Is It Possible for Obama to "Win" The Debate?
I've been wondering if it is possible for Obama to outsmart expectations and win.
I am not sure he can. .
The reason is simple. The McCain camp uses Obama's verbal dexterity and intelligence against him. The whole point of portraying him as "uppity" or "The One" or "the messiah" is to turn his strongest attributes into negatives. This is not unique to Obama. Jews, women, Asians, gays, African-Americans and other "minorities" are often ridiculed for being "articulate" or "smooth" or "good talkers." In a country that now celebrities mediocrity, the worst sin is to be seen as part of an elite. Hence, the Palin phenomenon. Her mediocrity is her biggest (only) strength.
We have four days to help inoculate Obama against this phenomenon. I'm not sure how we do it. I am sure however that the Obama team has a plan. I just hope it understands that Obama really has two things going against him on Friday. One, he is very bright. Two, John McCain clearly isn't.
Well, who would you vote for?
An oh-so-intelligent conventional inside-the-Beltway thinker who just bailed out his buddies on Wall Street or a straight-talking maverick who stands with the common people against these plutocrats and malefactors.
'Nuff said.
September 22, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
You must come with jokes or is overly dense; which is it?
September 22, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Try here, IslandGyal.
September 22, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, interesting Krugman entry. He asks a question there, but I have a question for him-- how come it took him 3 days to point out what a dope like me could see right away?
September 22, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Strange. I thought your main concern was that Bush was going to get credit for the bailout. There was never any danger McCain was going to give anyone credit, especially not the Bush administration. If Obama had any guts, he be calling for nationalization of the entire financial sector, including the insurance industry. Universal health insurance? A slam dunk.
September 22, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apologies to others about going off-thread on topic in order to respond to Billy Glad.
I thought your main concern was that Bush was going to get credit for the bailout.
? Don't know why, cause I basically have been trying to present the case that people whose knee-jerk approach to this as another Bush cronyism plot are just not getting what's been going on, not in the least. Bush has been Mr. Laissez Faire until dragged and kicked to pay attention. If ever he was a puppet, it's in this case. (Now Cheney, I could see him doing some crony lobbying here, but after the fact, and certainly not publicly.) It's the Congressional Dems and Paulson and Bernake that have been fiddling and squabbling with this all along, the rest of the Bush administration was on the sidelines.
I sort of agree with your instincts, that if we had a real leader out there in Congress, this could be a sort of chance for a New Deal including health care. But we don't have anyone like that. And the problem is, they would have had to convince the public that something like this crisis would happen before the fact in order to have the time to do it. So it's not realistic. Maybe if they structure this right, Obama could do seomething like that by changing it next year..there's a Catch-22, that's only if conditions really deteriorate, and I for one hope they don't want to do underhanded sabotage for that reason.
September 23, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that the Democrats had a bright candidate and the Republicans a dumb one 4 years ago. It still didn't matter. Why? Because 98% of the people watching the debates are dumb.
September 22, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, yup, only in America.
September 22, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
For Obama to "win" the TV Debate Shows, as well as the overall discourse culminating in the election, American voters' fears and concerns over the consequences of Republican policies must outweigh their fear and concern over an uppity Negro presidential candidate who threatens our neurotic national self-images. Or, basically, what Ellen said....
September 22, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shall we have H L Mencken be the odds setting bookie on this one?
"No one ever went broke betting on the ignorance of the American people." HLM
September 22, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama had been attacking McCain the way McCain attacked him, this wouldn't be a problem. McCain's strength is that he was so inept he got shot down in Vietnam and became a POW, where he was so stupid he refused to be released by the Vietnamese. But, Obama and Biden chose to salute McCain, celebrate him as a great American hero. Why wouldn't voters vote for a great American hero?
September 22, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because of the backlash of the "uppity" negro going against the maverick POW.
September 22, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
hoppy says:
hoppy, what has occurred to me over the years
is who ever heard of the warden giving the prisoner the option of release or staying in prison?
September 22, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't begin to express the wrongheadedness of your premise, M.J. What are we supposed to do if we want to win, put up worse candidates than the Republicans? Are you saying no polititican with a coherent plan and the capacity to explain it can win elections? I say this self-defeating pessimism is what is killing us. Obama should ignore you and be his proudly intelligent self.
