England for Obama

A very interesting article by Roger Ebert, of Siskel and Ebert fame.

Two insights which particularly stood out for me as being absolutely spot-on: that it was as if Palin “was being asked to defend her doctoral thesis without having written it”; and the comparison to an actor speaking Shakespeare without knowing what they’re actually saying, because they’re on autopilot.

The latter point explains my gut feeling about Palin’s performance: that she was stringing words together without any true depth of thought or reason behind them. Style, not substance. As opposed to Biden who, as Ebert says, “basically just stood there and said what he thought”. If you haven’t watched the debate, I urge you to do so - and you’ll see exactly what we’re talking about.

OK, so I’ve just watched it in full, and I think my ears are bleeding.

The headlines as far as I’m concerned - and I’m going into issues of delivery, style and manner here rather than content (mainly because you can take it as read that I don’t agree with anything Sarah Palin and John McCain say, and do agree with just about everything Joe Biden and Barack Obama say):

- Sarah Palin seemed totally and utterly coached. Honestly, you or I could have done just as well as her if we’d dabbled in a bit of local politics and then been trained on the issues by leading politicians and campaign advisors for the past five weeks. There was nothing behind her eyes. It was slick - and god knows, she barely stopped for breath - but there was no substance behind her style. She wasn’t a total trainwreck as she has been in her TV interviews so far - and there weren’t any ‘gotcha’ moments - but then she wasn’t anyone to be scared of, either. Joe Biden won the debate; there was no contest.

- Biden was completely calm, reasonable and gentlemanly, and even flashed his killer smile at her several times. He could have so easily attacked her viciously - especially when she was talking such swooning, utter crap about John McCain - but he didn’t. He did attack McCain, often, and forcefully - but he never laid into Palin herself once.

- And talking of smiling: Palin had a slight smile even when she talked about the war in Iraq. And after Biden had just choked up talking about his two sons, and the death of his wife and daughter, the baton was handed over to Palin… who didn’t acknowledge what had just happened at all, and instead smilingly talked about how John McCain was “the consummate maaaverick”. No empathy. No acknowledgment. For truly, she is hard-hearted Hannah, the vamp of Savannah Alaska.

- Just 10 minutes into the debate, Palin used her ‘get out of jail free’ card, which had clearly been prepared for whenever she found herself in a slightly sticky situation. Promptly turning  the subject of deregulation around to energy taxes, she told Biden: “I may not answer the questions the way that either you or the moderator may want to hear…” . And sure enough, she didn’t. She quite merrily changed the subject and avoided the questions as it suited her. And then she’d yabber on and on that you’d forget what the original question was anyway.

- Palin was all generalisations and platitudes; Biden was about specifics. He backed up many of his answers with figures. Palin’s inability or unwillingness to do so served only to enhance my first point: that she seemed like an empty vessel, coached in what to say but not having the knowledge, experience or even passionate opinion to back it up.

- Her language was, as people have said, folksy. All that droppin’ of the g’s. Lots of “betchas” and talk of “Joe Six Pack” and telling us that diplomacy is about “having your friends and allies ready to back yer up thur”.  For someone who has a journalism degree and who professes to care about language, she mangles it to death, speaking in unfeasibly long sentences and seeming to think that saying “also” and “so chose to” as much as possible makes her sound like some sort of heavyweight.

- Biden was just as I’ve seen him before - although apparently people are saying this was possibly his best debate performance ever. He clearly is a heavyweight - but at no point did he come across as too dull, or wonky, or aloof. He absolutely came across as a man of the people; not just a Washington drone.

- Palin’s inexperience was palpable. Next to Biden, she seemed like such a small fish. He would talk about his role in Bosnia, his trip to Chad to examine the Dafur crisis… while she talked about all the things she did as governor of Alaska.  I swear that in her closing remarks - when she thanked the debate commission and said “This is such an honour for me” - she completely came across as a schoolkid who’d won a local newspaper competition.

