September 26, 2008
McCain is frequently starting his rebuttals to Obama with some variation of "Senator Obama doesn't understand...."
Coincidence? We think not. McCain's dismissive tone about Obama's policy positions is a reminder of McCain's longer experience, and seems intended to make Obama look naive.
Yeah, it got my attention. McCain used language better to my surprise. And Barak kept saying" I agree with John...". Stop it. For all the coaching Barak got schooled by the old politician. This is not the time for Barak to be a gentleman. Deliver the message clearly and crisply. I've noticed Barak is having a harder time articulating compared to early in the Dem. campaign. He stammers trying to come up the words and seems afraid of gaffs. Bring back the bold Obama. He allowed McCain to talk over him, again the old politician vs. the gentleman. I know Barak Obama is a gentleman, but I'd like for him to play hard ball here in the major leagues.
I think Obama was too passive and allowed McCain to control the momentum of the debate. Obama needs to have more vigor. For example, when McCain stated that Obama has not been to Afghanistan, Obama didn't correct McCain. Then again, when McCain stated that he had learned from history of not leaving Afghanistan before completing the job, Obama failed to remind that McCain did forget or failed to learn from History when he chose to look the other way and supported the war in Iraq. Obama also was not very specific. For e.g., when he says there are 60 countries where Al Quaeda operates, he could have mentioned what happened this morning in Germany, where two potential terror suspects where removed from the Airplane.
Obama also showed some ambivalence when in came to Earmarks. He needed to be more forceful.
McCain appeared condescending, not more experienced.
Obama is in a tricky situation. If he shows emotion - the media calls him 'angry' as in "angry black man". If he tries to maintain decorum and not stoop to the lows McCain does - he's being uppity.
As an independenct that was on the fence - tonights debate put me voting for Obama. I'd rather have someone with a cool head and reasoning voice running this country than someone who decides to be a 'maverick' and hits the red button because his emotions ruled.
While I do agree that Barak could have been stronger, I do not think that he failed to play hard ball, Bob, but I do agree that he needs to be more direct. However, John McCain failed to be substantive in any of his answers, and never attempted to even remotely answer what was asked of him By Jim Leher(not sure if I spelled that correctly). Instead we were assailed with the usual Bla, blah, blah that has marked his campaign. We got a little post card of where he has visited and how he and Henry Kissinger are old friends, which surprised me, Since I've never heard that substantiated by anyone else. And finally, once again, we heard about the poor POW who came home, etc. Please understand, I bear no disrespect to Senator McCain, nor his record of service, nor what he suffered as a POW. But, to play that trump card ad nauseum is just childish, and further convinces me, as I would think it would anyone else truly listening, that Senator John McCain has nothing that we need in the position of President. But rather, will offer four more years of what we've had for the past eight years. It has been said by others far more clearly than I, enough is enough.
McCain's obvious effort to inject the word "understand" into every answer was a pretty transparent effort to paint Obama in a particular way. It seemed political and not quite genuine. Obama, on the other hand, seemed willing to be gracious and real. Thus, not only by his tactics, but also by his demeanor, McCain came across as a bully and even a bit of a thug. I'm just not sure that is what we want in a president, especially after 8 years of a foreign policy based on being the world's bully. McCain may have appeared "stronger," but at a huge cost to what it means to be presidential.
I am dissapointed by Bobams lack of fire. John MaCain, kept saying Sen. Obama does not understand this or that and Obama did have a come back line for that. He looked weak to the average person watching the debate. Why is he Praising McCain?? He should not be talking about the things he agrees with McCain but points out McCain Weakness. The surge alone did not bring calm to Iraq, it is because the Suni's dislike of Alqaida and Moqtadar( the mahadi Militia) stop secterian volience as well. He needs to point that to the american people!
I disagree, Obama's stance in somewhat subversion I believe shows strength, aside from the opening remarks on the economic windfall, where either canidate didnt have much ground to stand on, because the plan is still being devised, Obama distanced himself when it came to foreign policy, is was at this point in the debate that Obama's resolve shined thru the typical political banter, and exposed Mcain's cantankerous disposition and sense of entitlement.
Obama was presidential, with fresh ideas and with an overall vision for how to change the direction of this country, as well as the way others view it. McCain's charges seemed more like talking points, and many were outdated. I mean, what was that reference to Reagan's SDI anyway? I was surprised that Obama favored missile defense and neither spoke enough about the connections between energy and national security, but, overall, Obama did a great job of letting us know not only his values but his foreign policy priorities.
