Scenes We'd Like to See #4: The Debate That Should Have Been
Why do we always do this? Why does every Democrat take the podium like a dishrag and let himself be wrung out by the Republican – who is invariably a moronic bully with nothing a few catch phrases and a cocky attitude in his favor? Where are our catch-phrases? More to the point, where is our anger, our passion, our simple human energy? Obama, like Kerry and Gore and Dukakis before him, seemed to have been coached by his ‘handlers’ to avoid showing any anger or outrage. He was flat-lining last night. Who are these handlers, anyway? I suspect they all work for Karl Rove. What strategy could have been more catrastrophically foolish and wrong-headed? How many times does caution have to fail before we learn that it's the most dangerous tactic -- that the measured drone of the policy wonk means death in the polls and doom at the polling place?
You know what Obama should have said as well as I do – you were probably shouting it at the screen, just as I was. By the fifth or sixth time that smug demented geriatric bully repeated his ludicrous sound bite about Obama “not understanding” and “not getting” something, I needed Obama to shout back:
“I don’t understand? I don’t get it? You have been wrong on everything! You were wrong on Iraq. You were wrong on Education and the environment. You were utterly wrong on deregulation. You fought for deregulation during the Keating Five scandal! You were so profoundly involved with the Savings and Loan melt-down, desperately trying to roadblock any regulation or investigation, that your were publicly scolded by your own colleagues. You think Iraq is the main front of the war on terrorism – why? Because George Bush told you so. You think we’re hunting Al Queda there? Al Queda wasn’t even there before we came! Saddam hated bin Laden and the feeling was mutual. You were so eager to prove we were winning the war that you walked through a Baghdad street market – and ripped off a rug salesman – just to prove it. Except you were surrounded by soldiers and guarded from the air by two attack helicopters. That market wasn't safe and you knew it. Your visit was photo op and a lie. Are you going to deny that now, and lie some more? Because America is tired of the lies and mistakes and corruption that you and your party represent.”
Or how about McCain's “The surge is working” line? Obama got trampled there. Why not tell the truth?
"Yes, it’s ‘working’ -- if you call a minor slow-down in the killing and a few more safe neighborhoods in Baghdad a victory. But there’s no democracy in Iraq, no working army, nothing like a self-sustaining government. You’re kidding yourself! No, you’re lying to yourself. But you can’t lie to the American people any more. Not when you're on the stage with me."
Finally, when McCain trotted out the tired old lie about Obama raising taxes on people making $42,000 a year, Obama muttered something about it not being true and just let the crazy old geezer trundle on.
This is what he should have said -- and it didn't have to be ad-libbed. No quick thinking was required. Obama's people knew MCCain was going to pull these tricks. I knew it, and I’m a small-town housepainter. They’re savvy political operatives. They should have been ready with this response:
“Excuse me, Jim. I’m sorry, but I have to stop this right here and respond to the Senator. I have stated here that he is lying about my tax program, but he goes on lying about it as if I said nothing. He doesn’t listen or he doesn’t care. But maybe this will get his attention: I swear in front of every American citizen watching this debate tonight, that if what he says is true, if I really aim to raise taxes on families making under fifty thousand dollars, if he can find anywhere, in any speech or interview, in any statement or private correspondence, on my website, in my advertisements and pamphlets – anywhere – evidence that I actually said that, I will walk away from this campaign and cede the election to the McCain-Palin ticket. But listen to me, now! If he cannot find the evidence for this slanderous and inflammatory accusation, then HE MUST DO THE SAME. He must agree to terminate his campaign – not suspend it in a cheap meaningless theatrical gesture – but end it, if he cannot substantiate his claims about me. He says he’s telling the truth. Will he put his hopes for the Presidency on the line? Will you do that Senator – see, Jim, now we’re talking to each other! – because either you act like a man and do it, right here, right now, or you admit to the American people that you’re a liar.”
And McCain would have folded like a rusty beach chair.
And Obama would have won the election, right there and then.
But he didn’t. And maybe he never will.
And if McCain wins, it will be Obama's fault. Obama and his crack team of advisors. Or maybe they're just on crack. That might explain it.
