Why McCain will lose

I've been paying less than close attention to the race recently, as the dearth of recent blog posts indicates. My new job being very demanding, I haven't had much time at all the last ten days. But I almost feel like saying, what does it matter? What has really changed in the interim? Nothing. The state of election has remained the same. The national polls are identical. The Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and South Dakota polls are basically identical to what they were. Obama's gained a small lead in Florida. The Missouri, Virginia, and Pennsylvania polls have tightened in favor of McCain. The Georgia, Indiana, Arizona (!), and Arkansas polls have tightened in favor of Obama. The West Virginia polls are all over the place. The big story is Palin's wardrobe! Who cares about that. Of course she has to buy new clothes. What a non-story. You're really running out of anything substantive to talk about when this dominates two news cycles.

I'm not trying to justify my lack of blogging enthusiasm, but my forced hiatus seemingly at the worst time of the campaign has not missed anything major. The fundamental dynamics of the race has remained the same. So much in electoral politics comes down to the argument you make. McCain has been unable to make an effective argument as to why he should be president, and that's why he will lose on Tuesday.

The NYTimes a week ago had a cover story on the incarnations of McCain. There is such an eerie similarity to Hillary's loss to Obama (though she basically tied him). At first McCain was the experience candidate. The RNC are still running ads attacking Obama on this. They way the ad is phrased is "No Executive Experience." A telling phrasing -- Palin does have executive experience, so she's "most experienced" than Obama. But of course she's not. She's way more inexperienced than Obama.

The Palin pick has really blunted this line of attack. It can no longer be the main reason to elect McCain. However, that doesn't in itself mean the pick was a bad idea. Running on "experience" doesn't work anyway, in my view. If experience is so great, why is this the first time in nearly fifty years that a senator is going to be president? Senators have a greater claim to be presidential timber in terms of experience than anyone else. The reason is voters don't care about experience as a reason to elect someone. It is, rather, a threshold you have to pass in order to be a serious candidate. Once you're there, more experience doesn't help you. The problem is that Palin has issues with that threshold, making Obama look more experienced by contrast. So she has taken away this factor, but again this is not a decisive thing.

Abandoning "experience you can trust" McCain chose the "maverick change" tack with the Palin pick. That is, "Change is coming" but not such radical, untested change. Change that contrasts well with Obama's change. So McCain tried to run against Bush, against Washington, as Obama-lite. This was an interesting chess move. As I've detailed previously, it didn't work because McCain didn't take it seriously. If you are going to bring change, if you are going to be a fighter for the people against the establishment, then you can't be the candidate of bipartisanship. McCain wanted to have it both ways. He wanted to be the bipartisan candidate, which he could have laid claim to with some plausibility. He's bucked his own party to work with the other side, etc. etc. But being the candidate who plays nicely with the other children in the sandbox is a good strategy if you are ahead, and is at cross-purposes with a claim to be a maverick and shake things up.

In a highly-charged, visible race for the presidency, you have to be consistent. You can't be the candidate of change if you want to continue the policies that the party in power has implemented in the recent past. You can't be the candidate of bipartisanship if you are going to shake things up. You have to choose an argument, and hammer away at it. McCain didn't want to choose, and the bailout bill was his Rubicon. He refused to cross. I contend that he had to oppose the bill to win. The problem was that he couldn't. To oppose something with such an elite consensus behind it, a candidate has to be uber-persuasive and hyper-articulate. It is a very difficult thing to do. McCain didn't have it in him.

It is all well and good to say a candidate should do this or that, but in reality the positions a candidate can take on issues is pretty constrained. When everyone agrees that something is good or bad, you had better really know your stuff if you are going off into heterodoxy. The safe view is always the one that most people hold -- this is a democracy after all! McCain couldn't oppose the bailout because with the debates coming up, he could not persuasively make the case that the Washington consensus was wrong. So opposing the bailout was not even an option for him. I make this judgment based on McCain's debate performance. When the questions were on the economy, he would breathe heavily into the microphone, and his words sounded hesitant, like he didn't know what he was going to say next. When the questions were on foreign policy, the adrenaline went rushing through his body, and he spoke with passion and conviction. It's because he knows his stuff with foreign policy, but doesn't have a clue on economic issues.

So McCain was really in a bind. But it's not unexpected for him to be in a bind. Here is a candidate with a lot of liabilities. He's not a great speaker or stump campaigner. (In an appearance at my institution last week, McCain said "agree with Obama" rather than "disagree with Obama" and didn't catch his misstatement until he had finished a 3 minute diatribe -- it was embarrassing, and was played all over the local news.) His great asset was that he was a media darling, yet it's no contest who the media prefers when it comes to him or Obama, or even Hillary. His signature issue set is foreign policy, but he's identified with a disastrous decision on that front, the Iraq war. So it was never going to be easy for McCain. If the financial crisis had come after the debates, McCain might have been able to take a different path and oppose the bailout forcefully in sound bites and canned speeches. Not having to talk about it for extended periods of time from memory might have given him other options. But the way it played out put him in a tight spot.

Why should we elect McCain? That question has not been answered by the campaign. And that is why McCain will lose.

The Last Debate

(This is PotusBlog's 400th post!)