There is this tendency on the part of us, as citizens, to view these debates in terms of rhetoric rather than substance. That is, we've adopted the perspective of the pundits who analyze them. I think this is wrong. In terms of substance and articulation of principled, reasoned policies, Obama was clearly ahead tonight. The two comments above talk about "vigor" and "being a gentleman", and yet both these people I'm sure would agree that these are not relevant to the issues at hand, unless we assume the American people are only concerned with media impressions rather than substantial policy proposals. In focusing to much on these performative aspects of the debate, we obscure the substance and end up reenforcing the petty evaluations of politics we all abhor. Obama was clear in expounding the vision that would inform his foreign policy, he was clear in his evaluation of the economic bailout and in stating what his priorities would for our domestic and economic crises. I was impressed and proud.
I thought Obama was clear and decisive. In addition, we found ourselves quite aware of McCain's facial regard and his deliberate avoidance of Sen. Obama. We found this attitude quite disrespectful toward Obama. McCain conspicuously avoided facing Obama or making any eye contact with Obama. Instead, he steadfastly directed his gaze and all comments to Jim Lehrer. In contrast, Sen. Obama faced Sen. McCain and gave him the courtesy of direct and personal conversation. McCain's body posture and facial regard indicated disdain and disrespect. Our family found this attitude notably discourteous.
Obama may have erred in allowing McCain to interupt and talk over him, but McCain lacked focus and kept going back to a line of attack I don't find credible with politicians, friends or business associates; 'I know what to do, my opponent (Senator Obama) doesn't understand as I do'. Obama had the guts to admit that his opponent isn't 100% wrong, and of course McCain isn't. Obama had the courage to offer up some substance. In contrast McCain failed to impress me with his honorable soldier, former POW, trust me sales pitch.
Aside from his entry comments, which were relatively sloppy, Obama addressed the questions in a clear, concise and well thought-out manner. McCain spoke in sentence fragments, repeated himself, did not directly address the questions and spoke without a direct line of thought between one comment to the next. Clearly McCain resorted to previously established refrains while Obama showed the ability to construct dialog ad hoc. My impression was that Obama displayed a cool and decisive tone while McCain played off of sound bytes and, though bottled up, his bad temper was clear to the camera.
I am not a democrat or replublican, though favored Obama prior to this debate due to his portrayed sound judgement and intelligence. Perhaps I am biased and thus cannot see the strengths in McCain's responses, but I did find myself chuckling at the large divergence in composure between McCain and Obama. Obama, though not spiritualy uplifting in any sense during this debate, shown as a clear leader. McCain appeared befuddled and more intent on attacking his opponent than addressing directly the questions asked by Jim.
Whatever his strategy was, in comparison with Obama, who was eloquent and direct, McCain came off as simple and political.
I am shocked at the media's spin and commentary after tonight's presidential debate. I miss the day's when intelligent commentator's at least tried to be objective and weigh the strengths and weaknesses of candidates. I find a barage of cheerleaders on both sides. I wish we had a T.V. news media that really spent time delving into and discussing the issues. I am a voter who is confused about what's going on with our economy. I don't have a real sense of where we stand with relaions to the world's largest and most powerful countries. I don't understand either candidate's stance on fixing a shameful healthcare system. I don't have trust in either candidates promise for future taxation. I want a debate that focuses and pries into these topics. I feel like I am forced to make a decision based largely on misinformation and hot-headed political ideaology.
I must say though that I was proud of both candidates. I believe that both have a sincere interest in the future of our country, but I am honestly confused about what they plan to do when in office.
Am I the only who thinks that McCain mentioning the age of his ballpoint pen was tres weird?
Did anyone notice how McCain seems to refuse to look directly at Obama. It seems beyond condecending, it's plain patronizing and his body language speaks volumes at his distaste of his opponents and how he would treat anyone who disagrees with him. He showed he is an angry old man who is stuck in the past.
undecided before, there is no doubt I'll vote Democratic. Senator McCain has be feel embarrassed.
But focusing on the past eight years, isn't vigor and civility traits we don't abhor and rather ones we have precisely needed?
McCain came across as the crotchety old man that is not open to new ideas. Just because you didn't live it doesn't mean you don't understand. That statement is a slap in the face of Obama and belittles him not only as a Presidential candidate, but also has a man and his considerable intelligence. Those are the words of a brooding politician that is trying to bully his way to office.
