Election '08: The Optimist-in-Chief
The clearest sign that John McCain won last night’s debate is that the TV pundits immediately afterward called it a draw. Don’t take my word for it. Read the transcript. McCain clearly had the facts, figures, and experience on his side.
Barack Obama, of course, didn’t torpedo his own candidacy. He stuck gamely to his talking points and his previous positions (although he seemed a bit wobbly on the whole “without preconditions” thing). Clearly he has learned a thing or two in his long months on the campaign trail about attractively packaging his liberalism. I’m sure that those true-believers who tuned in already enamored of the first-term senator from Chicago saw nothing to dissuade them, so I won’t butt my head against that wall.
McCain, however, did something more than win this debate. He effectively refuted the insinuations coming from the Obama camp that he is old and out of touch. Fresh from the bailout negotiations, it was the 72-year-old who bubbled over with energy. As someone who initially saw the Arizona senator as the best of a mediocre Republican lot (Romney? Huckabee? Pu-leese!), I thought his command on every national security issue after little time to prepare for the debate was impressive. He had no senior moments and looked every bit the happy warrior: smiling throughout, patiently but persistently correcting his younger opponent with the telling phrase, “He doesn’t understand,” and talking about antiquated notions such as “victory.”
Obama, by contrast, while he committed no gaffes (though one could describe his whole approach to foreign policy as a gigantic gaffe), frequently seemed on the defensive and frowned a lot. One would not have been surprised had he barked at least once, Dole-like, “Stop lying about my record!” Clearly McCain has wrested the mantle of sunny optimism from the candidate of “change.”
Let’s get real. This is not a beauty contest. This is about who will be the next commander-in-chief. The candidates have talked much about that 3 a.m. phone call. Judging by what you saw last night, which of these two men is prepared to answer?
posted by Stan Guthrie at 7:44 AM
StanGuthrie.com
3 Comments:
Stan,
I thought Obama smiled comfortably at the appropriate times, unlike McCain who actually smirked while Obama was speaking most of the time. That's how I (and many others watching) perceived it anyway. I would call that discourteous.
What do you make of the fact that McCain never once looked at or addressed Senator Obama directly throughout the entire hour-and-a-half long debate, even after the moderator politely asked them to do so? Obama spoke directly to the camera at several occasions, and he spoke directly to Senator McCain a number of times. McCain, on the other hand, spoke to the moderator most of the time, never addressed the "middle class" or "working people" issues the way that Obama did, and, ultimately, came off looking (in my opinion), smug/arrogant/condescending. It seemed as if McCain feels entitled to win this election because he's so offended that someone with Obama's "lack of experience" would be in the position that he is in (leading in the polls and on the electoral map). What is your take on that?
Also, Obama on a number of now well-publicized (by the McCain campaign) occasions offered agreement with McCain where there were areas of actual agreement. McCain, on the other hand, gave Obama no such courtesy or respect, and even took several cheap shots (read: bad jokes). I would call that disrespectful.
Also, what is your opinion of McCain intentionally distorting and misleading viewers on Obama's record and positions? In just about every exchange, Obama had to correct him by saying "That's not true" or "As John already knows" (meaning: "He's lying through his teeth, folks"). How does that make you feel proud of your candidate? I would call that dishonest and dishonorable.
Anyway, as conservative commentator Michael Graham said on National Review Online last night: "Obama won because he didn't lose. McCain was better, but not by enough." I think I can agree with that.
Steve,
Really, now--discourteous is he? Did he really smirk? My, my! We might as well call off the election and give it to Obama right now! That naughty McCain!
Excuse my sarcasm. And what do you call all those ads calling McCain too old? I wasn't aware they were running for Miss Congeniality.
I didn't see all the minutia of slights you and other Obama supporters apparently did. Your antennae were up, I guess. I'd have to say you all are pretty touchy--or is it insecure? For McCain, respect is earned, not given.
I don't blame McCain for not being buddy-buddy with him. They are far apart on both their positions and on their experience, and Obama took the gloves off a long time ago. McCain was plenty cordial.
As far as Obama actually winning this debate? He may not have blown it, but he certainly didn't win. If you look at the substance of what was actually said, I honestly don't believe it was a contest.
But a lot of people don't want to be confused with the facts. They're too eager for "change" at any price. Doesn't that scare you?
As far as McCain never addressing the middle class--bosh! He talked about tax cuts and spending cuts, didn't he? Those things affect me, and I heard him loud and clear.
For some reason--certainly not based on his knowledge or experience--your guy (a completely inexperienced, big-spending pro-choice liberal with lots of shady friends) is leading in the polls. Honestly, that frightens me. If we vote for him, I guess we deserve him. And we'll be stuck with him.
But please don't say you weren't warned.
Stan
P.S. - This will be my only comment on this particular post.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home