Variations on a Theme

I knew going into the debate on Wednesday night that we weren't likely to hear anything substantially different from the previous debates. But third time's supposedly the charm, and I wanted to see what Bob Schieffer could do as the moderator.

Disclaimer: In the interest of full disclosure, I should say up front that I have an affinity for Bob Schieffer that seems to border on doting. I thoroughly appreciate his years of experience in dealing with slippery politicians, and managing to actually extract some concrete positions from them. Moreover, he does this in a classy, reserved way that is perhaps the antithesis of the rather gruff and abrasive approach taken by Tom Brokaw a few days ago.

On Wednesday night, Mr. Schieffer did not disappoint.

Some articles point to the fact that the format of the debate was simply more conducive to actually having a debate. Sitting at a table, in such close proximity to the other candidate and the moderator makes it more difficult to willfully ignore or speak over either person. And I suspect there is a good amount of truth to this. I also would argue that the other half of the debate's merits were brought out by Schieffer.

But, alas, Mr. Schieffer himself is not running for president. My guess is that he has far too much wisdom for that. Not to mention, do you know how many politicians this guy has associated with over the last forty years? And I hear he invites them to chat weekly. Without preconditions!

Anyway. Let's get down to the nitty-gritty, if you will, of the debate proper.

I agree with Nate Silver's assessment of McCain's arc in the debate. I think McCain was coming off as stronger, and more than holding his own at the beginning of the debate. But as soon as McCain got into the question of running a negative campaign, he tripped over his own feet, and couldn't really get his stride back.

The problem, in my eyes, was that McCain has been proving that "erratic" label that Obama tossed out there in his ads. It's one thing for your political opponent to try and tag you with a label. It's another to prove him right.

As Nate points out, the public's perception is that McCain has been running the more negative campaign. So for McCain to go out there and try and blame Obama for the negative tone because he refused to take part in town hall meetings and then immediately sling some more mud at Obama about his campaign spending and dishonesty, it just doesn't seem credible.

And Obama, to his credit, seemed to take everything McCain threw at him and deftly knocked it aside with a calm and rather casual air. The "controversy" over what John Lewis said about McCain was never going to play particularly well for McCain no matter how he phrased it, I thought, so I was surprised he brought it up at all.

But Obama came back with a particularly effective counter-punch: "I think the American people are less interested in our hurt feelings during the course of the campaign than addressing the issues that matter to them so deeply."

With one line, Obama eloquently defended himself with a double whammy, saying two key things in the subtext. First, there have been insinuations against me that I'm a covert Muslim, a terrorist, even the antichrist, and you don't hear me whining about it, John. Second, I agree wholeheartedly that we should be discussing the issues, so why don't you actually do that, Senator?

And this exchange, of course, didn't end there. And I would like to point out, that it was Obama who actually seemed to tire of this back and forth over nonsense first. He tried to steer the conversation back to the issues, but McCain would have none of it. And this is where McCain began to really become a little frenetic:

"it's not the fact that Senator Obama chooses to associate with a guy who in 2001 said that he wished he had have bombed more, and he had a long association with him. It's the fact that all the -- all of the details need to be known about Senator Obama's relationship with them and with ACORN and the American people will make a judgment.
And my campaign is about getting this economy back on track, about creating jobs, about a brighter future for America. And that's what my campaign is about and I'm not going to raise taxes the way Senator Obama wants to raise taxes in a tough economy. And that's really what this campaign is going to be about."

Now, you can call me biased, because I am, but this seems to be a bit of a non-sequitor. McCain spends all this time talking about how untrustworthy his opponent is, and sums it all up by saying, "And that's how I'm gonna fix the economy." Huh?

If you notice, Obama did not bring up Mr. Keating, and McCain, for all his huffing and puffing was unable to offer any examples of Obama's campaign being quite as nasty as his own. And for the record, not that I like any of the options, but I'd rather be compared to Keating and George Wallace than Osama bin Laden and the anti-Christ. For one thing, people don't want to lynch George Wallace.

Then there was McCain's quip that Obama wants to "spread the wealth around." I guess I can understand how this can frighten some people, and how they might think that the big bad government is going to come in and take your money from you. But spread the wealth around might not sound like such a bad alternative to what McCain proposes, which is to make sure the wealth stays exactly where it is: with the big corporations and mortgage brokers. That's what the bailout, improperly applied will do. That's what buying up all the bad debt by the government will do. And that money, which is coming from taxpayers, so I guess that means Joe the plumber, etc, will go to... *drum roll* big corporations! (AKA, NOT Joe the Plumber.)

Incidentally, I feel really bad for Joe the Plumber. That's not how I want my fifteen minutes of fame to get wasted.

And later, McCain tried to explain that he would test judges on their qualifications, but would not impose litmus tests. It just so happens however that ideological positions, like being for Roe v. Wade, makes a judge unqualified in his eyes. This, we're led to believe is not a litmus test. In their closing remarks, McCain gave us his standard fare about embodying change in his own way, and being a humble servant of our country time and time again. Obama gave us his story of the hope of brighter days if we buckle down and come together and sacrifice. I know which one resonates with me more. I hope that it resonates with the American people, too.

So, overall, I thought Obama was more presidential. He was calmer, more direct on policy issues, and in command of all the material. McCain seemed desperate to attack, and probably was. He did seem to try to tear Obama down more than lift himself up, and I don't think it worked in his favor much, if at all. Nothing really new was added to the conversation (No, not even Joe the Plumber) and that suits me just fine because it means Senator Obama should still be way up in the polls tomorrow.

To be fair, though, I kind of wish we could bring back the good old no-holes-barred 19th century debates where anything goes, and you've got to have the wit and grit to survive, and you can get away with stuff like this:

“I don’t understand that there is any place where any alteration [...] would be changed except in the state legislature, and in the Congress of the United States, and I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, but as Judge Douglas does seem to be in constant horror of some such thing I do recommend that the Judge be kept at home, and placed in the next legislature to vote it off.”
-Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln Douglass Debates, 1858.

Zing.