If Newt is the roaster, is John Boehner the weenie?
John Boehner went all-in on the bailout bill, and got hosed. He failed to deliver more than 65 GOP votes, and looks like he can't whip worth a damn. Some are even questioning whether he could lose his leadership post to a more "conservative" conservative.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was working aggressively behind the scenes to defeat the Wall Street rescue plan minutes before he himself released a public statement in support of the package, NBC's Andrea Mitchell reported on Tuesday.
Gingrich was whipping up votes for the opposition, Mitchell said, apparently without the knowledge of the current GOP leader, John Boehner, who was responsible for recruiting enough support from his caucus to help ensure the bill's passage. Ultimately, the GOP was only able to rally roughly a third of its members.
"Newt Gingrich," she said on MSNBC, "I am told reliably by leading Republicans who are close to him, he was whipping against this up until the last minute, when he issued that face-saving statement. Newt Gingrich was telling people in the strongest possible language that this was a terrible deal, not only that it was a terrible deal, it was a disaster, it was the end of democracy as we know, it was socialism -- and then at the last minute [he] comes out with a statement when the vote is already in place."
After the vote, Gingrich played the phony and lamented the non-passage of the bill. But not everybody was buying it, especially since Newt was one of the righties urging John McCain to kill the bill, and send out a press release... From the July 23 edition of The Hill:
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said Tuesday that any lawmaker who votes for the Bush administration's $700 billion bailout package, which he called a “dead loser,” will face defeat in November.
Gingrich (R-Ga.) said he thinks Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is trying to scare lawmakers into passing the bailout plan quickly and without thorough study.
“I think what Paulson hopes to do is say, ‘If you don’t do exactly what I want you to do, the whole world’s going to collapse on Tuesday’,” Gingrich said.
The former Speaker, talking to reporters at a lunch, added that he expects Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) to back the plan. He predicted that, if Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) ends up opposing the administration proposal, there will be an overnight “emergence of a McCain/reform wing of the Republican Party.”
Gingrich said that occurrence would turn the election on its head, with Republicans running ads that feature Obama with President Bush on the same team in pushing for a “nightmare” bailout plan.
Newt also predicted, 6 days before the vote, that if the bill failed to pass on Friday, it would fail because lawmakers would read it on Saturday and cringe. How clairvoyant...
So what could Newty be up to? Is he preparing to run for president in 2012, as Mike Barnacle accused on "Morning Joe" yesterday? Could be. His big "Drill Here, Drill Now" gambit is heavily funded by the oil industry, whose money would also be useful in a national election, not to mention in key states like Louisiana, Florida and out West. If he runs, the scandal-plagued Gingrich would need to build a firewall on the libertarian right, to mitigate against any evangelicals who won't be able to force themselves to stomach him, as they are with McCain because of Sarah Palin. And he very much shored up that firewall with the 130 Republicans he denied to John Boehner. Now, they listen to Newt.
And Boehner? I'm sure Newt is saying, to hell with him. After all, they have a history:
House members are no strangers to political treachery either, although you need to go back nearly a decade to find a world-class example. To get rid of House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), a loosely organized band of co-conspirators proved less deft than their Roman legislative forebears did in mounting their secret scheme. Although the coup fell apart the day after it was launched, the reputations of almost all those involved -- including their intended victim -- never fully recovered.
A core group of rebels, drawn mostly from the large GOP class of '94, sought to find a way to oust the imperious speaker. But to do so, they needed help from the top Republican leadership. It soon came from Majority Leader Dick Armey (Texas), Majority Whip Tom DeLay (Texas), GOP conference Chairman John Boehner (Ohio) and Rep. Bill Paxon (N.Y.), then a trusted Gingrich capo.
The plan was to have Armey, DeLay, Boehner and Paxon -- each an independent actor with his own power base -- confront Gingrich with a fait accompli: step down or face being voted out of office. Armey, however, backed out when it appeared that Gingrich wanted Paxon to succeed him. In the murky aftermath, DeLay confessed his role, which helped to rehabilitate his reputation. Armey never did. And Paxon -- who was to Gingrich what Brutus was to Caesar -- was out of a leadership job. After the 1998 midterm elections, waged by congressional Republicans as a (failed) referendum on impeaching President Clinton, Gingrich himself was soon gone. (after spending some time in political purgatory, the former Speaker has once more become a hot commodity.)
