"Beats the hell out of me." -- David Gergen on CNN, on what he'd tell John McCain if he were running his campaign after the Republican's third straight debate loss.
More uncommitted voters trusted Obama than McCain to make the right decisions about health care. Before the debate, sixty-one percent of uncommitted voters said that they trust Obama on the issue; after, sixty-eight percent said so. Twenty-seven percent trusted McCain to manage health care before the debate; thirty percent said so afterwards.
... more trusted Obama than McCain to make the right decisions about the economy. Before the debate, fifty-four percent of uncommitted voters said that they trust Obama to make the right decisions about the economy; after, sixty-five percent said that. Before, thirty-eight percent trusted McCain to do so, and forty-eight percent did after the debate.
Before the debate, sixty-six percent thought Obama understands voters’ needs and problems; that rose to seventy-six percent after the debate. For McCain, thirty-six percent felt he understands voters’ needs before the debate, and forty-eight percent thought so afterwards.
Who spent more time attacking during the debate? McCain – 80% Obama – 7% And:
The poll also suggested that debate watchers' favorable opinion of Obama rose during the debate, from 63 percent at the start of the debate to 66 percent at the end of the debate. The poll indicates that McCain's favorables dropped, from 51 percent to 49 percent.
Stan Greenberg is briefing reporters on his focus group of undecided voters in Colorado. He said the respondents felt Obama "won" and that the results were "more decisive than either of the last two." That's a reference to Greenberg's previous focus groups, which also came away preferring Obama.
The most striking result came on the favorability ratings. Although the focus group was officially undecided, it leaned towards McCain. Here were the favorability-unfavorability ratings for each candidate at the start:
McCain: 54 favorable / 34 unfavorable
Obama: 42 favorable / 42 unfavorable
Here's what the ratings looked like after the debate:
McCain: 50 favorable / 48 unfavorable
Obama: 72 favorable / 22 unfavorable
Apparently, Obama scored most with his answers on education and parental responsibility, which produced strong "shares my values" ratings.
And last but not least, here's yet another Frank Luntz focus group that put a sag on poor Brit Hume's face. This time, from right here in Miami! Aye, dios mio!
... after which, John McCain drops the laugh out loud line that his campaign is about the economy. BTW, why does John McCain blink so much? It's just weird, man!
(...except Sarah Palin. He thinks she's a "reformer...")
Perhaps the two dumbest things John McCain did tonight (besides rolling and blinking his eyes like a madman and slurping spit through his clenched teeth throughout the night) were 1) blowing off the Lily Ledbetter "equal pay" question with a quick dismissal (and a pivot back to something he preferred to talk about ... earmarks, maybe?) and 2) his "Dr. Evil" air quotes response to the question of abortion in the case of a threat to a woman's health.
First, the ledbetter answer. It went like this. Obama was talking about what kind of temperament he'd look for in a Supreme Court justice:
I'll just give you one quick example. Sen. McCain and I disagreed recently when the Supreme Court made it more difficult for a woman named Lilly Ledbetter to press her claim for pay discrimination.
For years, she had been getting paid less than a man had been paid for doing the exact same job. And when she brought a suit, saying equal pay for equal work, the judges said, well, you know, it's taken you too long to bring this lawsuit, even though she didn't know about it until fairly recently.
We tried to overturn it in the Senate. I supported that effort to provide better guidance to the courts; John McCain opposed it.
I think that it's important for judges to understand that if a woman is out there trying to raise a family, trying to support her family, and is being treated unfairly, then the court has to stand up, if nobody else will. And that's the kind of judge that I want.
Schieffer: Time's up.
McCain: Obviously, that law waved the statute of limitations, which you could have gone back 20 or 30 years. It was a trial lawyer's dream.
Let me talk to you about an important aspect of this issue. We have to change the culture of America. Those of us who are proudly pro-life understand that. And it's got to be courage and compassion that we show to a young woman who's facing this terribly difficult decision. ...
Way to segue, Mac. Next, on his way to re-cementing the base, again ... on "partial birth abortion," John McCain completely dismisses the seriousness of a woman's health, even in the case where having a baby might kill her. Watch:
That's the kind of callousness toward women that created the gender gap. And it shows a generational dismissiveness toward women that is one reason McCain is going to have one hell of a hard time catching up by November 4th.
