England for Obama

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.

If you don’t have 96 minutes to spare: here’s footage and initial analysis from Keith Olbermann (and Richard Wolfe):

Remember that not-at-all funny New Yorker magazine cover?

Well, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert just made it funny:

The Two Most Wonderful Men In America - well, after Barack Obama, Joe Biden and my ex - are interviewed in Entertainment Weekly magazine this week. And it makes for fascinating reading, chiefly because it’s very rare to hear Stephen Colbert speaking out of character. As it were.

The interview was mainly about the election - and as we’re focused on Mr O on this here blog, here’s what the two of them said about him:

EW: The easy and prevalent comedic take on John McCain has been that he’s old. Has one emerged on Obama yet?
STEPHEN COLBERT: He’s a hope-ronaut. He’s in a rarefied level of hope where the rest of us have to take tanks up with us.

Is that really a comedic take? Seems more like a compliment.
JON STEWART: But it’s not, in the same way that the take on Al Gore was ”he’s too smart.” Even if you’re satirizing how wonderful they are, that hyperbole is setting them up for an expectation to fail, especially within the American political system now, where authenticity — and apparently mediocrity — are the manna that the populace feeds upon. To set somebody up as if they’re above us, and elitist…my God, you couldn’t do anything worse.

I also loved this from Stephen:

“One of the things I love about my character is I can make vast declarations and it doesn’t matter if I’m wrong. I love being wrong. So my character can tell you exactly what’s going to happen: The Democrats are going to change everything. We’re going to have gay parents marrying their own gay babies. Obama’s gonna be sworn in on a gay baby. The oath is gonna end ‘So help me, gay baby’.”

You can read the whole interview here. Highly recommended.

According to Today on Radio 4, the discussions in Washington about the economic bailout turned into “a shouting match” yesterday. And according to HuffPo, John McCain “sat quiet through most of the meeting, [and] never offered specifics”. Probably because he doesn’t know much about the economy, eh? I mean, don’t get me wrong, I don’t know much about the economy, either. But then, I didn’t just fly to Washington saying that I was going to help. Although I’m perfectly happy to make tea for everyone if they need me.

Meanwhile, back in Oxford, Mississippi, preparations are taking place for tonight’s televised debate. Or rather: would-be televised debate, as according to news sources, it is still ‘in limbo’*.  John McCain has said all along that he won’t take part until and unless a deal has been reached in Washington - and, well, it doesn’t look like that’s gonna happen today, Johnny boy.

So will he really balk? Will Barack Obama be standing there tonight opposite an empty lectern? I somehow doubt it. If McCain doesn’t show up tonight, he will have thrown away the election. Instantly. Of course, if he still turns up before any deal has been agreed, he will look like he’s going back on his word - but in the big scheme of things, that would be far less damaging and I’m sure the GOP could spin it, as they spin everything else.

More on the goings-on in Washington yesterday here and here - and here’s our man Obama giving his sensible take on the whole affair:

I have to say, I find it both remarkable and quite, quite hand-rubbingly brilliant that it’s the right wing of the Republican party that’s scuppering Bush’s bailout plan - because, to their minds, this is “socialism” and the free market should be left to, well, run free (oh, and by the way: John McCain is in their ranks). The Republicans didn’t squirm when Hurricane Katrina happened and millions of people needed aid. They don’t squirm when they need health care, because they can afford it. But they’re squirming now.

I keep thinking of a great quote I heard from a commentator the other day: “Profits are privatised, but debt is socialised”.

And so it seems. In the Republicans’ America, at least.
*I love that headline: Debate Remains In Limbo. Is that ‘Limbo, Ohio’? I wouldn’t put it past my American friends and their crazy place names…

Erm, providing the debates actually happen, that is… But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that they will, eh?

Joseph Romm is posting a series of fascinating articles on The Huffington Post about debate strategy.

Part one sums up what Obama needs to do delivery-wise - in a nutshell: be a straight-talker, but not a smart-talker - and looks at who won previous presidential debates, and why. (Note: there are a lot of Shakespeare references. See, I knew we Brits had something to offer Obama!)

Part two talks about convincingly ‘framing’ your opponent; to successfully undermine him - by focusing and re-focusing on his character flaws - so that the post-debate spin goes in your favour. In Obama’s case, says Romm, it’s about making “the entire post-debate spin about the various lies and out-of-touch, intemperate statements that McCain inevitably makes”. This is a strategy, he says, that can’t lose.

Part three, promises Romm, “will focus on how Obama can use McCain’s character flaws to incite the hot-headed Arizonan to make the maximum number of mistakes and tell the maximum number of lies”. Ooh! Can’t wait.

So, in fact, there’s nothing major to report this morning following yesterday’s bombshell from John McCain. Except that - as I wrote in my comment to P Grecco last night - it’s come out that the Republican camp want to push the presidential debate back to October 2, which is, surprise surprise!, the date that the vice presidential debate is due to take place. ie. they want to push that back too, to an unspecified date. Ideally, presumably, ‘never’.

Could this possibly be because they fear that Sarah Palin is at best unprepared for, or at worst unable to cope with, her debate with Joe Biden? Could this entire ‘rushing to Washington’ thing have been purposely constructed in order to push back - or even eliminate - as many debates as possible? I wouldn’t put it past the GOP.

For what it’s worth - and it actually is worth quite a lot - polls of American people on various news sites seem to show that the overwhelming majority think the debate this Friday should still go on (looks like McCain got the public opinion wrong on this one - oops); and the debate commission is also insisting, along with Obama, that it goes ahead.

In the meantime, both Barack Obama and John McCain are going to be in Washington today, at the invitation of George Bush - although apparently this invite was extended months ago - and there were some big TV moments yesterday.

Firstly, George Bush addressed the nation about the economic crisis and the proposed bailout plan. Here’s the MSNBC Nightly News team analysing what was, essentially, a sales pitch:

Secondly, The Late Show With David Letterman saw its host rip into John McCain, who was supposed to be appearing on it but pulled out at the last minute due to his rush to Washington (only it turns out he was in the studio next door):

And thirdly, video of Katie Couric’s Monday night interview with Sarah Palin appeared on YouTube (my jaw, which had been slowly moving towards the floor, actually hit it on Palin’s last line):

MSNBC covers Barack Obama’s performance in Florida this week - and Matt Lauer interviews him. Matt Lauer also wastes valuable interviewing time asking him about swapping Joe Biden for Hillary Clinton. Erm, right - ‘cos that’s gonna happen:

Rachel Maddow takes a look at the latest polling figures in the crucial states come November 4. In a nutshell: it’s tight.

*Update* Take a look at the latest national poll.