Obama came out strong, just like the first debate. McCain got the question first and started with a typical politician's response, not giving specifics and somewhat avoiding the question. The contrast with Obama, who seems sharp and direct by contrast. McCain followed up with a good personal appeal to a man Obama met on the campaign trail, and the Obama just took all the wind out of his sails with a quip that was actually funny (!), "Joe the Plummer's been watching Sen. McCain's ads." Got a small audience response--that's important, because all the studies show that audience reaction has a huge impact on TV viewership evaluation. McCain's joke, "We're talking about Joe the Plummer" when Obama mentioned Buffet, was just as funny but got no audience reaction. Obama's joke a little while later about Fox News also got a laugh, as did his joke a little past that saying "congrats" to McCain for the Cardinals beating the Cowboys. A pro-Obama audience it seems.

McCain came out with passion on taxes after his opening two salvos, and made up for lost ground, putting Obama on his heels. McCain had a great moment, looking Obama in the eyes and saying "I'm not President Bush. If you wanted to vote for President Bush you should have run four years ago." Oh yeah! Where was this passion in the last two debates? McCain should have done this from the beginning. The anger and passion makes him seem a lot more vigorous. The late night comedy shows have had a field day making fun of the McCain ticket, and McCain himself as old and doddering. As has been widely remarked, they don't know how to make fun of Obama. Call it the comedy gap. McCain showing controlled anger I think would mitigate this a little bit. But only a little.

"I give you tremendous credit for that" Obama on McCain's opposition to torture. Why do politicians phrase it this way? I think it would be better to say "You deserve tremendous credit for that."

McCain was passionate about negative ads, defending the people at his rallies, the relationship of Obama with Ayers and ACORN, putting Obama again on his heels. "I've roundly condemned" his despicable acts, Obama said. I think it would be more effective to look into the camera and say "I condemn them." But Obama ran through the whole story on Ayers and ACORN with a lawyer's closing argument that brought overwhelming evidence to bear that these are distractions that a desperate McCain is focusing on because he's got nothing else. I give the exchange to Obama.

Obama's a pro. Speaking well of Biden and not even mentioning SP when asked to compare the two. That's exactly right. McCain had a much more difficult time (of course). It's hard to listen to him refer to SP without SNL ringing in your ears. McCain flubbed his "breath of fresh air" line about her, and I had a jolly laugh about McCain accidentally saying "breasts." If he said that word on live TV in a debate in reference to Sarah Palin, his campaign would be over! Bush could nuke Iran and Russia and Pakistan on Nov. 3 and Obama'd still win!

Obama would smile when McCain spoke about him. That made it seem like McCain was distorting Obama's positions. It was a subtle "there you go again" message implicit there. I thought it was a very funny moment when an hour into the debate Obama looked into the camera and told Joe the Plumber that his fine for not providing health care would be "zero." McCain had said that "he'd sure like to know what that fine's gonna be." "Zero!" said McCain, and then went on a flurry of blinking that just looked so funny on the split screen.

McCain went over the line with Joe the Plumber. He should have dropped it. His obsession with J the P became a parody of itself. SNL must be so happy for this; their script writes itself on this one.

I thought the rest of the debate was super boring. I was bored. I thought McCain through everything and the kitchen sink at Obama, and the former did well, but Obama weathered the storm with aplomb. He is our next president; that's what I kept thinking watching his performance--not based on the polls as much as his performance.

McCain hates Obama

We've seen it before.  Hillary (and Bill) Clinton's rage and disbelief over Barack Obama's candidacy did them no favors in the primaries.  Rule Number 1 is "don't underestimate your opponent," and the Clintons were a textbook example.  You need to hate your opponent in any contest (e.g., sports) in order to get motivated to beat them, but it has to be that right mixture of hatred, fear, and contempt.  If one of those elements is out of whack, then there's trouble.

McCain seems to be falling into the trap of too much contempt.  "How can this young'un be on the same stage with me?  With me?" McCain seems almost to be asking himself.  And it comes out in various ways.  Byron York has the rundown on it today.  McCain was trying to be funny in his "that one" comment in the debate.  McCain really doesn't have that good of a sense of humor.  His contempt for Obama seeped out a little there.  After the debate he *looked* like he didn't want to shake Obama's hand.  So what if he had already?  He looked like he didn't on TV.  A Freudian slip, in view of all the voters.  

This really was the only interesting thing in a boring debate.  Obama's line in these debates has been "He's misrepresenting my positions."  McCain's contempt seems to validate this to people.

The Second Debate

Obama did a good job at the beginning on the economy. McCain just looked like he didn't have a clue. He looked old. He breathed heavily into the mic. He stressed energy independence as a economic solution, which didn't strike a chord. He stressed $700B going overseas for oil, which reminded people of the total for the bailout. Obama said $700B when he was talking about what we've spent on Iraq; also reminiscent of the bailout.

McCain's problem is that he wants to steal Obama's message of a new politics, yet he has to attack Obama, which looks like the old politics. Obama had this great line early saying "Look, you don't want to hear politicians attack each other" as he pivoted to what he was proposing. I thought he really connected with the young man who asked the question. McCain talked about bipartisan Reagan and Tip O'Neil in one breath, and in the very next sentence he mentioned how he himself "wasn't very popular sometimes in his own party, much less the other." It's a fundamentally flawed argument.