September 22, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear!
Stop worrying so much, MJ. Obama doesn't need to "outsmart expectations" (whatever THAT means).
Let Obama be Obama.
-- ARG
P.S. And, as Tracy (Mariel Hemingway) says at the end of Manhattan, "Sometimes you just gotta have a little faith in people."
September 22, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
eatbees,
Two things can be true at the same time: intelligent and articluate candidates are desperately needed to run for and serve in government offices, and it is at very least difficult for political candidates of such quality to overcome the disfunctional quasi-populist political discourse presently dominating our life and times.
September 22, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Republican Message: DUMMIES for OFFICE!
September 22, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Vote for the DUMMY!
September 22, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
The answer to M.J.'s question about the debate depends on whether we are still in "Nixonland" where cultural resentment trumps other considerations. And we should be aware that our own cultural resentment of the "boobs" (Mencken's word) who can't see the superiority of our preferred candidate is also part of the Nixonland dynamic. I think Obama understands that the self-righteousness of the two opposing sides has to end in order to transform the politics of the last three decades. Unfortunately, when the disagreements are less about politics [i]per se[/i] than the nature of reality, it is unclear whether the "post-partisan" era will be arriving anytime soon. It took, after all, 100 years for the religious wars of the 17th Century to end.
September 22, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
All it's going to take is for Obama to needle McCain just enough that he succumbs to every pol's nightmare and melts down live on national.
I'll take either the slo-mo version, where he just wanders off into the weeds repeatedly and bumbles, crumbles, fumbles, mumbles, and stumbles, or the pop-a-bolt screaming fit version. Either will work, and each is likely in different circumstances.
September 22, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, it sounds like you have been so busy with your previous activities that you have not read a paper recently, and do not know that the dynamic of the election has completely changed within the past week.
Last week, people were apparently feeling comfortable and relaxed, and so the election was turning into a typically brainless affair about personalities, cultural stereotypes, POW status, wild west gun culture and other such side matters.
This week, people are actually scared about the future, and it has suddenly dawned on everyone that John McCain is an erratic and empty-headed dumbass, who never learned anything about the economy during his time in prison camp, and who at 72 years old nevertheless chose a blithering incompetent as his backup in case something happens to him. The change in focus among the media and ordinary people is palpable. Brains and a level head now actually sell.
September 22, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't agree. Millions and millions of idiots would rather lose their jobs under a white president than enjoy peace and prosperity under a black president.
Racism is a gigantic factor, bigger than the economy. Ask Gerry Ferraro.
September 22, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which states are you predicting Obama will lose because of racism, M.J., and by how many points? I'll save your predictions for you, and we can review them together on November 5. Put up or shut up. As if you will.
September 22, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Glad,
I'll take a stab at it;
Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, for starters, and he'll lose by at least 5 points in each state.
September 22, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? When is the last time a Democrat won any of those states? If Al Gore had won his home state of Tennessee, there would have been no Bush administration. There used to be a woman come around the threads saying Texas in play, Texas in play! I imagine if she were asked to explain why Texas is no longer in play, she'd say racism. To be interesting, I think the "racism" concern has to be in relation to a state that a Democrat might reasonably be expected to win, like, e.g., Michigan or Pennsylvania. Whenever I start worrying about racism too much I drive around my racially divided community and count the many Obama signs in the "white" neighborhoods.
September 22, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Glad,
you asked a question, "Which states are you predicting Obama will lose because of racism, M.J., and by how many points?" and I answered it.
Now aren't you suppoosed to put my answer on file and return when the results are in?
September 23, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't OVERestimate the racism, M.J. I think the point of your inital post is correct: the Republicans appeal to the anti-intellectual strain in the American character, and the media happily plays along.
After all, Kerry and Gore were subjected to similar demonization as "not like us," and they were about as white as you can possibly be in this country.
September 22, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are we still doing the "foreign relations" theme the Friday? I think the fact that nobody will have focused on this for a while might play to Hon. Sen. Obama's advantage; he can intersperse economics into the discussion, thus highlighting Hon. Sen. McCain's one-trick-johnny-ishness (assuming one credits him with the one trick).