John McCain may not intend to do squat for you, but if elected, he'll damn sure look out for Joe. ... the plumber. By the way, it's a great day to have a business called "Joe the Plumber," as this guy will probably tell you tomorrow ... or this guy ... or this guy here ... hey, I wonder if those guys had $250,000 in cash on hand to buy their plumbing businesses like "middle class" Joe? (And am I the only one who wouldn't think it's such a bad idea to "spread the wealth around" -- given that the opposite is "keeping the wealth in the hands of the wealthy and telling everybody else to go screw themselves???") That said, the CNN focus group hated all the "Joe the plumber" shtick. After about the 20th time, it was annoying... But Joe did get his 15 minutes of fame (or was that 90 minutes) ... and he'll always have his Youtube. Gnight Joe!
Hey, wait a second ... something about that Joe seems strangely familiar... could it be ... SHUT UP!!
Joe the plumber ... and those bald guys from the second debate!
Dear John: please, please, PLEASE bring up Bill Ayers
John McCain is promising his supporters that he's going to whip Barack Obama's clot in tonight's debate, and he just swears he's man enough to bring up Bill Ayers. Ok, Mac. Do it. Listen to Rush Limbaugh instead of the "pointy headed intellectuals" who actually have ideas in your party, and bring.up.Bill.Ayers. If you do, you'll look even more erratic and miserable and out of touch than you do now. You'll turn off even more swing voters and moderates, who by the way, are what you desperately need right now, not to gain, but to TURN, since Barack has reached the 50 percent threshold and you, in two words, have not. You'll also open the door for Barack to highlight the ties between the people who funded Bill Ayers and the foundation for which he and Barack sat on the board, and the Republican Party, not to mention, to YOU. And it will prove that the last several days of so-called "changing the tone" were another gimmick, like "suspending your campaign."
Worse for you, all your and Sarah P's over the top, slanderous (and yet entirely unserious) Ayers talk has prompted the media to do something reporters don't do so very often in these days of newsroom budget cuts: they're reporting (and posting ... hello, beastie...) and what they're finding is that Bill Ayers isn't some wild-eyed terrorist goon who "still wants to bring down America," he's a rather non-controversial college professor -- and a rather shy one at that, who has had very little to do with Barack Obama. Once normal, non-crazy people get a good gander at him, he will surely underwhelm.
So go for it, "my friend." I'll be watching ... with popcorn.
Meanwhile, new swing state polls (note: Georgia is a swing state...)
John McCain did offend the brother from the town hall
Politico reports that one of the "undecided voters" at Tuesday's town hall found John McCain's answer condescending...
McCain's rough "town hall" debate just got a bit worse, as one questioner writes about the experience on his Facebook page of hearing a fairly standard McCain line:
How did I feel about Sen. McCain stating “You probably never heard of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac before this"[?]
Well Senator, I actually did. I like to think of myself as a fairly intelligent person. I have a bachelor degree in Political Science from Tennessee State, so I try to keep myself up to date with current affairs. I have a Master degree in Legal Studies from Southern Illinois University, a few years in law school, and I am currently pursuing a Master in Public Administration from the University of Memphis. In defense of the Senator from Arizona I would say he is an older guy, and may have made an underestimation of my age. Honest mistake.
However, it could be because I am a young African-American male. Whatever the case may be it was somewhat condescending regardless of my age to make an assumption regarding whether I was knowledgeable about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
And turns out he wasn't all that undecided. He had told the producers he would probably vote for Obama, but that "anything could happen."
Here's video of the young man, whose name is Oliver, asking his question:
I can’t underscore enough what a rotten idea John McCain’s ACORN-like government mortgage buy-up is. I said it during my liveblog. And I’ll say it again: “HE WANTS TO EXPAND THE BAILOUT. He wants to do what ACORN wants to do. We’re Screwed ‘08.”
This was his supposed “game-changer.” This was the very first thing out of his mouth during the debate tonight — his big pitch right off the bat. The McCain campaign immediately sent out this fact sheet on the proposal, which will cost at least $300 billion. The proposal involves directing the Treasury Secretary to “purchase mortgages directly from homeowners and mortgage servicers.” That’s on top of the trillion-dollar crap sandwich (update - McCain says it would be included in the crap sandwich), the $85 billion to AIG, the $25 billion to automakers, the $200 billion in capital and credit lines to Fannie and Freddie, and who knows what else we’ll be forking over to California, Massachusetts, etc., etc., etc.
