There is no question that John McCain displayed a superior foreign policy knowledge and experience base at the first presidential debate. Still, there were some obvious points where Obama was able to call McCain out.
The first was on the issue of "tactics" and "strategies" as they pertain to the surge in Iraq. Here's what they said last night (I've removed some of the tangential discussion for length):
OBAMA: ... But let's get back to the core issue here. Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families. They have done a brilliant job, and General Petraeus has done a brilliant job. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.
MCCAIN: I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy... And this strategy, and this general, they are winning. Senator Obama refuses to acknowledge that we are winning in Iraq.
OBAMA: That's not true.
MCCAIN: They just passed an electoral...
OBAMA: That's not true.
MCCAIN: An election law just in the last few days. There is social, economic progress, and a strategy, a strategy of going into an area, clearing and holding, and the people of the country then become allied with you. They inform on the bad guys. And peace comes to the country, and prosperity. That's what's happening in Iraq, and it wasn't a tactic.
Well, actually, it was a tactic. According to Joe Klein of TIME magazine (I really like them), "As for McCain's remark about Obama not knowing the difference between a tactic and a strategy—McCain was wrong. The counterinsurgency methods introduced by David Petraeus in Iraq were a tactical change, a new means to achieve Bush's same strategic end of a stable, unified Iraq. If Bush had decided to partition the country, or to withdraw, that would have been a change in strategy."
McCain himself implied that the surge was a tactic when he suggested that a similar tactic would be beneficial in addressing urban crime...
The other issues McCain failed to rebut were his positions and predictions of how the war would play out...
Honestly, I think a lot of independent and undecided voters might feel less uncertain of McCain's judgment, especially as it pertains to the war in Iraq, if he would admit to the fact that he was wrong about the war. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, it diverted our focus from al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and it has increased Iran's influence in the region.
Full post and comments here...
At the end of the day, the question is, how did swing/undecided/independent voters view the debate. Here's a summary of some of the poll and focus group data...
"Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg ran a dial-group with 45 undecided voters in St. Louis during the debate, polling them before and after to judge how the event changed their reactions to Obama and McCain. The group was mostly middle-aged, split evenly among education and class lines, and was heavily comprised of Bush 2004 voters. First things first, the group thought Obama "won" the debate (38 to 27%, with 36% saying that neither candidate walked away with a clear win).
Immediately after the debate, CBS News interviewed a nationally representative sample of nearly 500 debate watchers assembled by Knowledge Networks who were "uncommitted voters" - voters who are either undecided about who to vote for or who say they could still change their minds. Thirty-nine percent of these uncommitted debate watchers said Obama won the debate. Twenty-four percent said McCain won, and another 37 percent thought it was a tie.
Nearly half of those uncommitted voters who watched the debate said that their image of Obama changed for the better as a result. Just eight percent say their opinion of Obama got worse, and 46 percent reported no change in their opinions. McCain saw less improvement in his image. Thirty-two percent have improved their image of McCain as a result of the debate, but 21 percent said their views of him are now worse than before.
A national poll of people who watched the first presidential debate suggests that Barack Obama came out on top. Fifty-one percent of those polled in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey of Americans who viewed the debate say that Obama won. Thirty-eight percent of those polled say that John McCain did the best job.
“According to our CNN survey, McCain and Obama both exceeded debate viewers’ expectations tonight,” noted CNN Senior Political Researcher Alan Silverleib. “It can be reasonably concluded, especially after accounting for the slight Democratic bias in the survey, that we witnessed a tie in Mississippi tonight. But given the direction of the campaign over the last couple of weeks, a tie translates to a win for Obama. McCain is trailing right now; he needed a game changer. There are no indications he got that tonight.”
So, debate #1 is over! It was a fairly rousing sparring match between two knowledgeable contenders on the economy and foreign policy. For those who didn't get a chance to view it, here's a video montage (yes!) put together by TIME magazine. The commentators and focus groups that I've heard on the matter don't seem to think last night was a game changer for either candidate, but flash polls appear to give Obama the advantage as far as performance.
Nevertheless, both camps are positively dizzy from the spin they've been putting on the debate. In my opinion, the Obama camp has a genuine charge to levy against McCain: in a time of economic uncertainty, he never once mentioned the middle-class...
