September 29, 2008

9/29: Friday Night Lights

Conservative bloggers almost unanimously proclaimed John McCain the winner of Friday night's debate. Righty bloggers praised McCain's energy, aggressiveness, and knowledge of foreign policy. They also argued that Barack Obama deferred to McCain on too many issues, as evidenced by his repeated use of phrases such as "John is right" or "I agree with John". Paul Mirengoff echoes many conservative bloggers when he writes: "McCain was the teacher; Obama was the promising but somewhat disappointing student."

Most liberal bloggers considered the debate a draw -- which, in their view, is good for Obama since he is currently ahead in the polls. As Markos Moulitsas summarizes, "This was McCain's turf. He needed a solid victory, and he didn't get it." Liberal bloggers are directing a lot of criticism at McCain for refusing to look at Obama during the debate and for repeatedly claiming that the IL senator "doesn't understand" various issues. Lefty bloggers believe that McCain came across as mean-spirited and condescending, and they're pointing to focus groups as evidence that McCain turned off undecided voters with his demeanor.

OBAMA DEBATE: Passing The Commander-In-Chief Test

Most liberal bloggers were pleased with Obama's debate performance:

• Moulitsas: "The consensus seems clear: This was McCain's turf. He needed a solid victory, and he didn't get it. At best, it was a tie. And with the next debates focusing on economic issues, McCain will be in hostile territory. My interpretation of all of this is that Obama won via the expectations game, but was a draw on the substantive issues. [...] Obama's plan was to show he was knowledgeable about foreign policy issues, and he did that. No flubs."
• Open Left's Matt Stoller: "Obama clearly won the debate. [...] McCain has to change the shape of the race, and he didn't do that last night."
• Daily Kos' MissLaura: "I was apprehensive about Obama's performance, having been underwhelmed throughout the primary season, and tonight I was pleasantly surprised. I knew the facts and the policies were on his side, but wasn't confident of his presentation. I was wrong, and I'm glad of it."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "The question is whether the candidate newer to the scene can stand toe-to-toe with the candidate longer on the national scene, and clearly on this front Barack Obama was able to speak as forcefully as John McCain. In this regard, Obama passed the most important test of the night. And to reiterate a point I made earlier, John McCain sounded like a Senator while Obama looked like a President."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Barack Obama clearly won the debate tonight. Hands down. Throughout the debate, Obama was very strong. He never let a McCain attack go unanswered. He mocked McCain appropriately. And, he sounded like a president. McCain looked old. He got bitchy and cranky several times."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Obama dominated McCain during the economic section (the first forty minutes), and kept delivering great lines the entire night [...] He rarely ventured into defensive territory, as he is known to do at some times. [...McCain] was a bit more fluid than Obama during the second forty minutes, but it is hard for me to believe that talking about cutting wasteful spending will reassure people during the economic crisis. [...] The foreign policy sections were about even, but that makes them a win for Obama because it wasn't supposed to be his strong suit."
• Ezra Klein: "If you thought McCain the only candidate in the race able to talk confidently and fluently about foreign affairs, you were disabused of that notion tonight. Many in the media, it seems, held that notion. But for McCain, decades of experience, both as a soldier and a politician, did not translate into a measurably superior grasp of international relations. For him to fulfill his own public promises and carefully cultivate persona, it needed to."

OBAMA DEBATE II: Too Cold? Or Just Right?

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher was one of several liberal bloggers who thought that Obama wasn't aggressive enough: "McCain controlled the debate tonight. He came off as a brittle, grumpy, mean-spirited old coot, but on the economy -- which should have been Obama's strong suit -- McCain managed to divert the conversation to tax cuts and kept Obama off the kitchen table issues where he excels. McCain was allowed to paint himself as a crusader for reform, and no mention was made of the Keating 5. [...] But the biggest problem for me was that McCain had a grab bag of adjectives he consistently used to characterize Obama -- 'naive, inexperienced' -- and every time he repeated them, it was like money in the bank. He worked them in at every opportunity, and their cumulative effect wore into Obama as the evening went on. Obama missed the opportunity to do the same and characterize McCain as brittle, rash, impulsive and out-of-touch. [...] The idea that you can run against a Republican for national office and remain above the fray was a nice one, but it isn't realistic. Obama needs to stop agreeing with McCain and reinforcing his message. It doesn't make him look statesmanlike, it makes McCain look right."