With Armey and DeLay long gone, could this be Newt's little payback for the fourth member of the wolf pack, while enhancing his own presidential / populist portfolio in the process? You've got to wonder...
McCain should take no credit for the bailout bill, before its time...
Is it just me, or has John McCain lost it? He's suspending his campaign ... he's not suspending his campaign ... he won't debate ... he will debate ... he's headed back to Capitol Hill to lead House Republicans to pass the $700 Bush bailout bill ... but he's also dining at a posh hotel restaurant while the work is being done ... he won't phone it in ... but he conducted his "leadership" on the phone ... he takes all the credit for the bailout bill, until it doesn't pass, in which case it's Barack Obama's fault ... (but of course, this is no time for partisanship. although that, too, is Obama's fault...)
It's exhausting just keeping up with the stunts, twists, turns, backtracks and utter, careening craziness of the McCain campaign. Can you imagine the hot mess he'd be as president???
"To a certain extent, I think John gets hurt by [the bailout bill's failure]," said Ed Rollins, a CNN contributor who worked on former Gov. Mike Huckabee's primary campaign earlier this cycle. "He obviously, at the end of the day, said he was for it. But more important than that, he said he was the one who would bring them to the table and to a certain extent he will be viewed now as not being able to do that."
And when it comes to McCain's "leadership," apparently it had better be bi-partisan, because it sure doesn't extend to his own party:
Rollins added, "McCain is our nominee and [congressional Republicans] will do everything they can to help him, but they are not going to go over the cliff for him. They did that for Bush, and they thought that this measure was just too dramatic for their constituencies."
The GOP strategist spoke to the Huffington Post just an hour after the House failed to pass the $250 billion bailout package by a margin of 205 to 228. Republicans in that body were quick to cast blame on Speaker Nancy Pelosi for giving a "partisan" speech earlier on Monday -- a doubtful assertion given the benign text of Pelosi's remarks. When it came to McCain's leadership qualities, however, Rollins argued that the last week has left much to be desired.
"I think the reality is, he made a big show coming in and at the end of the day it really wasn't realistic for him," he said.
Damn. Well who can this guy lead? Joe Lieberman? Hell, even Lindsey Graham is getting worn out!
I don't blame John McCain for not rounding up enough Republican votes to get this bailout bill through the House of Representatives--he's not a member of the House, he's never held a leadership position and therefore doesn't know how to whip votes and finally--well, uh--there is one tried and true method for getting members of Congress to vote aye and McCain opposes it: a sweetener, like say, funding for a bridge in their districts. That is one reason why we have earmarks. McCain is opposed to giving away baubles for the greater good.
I do blame McCain for his puerile histrionics and for dragging this issue--which should have been above partisanship--into presidential politics. Let's make no mistake about it: his various gimmicks had absolutely nothing to do with the substance of the issue.He doesn't know all that much about the substance of the issue. The gimmicks were a failed attempt to make it seem as if he had powers, and knowledge, he didn't have. Clearly, he was in a more difficult position than Obama--the populist conservative wing of House Republicans was unwilling to take responsibility for the fruits of the deregulation that they promoted--and that might have required a more aggressive effort to move votes on his part, but the flailing about only confused Republicans (was he for, was he against?) and made matters worse.
Geez. I sure wish we had someone in the campaign who would bring some calm, sober leadership to this messy situation...
Barack Obama told a crowd in Westminster, Colo., not to panic at the House of Representatives' failure to pass the Bush administration's $700 billion bailout bill.
"It's important for the American public and for the markets to stay calm,” Obama said, “because things are never smooth in Congress, and to understand that it will get done.”
Ah... that's more like it. I feel calmer already. Right Richard Holbrooke?
Howard Kurtz hints that, oh wait, there's MORE embarrassing Sarah Palin footage knocking around CBS. Teased Howie:
It may have been a turning point for Couric, who was persistent without being overbearing, in shedding early doubts about her ability to be a commanding presence in the CBS anchor chair. And the worst may be yet to come for Palin; sources say CBS has two more responses on tape that will likely prove embarrassing.
And Politico has details on one of the offending clips in its story about the latest Palin sit-down, in which she was joined on CBS by her dad ... I mean, by John McCain. Politico?
Palin was far more aggressive in another interview with Couric today, this aide said
Sitting with McCain for their first joint interview a week after the widely panned sit-down with Couric, Palin interjected when the CBS anchor brought up a report about the Wasilla Assembly of God, the governor's childhood church and one she still attends at times, seeking to pray gays away from homosexuality.