The McCain campaign took a different approach to their spin.
Hmm, so you're saying that Barack Obama is going to vote McCain in November? More Kit Kat bar, please (give me a break)! Now, here's what burns my shorts about last night's debate, and previous debates, and politics in general. Somehow it is a grave, mortal sin to even acknowledge that your opponent or the other party is not the devil incarnate. God forbid that Obama show some level of bipartisanship in noting the areas where he and McCain do agree. What the McCain spinsters don't want the viewing public to realize is that after some of those statements Obama went on to point out where he and McCain differ in opinion (from the debate transcript).
On responsibility:
MCCAIN: ... But there's also the issue of responsibility... Somehow we've lost that accountability. I've been heavily criticized because I called for the resignation of the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. We've got to start also holding people accountable, and we've got to reward people who succeed. But somehow in Washington today -- and I'm afraid on Wall Street -- greed is rewarded, excess is rewarded, and corruption -- or certainly failure to carry out our responsibility is rewarded. As president of the United States, people are going to be held accountable in my administration. And I promise you that that will happen.
LEHRER: Do you have something directly to say, Senator Obama, to Senator McCain about what he just said?
OBAMA: Well, I think Senator McCain's absolutely right that we need more responsibility, but we need it not just when there's a crisis. I mean, we've had years in which the reigning economic ideology has been what's good for Wall Street, but not what's good for Main Street. ... because, you know, 10 days ago, John said that the fundamentals of the economy are sound.
On earmarks:
MCCAIN: Well, the first thing we have to do is get spending under control in Washington. It's completely out of control. It's gone -- we have now presided over the largest increase in the size of government since the Great Society. We Republicans came to power to change government, and government changed us. And the -- the worst symptom on this disease is what my friend, Tom Coburn, calls earmarking as a gateway drug, because it's a gateway. It's a gateway to out-of-control spending and corruption. And we have former members of Congress now residing in federal prison because of the evils of this earmarking and pork-barrel spending...
LEHRER: Senator Obama, two minutes.
OBAMA: Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused, which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or what have you, until we cleaned it up. And he's also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these kinds of requests, although that wasn't the case with me.
But let's be clear: Earmarks account for $18 billion in last year's budget. Senator McCain is proposing -- and this is a fundamental difference between us -- $300 billion in tax cuts to some of the wealthiest corporations and individuals in the country, $300 billion. Now, $18 billion is important; $300 billion is really important.
And on the corporate tax:
MCCAIN: Well -- well, let me give you an example of what Senator Obama finds objectionable, the business tax. Right now, the United States of American business pays the second-highest business taxes in the world, 35 percent. Ireland pays 11 percent. Now, if you're a business person, and you can locate any place in the world, then, obviously, if you go to the country where it's 11 percent tax versus 35 percent, you're going to be able to create jobs, increase your business, make more investment, et cetera...
LEHRER: Senator Obama, you have a question for Senator McCain on that?
OBAMA: Well, let me just make a couple of points.
LEHRER: All right.
OBAMA: My definition -- here's what I can tell the American people: 95 percent of you will get a tax cut. And if you make less than $250,000, less than a quarter-million dollars a year, then you will not see one dime's worth of tax increase. Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he's absolutely right. Here's the problem: There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world.
...but the fight is apparently already over. Remember that intellectual plane north of logic I mentioned in a previous post? I think McCain may have traveled through it on his way to Old Miss. During his stop-over he and his campaign apparently had a vision of those things that have not yet come to pass and, filled with this new enlightenment, decided to proclaim to the world (via the Interweb) that which they had seen.
So, minutes before the campaign actually announced that McCain would, in fact, be participating in the debate, they ran this web ad.
Can you hear that? If you're quiet, and you listen very closely, you can hear the chorus of voices starting to call for Gov. Sarah Palin to step down from the Republican ticket. Now, anyone (of the 4 of you) who read this blog know that I won't soon be mistaken for a Palin fan. But I thought all of the speculation and fringe calls for her removal from the ticket were a little much - primarily because most of the grumbling was coming from Democrats who weren't happy about her effect on waning right-wing enthusiasm. But now that she's started to give interviews so we can hear what she has to say off-prompter there appear to be more and more conservative political minds who have come to realize that she may do more damage than good to their cause.