Other liberal bloggers disagreed:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "I know that many Obama supporters are disappointed that he passed on various opportunities to deliver a smackdown that McCain couldn't recover from. But having watched the guy for 18 months now, for better and worse, that's not who he is. What he did do though is stand on the stage with McCain for 90 minutes on what's supposed to be McCain's terrain. He had an easy command of the issues. And he didn't get rattled by any of McCain's attacks. For all those reasons, I think he had a much better night than McCain."
• The Atlantic's James Fallows: "Obama would have pleased his base better if he had fought back more harshly in those 90 minutes -- cutting McCain off, delivering a similarly harsh closing judgment, using comparably hostile body language, and in general acting more like a combative House of Commons debater. Those would have been effective tactics minute by minute. But Obama either figured out, or instinctively understood, that the real battle was to make himself seem comfortable, reasonable, responsible, well-versed, and in all ways 'safe' and non-outsiderish to the audience just making up its mind about him. [...] The evidence of the polls suggests that he achieved exactly this strategic goal. He was the more 'likeable,' the more knowledgeable, the more temperate, etc. [...] For years and years, Democrats have wondered how their candidates could 'win' the debates on logical points -- that is, tactics -- but lose the larger struggle because these seemed too aggressive, supercilious, cold-blooded, or whatever. To put it in tactical/strategic terms, Democrats have gotten used to winning battles and losing wars. [Friday] night, the Democratic candidate showed a far keener grasp of this distinction than did the Republican who accused him of not understanding it."
• The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates: "Liberals have a bully complex. Having gotten chumped repeatedly, we're confusing strength with arrrogance, toughness with strut. Take it from someone who learned it the hard way. They ain't the same, son. To paraphrase Carolyn Forche, Obama needs to do exactly would he did last night -- slice McCain to lace. But he needs to do it so quietly, calmly and efficiently, that even those who are paid to opine on such things, don't even notice the blood all over the floor."

MCCAIN DEBATE: The Mac Shows Who's Boss

Most conservative bloggers thought that McCain won the debate:

• NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru: "McCain won, and not, I think, by a small margin, either."
• Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "A strong McCain win. [...] As expected, McCain shines and Obama is on the defensive throughout. The good news for Obama is that more than 30 minutes were not on the specifics of foreign policy. But Obama stumbled badly on Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. McCain simply knows this stuff, and Obama again and again betrays that he does not."
• NRO's Stanley Kurtz: "I think McCain clearly won this debate, chiefly because he came across as advertised -- extremely comfortable and experienced on issues of defense and foreign policy. McCain speaks here like a man who knows his own mind, who's command of the game is so taken-for-granted that he can focus on aggressively on playing it to win. Obama also came off as advertised -- as a bright and earnest guy, but still in the process of coming to grips with these questions."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "There were no knockout blows in this debate, but McCain won on points -- a surprise for people like me who expected a crushing performance from the much more silver-tongued Barack Obama. That didn't happen tonight. Instead, Obama seemed at times to wither against McCain. 'I agree with John' is the takeaway line from the debate. Obama said it over and over and over. And how could he not? On a number of issues, McCain demonstrated superior judgment and understanding and clearly outclassed Obama in terms of familiarity and knowledge regarding those issues. When someone thoroughly schools you on a matter, you have little choice but to admit it and agree with the master on his arguments about those issues."
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Overall, John McCain won tonight's debate. No, he's not a glib, smooth talker like Barack is. But his understanding of foreign policy is so second-nature that he actually attains a kind of eloquence and definite intellectual forcefulness when he discusses it. [...] In contrast, one gets the feeling that Barack is both blustering, and choosing every word with care when he discusses foreign policy..."
• Michelle Malkin: "Who won? I'm giving it to McCain -- and you know I'm a tough grader on him. He was slow out of the gate -- a broken record on earmarks and spending -- but Obama failed to turn the bailout debacle against him. McCain hit his stride in the second half, schooling Obama on counterinsurgency, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and Russia. McCain made no major soundbite-able gaffes. It was more a matter of a few missed opportunities for McCain than the commission of any major errors. [...] Obama, on the other hand, committed several gaffes..."
• Mirengoff: "McCain was the teacher; Obama was the promising but somewhat disappointing student -- the one who knows lots of facts but ultimtely doesn't quite get the big picture. In reaching this verdict, I don't want to give the impression did Obama did badly. To the contrary, I think he debated quite well for the most past. Certainly, his performance should end the mantra of certain critics that Obama can't handle himself without a tele-prompter. The problem for Obama was not his performance; his problem was that once McCain got past his dreadful first 'round' of the debate, he excelled. McCain was more knowledgeable, more to the point, keener on the attack, and (above all) deeper than Obama."
• RedState's Jeff Emanuel: "Eight times tonight the freshman Democrat Senator from Illinois has responded to questions and McCain answers by saying, 'John is right.' Further, he listened to McCain's exceedingly knowledgeable response on Georgia by saying, in essence, 'What he said.' Tonight, Senator Obama has reinforced the simple fact that -- if he can shed the arrogance he wears on his sleeve -- he is very well prepared to be an understudy of an experienced, knowledgeable, principled President of the United States. Unfortunately for Obama and for the party that nominated him, America doesn't elect understudies President -- she elects Leading Men."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "From where I sit, McCain had a surprisingly strong night. [...] Maybe McCain went to the 'Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand' well one time too many. Maybe some voters will see it as condescending. (I can only imagine the howls of outrage on the liberal blogs right now.) But the overall message of the night was clear -- McCain is smart, familiar with the issues on a striking level of detail, knows what he wants to do. [...] Obama seemed a little shaky at times tonight -- his performance didn't boldly and clearly say, 'I know I'm new on the scene, but you can trust me; I am ready to succeed in the hardest job in the world.'"

MCCAIN DEBATE II: Good, But Not Good Enough

While most conservative bloggers thought that McCain won the debate, a few thought that Obama may have benefited more than McCain:

• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "This was, perhaps, the most boring debate I've seen. Rather than trying to win, both candidates were trying not to lose...to avoid making a mistake. Clearly, McCain wanted to stress experience, and has a much greater command of foreign policy than does Obama. But Obama held his own -- primarily by misrepresenting his past positions (such as support for missile defense, whether or not to negotiate with dictators without pre-conditions, etc.). I don't think that anyone won, which is bad for McCain, as it probably means the trajectory stays the same..."
• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "As the evening went on McCain warmed up a bit, but he was still mostly in 'bad McCain' mode. [...] Obama, meanwhile, was at his best. Generally he is below average when forced to speak extemporaneously, without a teleprompter. But tonight I thought he came across as plausible. He stammered much less than usual and didn't commit any obvious blunders. The bar probably wasn't set very high for him, and I think he got over it. Most viewers probably thought that he seemed a plausible President."
• NRO's Michael Graham: "Sen. McCain won the debate on points. But he was supposed to win, so the fact that Obama fumbled a few questions just won't matter. If McCain had landed a knockout punch he might have raised the 'ready to lead?' question about Obama. But he didn't. Obama did fine. And he's the frontrunner. Therefore he wins. Or put it another way: If Gov. [Sarah] Palin does as well Thursday as Sen.Obama did tonight, Republicans will be happy."

MCCAIN DEBATE III: Do Americans Want To Elect A Grumpy Old Man?