This election is Obama's to lose, and he’s losing it. He's doing a superb, classically Democratic job of it. Just like Dukakis and Kerry and Gore, Oh my.
It’s Greek tragedy and it's farce, it's the Oresteia meets the Honeymooners. And it’s making me physically ill.
The worst part is, I’m absolutely certain that John McCain’s “Health care plan” won’t help me at all.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Barry Wightman
Emma Mustich
rmgosselin
RomanticPoetess
SheilaTGTG55
HenryR
Salon.com
Comments
Obama should have replied. "If I'm so lacking in judgment and experience,why did you pick Sarah Palin as your running mate?"
Or
"And Gov. Palin does have the requisite judgment and experience?"
Or
"Have you seen her on CBS News with Kate Couric?"
That would have thrown it back into McCain's court, but Obama may not have the killer instinct.
what we want to see, or, i'm sorry, just let me speak for myself...what i want to see is for someone as intelligent as obama to also be sharp and decisive in his rebuttals and in his presentation in general. he needs to start mixing it up. otherwise he just looks whiney.
(rated)
Great post.
OR
"Where IS Sarah, anyway?"
http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=23108
Of possible interest, from Howard Fineman of Newsweek today:
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/racetothefinish/archive/2008/09/27/sen-obama-you-re-no-muhammad-ali.aspx
Compares Obama to Muhammad Ali and says, "You're no Ali." But then says, "Maybe voters are fed up with leaders who start wars without studying the possible consequences. Maybe voters are tired of the kind of presidency that blows off Congress and its critics as unpatriotic. Maybe voters are tired of my-way-or-the-highway thinking. ... Surely, this is Obama’s own calculation."
Please.
Who started that talk about the "angry black man" risk , anyway? It's nonsense.
During this debate, there were what felt like 100 times when all Obama had to do was stop McCain's bullying with cold, hard facts. Or by coolly pointing out a tactic that McCain was trying to pull, and doing so in plain, simple terms.
He does not have to attack McCain, but, for crying out loud, he has to stop letting McCain attack him with untrue statements and distortions.
And he has to do so firmly, simply, and directly: like the wise adult child of a wrong-headed, stubborn aged parent.
Obama's job in these debates is to show the voters all the ways that McCain is WRONG -- and the wrong choice for president.
It is not his job to tell us that McCain is "right," as he did something like ten times last night.
That's what he failed to do last night, but that's what I hope to see him do in future debates.
Sen. Obama did just fine.
1. Obama isn't an angry black man. Not only does he not want to "play" one--given its potentially devastating political consequences ala Reverend Wright (and don't pretend that it wouldn't inspire undercurrents of racial attacks on FOX and Rush) --but in fact, and more important, he seems hard-wired with a measured, cool demeanor. That is one of his very best strengths. Would you rather he faked it?
2. Do you have any evidence that his performance here harmed him? Because from what I gather McCain is the one getting reamed for his arrogance and "old school" focus on WW II tactics. His repetition of "BO's not understanding thus and so," while admittedly annoying and difficult to listen to for those of us who know better, is being played as general crankiness and out-of-touchness as far as I can tell.
3. I challenge your comparison b/t BO and Kerry and Gore, who both acquiesced in substantial ways to Republican (and media) narratives. Kerry did better than Gore, and Obama is worlds ahead of both. He directly responds to these narratives immediately (as in his bracelet comment or his putting the 18B earmarks into context), and it is a testament to his mental flexibility and intelligence that he can respond so cogently to the attacks in the arena in which they are thrown. That he is not doing so with anger seems to be your regret. I can't imagine preferring a disgruntled, risible President, knowing the holder of that office has access to the military and nuclear codes, and I think most Americans get that too. In fact, McCain's temperament is only now getting some (negative) play, and we cannot have it both ways. We cannot draw this contrast if our candidate succumbs (or, more accurately, pretends to succumb) to impulsive rage.