Obama IS naive. "Iran is a small country and not a serious threat." Brilliant. By that reasoning Canada must be a huge threat. Also, saying that the current financial crises will definitely affect budget proposals, but then still defending his ridiculous Health Care takeover was laughable. "Yes honey. Now that I'm unemployed we'll have to adjust our budget. Let's start by buying the each of the kids a new Lexus. After all everyone has to have a car." Sounds like one of my teenager. Naive.
Also, I loved the fact that Obama called McCain "John" all night. While McCain always called Obama "Senator Obama". Again, like my kids: young, immature, lacking in a sense of respect for people older and wiser than them.
McCain instead of discussing issues only offered repeated words that he is more experienced. Obviously, he lack a vision.
re: Bart Gibb
Older most certainly does not mean wiser. You mention that Obama lacks respect for McCain, but you fail to realize McCain's lack of respect for Obama. Telling someone they don't understand is about as discrespectful as it gets. McCain better realize quick that a large portion of the votes he is trying to get is people Obama's age. So telling him he doesn't understand is like telling everybody in their 40's and 50's they don't understand.
It works both ways my friend.
Second Post, but kudos to Jim L. for attempting to keep the politicians in line by restating questions in an attempt to get each candidate to directly answer them. Also, I like the fact that, as a moderator, he tried to instill responsibility and accountability on each of their statemenets by having them address one another as opposed to the moderator or the camera.
What struck me about McCain's repeated references to his long record, his knowledge, and his experience as assets to leadership is that those are the qualities missing in his vice-presidential pick! If Obama "doesn't understand" so many things (acc. to McCain), then think of how much more the republican vice-presidentail pick doesn't get!! Ironic.
The debate left me confident that my support of Barack Obama is well placed. I feel that the exchange clarified the differences between the positions of both candidates on a number of foreign and economic policy issues. Obama's deeper understanding of the loss of international respect for the United States and the need to repair that damage is of paramount importance. Obama's response reflected his ability to think critically about issues and solve problems, even when it means rethinking previous positions and actions. This is critical to strong and effective leadership.
John McCain evidenced behaviors similar to those G.W. Bush exhibits, especially a peculiar facial expression the gives the impression of a smirk. His repetitive comment that Senator Obama "doesn't seem to understand" was rude, pointless, and obviously untrue. Barack Obama presented a confident, sincere, and respectful image.
I thought that in a debate which was to be Mccain's strongest issues, Obama did very well. The fact that he agreed with Mccain shows that he can respect his opponent enough to acknowledge that it is possible to reach across the isle and see eye to eye on certain issues. The fact that John Mccain did not look at Obama, not even once, shows a lack of respect not seen on the level before.
This is the most thoughtful, respectful commentary of this campaign. Thank you everyone.
Actually, I thought this approach made McCain look out of touch with majority of voters. This style backfired with Gore-Bush & Kerry-Bush debates. The person with the most experience lost out to the candidate that people felt they could have a beer with. McCain claims lots of experience but doesn't have much to show for it. Also his approach makes it easier for Obama to rebut his statements by citing McCain's record with the current administration. This approach makes McCain look like the McSame.
It's being drilled over and over here, but I'm going to join the plurality that thinks McCain was patronizing in every response he made. Any time a question hit Obama first, McCain ensured that his response began with, "What Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand," or some variation. It gave the feel of a parent condescendingly talking to a third party about his child wanting to grow up to be an astronaut.
I love the point that was brought up that everything McCain is crucifying Obama for is something he could just as easily throw at Palin.
I found myself grimacing more than once as McCain blundered through pronunciations ("Ahmadinejad," for example) and I was reminded too many times of our current president.
Moreover, and I knew he'd do it, I wasn't impressed by his quiet moment of theatrics when he talked about "loving the veterans." I deeply respect John McCain's service and sacrifice. But I'm a soldier now. One of the most frustrating things I can listen to as a currently enlisted vet is a long retired vet trying to compare his experience to mine. Certain fundamentals of military experience never change, but times, services, and wars differ. I refuse to have either candidate try to jerk my vote because he does or doesn't have military background.
(...and I'd like to have a more concrete assurance about my benefits than someone telling me that he loves me and will take care of me. For flowery speeches, I'll take a husband. From a politician, I want a plan of action.)