- If I hear the word “maverick” one more time - especially when said with a slight smile and a wink in one’s eye - I swear I will hit someone.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: a) Barack Obama is winning America over as Tony Blair did Britain in 1997; and b) if America wakes up on November 5th to an Obama victory, it will be a similar feeling of a new dawn - and of a sudden, overnight and irrevocable dismissal of an old regime and an old way of thinking - as it was here in the UK on the morning of May 2nd that year, when we waved goodbye to over a decade of Thatcherism.

Joe Klein has written a very interesting article about Obama’s ascent, and his character, for Time. And here’s the quote which made me think of Blair again:

“There has been no grand cathartic moment for him in this campaign, but rather a steady accretion of trust, a growing public sense that he knows what he’s talking about and isn’t going to get crazy on us.”

And that, my American friends, is exactly how Tony Blair won the British election in 1997. So we all know what happens next, right?

Compare and contrast. I do believe this is what Sarah Palin called ‘verbiage’:

Watch CBS Videos Online

I heart Joe Biden. And I think he’s going to do just fine tonight. I don’t think Sarah Palin’s going to have the monopoly on straight-talking, emotionally ‘connecting’ responses. In fact, I think Joe Biden does much better than her on that front - because while he has the intellect and knowledge to back it up (*coughs*), he’s also utterly charming and disarming.

He also breaks up his answers into actual sentences.

(Incidentally, that Jefferson quote about “underestimating the wisdom of the people”? He never said it.)

I take it back: I’m now thinking that Joe Biden should go on the attack against Sarah Palin in the vice presidential debate. Be a pitbull sans lipstick, as it were.

James Moore gets it:

“I’m a bit taken aback by all the analysts and the consultants who are suggesting [Joe Biden] needs to be careful and cautious. I think he needs to use his intellect and his experience and his range and his depth to sort of beat her about her diminutive brain and let the world know that she’s not up to this job - so that when that debate is over, everybody who’s watching it is asking the question: ‘My god, what was John McCain thinking?!’”

Jed Lewison over on HuffPo has written a piece on Sarah Palin’s debating skills and compiled this video of some of her answers during gubernatorial (new favourite American word) debates in Alaska:

The press is full of compliments about Palin’s debating skills right now; and Lewison similarly argues that on Sarah’s past form, he expects she “will do just fine”.

And while I don’t doubt for a second that Palin will excel at what Lewison calls “values-oriented language” tomorrow night, I do doubt that she will do well based on those Alaskan debates. Because while one may or may not agree with her stances in the footage above, say, she clearly knows what she’s talking about in terms of Alaskan issues and politics.

All her interviews thus far, however, have shown that she has no clue when it comes to big national issues and international affairs. Despite, y’know, reading all those papers that are put in front of her. “All of ‘em”.

If the VP debate focuses on these two big issues, I think Biden will do just fine - and Palin will hopefully come across as the clueless no-hoper she is. And if she goes on the attack, and Biden keeps cool and generous (as Obama did in the face of McCain’s sneers and body language), then hopefully she’ll receive as negative a public reaction as McCain did. And either way: if she just keeps talking for her 90 seconds without pausing for breath - as she seems to do above - then maybe America will just be sick to death of the sound of her voice by the end of the debate, and be unable to contemplate four more years of it? (In simple oratorial, cadence tones, McCain and Palin are an utter nightmare compared to the voices of Obama and Biden).

Ah well. Not that any of the above matters, really - because I doubt Sarah Palin’s performance one way or the other will have much of an effect on actual votes. People needed to see and hear Obama to be turned on to him - and many were. Most people, however, have made up their minds - very strongly - one way or the other about Sarah Palin. And tomorrow night, as they say: I’m sure that people who like that sort of thing, will find that they like that sort of thing.

Over on Talking Points Memo, reader articleman nicely sums up the ways in which Barack Obama won Friday night’s debate:

“First, he won by not losing.  That sounds stupid but it’s not.  He’s up five points in the trackers, and the foreign policy debate is a road game.  Obama didn’t lose.  He made no gaffes, he did not commit to the bailout, he showed heft in foreign policy and gave no ground, he seemed Presidential, the commentariat thought it tight, with some giving it to him narrowly, some narrowly to McCain.