"What sacrifices would you ask for?" The first internet question. McCain repeated lines about cutting programs, without giving any (unpopular) specifics. Obama first spoke about Bush saying "Go out and shop" after 9/11. Good start. He then started talking about government programs--not personal enough. Then he started talking about people using less energy in their own lives...but then related it back to government giving incentives. I thought that could have been more powerful. Too Jimmy Carterish? But the people liked Carter's "malaise" speech--it was only the cynical media who turned on him and turned the speech into a laughingstock. I thought Obama missed a real opportunity to issue a politically risky call to individual Americans to share the burden of consuming less. A lot of talk about "sharing the burden" but I thought it could have been even more specific. (But that means more risky.) McCain hit Obama on looking to the government too much on health care. I think McCain could have pressed this aspect a lot more.

Obama's tone was good, and I'm continually impressed with how he doesn't say "uh" anymore. McCain said "my friends" a ton, and his "s's" whistled into the microphone.

I thought Obama won the "what's your priority" question. He said, "We need to prioritize" while McCain said "We can do all of them." Bush 43's political genius at the beginning of his first term was to portray himself, at least, as someone willing to prioritize. People roll their eyes when politicians dodge this type of question. McCain knew he was beat and returned to it in a follow-up that I thought smacked of desperation.

McCain continues to be the strongest when he preaches his record against earmarks. Obama is the weakest when he reminds everyone that McCain is part of the problem in Washington in the last 26 years--this only reminds people that Obama is the newbie.

When talking about health care insurance companies Obama bashed Delaware--interesting given his choice of running mate!

When McCain started talking about foreign policy he got animated and was at his best. The contrast with his speech when he's speaking about the economy is marked. McCain said, "The United States of America is the greatest force for good in the history of the world." More overweening American exceptionalism you cannot find--not that the nation is blessed by God in his providence, but rather takes the place of God's providence. He had said at the beginning of the debate that the economic problem was caused by Washington and greed on Wall Street.

McCain had more malapropisms. McCain: "Let's keep never forget the trouble we're in today." McCain: We have to make sure we're not "exacerbating our reputation."

I thought Tom Brokaw was obnoxious from beginning to end. He sniped and snarked, was schoolmarmish and a know-it-all, yet at the end he didn't even know what to say without the teleprompter.

Consensus: McCain missed the boat

I agree with the Hammer over at the Washington Post--McCain is throwing too many hail marys, making Obama look cool and stable.

I've always argued that he had to throw hail marys.  The real problem is not that he's doing so, it's that the last one fumbled badly.  The gimmicky "let's-suspend-the-campaign" when he had no intentions of following through on skipping the debate was really bad.  The fill-in for Rush Limbaugh today was bemoaning the chance McCain had to rally voters for change by opposing his party's capitol hill leadership and taking a very popular position opposing the bailout.  

I advised McCain's team to oppose the bailout on 9/22.  I guess they aren't reading this blog, or else they felt that the downside I listed--that McCain couldn't pull it off because he doesn't know enough about economic issues--certified the decision not to oppose the plan.  

Yet it is becoming more and more clear that this might be *the* turning point in the campaign.  McCain had a shot, and he blew it.  Airball.  He is sinking in the polls.  On the ground in Ohio people have the sense that the tide has turned.  A former White House employee admitted to me over the weekend that McCain missed a big opportunity.  

Palin in the debate was all about stealing the change message.  Effective--if it had been backed up with substance.  Palin didn't provide substance.  McCain could have provided it for her, by taking a popular position sharply divergent from Obama's on such a visible issue.  

McCain shot an airball with time running out.  There's still time left, but it starting to look like desperation-ball for the Republicans.  

Palin survives

Joe Biden outclassed SP at every turn in the Veep debate, and it didn't matter. He had to be deferential to her, and that worked in her favor.

The format worked massively in her favor. She would wilt in a format like the first presidential debate, which allowed for detailed follow-ups. Basically, Biden would say something, Palin would respond, Biden might respond to SP but then Ifill would move on to another question. Palin got lucky, I thought.

Palin would have won the debate if she had dropped completely the word "also." By the end it was so painful. The end of the debate was grating--I agree completely with Chuck Todd that Biden had a great end of the debate.

Palin successfully stole Obama's message of change. That was impressive. She also played up seeming real and in touch--also impressive. McCain has to be very happy. She gives his ticket a softer edge, allows him to steal Obama's change message, and fires up his base, all while complementing his maverick image. Everything he needed.

Fighting Biden to a draw is exactly what Palin needed to do. She garbled and mangled answers. She got facts wrong. But she will be forgiven it. I think this gives McCain a short little bounce, but that's it. Biden was too impressive. His tear-up when he was talking about his injured kids was powerful. He made a very substantive case that McCain is not a maverick. But he was hampered by the debate format and his opponent's gender.

The Veep Debate

Palin needs not to be humiliated

The Veep Debate tonight might well decide the election.  If SP is humiliated, the combination of McCain's bungling and the economic crisis will combine to sink his campaign, perhaps for good.  If SP really tanks, it's even probably sunk for good, I would say, though nothing's for certain (especially with Bush possibly orchestrating an October surprise).

The expectations are super low for SP.  This favors her, big-time.  If she makes a barely passable showing, the story'll be her come-from-behind triumph.  Or at least her supporters will think so; the media is another story.  Will they gang up on her?  I think so, but I also think they have to be sensitive to their clientele, and they don't want to be seen picking on her.  So they'll gladly make fun of whatever is awkward and unbecoming.  I really don't see how SP can avoid the mockery she is about to get dumped on her.  However, if she's poised, they vipers can't unleash their venom, because they'd be picking on her.