While I did notice that McCain began most of his points with the phrase "Senator Obama doesn't understand", I hadn't noticed Obama saying, "John, you're right." Having recorded the debate, I watched it again and Obama did concede that he agreed with McCain a number of times. I guess I had noticed McCain repeating his mantra because it seemed so contrived and designed to impress the audience that Obama is inexperienced and naive. Obama may simply be more polished or subtle, but his "John, you're right" comments seemed to be truly spontaneous and genuine. Don't those statements of agreement deflate McCain's argument that Obama finds it "hard to reach across the aisle from that far on the left"? To the contrary, McCain seems to be the one who has displayed a decided shift to the right over the past year.
McCain looked old. Maybe that's because he is. His answers were canned and he tried mightily to add substance by strong-arming the debate. Sad to say, he took what should have been his strong suit, a debate on foreign policy, and came across as a belligerent fanatic. With this demeanor, I would not relish the idea of McCain attempting diplomacy with any of the many troubled entities throughout the world. They won't soon forget the "bomb, bomb Iran" refrain.
Obama did not resonate with me, generally, but neither did he lose ground. Of the two, he seemed vastly more reasoned and presidential.
McCain's obvious strategy is to scare the population into voting for him. How is he to know if we leave Iraq, that Alchieda is going to set up shop there? This is only an assumption, and assumptions are a sign of fear, weakness, and possible deceit (meaning there is more to the story than the Bush Administration is willing to share). Concerning McCain's rhetorical attacks that Obama "Doesn't Understand" it is courageous and wise of Obama to not allow himself to get caught up on these trivial assumptions and to stay on his main focus. He defends himself and the people inevitably by staying on the topic of his Economical plan.
What I heard was some variation of agreement in a points of John arguments opening many of Barak's statements. I agree with many Blogger comments about the character of each candidate, but I have some prejudices regarding NPR listeners and bloggers, meaning many of you are likely trained to see through the smoke. I can't help but worry that John McCain's rhetoric will resonate with a broader audience. A recent NPR article suggested that its the sound bites that we remember, and I can repeat without thinking the "He doesn't get it", and "John and I agree" statements. I still think Barak can be more forceful and less conciliatory.
Bob makes an excellent point. I found myself thinking along the same lines as I watched the debate - you see people that listen to NPR have probably already ferreted out the BS coming from both sides and are more than likely already decided. But Mccain simply saying "What Obama doesn't understand" no doubt instills a sense of unease in uninformed voters. They won't check the facts, or research the issues - they'll simply accept Mccains assertions as fact since Obama didn't retort. It's an unfortunate and dirty tactic out of a campaign that has been unfortunate and dirty almost its entire run.
I hope it doesn't pay off, I hope for once the majority of the American people aren't swayed by fear and theatrics....but I find it hard to believe.
Great blog and a good read. Insightful and articulate. Thanks to all.
This arm-chair rhetorical critic found plenty of mistakes behind either podium. McCain repeated himself too often -- as if he hadn't made his point well enough the first time... Obama continually referring "John" was inelegant & unprofessional. (Shades of Bush vs. Gore in 2000?) I thought it made him sound like the 22yo hot-shot trying to fit in with the board of directors. Watch for this to change at the next debate if his strategists know what's good for him. Though many here have berated McCain for suggesting Obama "doesn't understand" or "doesn't get it" what McCain did RIGHT in those instances was immediately follow them with reason and illustration to back those assertions. If you accept them is another issue. That they were supported and well timed was my impression.
I thought it was telling that Obama, when asked about the cuts he'd make under what is sure to be a crippled budget, could hardly be kept from addressing all the things he wanted to add, start and do rather than where he'd look for cuts, reductions and eliminations. Even after Jim L. pointed that out and asked again, there seemed to be more about wishful thinking than about hard choices needing to be made.
I was proud of McCain for stating his (politically suicidal?) support for building more nuclear plants and eliminating ethanol subsidies. Maybe the economic climate of the week will lessen the blow to those issues, I don't know.
Either man has some hard choices a head. The me-first, not-in-my-backyard thinking most voters take with them to the polls cannot last. Whoever is going to GET STUFF DONE in the next administration is likely to go down in history as a very, very unpopular guy... If he succeeds at any real accomplishment.
The debate was between world leader America and maverick America; maverick America appearing after 9/11. Debate style was a foreshadowing of leadership style.
NPR thanks our sponsors
NPR's producers, reporters and editors follow the latest developments on the campaign trail. For more information, please visit our discussion guidelines.
This blog is no longer active. You can find a list of current NPR blogs at npr.org/blogs.
Comments
Discussions for this story are now closed. Please see the Community FAQ for more information.