE hates an intellectual who is also a phony--the intellectuals because he's pandering, and the "regular guys" because it's an insult.

So keep being yourself. It frustrates your core supporters, but it works well for those who have not yet decided.

Reply

2 replies · active 859 weeks ago

0 Vote up Vote down

Annette · 859 weeks ago

McCain tried to belittle Obama by continuing to say "Obama doesn't understand or doesn't know..." I was so anger to hear him say that over and over. I really wanted him to say it back to him and to also tell him to stop misleading the country with his lies. But I agree with SLCScott - Obama is an extremely smart man and he did not get this far with my advise. Barack Obama I hope you continue to do you!

Reply

+1 Vote up Vote down

Vicki 51p · 859 weeks ago

it's "us", the little people, the regular folks, who will cast ballots. I thought it was interesting, the insta-poll results that I'm seeing.

Obama is a very smart, and extremely sensible man. He gave some really good explanations last night, showed how McCain was using facts to lie. I hope everyone understood that.

Considering another donation - already donated twice this Sept, but what's one more, eh? ;-) still nowhere near 2300 ...

Reply

0 Vote up Vote down

Emit R Detsaw · 859 weeks ago

I think it would be appropriate and fitting for Obama to at least once state:

"Hey John, I'm over here. Can you look me in the eyes and say that?"

Reply

1 reply · active 859 weeks ago

0 Vote up Vote down

NicasioKid · 859 weeks ago

The chief quality that makes Obama "presidential" is his cool. I like a good scrap as much as anyone, and i would love to see more verbal decking from Obama - but it's not true to his character. What he can do that suits his character is get fired up on the issues, not slapping his opponent more. WE are all fired up, Obama, give us some voice!

Reply

0 Vote up Vote down

RichW · 859 weeks ago

Obama won, if only that he convinced many independets and undevcided voters that he does hasve the right stuff to be president.

Reply

+1 Vote up Vote down

SLCScott 74p · 859 weeks ago

A pair of questions for all of you (if I had Jessica's mighty powers, I'd put it up as a poll):

Was it good or bad politically for Obama to agree with some of McCain's points during the debate?
Leaving aside the politics, do you personally think it was good or bad that he sometimes agreed with McCain?

(I'm not asking about the individual points of agreement, just the fact that any existed at all. MSNBC has been chewing my first question over quite a bit today.)

Reply

1 reply · active 859 weeks ago

+1 Vote up Vote down

tmess2 70p · 859 weeks ago

Normally, there is a difference between the immediate winner from the pundits, the immediate winner by polling, and the long-term winner by polling. The instant difference between pundits and polling is because the pundits look for something different than Joe Six Pack does.

The long-term is based not on what the pundits say but on the soundbites that get repeated. In a normal year, I would be looking to see which got more tv time -- Obama's "you're wrong John" or McCain's "you don't understand."

This year, I don't think that the debate is going to get that much air time as the media will instantly return to the financial crisis as the main story. So I think the initial impression is likely to stick.

Reply

0 Vote up Vote down

Karen Anne · 859 weeks ago

It's good that he agreed. It shows he doesn't have ego problems and that he's honest.

Reply

1 reply · active 859 weeks ago

+1 Vote up Vote down

Chad_Nielson 57p · 859 weeks ago

The reality is that Obama went into this debate on an uneven playing field. He could have hammered McCain on things like his mistreatment of veterans and it would have only hurt him because mccain is a vet and that is all they seem to care about. His best bet was to ride this debate, win slighty or break even, show that he can be a commander-in-chief (no one expects him to have to be better at foreign policy then John McCain, just good enough to feel safe with him), and then let the focus return to the thing that his doing him so much good.

Reply

+1 Vote up Vote down

Beryl 51p · 859 weeks ago

I agree, Karen. As irritated as I was with the "I agree" comments, it demonstrated Obama's ability to negotiate and find common ground. That attribute is critical for the success of a commander in chief.

McCain's dismissive attitude was by design -- he wanted to show the world that Obama was not on his level. However, he also showed us how he would behave with our allies and adversaries! We must change the world's view of us so we can obtain the must needed support to fight where we should have 6 years ago -- Afghanistan!

Reply

0 Vote up Vote down

c_b · 859 weeks ago

McCain's first comment on the economic crisis was that it was caused by greed. I'd like to see Sen. Obama tie that greed to Bush/McCain policies and philosophy. There should be plenty of opportunities - tax cuts for the rich, health care, energy policy, etc.

Reply

0 Vote up Vote down

Peter, CT · 859 weeks ago

When asked about the lessons learned in Iraq, Obama could have scored HUGE points by pointing out: that the iraqi armed forces were disbanded against the better judgement of many advisors and put thousands of trained soldiers out on the streets with no income, or that the bush administration thought that recent college grads fresh out of school were the best people to assist the iraqis reestablish their government, or that had we stepped up to the plate when the violence first began, less than a month after the invasion, we could have actually fulfilled the goals of a stable transistion to iraqi control.
Instead, he decided to beat the "i said it was a bad idea to begin with" horse. Its true, but I think he'd be better off showing the american people he can think intelligently and really understands what went wrong in iraq AFTER bush precipitously led us in.

Reply

+1 Vote up Vote down

Dan_upstate_NY 23p · 859 weeks ago

LIke many of Obama's core supporters, there's a part of me that wished Obama would have gotten fired up, visibly angry, and really ripped into McCain. But as I think about it, the more I realize that it's really just my own pent-up frustration/rage at the last 8 years that's driving my desire to see that. I'm pissed off. So are many other Americans. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea for Obama to appear to be pissed off. In fact, it's precisely his calm, cool, considered, drama-free demeanor that first drew me to his candidacy. (And remember his competitors last year--e.g., Edwards, whose campaign had a tone of anger and "fire in the belly").

So I guess I want to make two points: First, Obama should be true to himself. It's not his nature to lose his cool. Second, for him to appear enraged poses perhaps the greatest threat to his chances of winning the presidency--that he would look like just an "angry black man" (a la Al Sharpton). As we all sit here and judge Obama's performance, it would be well to remember the racial elements at play.

Reply

Comments by IntenseDebate

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)