The latest voice is that of Kathleen Parker (apparently a big name amongst Repubs) whose analysis of Palin's recent performance is downright scathing. Here's an excerpt:
“If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself," Parker also writes. "If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true."
“Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves," Parker writes. "She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first. Do it for your country."
So for the last couple of days I've been eagerly wanting to write about this whole bail out issue. But, as anyone who's following this debacle can attest, the status of negotiations has been so tenuous you'd think it was being handled by pre-pubescent high school drama queens. And the queen diva: John McCain. The gall this guy had to "suspend" his campaign and supposedly return to Washington to help fix things? Give me a break of that Kit Kat bar.
First of all, McCain did not go to Washington immediately as he indicated he would. How do I know this? David Letterman. And he is waaarm...
(Skip to around 6:36 to see McCain get caught red-handed)
I haven't counted myself, but estimates put the number of shots at McCain throughout the show at a whopping 31.
So, McCain basically bailed out on his professed urgent need to return to the Hill. By the time he finally arrived leaders of both parties had announced that there was fundamental agreement on the basic tenants of the bailout package modifications. Everyone seemed ready to get something signed by today or, latest, by the start of next week. And then, there was the White House summit with Dubbya, both presidential nominees, Paulson, and congressional leaders from both parties. Certainly now was McCain's time to shine, right? Here's the account from the New York Times:
But once the doors closed, the smooth-talking House Republican leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, surprised many in the room by declaring that his caucus could not support the plan to allow the government to buy distressed mortgage assets from ailing financial companies.
Mr. Boehner pressed an alternative that involved a smaller role for the government, and Mr. McCain, whose support of the deal is critical if fellow Republicans are to sign on, declined to take a stand...
Mr. McCain was at one end of the long conference table, Mr. Obama at the other, with the president and senior Congressional leaders between them. Participants said Mr. Obama peppered Mr. Paulson with questions, while Mr. McCain said little.
Well, I'm sure this alternative plan being considered wasn't John McCain's fault...right? (I think you know where this is going)
But a top aide to Mr. Boehner said it was Democrats who had done the political posturing. The aide, Kevin Smith, said Republicans revolted, in part, because they were chafing at what they saw as an attempt by Democrats to jam through an agreement on the bailout early Thursday and deny Mr. McCain an opportunity to participate in the agreement.
It's so hard. It is so hard to see the screen right now through the tears of sadness I weep for McCain. The big kids didn't let him participate in their deal, so now his real friends are coming to his rescue. People, this is the guy who might end up being IN CHARGE of a pending financial crisis!
So here's some speculation from TIME blogger Michael Scherer on how this whole situation may end up playing out in light of recent events (although this couple be completely upended by new developments, like McCain's new plan to get rid of money and return to a bartering system).
1. It is clear that Senate leaders and Democratic strategists have not fully anticipated the degree of revolt growing in among House conservatives, most of whom came to Washington on a platform of keeping the government out of the economy. Conservative leaders say that every hour that has passed since last Friday has emboldened the rebellion. Phone calls and faxes are bombarding congressional offices, with huge margins of voters demanding that the bailout be opposed. Activists are motivating their bases to oppose the deal.
2. It remains squarely within McCain's interest to get a deal before the markets open on Monday, both because that is what he said he would do on Wednesday when he announced he was returning to Washington and because the deal that leaders put together yesterday seems to address most of McCain's stated concerns. It is hard for McCain to demonstrate his leadership, experience and "country first" determination if he cannot find a way to prevent what everyone agrees will be, at minimum, a short-term collapse of the markets, once they realize no bailout is coming right away.
3. It is unclear how much pull McCain has with the House Republican holdouts. Though McCain is the leader of the GOP, he has historically not been on good terms with those ideological activists that form the core of its Congressional membership. It's possible that this final delay is just a gambit to win some compromise and allow McCain to declare a greater leadership and experience victory. It's also possible that Republican leaders have a populist revolt on their hands they cannot control. Most likely, it is a combination of both these things, though in what mixture it is difficult to divine.