Liberal bloggers are buzzing about what they perceive to be McCain's contemptuous demeanor toward Obama:

• Marshall: "Whether it was contempt or condescension or some sort of fear or inability to -- in the most literal sense -- face Obama, it made McCain look small and angry. [...] For that kind of attitude to have 'worked' for McCain, Obama needed to come off as completely ignorant and unprepared. And I don't think even his harshest critics believe that is what happened. Roll it all together and Obama just seemed like a bigger person than McCain. And in a race in which the issue agenda and party identification already work strongly in Obama's favor, that's an advantage that is very hard for McCain to give up."
• Sudbay: "I'm still struck by how angry McCain was on Friday night. Refusing to look at Obama. Sneering. And, muttering under his breath. He was acting like a fifth grader. McCain should have been on best behavior, but he couldn't control himself. He can't control himself and is increasingly erratic. And, as I've been saying, 'erratic' is the best word to describe John McCain, but 'erratic' is the one of the worst words to describe a president."
• Klein: "McCain wouldn't look at Obama. Kept smirking. Sighing. Sucking in his lips. Flipping his papers angrily. Accusing Obama of 'not understanding' basic points of foreign and domestic policy. We knew he didn't want to be there. But he couldn't keep his body language from signaling that he didn't think Obama deserved to be there. [...] It's not a posture that worked for [Al] Gore in 2000. It didn't work for McCain tonight."
• Atrios: "Visuals aside, what did come through loud and clear on the radio bits I heard was McCain's incredibly condescending attitude towards Obama. Not a mindreader, so I don't know what he really thinks/feels, but he sounded like he thought Obama was on par with dog shit."
• Open Left's Davis Sirota: "I thought McCain's condescension repeatedly claiming Obama doesn't 'understand' things made McCain look petty."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "McCain was incredibly unlikable and unPresidential."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "I was a little surprised at the contempt McCain showed for Obama, refusing to even look at Obama during the debate. It was the height of arrogance -- McCain's not-so-subtle message was that he didn't even want to be on the same stage with his rival. I lost count of how many times he said Obama 'doesn't understand' an issue, even when it was obvious that it was McCain who was confused."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Someone should Lexis-nexis the 2000 post-debate coverage in which they chided Gore for his sighing. I remember a lot of talk about how the debates were a time to let voters decide what candidate they wanted in their house for the next four years and blah blah blah [...] If we were to use the Al Gore criteria, John McCain got his ass kicked tonight. He was a cranky old SOB, scowling and ranting 'You don't understand' and generally just a dick. Folks on tv are calling it 'vintage McCain.' Loosely translated, that means everyone knows he is a dick, they just can not say it on tv."

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "I think McCain is playing with a bit of fire when he lets his contempt for Barack Obama show through so clearly. Those of us who follow politics obsessively are now well-informed about this aspect of the campaign, but most people probably don't see it under ordinary circumstances. And whatever partisans on either side may think, or the fashionable 'they both suck' cynics may say, surveys indicate that McCain and Obama are both popular and the key swing constituency is composed of people who have warm feelings toward both guys. That means, to me, that a negative, slashing, attacking approach is a totally reasonable approach but you've got to have the good. Sneering about how so-and-so 'doesn't understand' when he seems to understand just fine, and most people are predisposed to like him is a potential disaster."

PALIN: Apparently She Doesn't Speak For Her Campaign

Liberal bloggers are mocking McCain after he had to retract Palin's comments about Pakistan:

"Sen. John McCain retracted Sarah Palin's stance on Pakistan Sunday morning, after the Alaska governor appeared to back Sen. Barack Obama's support for unilateral strikes inside Pakistan against terrorists.

'She would not...she understands and has stated repeatedly that we're not going to do anything except in America's national security interest,' McCain told ABC's George Stephanopoulos of Palin. 'In all due respect, people going around and... sticking a microphone while conversations are being held, and then all of a sudden that's -- that's a person's position... This is a free country, but I don't think most Americans think that that's a definitive policy statement made by Governor Palin.'"

• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "Got that? It's unfair for someone to 'stick a microphone' in the face of a vice presidential candidate during a campaign appearance and then take her words seriously. This is no longer even low farce. It's more like we're all in the middle of a bad vaudeville skit."
• Moulitsas: "It's unfair to take [Palin's] words at face value. Really, that's now their argument. [...] Kind of the exact opposite definition of 'straight talk', isn't it? But McCain is probably right. Given her negative 10 net approval/disapproval ratings, it seems the American people have learned she is a pathological liar and don't believe anything that comes out of her mouth. Even when she accidentally tells the truth. And on a policy note, why does McCain think leaving Osama Bin Laden free to roam Pakistan, even if we have him in our sights, is such a political winner?"
• Benen: "So, just because Sarah Palin says something in public doesn't mean Palin actually believes what she's saying. And for goodness sakes, no one should think that Palin's comments are a reflection of the campaign's position on an issue."
• Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "Geez, when she does finally open her mouth -- they correct her."
• Open Left's Daniel De Groot: "As Chris [Bowers] has noted before, if you are explaining, you are losing. And looking at the daily trackers, McCain is certainly losing. The best part of this is that Obama didn't need to do anything to put McCain on the defensive here, Palin is now doing that for him, and on likely the most sycophantic Sunday show there is, no less."

Yglesias: "Normally we've seen Sarah Palin either engages in gaffes where she says something that doesn't make sense or else we've seen her say stuff that isn't true. Now, though, she's entered into the realm of the Kinsley gaffe where she's just not well-briefed enough to remember the McCain campaign's convoluted talking points on this issue. Instead, she went with the common sense position -- Obama's position."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Would It Be Better For Republicans To Lose This Election?

The Next Right's Sean Oxendine:

"...The incoming President is likely to inherit an economy that stumbles along for several years. It may even be in a severe recession. Things overseas may get better, but it is unlikely. This will be blamed on [George W.] Bush for a while (just as the 2001 recession was blamed by most Americans on [Bill] Clinton in the beginning of Bush's term), but sooner or later, if it lingers, it will be blamed on the Democrats. [...]

In other words, 2010 would probably be a very good Republican year in the event of an Obama victory. Remember, in 1993-1994, Clinton did a few small things -- raised taxes on the rich marginally, tried to let gays into the military, and signed a gun ban. He lost 52 seats. Imagine what happens if Democrats go down a similar path, and go into an election with 1/4 of their caucus in districts Bush carried twice, with a softer economy than Clinton had in 1994. And quite frankly, the dirty little secret is that Obama doesn't have a fraction of Clinton's political sense and skill, and Joe Biden is a babbling buffoon, something that he (and the press) just won't be able to hide anymore once he is President. [...]

The best thing that happened to the Republican party was Jimmy Carter winning in 1976 -- had [Gerald] Ford won, he would have had to have dealt with many of the same problems, and probably would not have fared much better. It could be that losing in 2008 is a similarly good option. There's some times the Presidency isn't worth having."

LEST WE FORGET: Internet Explorer Makes Desperate Overture To Become Default Browser

From The Onion:

"NASHVILLE, TN -- After months of futile entreaties to upgrade to its latest version, web browser Internet Explorer made a last-ditch proposal to become local man Jeremy Drewing's primary Internet application Monday. 'Internet Explorer is not currently your default browser. Would you like to make it your default browser?' the software program asked in an attempt to guilt Drewing into accepting its offer out of pure pity. Sources say Explorer went so far as to highlight the 'Yes' button in the pop-up window in the hopes of baiting him into pressing it, and even emitted a sad little 'beep' in a pathetic bid for attention. Drewing opted to keep Firefox as his default browser, thus relegating Internet Explorer back to its primary functions: looking up pornography and Googling ex-girlfriends."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at September 29, 2008 01:35 PM