And of course Biden does not want to be seen this way either!  But he won't.  He's too good of a politician to flub it up.  Democrats don't have to worry--this one's all on SP.  Biden will be fine, he's done this numerous times.  He won't mess it up.  But he can be fought to a draw by the ordinary gal Pal(in) if she's passably articulate.

But I just don't think she will be.  Best odds, 40% she pulls through.  

Post-debate reflections

True to this blog's motto, "We're only two or three news cycles behind," I want to give some post-debate reflections.

This was probably the most important debate, as long as there's no major fumbles in the next two (as there was not in this one).  The first thing of note is that the debate was indeed a draw, as the commentators have stated.  And the reason is that the middle of the debate was even, and was bookended by two bad moments for each candidate--Obama looked so sharp at the beginning while McCain was embarrassingly bad, and Obama was hammered by McCain at the end of the debate.

So if voters are making up their mind based on actually watching the thing, it really matters whether you tuned in ten minutes late and watched until the end, or whether you caught the beginning of the debate and broke off without seeing the end.  Like the very first TV debate between Nixon and Kennedy (which resulted in different winners depending on whether people listened to the debate or watched it on TV), these two scenarios would result in vastly different impressions of who won.

If you watched the whole thing, you thought it was a draw.  I agree with conventional wisdom that a draw favors Obama.  I think Obama won.  He proved he can be president.  The VP debate this week will validate Obama's choice of Biden, humilitate McCain's choice of Palin, and last Friday's debate will be but a memory.

SNL lampooned McCain the night after the debate for his gimmicks.  McCain can get away with gimmicks because he is such a substantive candidate, has a long record.  He has capital to spend on this score, and I think he should spend it.  I thought he should have opposed the bailout--that would have been a really substantive way to shake up the race, instead of a gimmicky way, but he decided to play it safe.  That won't win him the election.  The bailout will probably pass today, in which case McCain could have his cake and eat it too--posturing in a popular way (no one likes the bailout) while not taking the blame for it not passing.  Of course, would it have passed if he opposed it?  Perhaps not.  And what the bailout is doing is delaying the (inevitable) economic pain that has to come sooner or later.  You don't run for president nowadays talking about how short-term pain is good.  You run by promising everyone the world.

McCain really came into his own last night.  He doesn't think much of Obama, but managed to conceal his contempt.  He started out so flat, it was just terrible.  But he gained his footing when he started talking with passion about earmarks.  That passion never left him.  It made him seem really genuine, in contrast to his gimmicky campaign.  If Palin has any chance against Biden it's to seem genuine as opposed to Biden's slick Washington mountebank demeanor.  

But Obama won the debate.  His flubs at the end were even excusable, I thought.  McCain was snearing in his face, and Obama can seem like he has a legit beef that his positions are misrepresented.  His line the next day was a powerful one: "John McCain had a lot to say about me in the debate, and not much at all to say about you.  He never even mentioned 'the middle class' once."

Likewise, McCain's flubs at the beginning were excusable, in the sense that he was really sharp the whole rest of the debate, which is tough for a 72-year-old in the bright light standing for 90 minutes.  

Obama won because he did exactly what he had to do.  Unlike McCain, Obama can't resort to gimmicks.  He can't go after McCain passionately.  He can't get down and dirty.  The reason is the bubba vote--a young black upstart attacking an American hero would only produce backlash.  He had to show that he's up for the job, presidential.  He had to get people comfortable with him as a leader.  He did that.  

I think he should have mentioned his Christianity and how it guides him in life.  Why doesn't he do this?  America doesn't elect secular candidates, or at least hasn't yet.  Change might be around the horizon, but why risk it?  Obama could have boxed in McCain, who would sound too much like Bush with his belligerent attitude to every major foreign policy problem, mixing in any God-speak.  Obama's married with two kids, McCain ruthlessly cheated on and then divorced his  wife, who was faithful to him while he was a POW and remains faithful to him to this day, in order to wed a young heiress.  But there's one reason why Obama can't do this: it conjures up Wright, and there's no way Obama wants that.  He's better off with the whole thing being a forgotten piece of ancient history.  

Neither candidate has much of a sense of humor, and McCain's jokes fell flat, but he did have two moments when he really flummoxed Obama with humor--the line about not being able to hear Obama, and the imaginery sit-down with Ahmadinejad.  

The Debate

It's not as bad as you think for McCain

I know it's an overstatement. But John McCain's attempt to shake up the race, which I praised to the skies yesterday, has failed (despite Fox's reporting that McCain's #s are up as a result of the suspension). There's no deal on the bailout. McCain didn't show decisive leadership, a meeting with the pres and the two pres wannabes devolved into a shouting match, and McCain blinked on the debate. So the debate's going to happen. My wife's reaction was to roll her eyes and condemn McCain--I think that's telling.

Axelrod is saying that McCain exploited the economy for political purposes, and the Huckster is saying that McCain's move was a "Big mistake...You can't just say, 'World, stop for a moment. I'm going to cancel everything.'" The Democratic line is that McCain is "injecting presidential politics" into the issue. It's appealing, no matter Rush Limbaugh's rants about Obama's failure at the meeting with Bush, McCain and co.