"Sarah Barracuda showed up today," the aide said, reprising the feisty former point guard's high school basketball nickname and one that has been largely forgotten since her post-convention cosseting.
"We're encouraging CBS to run entire thing," the aide said of today's session. "Run it end to end online."
Of concern to McCain's campaign, however, is a remaining and still-undisclosed clip from Palin's interview with Couric last week that has the political world buzzing.
The Palin aide, after first noting how "infuriating" it was for CBS to purportedly leak word about the gaffe, revealed that it came in response to a question about Supreme Court decisions.
After noting Roe vs. Wade, Palin was apparently unable to discuss any major court cases.
There was no verbal fumbling with this particular question as there was with some others, the aide said, but rather silence.
Um ... just off the top of my head and without using "the Google" ... Brown v. Board of Education, maybe? I think my kids even know that one ... or Plessy vs. Fergusen? That's one evangelicals like to talk about ... Hamdan v. Rumsfeld? That's pretty recent on the whole "held for years without a trial thing..." ... I would say Boumediene v. Bush, but that would be showing off, so maybe, oh, I don't know ... BUSH v. GORE??? Jeez, Sarah... Watch part of the two-person interview here.
Meanwhile, did Sarah endorse Hamas? She may well have unless of course she doesn't...
a) Know what happened in Gaza; b) Know where Gaza is; c) Know who rules Gaza today; d) Care.
According to a British paper, the McCain campaign considers pulling a wedding out of the hat in October, to distract attention from the actual campaign:
Inside John McCain’s campaign the expectation is growing that there will be a popularity boosting pre-election wedding in Alaska between Bristol Palin, 17, and Levi Johnston, 18, her schoolmate and father of her baby. “It would be fantastic,” said a McCain insider. “You would have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week.”
There is already some urgency to the wedding as Bristol, who is six months pregnant, may not want to walk down the aisle too close to her date of delivery. She turns 18 on October 18, a respectable age for a bride — and the same age as Barack Obama’s pregnant mother when she married his Kenyan father. The Democrat has already declared Bristol’s private life off-limits as far as his campaign is concerned.
The selection of Palin, 44, the moose-hunting governor of Alaska, as his running mate was one of McCain’s biggest gambles. It paid off handsomely at first, but she could benefit from a fresh injection of homespun authenticity, the hallmark of her style, provided by her daughter’s wedding after appearing out of depth away from her home state.
Way to pimp that daughter, Sarah! Yup-yup! But I sure hope the f***in redneck really does want to marry Bristol... otherwise that's going to be one short, miserable marriage.
Who's really to blame for the mortgage and Wall Street Meltdown? Larry Kudlow and other conservatives blame the poor, minoritiesm and the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act. Now, here's the rest of the story:
Maybe he shouldn't have bothered ... John McCain suspended his campaign and rushed back to Washington to make the bailout deal happen. Well, funny thing, that...
The bailout fails. Here's how the win-loss column looks:
First, the winners:
Conservative House Republicans -
They beat back not just their own president, but the Democratic majority, Barney Frank, and Henry Paulson. If nothing much happens, and the economy doesn't go completely into the ditch, they'll look like geniuses. If the bottom falls out of the market, and small businesses can't get basic credit, or we do go into a deep recession, they'll be the goats.
Liberal Democrats -
Led by Dennis Kucinich and several members of the Black Caucus, they defied their leadership and held out for more bennies for the little guy. They now have a platform for their preferred solution, which channels FDR: help for homeowners, a federal jobs through infrastructure investment program, and the like. But they also risk taking the blame if things go to hell.
The angry populace -
Angry Americans likely scared many members into voting against the bailout. Now, they'll feel empowered. Again, if nothing happens: they're the smartest kids in the room. If the sky falls, they'll be left holding the bag ... literally.
The media -
They get to talk about this for another week. Jim Cramer should do really well, as should CNBC.
Barack Obama -
By steering clear of the entire mess, Obama can now claim a healthy distance, not only from the process, but also from the failure. Staying cool in a crisis: priceless.
Barney Frank (semi-winner...) -
Frank is more winner than loser on this one. Even though he led the failed effort, Frank emerged as a leading voice in the process, and bought himself a national platform to become the chief "I told you so" if the markets crater. He also will have a strong hand in the next negotiation, if things go badly on Wall Street and Main Street. On the other hand, if nothing much happens, he'll look like Bush's bitch.
