debates – Hank Kalet

Debate response 3

Random stuff:

1.
Joe the Plumber? I hate this rhetorical devise — like I hate Joe Six-pack. It is an attempt to make real what for the candidate is a theoretical construct — Keith Olbermann is calling him John McCain’s “invisible friend.” Eugene Robinson offers this:

First McCain was bringing him up all the time, then Obama did the same thing. What makes politicians think plumbing is the quintessentially American occupation? Why not address these sincere appeals to Marge the Human Resources Specialist?

(Apparently, this Joe guy is real. Who’d a thunk it.)

2.
The post-race polling, once again, differs greatly with the pundits. The pundits gave the debate to McCain or slightly to Obama. The polls, so far, give it to Obama.

Debate response 2

I’m watching MSNBC and their focus-group coverage and I have to wonder why they keep going to this, using the dopey reaction meter thingy. Ugh.

Debate response

I waited tonight to comment on the debate, primarily because I was at work. My sense, having watched a good portion and listened to some, is that the parameters of the election have not changed.

John McCain has his best debate performance, but still managed not to win because Barack Obama was far more systematic and focused in describing his policy. McCain’s explanations tended to ramble, tended to hit upon snippets of policy, attack lines and stock phrases that I suspect will read poorly in text. Plus, he also showed an erratic temper that flared up at odd times with odd facial ticks and gestures.

This kind of thing might seem inconsequential, but the temperment question is important — as McCain has repeatedly said. “The steady hand at the tiller,” he proclaims himself to be, when it is clear that Obama — whose manner easily could have been described as dull or boring — proved himself to be steadier, on more of an even keel than McCain, less flappable.

The times are volatile and it appears that the volatility has a worried public looking for someone who can exude a calmness that McCain seems to lack.

I won’t get into policy — I clearly disagree with McCain on most things and with Obama on many. But I think that Obama has been better able to explain himself and make Americans understand where he wants to take the nation. And that is what ultimately is important.

Post-debate thoughts 1

James Fallows, once again, gets it right in the immediate aftermath:

1) From a horse-race perspective, John McCain came in behind and losing ground, in the middle of a financial/economic panic that works against him, and therefore needing a big win. This meant either damaging and flummoxing Obama, or so outshining him in audience rapport, mastery of policy, and empathetic connection through the camera, that the debate could be presented as a turning point. None of that happened. (McCain’s best performance was at the end, rejecting a “Yes/No” question on whether Russia is an “evil empire.”) At this stage in the race, a tie goes to leader, and this was not a tie.

2) “That one.” Difficult to discuss. Unwise for Obama or his campaign ever to mention themselves. But creates an impression that may be impossible to erase.

3) The betting had been, including from me, that this Town Hall format would best suit McCain — the informality, the opportunity for jokeyness, the track record of handling such questions easily. To my eye, that betting turned out wrong, partly through McCain’s doing and partly through Obama’s.

On McCain’s side — to my eye — this meant was a range of references that collectively amounted to something like George H.W. Bush’s weary glance at his wristwatch during his own Town Hall debate with the vigorous young Bill Clinton 16 years ago. The forced and unsuccessful Bob Hope-style jokes, the repeated reference to the “overhead projector,” the prevalent allusions to an era much of the electorate considers past. Tip O’Neill, the early Reagan, the Marine disaster in Lebanon — important all, but dated-sounding in 2008.

And on Obama’s side, getting away with surprising aggression — being the first on the personal criticism, trying to shake up the format and have direct colloquy with McCain near the end, taunting McCain by talking about the “bomb bomb bomb” song, to my eye seeming physically confident in the way Bill Clinton did in that same 1992 Town Hall. A very different bearing from what we’ve seen from him in any debates this year. Also, in terms of modern stagecraft: Obama balanced his looks between the audience and the camera, so he seemed to engage both; McCain less natural in doing that. (And Obama said “you,” when speaking the audience in nearly every sentence; McCain much less frequently.)

Debate blogging 12

I’m watching MSNBC’s post-debate analysis and I’m not sure why. In general, the cable networks offer little more than facile nonsense — the kind of quick response that attempts to sound authoritative but really is just blather.

I know that, given my short missives on the blog, I could probably be accused of engaging in this kind of stuff. But I was just offering brief thoughts. I’ll wait until tomorrow to offer more substantive analysis.