So McCain is skulking with his tail between his legs to the debate, and Obama has an edge going in. Or does he? I still firmly believe that McCain has to continually shake up the race. There are risks to every move of this type he makes, but he doesn't have a choice.

And the proofs still in the pudding. What's going to happen tonight? Everything is riding on it. The whole presidency. More people will watch this debate than the other two. There's enormous anticipation, and it comes right smack dab in the middle of an economic crisis.

What's the expectations game for McCain? I always thought that McCain would debate, and never considered that he would back out. "He's playing the expectations game," I thought. If he goes unwillingly to the debate, the expectations will be lower. And there's an argument here. If McCain hadn't pulled this stunt, what would everyone be talking about? I'll tell you: they'll be talking about the debate on foreign policy, and how that's McCain's specialty, and how he should blow Obama out of the water, and yet, wow, isn't it kind of irrelevant to what is the pressing concern right now? That's what the chatterheads would say. Instead, the talking points are different. Still not favorable to McCain, but doesn't it take some of the pressure off of him? There is a setup for McCain to do well. He could still lose, or he could still win with the pundits and lose with the people, that's very possible. But at least the setup isn't: an out-of-touch rich Washington insider gets ready to debate foreign policy, ignoring the biggest financial crisis of a generation.

You have to look at the opportunity cost with campaign moves like this.

Debates

Here's the formats for the debates:

The first debate on Sept. 26 at the University of Mississippi will focus on foreign policy and national security. The candidates will stand at podiums and the debate will include nine, nine-minute segments where each candidate will have two minutes to speak and then five minutes for debate. Jim Lehrer will moderate.

The second debate on Oct. 7 at Belmont University will be a town hall style forum where questions will come from the audience and on-line viewers. Each candidate will have two minutes to respond to questions, and it will not be topic-specific. Tom Brokaw will moderate.

The third debate on Oct. 15 at Hofstra University will focus on domestic and economic policy. The candidates will be seated at a table, and the question format will be the same as the first debate, with nine, nine-minute segments. Bob Schieffer will moderate.

All debates will begin at 9pm ET and last for 90 minutes. The lone vice presidential debate will take place Oct. 2 at Washington University. The format will de determined after the candidates are announced. Gwen Ifill will moderate.

A lot is riding on these debates. A Ford senior-moment could destroy McCain. I think three debates favors Obama. He's younger, sharper, and taller than McCain. The contrast will be there.

The first debate is certainly in Obama's favor with the long speeches. But what about the town-hall debate? Advantage McCain, unless Obama can get Bill Clinton to help coach him (haw!). Obama has difficultly connecting with people. Bill Clinton could do it--bring things down to the level of the ordinary working stiff. "What does it mean for me?" kind of thing.

On the other hand, can McCain really connect better? We'll have to see. If there's a gaffe, it'll override everything else. I tend to think the gaffe would come from McCain.

The RBC, and McCain on Iraq

The Rules and Bylaws committee of the DNC meets today to decide what to do with Florida and Michigan. The Politico sums it up: "As it stands, the RBC is in a quandary. If the sanctions hold, it could risk further alienating Democrats – especially Clinton supporters – in two big swing states. But some RBC members worry that seating Michigan and Florida with minimal punishment will diminish the party’s ability to keep states from jumping the primary calendar, which could either lead to an even more chaotic calendar fight four years from now – and possibly an Iowa caucus held as early as November 2011." Chuck Todd has the best breakdown.

The video posted below relates to my recent post, "McCain's Campaign Contradictory." This is how John McCain will lose in November, if he is seen as too old, too tied to President Bush, and too attached to a failed Iraq strategy to be president. He must be seen as way more competent on national security and Iraq than Obama--that's really all he's got, and if this image falters due to his own mistakes, then he's toast.

McCain has the disadvantage of being in the Senate for a long time. This means he's a blow-hard like John Kerry. Arrogant, accustomed to power, accustomed to media fawning over him, used to giving intricate and (relatively) subtle and long-winded speeches on the Senate floor, the traits of the longtime Senator do not translate well to being an effective presidential candidate.

The debates are going to be absolutely huge for McCain. If he is subpar in the debates, he won't be able to beat Obama.

Blogging will be light for the next couple weeks, as I'm traveling to Israel and then to Chicago.

Obama should debate

Carl Leubsdorf writes that by refusing to debate, Obama is intent on "running out the clock":

Outwardly similar to Ohio and Pennsylvania – where she scored recent notable wins – Indiana's electorate is younger and less Catholic and includes Republicans and independents. A Clinton win there would be a further warning sign about Mr. Obama's appeal beyond his base of liberals and minorities.

In this circumstance, Mrs. Clinton's requests for debates in Indiana and North Carolina may find a receptive audience. While most pundits suggest that the public is sick of debates and believes the issues have been discussed thoroughly, that makes the mistake of viewing this more as a six-month national campaign than a series of one- or two-week races.

Now is when Indianans and North Carolinians are paying attention. What happened before may be less relevant to them.

Mr. Obama might be right politically in trying to run out the clock. But that strategy could leave him vulnerable if the unexpected occurs and he lacks a high-level forum in which to respond.