He spent the entire debate assailing massive government spending — while his featured proposal of the night was to heap on more massive government spending to pursue home ownership/retention at all costs. If Obama had proposed this, the Right would be screaming bloody murder about this socialist grab to have the Treasury Department renegotiate individual home loans and become chief principal write-down agents for the nation.
And the comments below her post are long and "not helpful."
... didn't Congress just enact major legislation to address this problem? The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 created a federal mortgage-insurance program for lenders who agree to reduce mortgage payments for struggling borrowers.
How is McCain's plan different? I'll try to explain. Let's say you have a $200,000 adjustable-rate mortgage. Your home's value has declined, your interest rate has gone up and you can no longer afford to make the payments. Under current law, the government will guarantee your mortgage if your lender agrees to work out a deal with you.
Under McCain's plan, the Treasury Secretary would buy your mortgage from whoever owns it and then deal with you directly. In many cases, the Treasury Department would already own your mortgage, because it is about to buy up $700 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities. But under McCain's plan, Treasury would also become your loan servicer.
... If Treasury were also to become the loan servicer for hundreds of thousands of mortgages, it would have to outsource those duties, too. And those jobs would go to a lot of the same people who lowered their lending standards during the housing boom, put people in mortgages they couldn't afford and then sold those mortgages to Wall Street.
McCain's plan is redundant, and it would create significant new responsibilities (and costs) for an already-beleaguered agency. I'm not sure what the campaign was thinking.
Doesn't sound like McCain is bringing too many people (in his own party) together...
Could John McCain have looked any older, any more doddering, or any more like the neighborhood crank than he did in tonight's debate? (Transcript) The Arizona Senator wandered around the stage erratically, told oddball jokes (about hair plugs, and responded to Tom Brokaw's question about who he'd pick as treasury secretary with "not you," and didn't get a laugh either time...) stammered over both Obama and the moderator that if Obama got a follow up, doggone it he wanted one too, did an impression of George H.W. Bush with that geezery "steady hand on the tiller" line, and incredibly, referred to Obama in the way an old codger might have referred to his black house boy back in the 1950s; calling him "that one." (video)
McCain was very aggressive -- he seemed to get almost too close to the audience at times, and he kept doing that weird combination of "my friends" and, as Chris Matthews put it, that creepy, menacing smile. He was also condescending, taking for granted that an African-American questioner wouldn't know what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were. And he dropped the ball on his signature POW schtick, referring to it so obliquely, it sounded like he was losing his train of thought.
Perhaps McCain's only two solid moments, were the one early in the debate when he suggested that the Treasury buy up bad mortgages -- something any good Democrat might find tempting. Of course, such an idea is exactly the opposite of conservatism, and therefore will strike much of his base as a steaming pile of socialism, and the moment when he shook hands with a questioner who was a fellow Navy man, saying "everything important I ever learned, I learned from a midshipman."
But everything else tonight went Obama's way. He was languid, calm, warm and presidential. He spoke to voters in terms that screamed "kitchen table" (i.e., we have to prioritize in Washington the way families do...) He walked over to the questioner, found a mark, and stuck to it, where McCain wandered around the stage so frenetically, a friend of mine texted me and asked what was wrong with his legs. He shut McCain down twice with authority: once when he said, "McCain keeps saying I don't understand. ... You're right, I don't understand how we got sidetracked from going after Bin Laden and went into Iraq instead," and when he slammed McCain, who had just done a soliloquy on "speaking softly and carrying a big stick," by reminding the audience that McCain is the guy who sung "bomb bomb bomb Iran," called for the annihilation of North Korea and before we finished in Afghanistan, said "next stop: Baghdad." And his call for AIG to give back the $400,000 in bailout money they spent on a luxury junket and fire their executives hit the mark.
And Obama got the question on healthcare right: McCain called it a "responsibility" and Obama said it's a "right," and very affectingly talked about his mother's experience at the end of her life.
