The Debate – Thoughts

October 16th, 2008 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

Since the others covered the debate quite in depth, I’ll simply pick some exchanges that I think were important, and in which one of the candidates performed well, and it will be some loose observations.

The conversation about the economy – raising taxes, etc. – McCain undoubtedly hit Obama on that one. You could see from the look on Obama’s face he did not appreciate that one. McCain rightfully pointed out that Obama said he wants “spread the wealth around,” which means redistributing wealth. Obama tried to talk around it, but McCain slammed him with it again and again. Obama then said he believes he can raise taxes on people like “Warren Buffet,” the investor, to which McCain quickly responded, laughing, “we’re talking about Joe the plumber here.”

Now, it’s nice and all to make fun of “Joe the Plumber” and McCain using him, but what McCain does by referring to him is to make clear to voters that Obama is most certainly not talking about Warren Buffet and other billionaires. He’s talking about normal Americans, who worked hard all their lives, who are now in charge of their small businesses, but who will suffer when their taxes are increased. These aren’t all ‘investors’ like Warren Buffet, these are people who worked hard. That’s why it is so important for McCain to point that out time and again.

A tremendous line of the evening, that was truly strong, was when McCain said, while looking straight at his opponent, “Senator Obama, I’m not President Bush. If you wanted to run against Bush you should have run four years ago.” That was truly a great line, and, again, Obama knew it.

Obama was much stronger on the issue of negative campaigning, not because he played the victim, but because he did not, but because he said he thought most Americans would rather have them talking about issues that matter to them rather than about their own hurt feelings, while getting a shot in at McCain quite regularly. This subject was a loser to McCain; one get the impression he wanted to cry. Not exactly a ‘presidential’ picture.

Ayers was not a win for Obama – as Obama knows full well, whenever someone talks about one of your radical associates and former colleagues it’s never a good thing – but he did deal with it quite well, whereas McCain sometimes appeared as he did not know the real facts (Wright 101 is required reading material Mr. McCain) and, I think that this is the main problem with McCain talking about Bill Ayers: he refused to use these associations for months. But now, when he’s behind in the polls, he uses them nonetheless. Voters aren’t that stupid, they may know that the associations do indeed say something about Obama, but they’re also getting the distinct impression that they would not even have been talking about this issue if McCain was leading in the polls.

One big problem with McCain: his strange, dismissive smirk. It looks horrible and it gives people the impression he’s incredibly arrogant. Even when he’s making a good point, that smirk ruins it.

Obama has his own weakness: he seems annoyed, and his face showed it when McCain said something he didn’t quite like. That’s bad. Don’t show your emotions and don’t give people the impression you feel like you’re wasting your time (even if it’s true).

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.