... now, for the much longer list: the losers (in the approximate order of their loseriness)...
President Bush -
He's the single biggest loser in this whole, messy affair. In short: nobody believes him anymore, not even when he says we're headed into the next Great Depression. His credibility has been so shot through, by his pushing around Congress for seven years, and mostly, by the lies attending the invasion of Iraq, that he can't even convince 70 Republicans to do as he asks. What a pathetic end to the War Presidency.
Hank Paulson -
Probably as a residew of Bush's unpopularity and lack of credibility, Mr. Goldman Sachs reached way too far with his two page grab for dictatorial power. His bill was so outrageously bad, so audacious, that he probably doomed the result as much as anyone. Even a fixed-up Paulson bill wasn't palatable to many of members who rose to microphone today.
John Boehner -
The Boner's leadership position can't be considered secure if he couldn't whip more than 66 votes for a bill he helped negotiate. Also, he's not the star of the ascendant right wing of his party today, he's the enemy. Look for a leadership fight in the minority.
Nancy Pelosi -
Even though Barney Frank was equally visible, Pelosi ultimately had the responsibility for getting the bill passed, and she failed to build the bi-partisan consensus needed to do it. Already, she's become the chief culprit in the public statements of the GOP. Apparently, they didn't like her speech or something ... (since when do Republicans care about "nice?")
John McCain -
He injected himself into what turned out to be a failed process, where bi-partisanship only happened to the extent that the most liberal and most conservative House members voted against the bailout bill. And McCain's own campaign narrative suggested that he swooped into Washington to bring conservative Republicans along. By that standard, he failed as utterly as Boehner did -- and in far more high-profile fashion.
Moderates -
Those in the center in both parties lost big in the vote today, and they will be wringing their hands and nervously watching "Power Lunch" every day until November 4th.
Wall Street -
They got soundly spanked in the House of Representatives today, and it seems that nobody really cares what happens to their cherished investment houses and banks. They'll have to find another way to survive, probably by merger, perhaps by international takeover. And no matter what happens, they will be blamed.
Main Street -
With no uncertainty in the market, the credit crunch will continue. And those who are feeling puffy chested over defeating the bailout today, might have trouble getting basic credit, or find their paychecks harder to cash, tomorrow. What will they demand then? Meanwhile, the likelihood of average mortgage holders getting anything close to a bailout of their own remain somewhere between "slim" and "none."
The "Economic Stabilization Act" appears to be going down to a narrow defeat in the House. With what looks like just 2 votes outstanding, here's the head count:
Party
Yea
Nay
Democrats
140
95
Republicans
65
133
Total
205
228
A narrow defeat, but a defeat nonetheless. More on the vote at ThinkProgress.
This is likely just the first round. There will be new negotiations, and both of the winning sides (liberal Dems and conservative Republicans, are already lining up to put their priorities on the table. They can't both win, however, since one side wants a "Main Street bailout" for individual Americans, and the other basically wants corporate tax cuts and very little more.
Barney Frank just rose to plead with his fellow liberals on the Democratic side "not to throw out" the bailout bill because "it doesn't have everything they like." He said he is only in Congress because of his commitment to poor people, and that he fought for everything he could for the disadvantaged, but he added that if the bill fails, they get nothing.
Now, John Boehner is making his pitch, saying the "risk of doing nothing is too great" not to act, and acknowledging "nobody wants to vote for this ... I didn't come here to do this, to vote for things like this ... but these are the votes that separate the men from the boys, and the men from the women. These are the votes that your constituents sent you here to vote on their behalf."
He challenged his colleagues to "ask what's in the best interests of the country." He said that his judgment is that the House must vote for the bill, "to keep ourselves from the brink of an economic disaster."
Both men received healthy applause after their statements, but it's not at all clear that there are enough votes -- given the defections on the left and the right -- to pass this bill.
On the day that Citigroup swallowed Wachovia before it too, failed, and as world financial markets are cratering, the debate is on in the House over the, I must say, much improved, bailout bill (details, text). The debate is shaping up as one of the clearest cut dichotomies between liberalism and conservatism in recent memory. Conservatives in the House, including Ron Paul, are railing against the bill on the floor, decrying it as a quick slide toward government ownership of capital and socialism. Some are calling for even less deregulation, and, surprise, surprise, more corporate tax cuts.