Obama also won the aftermath -- he and Michelle stuck around and worked the room for a long time, talking with the undecided voters who made up the audience in the debate, and taking lots of pictures (including with the brother in the goldenrod colored suit who I suspect wasn't really undecided, seeking out the Navy veteran, while McCain was in such a hurry to get out of the room, he actually walked in front of the camera, and Tom Brokaw -- blocking the shot in a most erratic, old man wandering around the neighborhood off his meds kind of way... (video)
The post-debate polls are as follows:
CNN:
Who won the debate? Obama - 54% McCain - 30%
Who was more likable? Obama - 65% McCain - 28%
Who seemed more like a typical politician? McCain - 52% Obama - 36%
Who spent more time attacking his opponent? McCain - 63% Obama - 17%
Thirty-nine percent of the 400 uncommitted voters surveyed identified Barack Obama as tonight's winner; 27 percent said John McCain won, while 35 percent saw the debate as a draw.
After the debate, 68 percent of uncommitted voters said that they think Obama will make the right decisions on the economy, compared to 54 percent who said that before the debate. Fewer thought McCain would do so – 49 percent after the debate, and 41 percent before.
Before the debate, 60 percent thought Obama understands voters’ needs and problems; that rose to 80 percent after the debate. For McCain, 35 percent felt he understands voters’ needs before the debate, and 46 percent thought so afterwards.
McCain did win the question of who is more ready to be president. But I think you can ask Hillary Clinton how far "ready on day one" gets you with voters scared about their 401Ks.
More reactions:
Taegan Goddard (with an extra zinger for the oddly old guy seeming Tom Brokaw, too...)
Tonight's debate wasn't even close. Sen. Barack Obama ran away with it -- particularly when speaking about the economy and health care. Talking about his mother's death from cancer was very powerful. On nearly every issue, Obama was more substantive, showed more compassion and was more presidential.
... Tom Brokaw was terrible as moderator. His fixation with the rules -- particularly when the candidates were not complaining -- was distracting and a disservice to everyone. The format didn't work very well, but Brokaw made it worse.
This was, I think, a mauling: a devastating and possibly electorally fatal debate for McCain... I've watched a lot of debates and participated in many. I love debate and was trained as a boy in the British system to be a debater. I debated dozens of times at Oxofrd. All I can say is that, simply on terms of substance, clarity, empathy, style and authority, this has not just been an Obama victory. It has been a wipe-out. It has been about as big a wipe-out as I can remember in a presidential debate. It reminds me of the 1992 Clinton-Perot-Bush debate. I don't really see how the McCain campaign survives this.
We have a disaster here — which is what you should expect when you delegate a non-conservative to make the conservative (nay, the American) case. We can parse it eight ways to Sunday, but I think the commentary is missing the big picture.
Here's what Obama needed to do tonight: Convince the country that he was an utterly safe, conventional, centrist politician who may have leftward leanings but will do the right thing when the crunch comes.
Now, as the night went along, did you get the impression that Obama comes from the radical Left? Did you sense that he funded Leftist causes to the tune of tens of millions of dollars? Would you have guessed that he's pals with a guy who brags about bombing the Pentagon? Would you have guessed that he helped underwrite raging anti-Semites? Would you come away thinking, "Gee, he's proposing to transfer nearly a trillion dollars of wealth to third-world dictators through the UN"?
Nope. McCain didn't want to go there. So Obama comes off as just your average Center-Left politician. Gonna raise your taxes a little, gonna negotiate reasonably with America's enemies; gonna rely on our very talented federal courts to fight terrorists and solve most of America's problems; gonna legalize millions of hard-working illegal immigrants. ....
... Memo to McCain Campaign: Someone is either a terrorist sympathizer or he isn't; someone is either disqualified as a terrorist sympathizer or he's qualified for public office. You helped portray Obama as a clearly qualified presidential candidate who would fight terrorists.
If that's what the public thinks, good luck trying to win this thing.
Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard -- here's the opening and closing paragraphs:
John McCain had a very strong debate tonight. It’s too bad for him that it came on a night when Barack Obama was nearly flawless.
... Obama’s test in the first debate was to present himself as a plausible president, as a guy who didn’t seem out of place on stage at a presidential debate and wouldn’t seem out of place delivering a State of the Union address. Much as I’d disagree with the policies in such a speech, it was clear that he passed that test. Tonight, his job was to persuade voters – particularly independents – not only that he could be president but that he should be president. I suspect polling in the next couple of days will provide evidence that he passed that test, too.
I thought that Barack Obama won the “visuals” of tonight’s debate. He looked younger and more vigorous, of course, but, in addition, John McCain did too much moving around. He seemed focused on addressing a “town hall,” as he has done so well over the years. But in reality, as Obama seemed quicker to appreciate, the audience tonight was in television land. To them, McCain’s movement must have seemed a bit aimless.
