An analysis (another one) of the debate

[garthranzz]

Because it was broadcast on Shabbat, I only saw it tonight, via the web. Here's my response. Haven't checked anyone else's yet. Will do so now.



First, my wife’s reactions. A prefix: She does not follow politics and dislikes the back and forth. She comes from a very Republican family. She opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, though. I’ve managed to convince her that Bush is not just incompetent, but malevolent. She also sees how enthusiastic I’ve been about Obama. So she had some prejudice against McCain going in; but she had never heard Obama speak. She watched the first half. Herewith her impressions:
McCain was condescending, he talked about how long he’d been around which has nothing to do with how effective he’ll be, he sounded like a tired old man, his wishing Ted Kennedy well came across as very insincere.

Obama is a good speaker, she’s glad she got to hear him; he’s polished with a reassuring voice, gives off a sense of strength and secutiry; he answered McCain very well and didn’t let McCain push him around.

Herewith my initial reactions: McCain emphasized three points: his experience, his bipartisanship, and how bad Obama is. He was very aggressive; the audience silence worked against him because his one-liners got no laughs. Since I’m familiar with much of the history he referred to, I found some - many - of his references over-generalized and disingenuous. Like my wife, I did not find the “history lessons” as compelling as I think McCain wanted them to be, since there often didn’t seem to be relevant connections to current situations, other than that McCain was there then and is here now. His referrals to his bipartisanship, like his reference to Kennedy, rang hollow because of his record of the past 8 years. His attacks on Obama reminded me of Bush against Kerry, and even Gore. In fact, much of McCain’s performance reminded me of Bush. The vocal modulation, very emotive, the treatment of his opponent, the repetition of talking points. (Oh, yes, cut spending was another bit of parroting.) Like Bush, he also cut off his opponent and talked on what seemed past his time. At one point Lehrer said they had used the same amount of time, but it didn’t seem that way.

Obama laid out broad policy issues, had command of more details, focused on ideas, visions - leadership issues. When he pointed out McCain’s mistakes or misjudgments, he did so politely. Several times he tried to correct McCain’s misstatements (that’s not true) but was not allowed to do so. Obama came across as thoughtful, a man of insight and foresight.

McCain rarely hesitated; his speech was rapid fire. Obama often paused, formulating his words. Several times he stumbled over what he was going to say, a feeling I know well, since his mind was working faster than he could speak; that is, he was already onto his next analysis and argument in his mind while he also had to explain the last to the audience. This to me is a sign of a facile and flexible mind.

I thought Obama missed an important opportunity when McCain raised the issue of the Holocaust and Israel. He should have said something about Israel - for example, that Bernard Lewis, one of the world’s leading experts on Iran, agrees that Obama’s approach is the best for Israel’s security.

Obama should also have had a few more zingers - one-liners prepared. Given his mastery of the oratorical elements, a few good one-liners would have given him a decisive victory. To use the boxing analogy that’s floating around, Obama avoided any heavy blows, but the few times he had McCain on the ropes, he didn’t finish him off.

McCain’s aggression struck me as rude - my wife saw it as condescending. His refrain that Obama “doesn’t understand” was only part of it. He was like the southern master giving it to the uppity Black man, or, from the sixties, the Establishment know-it-all dismissing the youthful hippie. I’m in my fifties, and I found McCain’s behavior rude and obnoxious. I think younger voters - and women - would be extremely turned off.

In “scoring” the debate, my impression is that those who were looking for a McCain victory found one. They can “hang their hats” on enough points to say he won. Those who were looking for an Obama victory can also claim he won, because he didn’t lose. For Obama, in this setting, holding his own on foreign policy issues - which he did (more in a second) - was equivalent to victory.

(On the foreign policy issues Obama was able to enlarge the frame and define it as more than Iraq, but as economic, standing in the world, China, etc.)

On reflection, I feel a certain bitterness because this sounded so much like a re-run of the ‘04 debate between Bush and Kerry. Maybe this time more Americans - and pundits - will judge the whole thing a bit more critically.

If so - and this addresses the third group, those who had not made up their minds, those who were not yet definite supporters of either candidate and might be expected to judge the performances critically and skeptically - Obama won by a decision, for the following reasons:

He did not make the debate personal, but professional. McCain’s rudeness will count against him, because the audience will feel the aggression directed at them as well. Obama came across as the 21st century leader, one who sees broad patterns, integrates challenges and solutions (energy as key to national security), and is willing to concede that his opponent has strengths, good ideas and something to contribute. (Think Lincoln in Team of Rivals.) So McCain, for all his talk of bipartisanship, spent the night slamming Obama. Obama, though he pointed out McCain’s misjudgments and his ties to Bush, also acknowledged McCain good points and positive contributions (i.e., on torture). So Obama came across as the one best able, in the future, to work across the aisle.