4. McCain might win if he can (at least appear) to broker a deal and then appear victorious at the debate tonight. It might not be fatal for McCain if the negotioations continue into tomorrow, he can (at least appear) to broker a deal Saturday, and then the debate is rescheduled. McCain will lose if he appears at the debate tonight with no clear deal, or (as mentioned above) if no deal is struck before Monday morning. These are the standards he has set for himself.
5. The whole spectacle would be much more fun to watch if it wasn't for the fact that the nation's economy, the jobs of millions, the prosperity of a nation, hangs in the balance.
UPDATE: Lydia has confirmed that she never actually said she could see Russia "from her house"; rather, she indicated that it could be viewed from "here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska."
I stand corrected. She's still clueless.
UPDATE 2: The quote, "I can see Russia from my house!" comes from the SNL sketch with Tina Fey (the video is in an earlier post). I knew I'd heard it somewhere before!
Full post and comments here...
Just happened upon this article in TIME magazine about Gov. Palin's renewed interest in cooperating with the investigation. It appears that her new-found desire for transparency and openness isn't quite what it seems. Here's an excerpt:
Palin won't actually cooperate with the original investigation — the one approved unanimously by a majority Republican committee in the state legislature this summer, which Palin welcomed in a spirit of transparency and accountability before she became the Republican Party's vice-presidential nominee. The Alaska Senate Judiciary Committee had started the inquiry when former public safety commissioner Walt Monegan alleged that he might have been dismissed for not firing the allegedly loutish state trooper Mike Wooten, who was in a bitter custody battle with Palin's sister Molly McCann and was accused of threatening members of the governor's family. The investigation has since been painted by John McCain and Palin backers as a purely partisan exercise, particularly because the committee chair, state senator Hollis French, is an Anchorage Democrat who made several seemingly prejudicial statements to the media early on, including that the probe could yield an "October surprise" right before the election...
Instead, Palin plans to cooperate with an investigator from the state personnel board. That investigator is a Democrat, but the board's three members are political appointees who ultimately answer to the governor herself. (One was appointed by Palin, the other two by her predecessor.) They got involved only after Palin took the unusual step of filing an ethics complaint against herself in early September to spark an investigation that her lawyers hoped would overshadow — and effectively kill — the legislature's inquiry.
The article goes on to talk about how Alaskans are a bit put off by Palin's sudden hesitance to expose the truth in this matter. It appears she, like McCain, was all straight-talk until she entered the race:
Many Alaskans have sympathy for the anxiety and frustration the Palins felt over Wooten's continued employment. In Anchorage, I've heard time and again that Palin could have avoided further scrutiny with a single convivial mea culpa at the outset, apologizing in particular for her initial inaccurate denial that anyone in her administration, including herself, had contacted Monegan about Wooten. Something that simple would have defanged any investigation, and signaled to Alaskans that even as the Vice Presidential nominee, she would still be the same supposedly straight-talking Sarah they voted for overwhelmingly.
Ha! As if the GOP apologizes for anything (like, say, a war we never should have started).
Full post and comments here...
Well, if that's the criteria, neither candidate would get it. Both candidates long ago abandoned any attempt at not running negative ads. I think there's no question that McCain has only recently returned to airing relevant, issue-focused ads again (after all the lipstick and primary school sex ed nonsense coming out of his campaign). Furthermore, I would be relatively confident in arguing that Obama had been running ads that were topical and relevant as well.
Recently, though, the Obama campaign has been down in the mud and "flexible" with the facts against McCain on a number of different issues. To start, here's a clip the Obama campaign started to run the day after 9/11...
Now, John McCain may have said those things, but I think the tone of the ad is a little mocking and unnecessary. But don't take my word for it - here's what Joe Biden had to say:
Asked by CBS's Katie Couric about an ad Obama released earlier this month mocking John McCain for not being able to use a computer, Biden criticized the commercial and suggested it had been aired without his knowledge.
"I thought that was terrible by the way," Biden said of the computer ad in an interview broadcast tonight on the CBS Evening News
Asked why it was aired, Biden said: "I didn't know we did it and if I had anything to do with it, we would have never done it."
Strike one.
Obama subsequently put out a TV and radio ad in Spanish on McCain's position on immigration. Here's what the ad says (as reported by The Trail):
"They want us to forget the insults we've put up with, the intolerance," the television ad's announcer says in Spanish as a picture of Rush Limbaugh appears onscreen with quotes of him saying, "Mexicans are stupid and unqualified" and "Shut your mouth or get out."