... A win on the visuals and at least a draw on substance (if that’s a fair assessment) is a win for Obama at this point. So tonight he moves a little closer to the presidency. I continue to believe that voters will subject him to one more round of serious scrutiny when the debates are over. Tonight’s performance marginally enhances his chance of surviving that scrutiny, which was already pretty good.
Oh, and Obama also won Frank Luntz's Fox News focus group, too, which prompted Brit Hume to make the most undertakery, deadpan facial expression he may have ever produced for a television camera. Hilarious.
Burning questions: can you call a guy a terrorist at a town hall?
The Newsweek "Stumper" column asks whether John McCain's scorched earth campaign strategy will ultimately work. I'm wondering, can McCain call Barack Obama an Ayer's "palling" terrorist to his face at tonight's debate and survive politically? Other burning questions: will Tom Brokaw, the "unofficial liaison" between NBC and the McCain campaign, who has shown a surprising willingness to disgorge McCain talking points lately, including on "Meet the Press", ask McCain about his still-deteriorating campaign tactics? And will McCain attempt to "turn the page" on the economy tonight, or actually attempt talk about it (without doing that creepy laugh...)? The debate starts at 9.
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.
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."
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...
... if you believe an Internet ad an astute reader spotted next to this piece in the online edition of the Wall Street Journal this morning.
"McCain Wins Debate!" declares the ad which features a headshot of a smiling McCain with an American flag background. Another ad spotted by our eagle-eyed observer featured a quote from McCain campaign manager Rick Davis declaring: "McCain won the debate-- hands down."
Here's the screenshot:
Meanwhile, a former McCain adviser explains the old Navy dog's dilemma:
"It just proves his campaign is governed by tactics and not ideology," said Republican consultant Craig Shirley, who advised McCain earlier in this cycle. "In the end, he blinked and Obama did not. The 'steady hand in a storm' argument looks now to more favor Obama, not McCain."
Shirley added, "My guess is that plasma units are rushing to the McCain campaign as we speak to replace the blood flowing there from the fights among the staff."
Meg Whitman??? ... and other thoughts on the Rick Warren presidential forum
My initial impression of the Rick Warren "civil discussion" tonight featuring one hour each for Barack Obama and John McCain is that the forum, and particularly the questions, did seem tailor made for McCain, which isn't surprising because Warren, like most evangelical leaders, is a Republican. Still, I thought he was fair, for the most part (except when he failed to remind John McCain to stay off his stump speech,) and thoughtful, and his forum enlightening. So here's the scorecard:
1. Thanks for nothing, honey. When asked who the smartest people he knew were, and who he would turn to for advice as president, Barack mentioned his wife and grandmother as the wisest, then fired off an assortment of Republican and Democratic colleagues in the Senate like Dick Lugar and former Sen. Sam Nunn as people he would turn to for advice (interestingly, he did not include either Clinton...) John McCain coldly ignored poor Cindy altogether, not to mention his very old mother, and instead reeled off the strangest triad I've ever heeard: Gen. Petraeus (surprise, surprise) Democratic Congressman John Lewis ... a Clinton friend and flip-flop to Obama guy, and Meg Whitman, the CEO of Ebay. HUH???
Whitman is a McCain campaign co-chair, She's also a former Romney girl, which increases the possibility that he's being influenced in that veep direction. And I guess he thought he was being economically hip by mentioning an online company that was hot like, ten years ago. The John Lewis thing I can't even begin to explain. Maybe he got his Georgias confused... Score this one: Obama. 2. Talking points memo. I have to give this one to McCain, who will, as David Gergen noted on CNN tonight, be a tougher debater than the Obama Nation might have imagined. While I found him irritating (he's simply got to drop the "my friends" thing -- it's extremely creepy and weird...) pandering and repetitive (war, war, Gen. Petraeus, war, al-Qaida, Vietnam, Vietnam, Vietnam, can I tell you one more story about Vietnam, my friends...?) he did what any communications director wants to see: he fired off the talking points and repeated them over, and over and over again, no matter what he was asked. When asked about his greatest moral failing, he gave a clipped answer: "the failure of my first marriage," and then moved right back to his stump speech talking points. Asked about abortion, he begged to talk about the Supreme Court, so he could give his talking points. (and then mentioned he would not have nominated the four liberal justices, including David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Breyer, all of whom he voted to confirm in the Senate, by the way ... he probably would have voted to confirm John Paul Stevens, too, but he wasn't in the Senate in 1975 ...) Asked about security vs. privacy, he threw in secret union ballots -- a right wing favorite topic -- straight out of left field ... McCain pandered on every answer to his audience of religious right voters, and was aggressive at promoting his ... you guessed it: talking points. McCain came off more blatantly political and Obama more thoughtful and authentic, but that may not matter to undecided voters, who want one of these candidates to force them to make up their minds. Score this one: McCain.