Clinton challenged Obama to a one-on-one debate a week ago:

“What I think the people in Indiana deserve is a real one-on-one debate, where Sen. Obama and I discuss [the] issues.... Unfortunately, Sen. Obama has not agreed yet, and he’s turned down every debate that has been offered. So here I have a proposition my campaign sent his campaign today. You know, after the last debate in Philadelphia, Sen. Obama’s supporters complained a little bit about the tough questions (awwwwwww heard in the audience). You know tough questions in a debate are nothing compared to the tough questions you get when you are president.”

Clinton challenged Obama, saying, “And they complained about the moderators asking tough questions. So here is my proposal: I’m offering Sen. Obama the chance to debate me one-on-one, no moderators. Just the two of us going for 90 minutes asking and answering questions. We’ll set whatever rules seem fair. I think it would give the people of Indiana -- and I assume a few Americans will tune in because nearly 11 million watched the Philadelphia debate, and I think they would like seeing that discussion. Remember that’s what happened during the Lincoln and Douglas debates. Now we have had like four debates between Sen. Obama and myself.”

We've never had this in American presidential politics before. The candidates have always insist on moderators. This means that they have not really been debates. In a real debate, you can ask your opponent a question. But in presidential politics we have had only sham debates, with moderators who can be blamed for lousy questions.

Think about it. The moderators could, from Obama's perspective, engage in scummy dirty gotcha questions for the first 40 minutes of the Constitution Center debate because they are moderators. They're just journalists, totally unaccountable when compared to politicians for whom every vote matters.

But if Hillary had taken the low road for a full 40 minutes, well, there would be consequences. There would be backlash. So she wouldn't do it.

Instead we would have a debate on "issues." What would this look like, a debate without moderators? It would certainly be on a higher level. The two would have a vested interest in looking like they get along, and are in a common quest for a better America. This would be unlike the Lincoln-Douglas debates, which were between politicians of two different parties.

The format of the Lincoln-Douglas debates would be interesting--a long speech by one candidate, followed by a long speech by the other, followed by a response from the first candidate. But in today's television age there would have to be give and take. Who's quickest on their feet? Clinton's behind, so she has everything to gain from debating, which is why Obama doesn't want to.

It would be good for the Democratic party to have such a debate. And it would be a great precedent to set for American politics.

PA Debate Reflections: Hillary Has Become the Anti-Obama

The Philly Constitution Center was a good venue for this debate, perhaps the candidates' last. Everyone kept quiet and the timing was relaxed--a breath of fresh air. With people sitting around in darkness it looked like the Galactic Senate from Star Wars.

Obama spun his "bitter" remarks as "not being properly phrased." He talked about reaching out to people of faith, which he says he does more than other campaigns, and of the support of sportsman in his state, "because he listens to them." Interesting turn of phrase--not because he supports the gun-control policies that they do.

Obama brought up the "baking cookies" remark of Hillary on the '92 campaign trail. A perfect example of how a long track-record bogs you down (as if Hillary's Iraq vote wasn't enough proof). Then he ripped into Hillary for not learning the lessons of Republican attacks and doing the same thing. Pretty good stuff. "What the American people want are not distractions," he said. The old way of doing things, he is against all that. He constantly brings everything back to his message of old vs. new. What discipline. You have to think this is why he's probably going to be the nominee. What's Hillary's message? She's become the anti-Obama! The opposite of what everyone thought would happen, which is that she would be the front-runner and there would be an anti-Hillary candidate challenging her. Obama's done a great job of not falling into that. "Vote for me, I'm not her" is not a winning mantra--you have to be for something to win. Obama is for something, Hillary is flailing around seemingly for only herself. This is the campaign's fault, Mark Penn's fault. She defined herself as a "fighter" going against the special interests. This is a loser-ball tactic (though I'd be singing a different tune if 269 people had changed their minds in Florida in 2000), at least as opposed to Obama's appeal to unity.

Hillary was on the defensive and halting in her response to Obama, and she sounded like an echo to his plea to "get things done" rather than playing politics. She did a little better perhaps on the next question on Rev. Wright, but again Obama looked like the front-runner.

On the Bosnia question, Hillary took another hit. She had no good answer to Tom Rooney, the everyman who asked the question via prior interview. She basically said "I lied, sorry!" Seemed like a pretty big admission. She turned it back to her experience as an advantage. At the end her emotion seemed like "Whew!" She was glad that was over.

Barack then hit it out of the park again, managing to seem like he was nice to her ("She has a wonderful record") when he really wasn't ("She wouldn't be here if she didn't") and again turning it back to "this moment of our history." He looks like the visionary, the leader, while she's stuck in the past with the old Clinton ways. Obama has really mastered the art of running against a woman. He seems courteous, gentlemanly, all the while his flaks are ruthlessly destroying her credibility. Except for the one bad "you're likable enough" he's done a A+ job. McCain is getting pointers all over the place. You can just see him staring at the TV jotting things down.

On the other hand, Obama flopped on the "do you love the flag" question. "I can't help but love this country." Not a good response. Where's the passion? This isn't academic--say you love the country, don't give an argument why people should infer that you must love it.

Hillary got a laugh-line with her suggestion that Republicans not run anybody at all, and just apologize for the Bush years. She was very direct in saying that Obama will have trouble running against McCain. Her baggage "has already been rummaged through." Obama: "I've showed that I can take a punch. I've taken several from Sen. Clinton." They weren't debating here to a PA audience, but to the superdelegates. Jay Cost has a great post on this, the real race.