4. I don't disagree with you on the benefits of "straight-talk" (as it were) regarding McCain's tedious political tactics during the debate; that is, I agree it may have been helpful had Obama directly addressed the political machinations going on from McCain by, for example, laughing in an amused way and pointing out that in repeating the "He just doesn't understand..." line, he was developing a meme or talking point that he wished would stay in the public consciousness. (Obama could then have suggested that the American people are too smart for that and are insulted and disgusted by it as well). That would have effectively undermined any further attempts of McCain to do so and any traction it may have had in the aftermath (although as I mentioned, I'm not seeing said traction among media types or undecideds).
All that having been said, debates and public appearances are about thinking on your feet, and Obama is generally excellent in this category. McCain surprised me there as well. We can all indulge in armchair quarterbacking by pointing out a statement here or there that should or should not have been made, but of course each of us would have different solutions in mind.
As to your larger assessment that Obama should respond more emotionally, I disagree based on his given temperament and the potential trade-offs.
Because post-McGovern Democrats are wussies.
Since significant parts of the rest of the world has quite a lot of evil in it, Americans apply a minimum standard of toughness and vote accordingly.
Just a dream ...
Obama couldn't say that. He has already agreed that the "surge" worked, just like he said you're right John, what, 8 times! So he gave McCain that point. Which should rate another interrogative from you...
You seem to be suggesting that debates should reference some larger "truth", which is a great idea, but it's not going to happen anytime soon. Where was the truth when both candidates lied about Ahmadinejad saying that Israel should be wiped from the map? Or doesn't Jim Lehrer read Juan Cole? Is it possible that Obama actually believes that? If he does he is a very uniformed man. And where was the truth that the wars in Iraq and the Afhgan have killed a minimum of 600,000 and a maximum of 1.2 million people?
The real truth here is that Obama could have beaten McCain, he should have beaten McCain, but he did not. Why? It's not Monday morning quarterbacking to point out that many if not all of McSames' talking points were known, and better, much better ripostés could have been formulated.
Obama is supposed to lose, he threw the fight.
There's a two time democratic President who was in charge of things during a time where we had budget surpluses and a growing economy who was a hell of a lot better than Obama is now.
You listen to Clinton now, and he's still got more game than Obama ever will have.
Moderates come across as limp and unexciting. Extremists are, well, "extreme." They come across as ranters and ravers, which sometimes seems like strength.
Bill Clinton took on both George Bush Sr. and Bob Dole. He probably pissed them off big time because when they attacked him, he came right back at them and beat them. Remember, Clinton threw Preston Bush and what he said right in George Bush Sr's face.
There is nothing wrong with calling out the opponent when he does something dirty or says something that's wrong.
It is time for democrats to understand that the opponent is the enemy and must be defeated. If you find a weakness, exploit it over and over again until he finds a way to counter it. Then find another one and exploit that.
Be merciless until they concede, and then be gracious.
In the midst of the unsettled financial markets there's been general agreement about one thing: the outcome of the current crisis will be far-reaching changes to the global financial system. For example, Morgan Stanley's chief economist Stephen Roach believes the world's central banks are now being forced to look afresh at how financial bubbles should be handled. Up to now their attitude has been that the markets must correct financial bubbles themselves.
However, the massive emergence of various kinds of derivative instruments created such huge inverted pyramids above an underlying asset class (such as prime mortgages) that things get out of hand when bubbles burst. Roach believes that central banks can hardly afford to condone bubbles in the future.
The question to be answered is: How and when they must take steps to avoid meltdowns?
Fin Week
As some of Wall Street's most venerable financial institutions teeter on the brink of self-destruction and are either taken over - in the case of Bear Sterns - or, as in the case of Lehman Brothers, allowed to implode, very few financial sectors appear capable of weathering the storms.
In view of the "bail out" agreement reached this past weekend it seems as if financial markets throughout the world will however react positively to this announcement. An announcement in my opinion not made by choice, however rather by force! Financial Guru - Warren Buffet correctly remarked that if the "bail out" plan was not approved - the American Economy would face certain "meltdown"!
In lieu of this it stands to reason that there weren't much alternatives than to see the bail out plan pass through congress? A certain relief for most - al be it temporary. Both Presidential Candidates voted for the plan as has been seen. Not much of a choice by the looks and sounds of it!
