I will be the first to admit I did not see all of Tuesday’s debate. I caught about half of it. Saw the end. I missed the awesome “that one” quip by McCain. It is getting a lot of play. Even if that scandal dies out quickly, everyone who saw it likely got the same impression. McCain is a dismissive, angry, rude man.
Polls show Obama getting big bounces from this debate on favorability ratings. It is easy to see why. While all the political junkies and consultants and talking heads like to count points won or lost in a debate, at the end of the day, how a candidate comes across means more than anything else.
Head to head people just like Obama more, and that is a huge hurdle McCain has to find a way around since he cannot jump over it.
Will the incessant attacks be a way around it? Well, recent daily tracking polls, with the exception of Gallup, seem to suggest they are having an effect. But for how long? And the debate numbers start coming in tomorrow. We will see shortly whether the debate stops the trend toward McCain due to the Ayers nonsense and whatever garbage he can sling.
Couple of points on the debate that I saw.
1) Focus on ‘preconditions’ - I do not get this. McCain has brought it up in each debate, Palin in the VP debate. Why do they think this works? Obama can deftly counter it every time, and his explanations make total sense. McCain’s position is screwy. And the more McCain pushes it, the more it looks like he is making a mountain out of a molehill. The issue is just not that important, and it is way too wonky. If that is all he has to bring to the fight, God help him.
2) Bombing Pakistan - Oh, I guess he does have one more weapon at his disposal. This one makes even less sense. Obama claims he would take out bin Laden if he could, even if he had to bomb within Pakistan. McCain agrees, but says Obama is reckless to announce he would do it. Huh? People are going to vote against Obama because he publicly said he would kill bin Laden without Pakistan’s approval? Really? Seriously, what sane person even gives a rat’s backside about this? This is so inside baseball I cannot even fathom it. Why McCain thinks this line of attack works confounds me to no end.
I know McCain wants to show Obama inexperience, but I think many would find it refreshing that a Democrat wants to bomb something. Plus, its bin Laden! All Americans want to bomb bin Laden! The lack of experience argument gets lost here. Plus, Obama only claims he would leave that tool in the arsenal. McCain says the same thing when criticizing Obama! So he accuses him of recklessness, and then makes the same reckless claim.
Is McCain that confused? Someone in his campaign needs to buy him a clue.
I do believe his attacks on Obama’s judgment regarding the Iraq escalation do hit home. And that is a real issue. The Dems do not have a snappy and convincing comeback to this. Well, they can counter it, but they do not – at their peril. I do think that if the Dems can answer the Iraq escalation question (did it work or not?), then the Republicans have no chance.
McCain still needs something more. Basically, a major proposal to engage the public, similar to his mortgage bailout plan mentioned in the debate, but bigger. It has to be good, and it has to be well thought out. This would get the focus on him, his new proposal, and how ‘mavericky’ he is.
As it is, if he continues looking angry and focusing on the wrong issues, he will not gain the traction he needs to turn this thing to his favor.
Obama
Obama should, as I said after the first debate, attack McCain in the same way McCain attacks him on Iraq. Occasionally he does. The bomb, bomb, bomb Iran quip was perfect. What makes Obama so effective is his calm, cool, Presidential type style. He seems more thoughtful. He does need to make his answers shorter and more direct. But whatever the case, he is ahead and has won both debates handily. He makes no gaffes. So if he continues doing what he is doing, he should be fine.