Both were strong on the Iraq question. They were a lot more comfortable talking policy than personal stuff, when they each are halting and too deliberate. Same thing on taxes. Two Democrats preaching fiscal responsibility--Bush has made things so easy on them.

Also on taxes, they played a clip from McCain bashing Obama. Hillary laughed, and that brought the viewer's attention to her, and blurred the fact that McCain was speaking about Obama--without her laughing, everyone would have looked at Obama's reaction on the screen, and it would look like he would be the likely nominee, at least in McCain's mind.

The gymnastics on gun control were fun to watch. PA is a big hunting state, the NRA lobby has a lot of influence, and you had two candidates trying to appear to hold the direct opposite of what they have always held.

Meanwhile McCain's campaign has the freedom to portray an honest, open, tell-you-how-it-is candidate through town-hall meetings. The virtue to this is that McCain doesn't have to worry about running against someone yet, and can focus on building up his own image, running a positive Huckabee-esque campaign. And fundraising for an McCain smear-job has fizzled.

McCain is going to run on his personality. The Democratic nominee is going to run on policy. And the election will be heavily influenced by the environment--how Iraq is doing and how the economy is doing. If both are fine McCain will have a chance.

This is it for Hillary

In the debate the other night I thought Hillary started out weak, just because I'm so underwhelmed by the "misleading fliers" charge. This is the type of thing that I feel was preaching to the choir--if you are already a Hillary supporter you might be angry by this, but who the heck else cares--it's only infuriating if you're a campaign worker. Obama had a strong response comparing his health care plan with hers. Hillary responded, first stumbling with the malapropism "both sides of our campaign" but then had a great, passionate response on universal health care. Obama had a dispassionate response, and there was another back-and-forth.

In the whole exchange, Obama came off very well, carefully explaining his plan, while Hillary came off as too passionate perhaps. Obama would bring it back to details, which he explained effectively, which blunted Hillary's passion.

Then there was the SNL comment by Hillary. "I find it curious that I always have to answer these questions first. I think if we've seen Saturday Night Live, we can say why don't they ask Barack if he's comfortable and would like another pillow." I liked this comment, but I'm biased. I saw the SNL bit, so I felt "in the know." I thought it was hilarious because it's true, the media do love him. But I had a conversation with someone who thought it came off whiny. It sure is hard to be a woman running for president--how the heck do you attack your opponent? This debate was a clear victory for Obama, in my mind. He looked presidential; he looked like a winner; he outshone Hillary.

Obama promised a phased withdrawal from Iraq, but with "ample time" to make the political settlements they need. Both candidates said they would keep residual troops in Iraq. Hillary misfired on an attack on Obama being chair of a subcommittee of the Foreign Relations committee and not holding hearings on Afghanistan. Obama said he wasn't chair of it until the campaign started. Besides, everyone knows that Afghanistan and Iraq are linked; this was not an effective attack by Hillary.

After the commercial break Obama had to respond to a video of Hillary mocking him, which was played in error. Hillary was at a rally and said: "Now I could promise that if we all come together, the skies will open, celestial choirs will sing, light will stream down, and everything will be perfect!" Barack said, "sounds good!" which was funny, but then somewhat bungled his response to Williams query, "What'd ya think of that," because he doesn't have a good sense of humor--he said "I think Sen. Clinton showed some good humor there" which was so wooden. He thankfully added, "I'd give her points for delivery" which got a few laughs. But what about, "Her impression of me was so good, it almost makes me want to vote for her," or "That is totally inaccurate; I've always been careful to only promise one celestial voice, not whole choirs." But Hillary's response was equally insipid: "I was trying to have a little fun. It's hard to find time to have fun on the campaign trail." Sheesh, just terrible.

It all comes down to Ohio. The voters there have been inundated with calls and mailers, even non-Democrats. The weather has been wintry this week, if it's like that Tuesday it'll probably favor Obama. But apparently the cold is going to lift on Monday.

Frank Rich writes:

In the view [of Clinton fans], their highly substantive candidate was unfairly undone by a lightweight showboat who got a free ride from an often misogynist press and from naïve young people who lap up messianic language as if it were Jim Jones’s Kool-Aid. Or as Mrs. Clinton frames it, Senator Obama is all about empty words while she is all about action and hard work.

But it’s the Clinton strategists, not the Obama voters, who drank the Kool-Aid. The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it’s a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate’s message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating.

The gap in hard work between the two campaigns was clear well before Feb. 5. Mrs. Clinton threw as much as $25 million at the Iowa caucuses without ever matching Mr. Obama’s organizational strength. In South Carolina, where last fall she was up 20 percentage points in the polls, she relied on top-down endorsements and the patina of inevitability, while the Obama campaign built a landslide-winning organization from scratch at the grass roots. In Kansas, three paid Obama organizers had the field to themselves for three months; ultimately Obama staff members outnumbered Clinton staff members there 18 to 3. In the last battleground, Wisconsin, the Clinton campaign was six days behind Mr. Obama in putting up ads and had only four campaign offices to his 11. Even as Mrs. Clinton clings to her latest firewall — the March 4 contests — she is still being outhustled. Last week she told reporters that she “had no idea” that the Texas primary system was “so bizarre” (it’s a primary-caucus hybrid), adding that she had “people trying to understand it as we speak.” Perhaps her people can borrow the road map from Obama’s people. In Vermont, another March 4 contest, The Burlington Free Press reported that there were four Obama offices and no Clinton offices as of five days ago. For what will no doubt be the next firewall after March 4, Pennsylvania on April 22, the Clinton campaign is sufficiently disorganized that it couldn’t file a complete slate of delegates by even an extended ballot deadline.