Liberals are also railing, some decrying the bill as too helpful to Wall Street, but the consensus on the Democratic side is generally pro-government intervention, in keeping with the liberal belief that the government represents the backstop against economic meltdown at both the macro, and micro level.
Interestingly enough, a number of Black Caucus members are ranting that the bill doesn't have enough help for individual homeowners and to stop predatory lending, and some, including Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, are urging a "no" vote.
But for the most part, most mainline Republicans and Democrats are indicating they will, however reluctantly, vote for the bill. Many are praising Rep. Barney Frank for creating a palatable compromise to Hank Paulsen's initial attempt at a massive power grab.
What's really interesting is the position of President Bush, who having pleaded for the bill's passage can now, clearly, finally, no longer call himself a conservative.
Meanwhile, where was John when the details of the bailout were worked out? Dining, though apparently, not "al fresco..."
So lawmakers struck a deal on the bailout last night, but where was John McCain?
Was he part of the negotiations that he rushed back to Washington, DC to rescue? Was he valiantly battling the forces of the status quo to get something done for Main Street?
Well, it turns out that he wasn't. Instead, he indulged in a luxury dining experience at CityZen, an icon of haute cuisineCafe Mozu in Washington, DC.
Located in the Portals project just east of the 14th Street bridge and overlooking the Washington Channel and its yacht moorings, the hotel is not convenient either to the marble corridors of Capitol Hill or the office buildings of downtown. The streets nearby are mostly deserted in the evenings.
The hotel's management seems to be counting on the draw of two high-profile restaurants to help to make the hotel a destination. The first, Café Mozu, the hotel's less formal restaurant, opened in March. The second, Cityzen, under the command of Eric Ziebold, formerly at the very highly regarded French Laundry under Thomas Keller, will open for dinner only in September.
Café Mozu belies the Washington rule that restaurants with views don't have very good food. The room is modern, serene, and full of light. Floor-to-ceiling windows look out--across a freeway--to the Washington Channel and the Jefferson Memorial. The hotel's Asian roots are alluded to in the restaurant's waiting area, built to evoke the veranda of a grand colonial hotel and furnished with white rocking chairs.
To run Café Mozu and serve as the hotel's executive chef, the Mandarin Oriental has hired Hidemasa Yamamoto, for many years chef of the Jockey Club on Massachusetts Avenue. Limited by the preferences of the Jockey Club's clientele--a coalition of politicians and cavedwellers who never got much beyond crabcakes, red meat, and chicken salad--Yamamoto never really had a chance to spread his wings. At Café Mozu, the menu is his own.
Yes, well it seems a satisfied palate is the best foundation for arms length deal-making. Even more about the fine dining establishment from the Mandarin Hotel website:
Lunch and dinner menus showcase irresistible selections such as Roasted five spices Duck, raisincouscous, orange scented curry jus”, Crispy Wild Salmon with fingerling potatoes, Brussels sprouts and haricots verts, Braised Pork Belly with sweet potato puree, baby onions and goat cheese polenta and Black Sea Bass with bok choy, string beans, snow bean sprouts and aromatic lemongrass broth.
Heavenly desserts from our pastry department include a Bitter Chocolate and Passion Fruit Mousse, Flourless Poppy Seed Cake, Lychee Crème Brulee and Champagne-Verbena Parfait.
Mmm-mm. Pass the bailout, AND the fingerling potatoes!! Hey, did you say couscous? John McCain LOVES coucous! (It's very down-home...)
By the way, why did the completely "fair and balanced" Politico feel the need to scrub its references to McCain's dinner? Per the Huffpo:
Politico reports (update: Politico has updated the article and removed the reference to McCain's dinner, but as you can see in this Google search, the reference was there in the original article):
As his colleagues worked on the deal at the Capitol Saturday night, McCain and his wife, Cindy, dined with Sen. Joe Lieberman and his wife, Hadassah, at CityZen, one of Washington's best restaurants. [Note: they got the right hotel, wrong restaurant...]
Could it be that Roger Simon has pulled yet another Ron Fournier on behalf of McCain? After all, Simon was almost alone among the pundits not working for Fox News, in saying that McCain was the winner of Friday's debate...
To be fair, McCain did say of his whereabouts last night:
I was working on all of the other stuff that I was working on, and contacting people, and working away."
Yeah, working away on a $300 bottle of wine (after which even Joe Lieberman probably sounded interesting...)