"They made us feel marginalized in a country we love so much," the ad continues. "John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that says lies just to get our vote and another, even worse, that continues the failed policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of working families."
The companion radio ad uses the same script as above and then continues: "Don't forget that John McCain abandoned us rather than confront the leaders of the Republican Party. Many of us were born here, and others came to work and achieve a better life for their families -- not to commit crimes or drain the system like many of John McCain's friends claim. Let's not be fooled by political tricks from John McCain and the Republicans. Vote so they respect us. Vote for a change."
Now, I'm not sure if you followed the Republican primaries (they weren't nearly as interesting as the Democratic primaries), but it's pretty common knowledge that one of the major points where John McCain parted ways with general Republican thinking was in his apparent support for amnesty for illegal immigrants. Here's the breakdown from FactCheck:
Limbaugh has been no friend of McCain and has attacked him repeatedly. He hounded McCain for his stance on immigration, among other issues. In January, Limbaugh said that a McCain nomination would "destroy the Republican party," and said he would vote for a Democrat over McCain. Limbaugh has attacked McCain specifically for being too friendly to illegal immigrants from Mexico, saying McCain "supports amnesty and open borders."
Strike two.
It's pretty clear that Obama and his campaign decided to take a few creative liberties with the facts on McCain and his support for immigration. Just as McCain went too far in trying to change the conversation from things that matter to voters to nonsense meant to get a rise out of Obama, Democrats, or the "elite, leftist media", Obama has gone too far in trying to tie McCain to Bush and the rest of the conservative establishment. And as recent poll numbers for McCain show, doing that too much can certainly cost you.
Full post and comments here...
So I was tooling around on the National Review website (that's right - I try to see what's happening on both sides) and found a link to an email from a Fox producer concerning some recent event turnout numbers.
From: Oinounou, Mosheh Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 3:04 PM To: Editorial Subject: Re: Obama @ Green Bay speech
This may be the first time during this campaign that McCain beat Obama at attendance since it is one of those rare occasions where they used the same facility in a matter of days.
McCain and Palin easily pulled between 10,500 and 11K at the Resch Center at their joint rally last Thursday night. Per Bonney’s reporting–it appears Obama pulled in 6K–a little more than half of the GOP rally. ——————- Mosheh Oinounou Producer, Fox News Channel
I read somewhere else that Palin spoke in front of a crowd of 60,000 people in Florida today.
Mmk...let's make sure we've got all of our ducks in a row on this one.
Obama: Young + Soaring Rhetoric + Moderate Experience + Huge Crowds = Rock star, out-of-touch, celebrity phony
Palin: Young + Sassy Style + Moderate Experience + Huge Crowds = The best hope for America
Well there's the problem: Obama needs to up his sass. Give me a break! I guess it was inevitable given how much press she's been getting and how excited the reds are about their ticket, but c'mon. At least make some half-respectable attempt to be kind of consistent. You can't mock Obama for his crowds yesterday and then tout the size of your crowds today.
I don't know about you, but my week last week wasn't great. Work is a drag, the commute's really starting to get to me, and I didn't get to spend much time with my wife and her sisters while they were visiting (although we did have a fun weekend in New Jersey/New York). But, I can say this: my week wasn't half as bad as McCain's was.
Here's a video from Rachel Maddow of MSNBC. Now, allow me to preface this by saying that she (as well as the rest of the folks on MSNBC) is clearly VERY left-leaning, so independents and Repubs should take this with a grain of salt. However, McCain's message on the economy was so scattered that it's a wonder he's even risking to keep talking about it. I guess he returned to the topics that matter to people too soon (see my previous post RE: Speechless).
NOTE: Ana Marie Cox writes for Swampland, a TIME blog. If you don't feel like reading every blog and article concerning politics yourself, they tend to cover the major stuff pretty well (although, I can't say they're all unbiased).
Full post and comments here...
Always at the End
-
There’s a classic Matt Drudge, Gloria Allred, and Internet Freak Show
fire getting ready to go to full conflagration, and some are concerned it
could emb...
Posts