The war and the Republicans -- the Florida debate

SC Debate

The debate last night in SC turned testy.

Obama on Hillary: "One of the things that's happened during the course of this campaign, there's a set of assertions made by Senator Clinton, as well as her husband, that are not factually accurate."

Hillary on Obama: "It is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern."

Obama on Bill Clinton: "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes."

Hillary on Obama: "It is sometimes difficult to understand what Senator Obama has said, because as soon as he is confronted on it, he says that's not what he meant."

Obama on Hillary: "While I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart."

Hillary on Obama: "I was fighting against [conservative] ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor [Antoin] Rezko in his slum landlord business in inner-city Chicago."

Edwards on Blitzer: "Are there three people in this debate, not two?"

Edwards on the Debate: "This kind of squabbling, how many children is this going to get health care? How many people are going to get an education from this? How many kids are going to be able to go to college because of this?"


Major Garrett thought Edwards won. So did this blogger and this one and this one.

Here's Steve Clemons:

One thing that was weird for me in this debate is that Hillary Clinton is clearly not mimicking her husband in any way. John Edwards is. Bill Clinton is the master of anecdotes and "let me tell you all a story" moments. Hillary is dense with facts, details, experiences -- but it's not warm and fuzzy.

I watched Ed Rendell one night at a 4,000 person DNC dinner in the final year of Bill Clinton's tenure introduce Al Gore in a kind of passing the torch evening from Bill Clinton to Gore. Both Gore and Clinton walked on to the stage at the same time -- and Clinton sat meekly behind Gore while the then hoping-to-be 43rd President literally "lost the crowd" which began speaking at an embarrassing volume over his rambling speech. Clinton walked up after Gore who introduced him warmly (though the two were not speaking to each other in real life) and started his talk with "let me tell you all a story. . .", and the room went completely quiet. John Edwards tries that in these debates, and has heartwarming moments -- particularly when he spoke about his mill working father tonight -- but overall, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama really do Br'er Rabbit stuff. . .and I think I like that.

And while I didn't like Hillary raising the slum lord issue with Obama, I was surprised to hear him refer to Rezko as "that indivdual." That individual is someone Barack Obama has known for 17 years and someone who has raised more than $14 million for him and who was on his Senate campaign finance organization. Now Hillary Clinton had Norman Hsu -- but while I didn't expect Obama to embrace Rezko, he might have just said that he was surrounded (as they all are) by people who are not always what they seem to be. At that moment, Barack Obama using "that individual" sounded a lot like -- well -- you know who.

A terrible debate

Yesterday afternoon I questioned my own love of American politics. I am a person who finds C-Span to be the most fascinating thing on TV, so I found myself questioning my own personality when I responded to a query about how the debate was going by saying: "It's really boring."

I thought the moderation was just terrible. Horrific. A real debate involves being able to ask your opponent a question, and presidential debates are not real debates. But at least they can pretend to be real debates by having some back-and-forth. But this debate devolved into a series of campaign ads, but without even the interesting parts of the ads (which are the background imagery, which is what political ads are all about).

The moderator Carolyn Washburn was a schoolmarm. She made the candidates seem like fifth-graders rather than as potential leaders of the free world. The lowest point in the debate was when she asked everyone to raise their hand about global warming. So instead of 30 seconds, you get to raise your hand! This is all the nuance and complexity allowed!

The reason the internet is so great is that you can have the consolation of others who feel the same way about something, and there's no shortage of evidence that I am not alone in my experience. Debate Scoop has has a gratifying rundown.

Iowa Black and Brown Debate

The technology-challenged Black and Brown Debate last night had a great Hillary one-liner to Richardson. Here's myDD's play-by-play:

Richardson to Clinton: He's equating Bill Clinton to himself and asks her "Don't you think Governors make good presidents?" "Well Bill. I also think they make good Vice Presidents." Hilarious. That's her entire answer. Moderator: "Aren't you sorry you asked?" Richardson doesn't know what to do.

Here's what HuffPo said:

The forum also allows candidates to ask other candidates questions.

Dodd and Edwards played along but when Norris asked Kucinich what he would like to ask the other candidates, Kucinich thought for a moment and then said, "Gee, I'm going to ask Congressman Kucinich a question" and then proceeded to ask and answer a question on single payer, nonprofit health care plan, of which he is the only Democratic candidate advocating such a
plan.

The crowd erupted in laughter.

This is the type of thing that accounts for Hillary's position. She's clawed her way to the top of the Democratic heap day by day. She's aided by the flaws of the other candidates, whether it be imbecility (Kucinish, Gravel, Richardson), long congressional track records (Biden, Dodd), or inexperience (Edwards, Obama). Of course, she's in a dead heat with Obama right now in Iowa. That could be the knockout blow if she wins. I don't think that it is necessarily a dead sentence if she looses. If Obama wins, it'll be similar Buchanan winning in 1996 in New Hampshire. Here's what the Democrats will say to themselves: we've got a really good shot at winning the White House in '08, so do we want to blow it by fielding an inexperienced candidate named "Barack Obama"? The frontloaded primary calendar might make this harder, ironically making Iowa and NH more important, as we've said here.