Second, the snap polls show he won, which will drive the media narrative.  CBS’s snap poll of undecideds show them 40-22 for Obama, with 38 as a tie.  CNN says 51-38 for Obama.  If you look at historical evidence, such as Ford’s Poland gaffe in 1976, or the Dukakis’ rape/murder answer in 1988, the perception of winning in the media drives the later move in public opinion more than the underlying event does in the first place.  This matters.

Third, Obama won on effect, because McCain looked nasty.  Obama smiled like a human being; McCain did not.  Obama said some positive things about McCain; McCain said none about Obama.  The scolds in past Presidential debates?  Nixon, Carter, Mondale, Gore.  Add McCain.  The sunnier?  Kennedy, Reagan, Bush43 in 2000, Obama.

Fourth, and let’s not pretend it’s first, Obama won because he did well on the issues.  Obama went harder at the economy than McCain did, and successfully linked his economic priorities to a strong foreign policy.  Obama and McCain spoke from deep conviction about Iraq, but the American people agree preponderantly with Obama that the war was a mistake they’d like ended.  Obama had the moment of the night, telling McCain “you were wrong” in a litany of Iraq misjudgments.

McCain saying that Obama lacked the “knowledge and judgment” to be the President, which drew a mature chuckle from Obama, was the coup-de-grace, albeit self-administered.  McCain was nasty and contemptuous, and half of the American people presently disagree with McCain’s assertion.  Apparently McCain views them as stupid and lacking in judgment too.  Like his pick of Palin, the gibe is polarizing and a call to pick sides.  This isn’t a year for that party and its base to drive both bases in that way.”

And here are my two favourite comments posted by readers on TPM this weekend:

“McCain’s demeanor last night will alienate many voters in these four groups:
1. WOMEN: We know what it’s like to be dismissed and condescended to.
2: OLDER VOTERS: It was just plain (I keep typing ‘palin”!) rude.
3: BLACKS: We’re not good enough to be even looked at??
4: YOUNG VOTERS: Experience is all so we are dismissed and our opinion doesn’t count.”

and

“After reading through the many of the comments here and there, I think my 10 year old son said it best: McCain just seemed like a rude, angry man and Obama was polite and answered the questions. For the average voter, I think this is the impression that will stick.”

Another interesting piece on the Huffington Post…

Relationship experts Kathy and Gay Hendricks have written an article about Michelle and Barack Obama’s marriage - arguing that it will bring much-needed healthy role model of a relationship to the White House.

You can read their post here - but it’s actually the point made in the title - The Obama Relationship: A Major Benefit Nobody’s Talking About - which I’m most interested in.

Because, while I realise that how a person treats, and feels about, their spouse can show an awful lot about their character - and that the Obamas’ happy and healthy relationship is certainly a benefit, not a hindrance - I don’t think that a politician’s personal life reflects their ability to lead or make the correct policy decisions (just look at Slicky Willy). And I certainly don’t think that it should be a reason to vote or not vote for him/her.

That said: if Barack Obama was the Republican candidate, there’s no doubt in my mind that that the GOP would be making an awful lot of his 16-year-long, apparently faithful, marriage that’s produced two beautiful daughters. What with them being the party of ‘Christian family values’, an’ all.

The Democrats have made no such fuss over the Obamas’ marriage - and I, for one, am delighted about that. I’m glad that this is “the major benefit that nobody’s talking about”. Because even if Barack and Michelle are a good role model for a relationship - and I do believe that they are, as they truly seem to be equals and best friends who openly love and respect each other - I don’t think that should be a reason to vote them into the White House. And it’s nice to see that somewhere along the line, the Dems seem to have made the same judgement, too.

Michael Seitzman has written a great piece on The Huffington Post about Obama’s performance last night. Called Barack Obama And The Return Of Grace, here’s an excerpt (my bolding) -

“Watch Barack Obama in that debate and you see a man who is confident but not arrogant - hence the regular acknowledgment of his opponent when they agree. He is sure of himself, yet thoughtful in the way he explains his position. He is more than capable of being Commander In Chief, yet just as interested in being Diplomat In Chief. Standing on that podium next to a walking shadow of our past, Barack Obama stands as a clear signpost to our future.

