Terrible Swift Sword ([info]kenshi) wrote,
@ 2008-09-27 07:35:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
My Quick Take on the Debate
I watched the debate last night with my family (me, K8, and both kids). General consensus: they were both pretty boring, and first bit about the financial crisis was excruciating to watch, but McCain fairly well pwned Obama on foreign policy (which was the main subject of this debate). Obama did well when he was on his script, but seemed to struggle when he had to improvise (at one point, he seemed to completely forget what he was talking about right in the middle of sentence). They were both pretty stiff. Surprisingly, everyone thought McCain actually did a better job with his public speaking style, while Obama, the renowned orator, came off as a community college lecturer (not necessarily a bad thing...remember: I am one). McCain kept a verbal cadence that was far more conversational and direct (we were struck by how often he started speaking with "look" and "listen" ... which was quite effective, and even Obama picked up doing it at the very end).

On foreign policy issues, McCain was clearly in his element and on the offensive the whole time. Obama was cool and mostly unruffled, but spent the whole time on the defense. McCain got some pretty pointed zingers on him (I especially liked the "you don't say that out loud" thing about Obama's advocacy of attacking Pakistan ... a nuclear-armed ally), and all he could manage was backpedalling and academic hairsplitting in return.

A very telling thing: in the commentary after the debate, the media talking heads all picked up a chorus of one thing: "Obama looked calm and presidential next to McCain, which was the main thing he needed to achieve tonight." Um. Really? Here's a guy that they've been hailing as the next Demosthenes, and they're considering his lackluster style in this debate a win because he managed not to look like a complete schlub standing next to John McCain? That's a victory for him? I hadn't realized that our expectations of Obama's capabilities had fallen quite so low quite so fast. The media all seemed to think it was mostly a tie, with a technical decision for Obama because they still have sexy dreams about him at night, which makes me think McCain did far better than maybe even I'm giving him credit for.

But then, I'm a pretty harsh judge of public speaking styles. Classical rhetoric training can do that to you. Friends don't let friends study the classics, kids.

K8's response to the whole thing was that, following the debate, she was a whole lot more comfortable with the idea of McCain being president, and a whole lot less comfortable with the idea of Obama as president. My daughter, who had to watch the whole thing for a class assignment and generally thinks politics is a dry as sand, thought Obama got mostly pwned, but McCain is a really old guy. My son, who is 11, couldn't concentrate on what either of them were saying for more than about a minute.

EDIT: Looking at the commentary this morning, it seems pretty clear that McCain was the winner last night. The pundits have fallen into three basic camps: 1) McCain won with a clear offensive on foreign policy and made Obama look like a lightweight, 2) it was a tie, and 3) Obama won because he managed to look presidential next to McCain and didn't lose his shit (I'm paraphrasing, but this is obviously a talking point now). The balance of all these opinions favors the impression of a McCain win. However, it was not a decisive win (debates very rarely are) and probably doesn't change the game much at this point.

EDIT2: In a funny little desperate twist, the Obama campaign is now actively promoting Sarah Palin as a "terrific debater" to try and build up a high expectation for her that they hope to tear down in the Oct. 2 Veep debate (though, how they expect to do that, I don't know). Obviously, they know that Slow Joe is anything but a "terrific debater" and want to shift all performance expectations onto Palin. It might work, but they have consistently underestimated her and the game of talking up your opponent is very dangerous. I think the most likely strategy from Palin will be what we saw in her acceptance speech: she's going to bypass Biden entirely and go right after Obama himself. Biden will try to defend his running mate and wander off into Joe Bidenland, where feet are stuck in mouths and rambling, bizarre statements pass for sage commentary. But then, maybe I'm buying into exactly the set of expectations the Obama campaign wants me to. It's all too convoluted for me to follow sometimes, but one thing has been abundantly clear for the last month or so: McCain is so far inside Obama's OODA loop that Obama is desperate for anything that will give him the initiative again...even if it means talking up Sarah Palin.



(Post a new comment)


[info]eruv
2008-09-27 04:08 pm UTC (link)
What do you teach?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]kenshi
2008-09-27 07:12 pm UTC (link)
Interior Design, here.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]seattleforge
2008-09-27 04:35 pm UTC (link)
That was flat out one of the worst debates I've ever watched. Shame on Jim Lehrer for not reigning both of those chuckle-heads in.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]kenshi
2008-09-27 04:44 pm UTC (link)
Actually, as far as debates go, it wasn't that bad. They didn't run way over on time, both kept themselves from lapsing into theatrics, kept it more or less civil, and were both surprisingly focused on substantive issues...even if they did both stick to message rather than really answering the questions (Obama was far worse about that than McCain, but they both did it).

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]boffo
2008-09-27 04:42 pm UTC (link)
Obama has this reputation as an amazing orator, but people don't realize he's only good when speaking from a teleprompter. Otherwise, not so much.

I think that once again, the media's over-hyping of Obama's Jesushood is going to backfire. If they had been spinning him as a deep thinker who wasn't necessarily a great speaker, people would have reasonable expectations. But instead when people tune into the debate expecting their ears to be blessed by the most brilliant oration ever, and instead they get a rambling mumbler, their opinion of him will fall.

(Reply to this)


[info]malathion
2008-09-27 05:01 pm UTC (link)
You're reading the wrong polls. Obama lost the pundits, won the voters.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]kenshi
2008-09-27 05:21 pm UTC (link)
The media are talking about the debate as a tie and the Obama partisans have been curiously quiet and/or re-directing attention to other things. Following what I'm now going to call [info]boffo's Rule, that's pretty solid evidence that Obama got crushed. While I'm perhaps not going to go that far, McCain did do better.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]malathion
2008-09-27 05:49 pm UTC (link)
You might find this illuminating

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]malathion
2008-09-27 05:51 pm UTC (link)
... and this.

You're right that the way news media report the event counts, but the numbers don't support your claims when it comes to what people who watched the debate thought about it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Bit of a stretch, there, d00d.
[info]kenshi
2008-09-27 05:56 pm UTC (link)
Snap polls from small sample sizes mean absolutely nothing, and you should know that. The broader polls might still show that public opinion favors the impression of an Obama win, but those polls are going to take a few days to a week to get sorted out, and by then we'll all have moved on.

It's interesting to me that Obama's supporters are stretching so far to find some way to award their candidate a win on this when he clearly fell short. That's a sign of something in itself. But even the most partisan pro-Obama media reviewers mostly seemed to think that Obama got schooled (viz. http://www.thestranger.com/slog), and they're generally right.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Bit of a stretch, there, d00d.
[info]malathion
2008-09-27 06:00 pm UTC (link)
Snap polls from small sample sizes mean absolutely nothing, and you should know that.

They don't mean a whole lot, but it's not not quite "absolutely nothing": there is one thing that means less than snap polls from small sample sizes, and that's snap polls from even smaller samples (pundits only).

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]ekeppich
2008-09-27 08:07 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, agreed.

If the incredibly pro-Obama media starts bleating about it being a "tie," it wasn't.

Obama's always struck me as a college professor, good with his prepared lectures but doesn't think well on his feet and gets baffled and defensive when asked a difficult question.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…