September 22, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with The Old Grouch. We know McCain tends to flare up and doesn't like to answer difficult questions. If poked enough he just may wind up looking constipated and angry. All Obama has to do in that case is stay calm and look rational in comparison.
September 22, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ: You can't overstate the Gerry Ferraro effect. If Obama's not up by 10 points on election day, he will lose. Ferraro is more representative of older white women than Obama suppoters like me readily admit.
September 22, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you can help MJ come up with a list of the states Obama is going to lose because of "racism." How about Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado and Michigan? Obama going to lose any of those because of racism? How about Florida and Indiana?
September 22, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy Glad,
you left out Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina, among others.
September 22, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the candidates address each other directly, then Obama's intelligence may lead him to ask pointed questions. Like how McCain's selection of Sarah Palin puts America first when her belief in God's role in our wars reduces trust in his word as he negotiates and deals with our Muslim allies and adversaries.
alanx
September 22, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Instead of worrying about "inoculating" Obama against the prejudices that will take him down, how about tarring McCain with the prejudices that SHOULD take him down? Like: too old, too rich, too out of touch? There are plenty of subterranean concerns and issues that sway voters -- race is only one of them. So let's focus on the ones that hurt the other guy instead. Offense, not defense. Saw this fantastic Harry and Louise video on Huffpost that nails the out-of-touch-rich-guy meme.
This is how we bring down McCain -- not by worrying about inoculating our candidate against racism.
September 22, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry -- here's that Harry and Louise vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz4Z6L4u8E4
Hilarious.
September 22, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You listed them. And how can McCain be close in Michigan except for the race issue? The state is an economic basket case, yet McCain is still competitive.
September 22, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing that happened here is that Romney came through with a pander in the form of a massive NASA-like project for Michigan. We'll probably see him back here for McCain if the race is tight in late October.
September 22, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama wants to gain the electoral advantage of appearing ignorant, he could recite your columns. Of course, that will require a teleprompter since whenever the genius speaks extemporaneously the "uhs" and "you knows" outnumber the verbs and the nouns.
And MJ, since Palin supports the diabolical Zionist Entity against explicitly-stated Iranian genocidal intentions, you will agree that the word "mediocre" does not nearly suffice when describing her...Palin is "evil", as are all of us who support Israel's right to exist. Aren't you concerned that if Ahmadinejad nukes Tel Aviv some of your Palestinian jihadist brethren may become collateral damage?
I am SO looking forward to your first column after Obama loses. I even have a title for you: "RACIST AMERICAN BASTARDS REPUDIATE THE POSTMODERN EINSTEIN".
Hopefully, you are prepared to comfort Tony McPeak, the Obama co-chair who blames the Jews of New York and Miami for Middle East terrorism (Woody Allen, suicide bomber? Bea Arthur, leader of Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades?). He sounds like your kindred spirit, MJ, although McPeak despises Jews considerably less than you do.
September 22, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob, it's time for your feet to follow your heart. You are utterly indifferent to the United States and its people. I am not accusing you of dual loyalty however. It's more like one.
September 22, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your points are ridiculous. Iran would like to see end of the Zionist Entity, i.e., the Zionist State of Israel, akin to many people wishing to see the end of South African apartheid, or of the Soviet Union. I personally opposed both those regimes, but I don't think that I ever want to see a mass slaughter of white South Africans or Russians.
If you have any source that the Iranian government has called for the genocide of Jews in Israel, rather than for an end to Zionism, please supply them. (Caveat: Anything written by Amir Taheri or taken from the MEMRI website doesn't count. Ditto for anything written or spoken Autism-specialist Michael Savage. )
September 22, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The perfect outcome in November would be for Obama to lose the popular vote (barely), but win the electoral vote. Then would solve too problems simultaneously: the Republicans would be out and both parties might agree to ditch the Electoral College. And without the electoral college, those of us in "non-battleground states", read the majority, might finally get some attention from the presidential candidates. I just don't think Pa., Ohio, and Florida, should be deciding our elections every cycle.
September 22, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a great scenario.
September 22, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much as I think this would help fix our election machinery in the long run, I really hope it doesn't happen this way. I think it would really hamper Obama's governance, just as it hampered Bush's. And we have so very much that needs to be fixed, policy-wise. Obama does not need to be saddled with a "tainted" victory.