McCain is his own history book, more interested in listing the stamps on his passport and forcing our collective groans at every mention of his maverickness and his POW imprisonment, than he is in providing us a vision of any real future under his leadership. Never mind the new cold war John McCain promises us with our enemies, what about the one he promises to perpetuate with our fellow Americans? Ask yourself this question, can you even imagine that kind of mannerless, undiplomatic, insulting discourteousness from Barack Obama? Not a chance. Obama’s unwillingness to display anger may be something that his critics see as proof of his inability to win, but it happens to be the very quality that proves he can lead.”

Indeed. And about those two bolded points:

As I wrote last night (well, this morning): John McCain was the living embodiment of the status quo and of the past last night; Barack Obama was the living embodiment of the future. Interestingly, in over 90 minutes, McCain only uttered the word “change” - his mantra of recent weeks - once. Is this a reversal of strategy? Has he realigned himself with Bush and the Republican administration? I think this might be the case. John McCain certainly came across as ‘the old guard’ last night - and I don’t see how he can change that frame, now he’s put himself back in it.

Secondly: while many of us knew about Obama’s mild manner, his thoughtfulness, his calm and measured approach to issues and style of delivery - all adjectives that could never be applied to McCain - last night was, of course, about millions of Americans watching this, properly, for the first time.

So the more I think about it, the more I realise that Obama didn’t need to deliver those killer punches that we lily-livered, bleeding heart, liberal egghead communists so wanted him to deliver to McCain. Obama just had to be himself: intelligent, gentlemanly, capable, rational, confident, positive, knowledgeable, reasonable, gracious.

Because while he may not have been tougher, or angrier, or made his points in a punchier, more memorable way, Barack Obama ultimately came across as the better man last night. And in doing so, I think he potentially reached the hearts and minds of the American people far more effectively - and on a far more important level - than he could have done with any killer-punch soundbite.

OK, so I’m not going to go into a long dissection or commentary on the presidential debate here - it’s 3.50am for gawd’s sake - except to sum it up with the following:

Obama absolutely held his own. He came across as very smart, very calm, very thoughtful, very measured and yes, presidential. He was, of course, probably far too wordy and wonky for some people - and while there were flashes of emotional brilliance, they were, sadly, only that: flashes. The snappy sucker-punches we were all hoping for failed to materialise.

McCain came across much better than he has done in recent weeks. Possibly because he wasn’t using a teleprompter. He’s much better off-the-cuff than when reading prepared speeches and suddenly seems emotionally connected with what he’s saying.

Obama kept saying “John is right”. On the one hand, this made him seem generous, intelligent and bipartisan; on the other, it kept making McCain sound good. Arrrgghh.

McCain tried the opposite tactic: continually telling us that Senator Obama just “doesn’t understand”. It was at best patronising and at worst aggressive. But I’m sure his base loved it.

McCain never looked at Obama once. This made him seem scared (and rude). Obama, on the other hand, would often look across at McCain as he made certain points.

In general: Obama focused on the future; McCain focused on the past (and even seemed to be bringing up the idea of the past in our future. Cold War seconds, anyone?). Obama was positive, McCain negative. I’d say that this was the starkest difference between the two, and the nub of how they came across.

McCain kept talking about what he had done - votes and decisions and anecdotes, “I” this and “I” that - keen to remind us of his record and his history (he even invoked himself when asked about 9/11). This tactic made him seem arrogant, defensive and backward-looking - but Obama could have done with more of the “I” stuff. People don’t know him well enough; they don’t know his record.

It’s hard to say right now who came out with the best soundbites, but I’m suspecting Obama. Which could mean that some of the post-debate spin will go his way.

But in short: I’d say it was a tie.

And the overriding feeling as it was all being played out? That we were, quite simply, witnessing the status quo versus the future. The current regime, the current situation - the way America has operated for the past 8 years - versus a new regime and the possibility of a very different future for the United States.

John McCain represents one. Barack Obama represents the other. There they were: your two choices, America. And that’s another reason why it’s a tie - because I can’t see many people changing their minds, one way or the other, based on tonight’s performance from the two of them. You either want the status quo to continue - or you want a change. And it really is as simple as that.