Rhetorically, I would have the following pieces of advice for Obama:
1. Use more anecdotes and details. When he talked about the nurse and teacher, he got specific in a way that McCain only did when mentioning soldiers. Those short narratives work. When Obama mentioned his wrist-band, it countered McCain’s. This should not be overdone, since it’s not Obama’s style. But, for example, when he mentioned homeowners who have to drop their health insurance, add a “for example, Selma Thompson in Arizona.” When he mentions winter heating oil, name a city in Michigan that’s having a hard time providing it. He doesn’t need a lot of these, but a few will do.

2. Maintain composure. For the most part he did. But when McCain was distorting his record, all those “That’s not true” objections, since he didn’t get to interrupt, began to sound like Gore’s sighs. McCain is a master of dominating the conversation - my wife was turned off because he came across as a control freak. Here’s where a put-down (much like his comment to Hillary, you’re likable enough) would work. Reagan’s “there you go again,” which made Carter seem icy and Reagan “avuncular” as one commentator put it would work here. That is, using “rhetorical jui-jitsu” (A term from Henirichs’s Thank You For Arguing) will fluster McCain. Rather than let the aggression and mike-grabbing get under his skin, Obama should remain cool - because McCain did interrupt him and got away with it.
When McCain finishes a rant, Obama should simply turn to him and say, “Are you done? Because I want to make sure you’re finished.” Or, “I hope I’ll be able to get a few words in while John catches his breath.” Those are off the top of my head, but I’m sure he can come up with suitable responses. The point is to needle McCain and “get him off his game,” as the cliché goes. Perhaps something disarming like, “John, are you mad at me? Because, when I’m president and you’re back in the Senate, I was hoping you’d find that bipartisan spirit you used to have and work with me. But it’s hard to work with you when you’re angry.”
Hopefully Obama won’t come across as nervous at all next time - a few times he did, see below. A well turned phrase or rhetorical device would help. Obama has a perfect delivery for this (again, the Clinton remark - and another one about Hillary advising him).

3. Counter-attack. Obama now knows, if he didn’t before (and he should have) what McCain’s talking points are. While Obama was talking about a wide range of issues, McCain harped on the few points mentioned above. It’s a powerful rhetorical technique. But by exposing the “man behind the curtain,” by pointing out the technique, the audience will be aware of it and not buy into it so readily - sort of like knowing how a magic trick is done.
So when McCain repeats a talking point instead of addressing the issue, Obama should say something like, “John, we’ve heard that point three times tonight. Are you trying it out for your stump speech? The question was are we safer now than before 9/11, not if you’ve ever done something bipartisan.” (Again, I assume Obama’s team, and Obama himself, can improve on that.)

4. Take a deep breath and frame the question. There were too many “look’s” - although I saw that McCain adopted Obama’s “let’s be clear” toward the end. Use the quickness of mind as an advantage. Fill the thinking space with some Ethos (again see Thank You For Arguing). Lehrer: “Are we safer now than before 9/11?” Obama: “That’s actually a complex question, Jim, because we have to define what we mean by safer. (Identifying the Stasis helps; using Aristotle’s frame (again, see TYFA), he might say, ”let’s define what we mean by safe.” (This makes the argument Demonstrative - refer to the book.) “If you mean safe from a plane crashing into the Twin Towers, yes. But if you mean are our ports safer? No, they’re actually less safe. If you mean are we safer from a suitcase with a nuclear device? No, because we can’t fight al Qaeda properly or rally our allies because nations don’t respect us and we’re losing the war in Iraq.” (Notice here the use of rhetorical questions.)
(I know it’s easier to suggest the use of rhetorical devices than to think of them on the spot. But McCain will not be able to use a chiasmus effectively - it’ll seem artificial and forced - whereas it will seem natural to Obama and will be the kind of line that will carry rhetorical and substantive (not that there’s a difference) weight.

5. Be specific about policy. When Obama ticked off the points of his energy plan, the basic principles of the economic rescue, he was very much in command and very impressive. McCain had nothing comparable.

6. Be rhetorical. And remember which audience you want to convince. It’s all about Ethos here. Obama’s strengths are his practical wisdom and disinterest - in non-technical terms, his vision and judgment. He needs to strengthen perception of his confidence (virtue). Interestingly, McCain tried to attack Obama’s flexibility of mind, saying Obama was stubborn - like Bush! - on the surge. Instead of a laugh, a rejoinder would have worked better. (John, you’ve been stubbornly supporting the wrong policy for six years.) Although, perhaps ignoring the comment was best, since I doubt it will have traction. (An aside, the lack of audience response worked against McCain because he couldn’t’ get laughs for his one-liners. Did I say that already?) Assume the presidency by focusing on Deliberative (choice) argument - keep the debate in the future tense, and keep McCain in the past tense (Forensic, or choice) - easy enough to do.
Choose the keywords of your narrative - “21st century” is one, “energy independence” is another.
One last thought: introduce new material. Don’t rely on the cliches of the campaign. Speak to the audience, not the question (or questioner). That is, first frame the question in such a way that the audience gets hooked on the answer. (Friends, Romans, Countrymen.) (Again, easier in a composed piece than in a live debate.)

Finally, McCain never looked into the camera. Obama did so a few times during the debate. But during his opening and closing remarks he did so steadily. A big, big plus.

More later, I’m sure.