‘The Moment’ in Presidential Debate One – Yes There Was
The old media is absolutely clear on the fact that there was no decisive ‘moment’ in last night’s debate. John McCain being the more knowledgeable and experienced in foreign policy and security, consistently ahead in polls on these issues, Barack Obama needed only to appear to keep up to win. Talking heads, based on focus groups, were united in their judgement that Obama rose to the level of even. I know focus groups. Focus groups are not necessarily friends of mine. I’ll be the first to admit, I am not a focus group.
In 1960, John F. Kennedy won the first televised presidential debate against Richard Nixon, but Nixon won on radio. I have to wonder how focus groups would have responded had they listened to what was being said rather than watched the candidates saying it. Perhaps I have a different perspective because, after first watching the debate, I buried the browser tab and listened again.
A key distinction Barack Obama has made between him and John McCain is Obama’s willingness to hold diplomatic meetings with enemies and this distinction got some serious play late in the debate. Obama has defended his approach seemingly successfully, while standing alone giving stump speeches to his supporters. It sounds so reasonable. What’s wrong with talking? Obama does talk some talk – paints nice images for the imagination. He makes us think about acting nicely together with other world actors – how nice that would be. Wars will be settled or abandoned. The economy will improve. Just imagine – “change.â€
Perhaps I recognized a ‘moment’ because I’ve been so many election cycles that I understand “change†in perspective. The campaigns and the old media talking heads have changed since the first televised debates. They are more knowledgeable in their analysis of presidential debate strategy, and because they are, listeners are as well. We are not the same listeners as we were when Lloyd Bentsen told Dan Quayle that he’s not John Kennedy. Are we now sometimes so impressed with our knowledge of things like expectations management, so little focused on actual issues, that we can fail to hear a ‘moment’ when it comes?
A substantial ‘moment’ happened in the latter part of the debate during an exchange focused on Obama’s willingness to hold meetings with Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. McCain pressed Obama to go deeper than slogans for once. What was the face-to-face exchange that Obama felt so important that he would violate the lessons of diplomatic history to have it. This encapsulating ‘moment’ summarized Obama’s naiveté, the fact that he doesn’t understand, the fact that his slogans are not thought through substantially. It evoked laughter from the audience, which had promised to remain silent throughout the debate and held to that promise except this once.
“Let me get this right,†McCain said. “We sit down with Ahmadinejad and he says we’re going to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, and we say no you’re not – oh please.”
Let’s be objective in retrospect. Dan Quayle knew he wasn’t John Kennedy. If he had any doubt, he needed only glance at his drivers’ license. It was an interesting debate moment but the issue wasn’t real. John McCain’s frustration became very real to me.
Listening the second time I began to better understand the details of Barack Obama’s international strategy. He’s going to rack up wizard points by finding magic beans hidden in an enchanted forest and then use the accumulated power to … wait, I don’t quite get the rest. There are some magic chants involved, formulated from disparaging remarks about his domestic political rivals. What the hell is this guy talking about? What’s wrong with talking? It recalls the textbook definition of political naiveté, Neville Chamberlain and the non-aggression pact with Hitler – leaving England open for the biggest sucker-punch in its history.
Calling Obama “naive†and McCain’s repetition of the statement “you don’t understand†became less and less simply a part of a debate strategy – the overly cynical interpretation required to keep the two candidates even. Obama seemed incapable of being deep enough or logical enough to allow serious debate on issues and strategies as his slogans and ideas crossed and confused one another. He had sounded nice on the surface, but the debate scratched through the fresh coat of paint to expose a discombobulated junk heap. Barack Obama is a wonderful speaker and campaigner, but not substantially presidential material.
Presidential debate one: CNN Video
| More from Roger F. Gay
Stumble It!
September 27th, 2008 at 6:25 am
What HE said! To borrow a phrase from a pro at succinct commentary:
‘It’s Symbolism over Substance’–
September 27th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Reminds me of a slogan, “If you can’t dazzle ‘em with brilliance, baffle ‘em with bullshit”. Sums up B.Hussein Obama succinctly.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Related to “the moment” Barack Obama made the claim that his position was based directly on the views of Henry Kissinger – one of McCain’s own advisors. McCain said no, Obama was wrong; they were not, and that Kissinger’s views corresponded to McCain’s.
Foxnews had Henry Kissinger on last night and they asked him. He answered point blank, McCain was right, Obama wrong. Kissinger agrees with McCain. Obama lied when he claimed his views were based on Kissinger’s.