Following up on his tour-de-force performance Friday (ahem) in which he spent much of the debate talking about Dwight David Eisenhower, John McCain in a stammery performance this morning on Stephanopoulos' show (in which he said he didn't return to Washington Saturday to vote on a key element of the bailout because, "I was working on all of the other stuff that I was working on, and contacting people, and working away" ... if that makes any sense to you...) managed to reference Teddy Roosevelt three times. Roosevelt became president in 1901 ... 1901, man! Saying, "I'm a Teddy Roosevelt Republican" may be a great way to get 90-year-olds excited, but it isn't going to resonate with anyone under, say, 90!!!
John McCain is already wicked old. Does he really have to go out of his way to SOUND old?
The legendary actor, philanthropist and spaghetti sauce titan, dies of cancer at age 83. Newman is remembered in terrific pictures here. The condolences of the world go to his family, especially his wife of 50 years, Joanne Woodward.
The New York Times editorial board writes that Obama won the discussion of the economy and that McCain seemed out of step with the current moment:
Mr. McCain fumbled his way through the economic portion of the debate, while Mr. Obama seemed clear and confident. Mr. McCain was more fluent on foreign affairs, and scored points by repeatedly calling Mr. Obama naïve and inexperienced.
But Mr. McCain's talk of experience too often made him sound like a tinny echo of the 20th century. At one point, he talked about how Ronald Reagan's "S.D.I." helped end the cold war. We suspect that few people under the age of 50 caught the reference. If he was reaching for Reagan's affable style, he missed by a mile, clenching his teeth and sounding crotchety where Reagan was sunny and avuncular.
Tom Shales sums up the night as 'McCain too nasty, Obama too nice':
Obama supporters must have been displeased, then, to hear their candidate keep agreeing with McCain, a case perhaps of sportsmanlike conduct run amok. Doesn't Obama want to win?[...]
Many of McCain's answers were preceded with belittling references to Obama as if he were talking to a college freshman way out of his depth.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board felt that McCain won on foreign policy while Obama won on the economy:
As planned by the commission on debates, most of the night was devoted to foreign policy and there we give the clear edge to Mr. McCain. This is the ground where the 72-year-old is most comfortable, and you could see it in his self-confidence, as well as his command of history and facts.[...]
Where Mr. Obama did score better was on the domestic front, where he tried repeatedly to link Mr. McCain to President Bush and to what he called a failed "economic philosophy."
Time's Joe Klein calls it a narrow victory for Obama:
Obama emerged as a candidate who was at least as knowledgeable, judicious and unflappable as McCain on foreign policy ... and more knowledgeable, and better suited to deal with the economic crisis and domestic problems the country faces.
And overall, bottom line, the winner is Barack Obama. He comes into this race where the country wants change, his number one goal was to show that he belonged on that stage...he could hold his own on national security, he did that tonight, he gets the win.
Appearing alongside him was George Will, who also said Obama came out ahead:
I think Barack Obama came out and looked comfortable and as though he belonged there. So, in a sense, the structure of the debate, indeed, the fact of the debate had to give a mild leg up to Barack Obama.
Not to mention the public, which clearly favored Barack, who did miss opportunities to attack mcCain, but who I also believe won the debate.
Hey ... did John McCain cuss on live TV during last night's debate? A Kos blogger wonders if it's time to call in the FCC, because this could be Mac's Janet Jackson booby moment!
Not for nothing, but wasn't this the debate McCain was considered most likely to command, since it ostensibly focused on foreign policy? Even those in the media who are clearly pulling for him couldn't say McCain scored a knock down -- the best he got was Pat Buchanan and the other MSNBCers (except for Keith and Rachel) saying he "won on points." Well that's not good enough to move the needle when the race is stuck, with your opponent up about five points.
After tonight, it's going to be the economy, stupid, and McCain's chances of having a game changing event in his favor only go down from here -- especially with Hurricane Palin set to make landfall next Thursday. This race will not reset after tonight, and that's darned good news for Barack Obama.
BTW, for a great breakdown on how to judge a debate winner, check out Judd Legum's guest post at The Washington Note.
Ignore the commentariat. John McCain in the debate tonight came across as rigid, grumpy, and frankly, old. McCain indulged in several of his pet obsessions: repeating over and over "he doesn't understand," along with worn out phrases from his stump speeches like "I wasn't voted Miss Congeniality." He literally harped on "the surge," even when bringing it up was a non-sequitor, first saying Obama had acknowledged its success, and then insisting that Obama refuses to acknowledge its success. And while his stories may endear the crew on MSNBC, they make him look like a grandpa ... and a mean, grumpy one at that.
