Here’s an article that, some might say, speaks to our framework of political terminology.
I imply no support of — or opposition to — the content in a link.
The debate tonight — an analysis.
McCain was on offense much of the time. Ahead of time, this is a plan I would have thought of in a positive light given the poll numbers and the belief that Obama doesn’t do well when forced into a corner. Tonight, however, I thought Obama performed rather well. All he really had to do was appear stately, promote his understanding of the issues, and enhance a the public’s perception of him as a leader. He would be able to accomplish this if McCain appeared too petty or too aggressive. In the end, I think this was a close debate, leaning slightly toward McCain, especially when viewed through the lens we had coming into the evening: that Obama has a clear polling advantage and an advantageous economic situation.
McCain’s response to the insurance question was very good. He challenged Obama to describe the size of the “fines” included in his health care plan. When Obama didn’t provide the answer, McCain called him on it. Very aggressive.
Foreign Policy and Interventionism Regarding Rwanda, Darfur, Somalia, etc.
This was a very broad question, one which will trigger various responses from different listeners. Obama had the first answer and gave a very appealing emotional response to what is admittedly an emotional question. McCain’s response was both optimistic and rational. It was an exceptionally good response to a question that is difficult to answer second.
He offered a very notable insight on the limits of our ability to improve a situation and cited Somalia as evidence. Probably the most impressive answer of the evening from McCain (along with the Pakistan remarks).
Will You Bomb Pakistan?
I don’t like hearing this question asked. What exactly do you want the candidate to say?
The question presupposes a hypothetical target in a very fragile country but doesn’t discuss the reliability of our intelligence or any current political considerations. I think Obama gave the concise and effective answer, though it wasn’t necessarily specific. It included the term “encourage democracy.” For my money, though, McCain provided the answer I think all candidates should be giving. If Pakistanis are listening to that debate…what are they thinking? We want them to cooperate with us, don’t we?
My opinion: Our relationship with Russia for the past decade has been one of missed opportunities. Things were better in 1998 than they were in 2008. We’ve always known that they could elect a nationalist who would curtail their political progress. Sure, enough…it happened. Meanwhile, we’ve been expanding NATO into their backyard, opposing their foreign policy concerns, and criticizing them very publicly. All we have for them now is flamboyant rhetoric.
Concerning the debate: Consider what Russians are thinking when they watch this debate and when they read the headlines tomorrow. You can bet that the question of most interest to them isn’t the one about the Peace Corps. This doesn’t even need media spin. “Do you think that Russia under Vladimir Putin is an evil empire?”
More opinion: The correct answer, if I may suggest one, is to highlight the fact that there is nothing in the Russian DNA that would make that country an “evil empire.” Also, make the point that you are not interested in fomenting trouble between two nations that should be seeking better relations. McCain very barely spoke to that effect, but neither candidate was able to put a positive spin on the topic.
Usually McCain does rather well in a town hall format. He forfeited much of his advantages and decided to go on the attack on a night that probably would have witnessed a non-aggressive opponent. McCain remained on the issues, which certainly helped his case and mitigated the risk of seeming excessively divisive. Obama was well composed and neutralized much of this as well.
McCain made some typical McCain moves: pacing, chuckling, and tossing in some odd jokes. We accept it, though — he’s like that uncle you can’t really criticize…
Unfortunately, these debates are very often about style (or maybe the color of Nixon’s jacket). In that regard, Obama displayed his comparative advantage and kept a good countenance and composure throughout the event.
What Don’t You Know?
Every candidate should be prepared for this one (and certainly is). Both responses were good and , though similar, exactly what should have been said. Both of them, however, devolved into a monologue about their respective backgrounds. Personally, I’m not interested in an emotional sales pitch from a presidential candidate, especially when time is at such a premium. Keep talking about the credit crisis. Perhaps more annoying is that this is one of the first things that the ABC analysts wanted to discuss afterwards.
Blog in the headlines, concerning media concern for McCain:
Although some of these points would appear to be valid (circa February 2000), it really is hard to draw a comparison with the racket Obama has going.
Consider the gap in coverage between the two.
Probably a little better than my recent post on the topic:
Due to a lull in the campaign action, I’m here to rifle off some thoughts on these energy policies.
First of all, Paris Hilton has a balanced and generally agreeable plan. I think both candidates would admit some support for it.
Obama is being absurd
An energy rebate for families paid for using windfall oil profits? Is he going to tax the profits of the Saudi royal family?
People in the media continue to point fingers at the supermajor oil companies for price gouging. They cite their “record profits,” which are, of course, in the billions. Numbers like that…just…sound so large! Sometimes you’ll even hear a politician refer to their record “profit margins.” Of course, profit margins can be expressed as either a percentage of revenue or as an absolute number. Which do you think is their favorite?
Let’s do a quick financial check on Exxon-Mobil, as of today.
profit margin: 10.17%
operating margin: 15.72%
Pfizer has numbers of 18.52% and 31.15%, respectively. Why aren’t drug companies being attacked? (Because it would be counter-productive to attack them also, would be my answer). Is it because they sell something that is “good?” For what it’s worth, Altria makes 21.38% and 35.99%, respectively.
The average profit margin for many large cap companies is somewhere around 8-9%. The oil sector has generally been achieving 9-10%.
NEWS FLASH: The price of OIL is going up. Oil is the major component of gasoline. Therefore, the price of gasoline is going up. Oil companies are paying more for oil and they are charging more for gasoline. Does this not make sense? When these politicians and talking heads quote oil profits they use absolute numbers. They have record profits, revenues, and costs. The dollar value has simply gone up (as the dollar itself withers).
Another fact: 0.05% of Exxon-Mobil is held by insiders. That’s incredible! Meanwhile, 53% of this company’s shares are held by institutions (typical Americans). When Exxon-Mobil makes a profit, so do a ton of retired Americans and anyone else saving for retirement.
Over 13% of Microsoft is held by insiders. Over 36% of Lee Enterprises is held by insiders.
McCain is Being Absurd
But selling tire gauges is at least an attempt at being funny. I don’t find this energy rebate to be entertaining.
Barack Obama’s recent rightward lurch on key issues is causing a revolt among left-wing bloggers and activists, who had been his earliest and most ardent supporters.
And, of late, he’s been doing a lot of unecessary stabbing, betraying his claims of being a new kind of politician. Not that I ever bought it, but Obama is now clearly not looking much different than every other Democratic politician who has ever turned his or her back on the base in order to prove centrist bona fides. That’s not an indictment, just an observation.
I just listened to the July 4th Edition of Left, Right, and Center. I highly recommend this podcast to anyone who is unfamiliar with it.
One thing caught my attention. Arianna Huffington mentioned that Obama should remain on track with his rhetoric from the primary season (a recently popular topic of conversation, it seems). She said that he should “[put] RFK’s speeches on his iPod” and should “[remind] himself of why he got into this race.” Sure enough, she really means it — and she even mentions the Kindle.
It seems to be an appeal to his…higher emotions…or something?
I tend to think that Barack Obama is a politician, just as everyone else in the Senate is a politician. From now until November his one and only job is to win an election. During a campaign season, that is every politician’s one and only job. The rest of it doesn’t matter if they lose. If you’re going to argue that he change his strategy, shouldn’t that include some argument about the benefit it would bring him? (She attempted to do this, rather unconvincingly, earlier in the show).
One of the things I can’t help but notice about Obama supporters is that they have such wide-eyed admiration of him that they seem to forget he’s a politician. He must appear to be something different.
Maybe I’m a cynic. Maybe Huffington’s cynic is your realist.