|
I think Obama did reasonably well in the first Presidential Debate. Although I don't think he was at his best, and I know that he could have beat McCain into the ground. There was so much to work with, and although I think Obama came out ahead, I don't think it was decisive enough. He should have crushed him, and for that reason I am disappointed. I know he can do better.
His first mistake I believe was allowing McCain to control the debate. McCain spent the entire debate in attack mode. Obama spent the majority of the debate counter punching and playing defense. I am not sure how this plays to the public, so I'm going to consider it a wash. Obama came off looking more Presidential, but that's not that difficult when standing next to McCain, while the old man came off looking slightly angry, perhaps even condescending. McCain obviously has a hard time going on the attack unless he demonizes his opponent which is why he couldn't look at Obama the entire debate. Of course, I don't think there was any alternative for McCain - he had to go hard offensively.
His second mistake was not knocking McCain off balance. McCain was in attack mode, and a few well placed attacks by Obama could have likely caused McCain to say or do something that would have resulted in a gaffe. He didn't take advantage of the debate format by turning to McCain and asking him questions directly. By engaging him in a one on one it would have forced John McCain to face him and look at him, something he refused to do for psychological reasons.
Alright, now... for the things he said.
First, the opening. He got to go first and he could have taken the opportunity to set the mood for the entire debate. This is where he lost major points in my eyes. As it almost always is, the opening was pre-written and rehearsed on both sides. There was no excuse for it lacking anything that allowed him to set the mood, the tone and the agenda for the debate. Here is what I think his opening should have looked like:
"I want to first thank you, Jim, the debate commission and Ole Miss for hosting this debate. I know there was a time this week when it looked like this debate might not happen. I am glad that Senator McCain has finally decided to join me here in the great state of Mississippi, because I cannot think of a more important time to talk about the future of our country. Now more than ever American's need to know where we stand.
We've heard a lot about Wall Street these last couple of weeks, but there hasn't been much talk about what is going on over here in Main Street. The truth is we've been suffering for awhile, and it's unfortunate that it has taken a crisis of this magnitude to bring this issue to the forefront. I know you probably haven't heard about it in the news, I know that it sometimes gets drowned out in the back and forth of politics, but the Democratic Party and myself have always understood and fought for Main Street and its issues. We know what it's like on Main Street because we live on Main Street.
I know you're wondering how this issue is going to affect your family, because I'm wondering how it's going to affect my own. I know you're wondering if you're going to lose your job, because I have people in my family wondering the same. While some here tonight worry about losing their second, third or forth home, we worry about losing the only one we have. I know you're wondering if you're going to be able to retire, or if you're going to be able to afford to send your children to college, I worry about the same for my daughters as well. I know this because I've been in your homes, and have been to towns across this great nation. Whether it is down here in Mississippi or up in Pennsylvania it is the same story on every Main Street.
I know this story because it is my own. I don't have a whole lot of money on Wall Street. In fact my standing before you tonight could only happen here in America. I didn't have much growing up. My father left my mother when I was two, and I was raised by my grandparents. We fought and struggled, but in the end we managed to put food on the table and gas in the car. I earned the right to go to college. I didn't cheat or game the system, I worked hard and applied myself to achieve the right to stand here. This is the American Dream, that if you work hard enough anything is possible, and it is this dream that is in danger of being lost.
I understand that $700 Billion is a lot of money, but without this money the dream that I have lived, the dream that I want to see endure for my children and yours will die. I know what got us here in the first place.
When I saw the Bush White House's outrageous proposal, I said I wasn't going to sign onto it until I saw the following: oversight and transparency, the potential to get the money back along with any gains, no golden parachutes or benefits to those who cheated the system, and a way to provide aid to those struggling to stay within their home.
We are in this crisis as a result of eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush, and supported by Senator McCain, a theory that says that we can shred regulations and protections for the middle class, give more and more to those who have the most, while taking away more and more from those who have the least. Somehow, in that theory of theirs, they think the prosperity will trickle down.
We know it hasn't worked. We know that the fundamentals of our economy are not strong, and we know that hard working American's, those trying to live the American Dream, just aren't getting a fair shake. This is why I am running for president."
Listening to his opening it sounded to me that he was trying too much to sound presidential. Sounding presidential is about gravitas, charisma and the way you act. These are things Obama has in abundance, and he said a lot of "you's" in his opening. There was no "us" or "we" - no "I feel your pain" moment. It makes him *SOUND* disconnected and withdrawn. Simply changing a few words such as "you" to "we" can go a long way. It helps let people know you identify with them.
Throughout my opening there were several digs at John McCain. The first is the politics surrounding the debate itself. It takes the opportunity to lay out the seriousness of the situation, draws attention to the chaotic behavior of McCain, and makes it look like Obama is in control as McCain came down to the debate.