Obama, on the other hand, was better in this debate than in any of his meetings with Hillary Clinton, where his responses sometimes seemed to meander. Tonight, he was clear and focused, and at times, even threw an elbow or two. He clearly understood the issues, and appeared prepared and "grown up" enough to be president. Most importantly, his answers were keyed to a specific target: middle class voters, and he consistently repeated two themes: McCain's past wrong judgments (on the economy and Iraq) and his determination to give more tax cuts to the rich and to corporations. That's something the D.C. reporter class (whom I still think tend to tilt toward McCain) missed, big time, and it will resonate with voters.
On the downside, he could have scored more points, and indeed, he let several soft balls go right over home plate:
Obama could have hit McCain on the 60 lobbyists running his campaign during his long volley on how lobbyists push earmarks;
He could have hit him on Sarah Palin's earmarks, particularly when McCain himself made a reference to his runningmate.
He could have slammed McCain on the Boeing deal that McCain brought up, saying McCain killing that deal cost thousands of American jobs.
And he missed the opportunity to hit McCain on his failure to support the G.I. Bill, or his low ratings with veterans' groups when it comes to his voting record.
Lastly, Obama should never, ever, EVER again say the phrase "John McCain is absolutely right" (and he should instruct Joe Biden and if he can swing it, Bill Clinton and the other surrogates not to do so either.)
But by coming across as the bigger man -- literally and figuratively -- and by being both knowledgeable and congenial, (maybe he would win Miss Congeniality) Obama simply looked more presidential than John McCain, who for his part, looked tightly wound, surly, and even angry. McCain appeared to take Obama's criticisms personally, while Obama literally laughed McCain's off. And as the MSNBC team all pointed out tonight, McCain refused ... for the entire length of the debate ... to look at his opponent. McCain's physical, visible, obvious contempt for Barack Obama came through the screen like 3D. I suspect that most voters won't like it, or him.
My prediction at the end of the night was that whatever the commentariat said, Obama would win every online poll 60-40. So far, I've been right. Here are the first snap polls:
"Unfortunately, I think Obama won this debate," said Dick Morris on Hannity and Colmes.
"I don't know which debate you were watching, Dick," said Sean Hannity. "It was book knowledge."
Morris responded:"Obama showed himself to be more concerned about the average person, or at least acted that way."
Bottom line, debates aren't won on substance, per se. They're won on a combination of comfort with the issues, and on style. Obama may seem somewhat aloof and professorial, but he also seems like someone you'd be comfortable with in the White House. McCain, as Chris Matthews just said, comes off like a troll. At the end of the day, though I think the debate won't change many minds, and will only harden people's preferences, whatever they were before the debate. If anything, people who were leaning toward Obama but needing him to pass the experience threshold probably got what they needed tonight. I suspect that those who wanted to come away liking McCain enough to quell their doubts did not.
Best line of the night: Obama hitting McCain on not wanting to talk to the prime minister of spain, tied with his line about McCain singing "bomb Iran."
Sen. Barack Obama in Miami September 19th. Pictured to Obama's left, is Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri. To Obama's right, is Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
On Friday, September 18, I had the opportunity, along with James T (of top Miami urban station Hot 105) to interview Senator Barack Obama.
The interview came a couple of hours after he held a rally with some 8,000 people at the University of Miami's Bank United Center, as part of the "Women for Obama" campaign. I did the interview on assignment for a few outlets, and it has already aired in total or in part on American Urban Radio Networks, Hot 105 FM Miami, and on "The James T Good Morning Show" in Atlanta and Valdosta, Georgia. We talked about whether black turnout was a certainty, even in this historic year, about what he'd do about the crashing economy, and about his overall political philosophy. Here it is:
How can you back down and agree to attend a debate you didn't want to attend, when in fact, you've already won? That's the scintillating question inquiring minds are asking John McCain.
Mac blinked today, announcing that yes, he will attend the debate at Ole Miss after all (as if the aides prepping the stage for him yesterday and the fact that HE'D BE AN IDIOT NOT TO SHOW UP hadn't already given him away ...
But now, for the really spooky part: it turns out tonight's debate isn't even necessary, since McCain has already won it...