Certainly the pressing question on our minds should be to now take a calm and responsible view back, on what has caused this catastrophy? We should all agree that it is a catastrophy, although suspended perhaps for the moment. One can only call it "suspended" as this has still to play out and we will see how this effects the struggling markets and economy alltogether in the short, medium and long term!
IS THERE ANOTHER 700 BILLION US$ available should this not work?
One cannot help but wonder after pondering on all of this for months on end - who is the biggest terrorist or threat facing America after all? Is it Osama Bin Laden - or worse, is it someone or something, much closer to home? I certainly don't want to be in the shoes of the current President and wonder if anybody in his right mind would like to be in the future President's shoes!
However, fill the shoe we have to, and it is now up to every single one of us to realise that the problems facing America is far greater than we want to believe. Republican, Democrat or Independant all stood together, cried together and worked together when the tragedy of 9/11 struck!
The tragedy of September 2008 is far worse!
We don't have the liberty of taking on the world at present! No matter how righteous our beliefs are, no matter how convinced we are that terrosism should be fought in every corner, every nook and cranny, and in any place in the world. More Americans have died in this war than in 9/11 and we are not calling it a tragedy or catastrophy? No, we accept it because we are dying for our country, our beliefs and our ego!
Senator McCain says that he will not see to it that we pull out of this war before victory! He knows how it feels to come home defeated and to live to the consequences of knowing that a lot of people, or so he believes - has died in vain!
Are we staying at war because we don't want to feel bad? Are we loosing our children because of ego's?
Or worse, are we staying at war to loose our country and our very excistence?
WE ARE FACING A POSSIBLE MELTDOWN!
IS THIS A BAIL OUT - OR ARE THE BARBARIANS KNOCKING AT THE GATE?
Undoubtedly the bail out is necessary, could it have been avoided - too late to ask! Can it be avoided in the future - we have no alternative but to believe it can! The question is how?
Now, we can tighten up the budgets on every field of the economy, we can harness in every corporate company to be more dilligent in their dealings. We can increase or decrease taxes, impose new legislation, fire the wrong doers or restructure government to be more lean and mean.
All of this is however in vain, if we are still going to remain a "country at war"!
It's simple economics people! The war is killing America! It costs us a hell of a lot more than it costs Osama Bin Laden and Company to fight this! Perhaps he is a lot more astute than we will give him credit for! Perhaps he has gone into hiding, knowing that sooner or later - the "meltdown" will begin!
Sure we need to keep face in the world! Are we doing this now?
I don' think so!
It is my opinion that if we wan't to weather the greatest economic storm ever to hit our shores, we need to act and act now, before it's to late! Our leader, Republic or Democrat will have to realise that we can't stay at war and build our economy up again - it's childish to even contemplate that.
If the world believes we are doing the right thing fighting terrorism offshore, then the world should climb in and help finance this war much more than they are currently doing! If not - we need to pack up and go home before it is too late!
No other country in the world other than America is facing a "meltdown"? Why should we?
I know there is a lot more to it than a normal citizen like you and me know about this alltogether. However, it is time we harness our strength as ONE NATION and forget about politics for now. We need to think about America - all of us!
The "Barbarians are at our Gate", not in Irak or Pakistan!
Join me in my blog: http://chasemorgan.wordpress.com
GOD BLESS US ALL!
Chase Morgan
The Republicans tend to go with bumper stickers. Chanting a shiny prepackaged mantra with no room for doubt or analysis comes across as 'strength' to those unwilling to think more deeply about the issues.
Unfortunately for the country, there are a whole lot of Americans in the latter category.
It's a tight race.
Hell, there was even a chance that McCain was going to win in Michigan.
That is unacceptable.
We need to destroy the son of a bitch. We need to get it through our head that the opponent is the enemy and he must be destroyed. If they don't like it, too bad. Rip them to shreds, and then when they try to patch themself up, whip out the scissors and cut them apart. They are the enemy. They must be destroyed without any mercy or compassion.
Beat the crap out of them until they concede and then shake their hands.