3. Too cool for school? Barack Obama was his usual cool, languid self, but his communications team has simply got to get him to shorten his answers. By being so thoughtful and nuanced, Obama missed the chance to take more questions, and he failed to get across clear, succinct messages. On the up-side, he actually had an intimate, real conversation with Rick Warren, whereas McCain simply hammered on the talking points and pandered to the audience, rarely addressing Warren directly. I think Obama hit paydirt with his Supreme Court answer by saying that the justice he would not have nominated would be unqualified Clarence Thomas (he righties are just seething over that one, and we love that!) But as Chuck Todd points out over at First Read:
Obama spent more time trying to impress Warren (or to put another away) not offend Warren while McCain seemingly ignored Warren and decided he was talking to folks watching on TV. The McCain way of handling this forum is usually the winning way. Obama may have had more authentic moments but McCain was impressively on message.
Score this one: McCain.
4. Land mine avoidance. McCain completely circumvented Rich Warren's attempts to get him to elaborate on issues that could split him from the right wing of his party. His six word answer to the "worst personal moral failing" question was one example, but he did that one better when he completely avoided the obvious answer to the question of what instance he could cite when he bucked his party at great political risk to himself. The obvious answers: campaign finance reform and immigration reform. McCain chose neither one, instead picking climate change, or something... Warren, who we should stipulate is not a reporter, didn't follow up. Score this one: McCain.
5. Maybe this would have been a good time for McCain to mention his wife? Asked by Warren what amount of income qualifies someone to be considered "rich," Barack gave a pretty good answer, joking that anybody who has sold 25 million books, as Warren has, qualifies. But then he got down to numbers, saying that if you make over $250,000 a year, "you're doing pretty well." McCain? He set the low bar for being considered rich at a cool $5 million. As Chris Kofinis said on Fox tonight, that was an opposition ad waiting to happen, and that ad should be made. Score this one: Obama.
6. Faith first. This was, after all, supposed to be a faith forum, and on that score, Obama won by a mile. He came off as much more humble, more conversant with the topic of faith, and more versed in Biblical scripture. He talked about man's need for humility in confronting evil, knowing that God is the only one capable of eliminating evil from the world, while McCain went into full eye bulge, vowing to "chase bin Laden to the gates of Hell" and using the church venue to attack "Islamic fascism." Obama said that marriage was a sacred union, where "God is in the mix," but his missed a chance to use the phrase, "I have been married to one woman for 15 years, and have vowed before God to remain with her for life," which his communications team MUST insert into his talking points. Still, compared with McCain's staccato answers on spiritual matters, Obama won by a mile. Score this one: Obama.
Final score: Obama - 3, McCain - 3. A good old fashioned draw, which unfortunately is pretty good news for John McCain. |
In the wake of the Philly disaster, the reaction from the city of brotherly love is in. Barack gets the endorsement of the Daily News (he already had the Inquirer).
Philly.com also calls Charlie Gibson on citing an arcane Consitutional provision that was wiped out 200 years ago.
ThinkProgress has the audio of George Stephanopoulos' guest turn on Sean Hannity's show on Tuesday, in which he received his insturctions on nailing Barack Obama on the William Ayers story that Hannity has been peddling relentlessly both on Fox News, and on his radio show. Read and listen here.
DKos has a slew of contact numbers for ABC News, and a nifty flashback picture of Stephanopoulos when he was the Clinton's corner man, here.
Ultimately, I think that ABC News will be forced to respond to this issue, particularly if it continues to be hammered in the blog-world, where admittedly, TV news culls many of their story ideas these days. (It's all part of this move toward "responsive news" -- giving the viewers what producers think they want, rather than the old system of finding news that the networks thought were important.) I for one will break my planned boycott and watch the opening segment of "This Week" on Sunday, just to see if George makes a statement.