The second big dig was at John McCain's many homes. The whole point of the opening, I believe, should have been Obama trying to set things up with him identifying with the average American. Pointing out John McCain has a ton of houses is just a way of saying that he isn't one of us. I would not have Obama say his name, but rather casually glance in his direction to make it clear who he is talking about.
The whole tone and agenda for the economic portion of the debate should have been: I'm one of you, John McCain is not one of us and is behind the problems.
Now on to the other points...
I think Obama did too much "I agree, but..." The simple fact is Republican's are going to completely twist those words around and make Obama eat them. Stop it, please. Seriously. It sounds good when you say it, but people are going to forget the context you said it in. They're eventually are only going to remember how it is twisted and distorted by the Republicans. You can agree with someone without saying it.
For example, instead of saying: "Well, I think Senator McCain's absolutely right that we need more responsibility, but we need it not just when there's a crisis."
Say this: "We do need more responsibility, but we need it all the time, not just when there's a crisis."
Not only will it give more time to expand on your point, it prevents the Republican's from twisting your words later.
Next, we had the whole earmarks issue. This was probably one of the worst parts of the debate for Obama. I think it was a wash here. Obama completely let McCain control it by being forced to defend himself again and again. He went too defensive and should have pivoted to making McCain look out of touch. In the end, I do think McCain looked out of touch, but because Obama engaged him on the issue, I think it might have made Obama look slightly out of touch as well.
Here is what Obama should have said: "Earmarks is a process that has been abused, which is why I suspended any requests for my home state, whether it was for senior centers or bridges to no where, until we cleaned it up. If I am elected president I will work with Senator McCain on this issue.
However, let's be clear. What got us in our current situation is not earmarks. It is rewarding those who cheat American's by taking our jobs overseas. It was the shredding of regulations and protections for the middle class."
At that point, I would have loved for Obama to turn to John McCain and say the following: "John a few nights ago Sarah did an interview where she was asked about your record on deregulation. She said she would get back to us, but so far she hasn't. So now I'm asking you directly. I've reviewed your record, and I struggle to find more than four or five instances where you've stood earnestly and honestly against deregulation. We all know you've spent a very long time in the Senate, and since Sarah couldn't answer Katie's question, I'm going to give you the chance. Can you name five strong instances, throughout your entire Senate Career, where you've stood strongly against deregulation?"
That response in its entirety would have did the following:
1. It would have completely derailed his attempt to talk about earmarks.
2. It would have made Obama look like a leader and bi-partisan on the issue of earmarks.
3. It would have brought unfavorable attention to Sarah Palin.
4. It would have reminded everyone that not only is McCain old, but he has been in Washington a long time.
5. It would have put him on the spot, and forced him to answer for his record of deregulation, making him clearly part of the problem and not the solution.
My next point...
I saw a serious missed opportunity here when McCain said: "Right now, the United States of American business pays the second-highest business taxes in the world, 35 percent. Ireland pays 11 percent."
Obama should have responded to that with the following: "John you seem confused about this issue. I have great respect for our Irish allies, but our jobs are not running off to Ireland. They're running off to China and other nations with cheap labor and poor regulations."
The goal here is to paint John McCain out of touch and to lay the trap to get him to talk about the reason we need more deregulation, giving Obama a chance to pounce and once again paint him even more part of the problem.
For my next points...
I think Obama should have struck fast and hard when McCain suggested a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs. It was an opportunity to show how much McCain just did not get the economy, and was completely out of touch. It is something I cannot believe the pundits have not picked up. It is just totally way out there.
On the issue of Foreign Policy I believe Obama did rather well. However, I wish he would have hit McCain over the following issues.
1. On Iraq, I wish he would have hit McCain on the funding issue. With our economy going down the tubes, McCain has to be able to explain where the money is coming from.
2. Obama should have also asked him: "John, if you were faced with either ending the war in Iraq or raising taxes, would you raise taxes?" If McCain responds with a "no" or attempts to dodge the question, cut in and ask: "So you'd end the war in Iraq?"
3. Point out that the President of Iraq openly stated that there should be a time table for withdraw. Point out to John McCain that if we're fighting so hard for a democracy in Iraq, shouldn't we at least be willing to listen to their elected leaders?
4. Hammer home the point of the surge was not to reduce violence, but to create a situation for Iraqi's to stand up so that American's could stand down. Point out that America cannot prop up the Iraqi government forever, and that there will come a time when they must be able to stand on their own. Make clear that so long as the Iraqi's believe we will be there indefinitely, they will feel no need to do the hard work that must be done to have their nation stand on its own two feet.
I am hoping that the next debate Obama will set Mr. Grouch on fire and seal the deal. He has it in him to do so much better, but at least I believe he did a decent enough job that most American's probably saw him as far more Presidential, and he certainly had a VERY firm command of the issues. Two major points that I think scored him the win for this debate, but please... please... let the next one be so clearly decisive that even Fox News can't call it for McCain.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