The difference of course is that there is convincing evidence that had a full recount been done, Gore would have won the electoral vote too. But now the 2000 election has gone down in the annals of history as having been a split between the popular and the electoral votes, and that's how a similar scenario in 2008 would be portrayed as well.
I think the way Bush ended up "winning" in 2000 set the stage for his style of governing: on the margins. He couldn't afford to give up even one iota of the support of his base. Much as I despise him and would never have supported any part of his agenda, I think the way he ended up being elected made the tragedy even worse.
September 23, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, one thing you DON'T do is try to shame people into voting for Obama by calling them racists.
I've been beating this dead horse for awhile now, but it doesn't seem to be resonating here in Obama Land.
Democrats have an image problem: most of our candidates come across as "too elitist" for the average Joes. instead of doing something about that (maybe nominating someone who DOESN'T read "elitist"?) we look down our Ivy-League-educated noses at them.
we make fun of their religion, because everybody knows that religion is just a crutch for stupid people. we accuse them of being racist--so racist that they don't even know they're racists! we disparage the things they love about McCain (his war record, his patriotism) which makes it sound like we're disparaging America. doesn't matter that we're not: that's how it comes off.
and now we have this 6-point "racism gap" to excuse a possible Obama loss. we refuse to think about what WE MIGHT BE DOING WRONG, because it's easier (and so much more snarky fun!) to blame the stupid Americans.
September 22, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really believe the WaPo poll that indicates a full one third of DEMOCRAT voters are racist?
If so, why do we even discuss the issues?
September 22, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
....you WORRY too much, not good for your health.
...Obama just needs to hold onto to his own performance and allow McCain the unforced errors.
....$700 billon bail-out? say goodbye to health care reform, tax cut for the 95% of middle America, infrastructure repairs, and green collar jjobs; welcome to working poor from the shrinking middle class down....
....but the debates must go on, so here are the talking points (McCain won the coin toss and has elected to go first):
McCain's Powerpoint presentation:
1) My Friends, My Friends; 2) the P.O.W. experience; 3) The Surge; 4) more P.O.W. stories; 5) Blonds; 6) even P.O.W. sob stories; 7) The Surge 8) More Blonds; 9) Palin; 10) I'm 72 and I approve this message....
Obama's Powerpoint Presentation: 1) Change you can believe in; 2) It's Above My PayGrade; 3) Change you can Hope for; 4) arugula 5) Change you can count on; 6) Bitter and clinging; 7) Change; 8) I'm not on a dollar bill; 9) Change We Need; 10) Yes We Can....Believe!
September 22, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
(3rd paragraph amended)
....$700 billon bail-out ? say goodbye to health care reform, tax cut for the 95% of middle America, infrastructure repairs, and green collar jobs; welcome to working poor from the shrinking middle class....a mere coincidence in timing from Wall Street?hmmm…
September 22, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
skip
September 23, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans are great at dumbing down their Presidential candidates before a debate. The spin doctors were out before the George I/Clinton debates saying Clinton was a much better debater than GHWB; same in 2000 with George II and Gore; and later George II and Kerry. It lowers their pass level and they walk away looking like "we're just regular folks" after debating this slick poliitician.
Obama is a polished orator/preacher and is comfortable using a teleprompter, but he needs to connect in the debates and show that he can spontaneously respond to McCain, the Town Hall talk master. Clinton was also a town hall master and Obama can learn from him. Of course racism is a factor along with McCain's age, Obama's inexperience, McCain's wealth etc. Fear and prejudice have always been factors in every election. Obama has to connect in an informal manner, being spontaneous and optomistic while not presenting a litany of the usual practiced responses.
September 23, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
And what does it say about us? Dumb = virtue.
We really are getting the government we deserve.
September 23, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's perfectly possible for Obama to "win" the debate. I don't think McCain will be sufficiently on his game to be able to call Obama out as an elitist during the debate itself. It is quite possible, even likely, that McCain will stumble pretty badly and get caught in contradictions. That won't make McCain look like a good ol' boy, he'll just look stupid, and with any luck, he'll also get rattled and lose his temper. Americans may not like "uppity" blacks, but they don't like feeble-minded crotchety old men either.
September 23, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink