Meanwhile, in an Alternate Universe
The afternoon after, my abiding impression remains that Obama won the debate. He won it with clarity, self-possession, and generosity ("I agree with John"). He won it by not gaffing. (Given how important gaffes have become in our precious national discourse, isn't it about time we got a verb out of the deal?) And not least, he won it by looking friendly--the kind of guy (you might say) whom you can have a beer with and who, when he disagrees with you, still looks you in the eye.
I blogged last night about McCain's weird habit of staring sedulously straight ahead, away from Obama looking at him--McCain with jaw clenched, moreover--and am delighted to see how many others noticed the same thing. On MSNBC, as Josh picked up, Eugene Robinson made the valuable observation that McCain treated his rivals the same way in the Republican primary debates--it must have to do with a propensity to demonize his opponents. Given how many opportunities McCain had to look Obama in the eye, it's not only remarkable how few he took up, it's remarkable that professional observers wouldn't notice.
But not everybody noticed. I've just read all seven debate comments on the National Review website. None of the seven noticed.
But two did comment on McCain's demeanor. 1. John J. Pitney, Jr.:
If appearances alone decided the debate's winner, then John McCain won. His energetic demeanor helped dampen concerns that he is too old for the job. Obama, on the other hand, did not come across as the candidate of cool. His expression alternated between a scowl and what Raymond Chandler called "that plastic smile people wear when they are trying not to scream."
And 2. Mona Charen:
McCain certainly vitiated the age issue last night. His energy, command of specifics, and memory for names made him look quite vigorous.
I'm not sure what this blind spot reveals--motes in conservative eyes?--but in any event, it's striking.
Obama won on what counts: the primate behavioral body language index. He did not appear socially transgressive, he was friendly and open, he wasn't compulsive, he didn't carp, or harp, on his opponents lies. He was unrattled and comfortable, never rude, and he never attempted to belittle McCain. He made his points coherently, and reasonably.
McCain, on the other hand, acted as if he was on the edge, and was having a hard time getting people to take him seriously. He kept emphasizing things over and over again, belittling Obama and acting annoyed and contemptuous. At many points he seemed to be escalating, emotionally, in ways that seemed inappropriate to the significance of the issue at hand. All of this presented an image of a man who is not master of his own house, beset by inner demons he can barely control, who is unable to give a fellow senator and presidential candidate the most basic, cordial, courtesies.
September 27, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its easier for people to lie if they aren't looking at you.
September 27, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
And it's easier to keep from blowing up and charging at your adversary if you look straight ahead. No wonder Lieberman follows him everywhere. He carries the little case with the syringe and the bottle of tranquillizer.
September 27, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could be simply "look at the camera". In the weird "debate" with Rick Warren, Obama conversed with him, but McCain simply turned toward the camera and delivered stump slogans. Surely he was not deferring to Warren's social ranking by looking away.
He did succeed, in this debate, in keeping his slogan rhythm, avoiding verbal hemming and hawing. I think it's a technique he uses to keep his own focus.
September 27, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
One should draw the sharp comparison -- not just from the unabashedly RW partisan National Review, but from the "solid wall of bullshit" you find in the columns listed at Real Clear Politics, a RW site that carries a broad range of RW and mainstream (sometimes w/a column by Matt Rothschild at the Progressive or some such, just for the sake of a curve ball) opinion: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Compare the range of pundit opinion here, and in post debate commentary NOT on Faux news but on CNN, CSPAN and MSNBC(?) with the results of the real (not self-selecting) polls -- NONE of which in any significant case I know of saw a McCain win, even slightly, and VERY few of which came out even close or tied as to who won.
We should also remember how pundits ON CSPAN NO LESS tried to palm off the 1st Kerry/Bush debate as either a wash or a slight ad-Bush, until public reaction came in, or how, conversely, polls showed a clear majority seeing a Gore win in the first Gore/Bush debate in 2000, before the MSM (not just Faux News and the National Review et al) went into a feeding frenzy over Gore's eyeball roll (which really was quite apropos, for those who remember the debate).
In short, progressives need to self-consciously realize that the fix is in (maybe even in 1992 against Clinton -- remember "WHY AMERICA DOESN'T TRUST CLINTON"? -- and the need to positively confront it.
In this instance, more than just body language and NRO is at issue -- but the still open question of whether or not the punditocracy will try to rob Obama of his win, or how hard they are going to bother trying.
(Elsewhere, in another thread at TPM Cafe on the presidential debate, I also listed a huge number of potential 'Kerry/Bush debate #1' worthy gaffes by McCain, and Obama's failure to KO McCain instead of just winning. I would be interested in peoples' opinions and analyses.)
September 27, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some further media coverage of the point made in the above comment
"Pundits: Debate Even. Viewers: Obama clearly won. Why the Disparity?" -- column by Greg Mitchell at EDITOR AND PUBLISHER e-magazine
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003855844
SO THERE!!!!!
September 27, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, one further refinement -- I think that Mitchell's explanation of WHY the disparity sux, although the factor he mentioned could have SOME role, it is the PUNDITS that need to be explained, not the public!
There was a similarly lousy expanation (or explanation away) of the press's silence on the flimsiness of the FlipFlop spin in 04 by Jonathan Chait, who was the first serious media person of his or greater visibility to really take it to task, AFTER FIVE MONTHS, in an Oct 04 cover story of NEW REPUBLIC
So, even when debunking one layer of unsustainable justifying-the-lying lies, there's always using that as a credential to justify yet another layer
September 27, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just read a commentary on Huffington about McCain never looking at Obama: his campaign had advised him not to so that he wouldn't get angry/lose his cool.
September 27, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
If GW taught us anything, it's that reality is what you want it to be and you see what you want to see.
Bill Kristol -- you know the silverspoon neocon who doesn't live in reality -- said Obama looked like an "arrogant jerk".
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp
Of course, we all knew that McCain won the debate hours before it actually happened courtesy of the ad on the Murdoch Street Journal Web site.
September 27, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least McCain's grimace took over for his rapid-fire blinking, a la the 60 Minutes interview.
September 27, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I agree with John" is not a debate strategy. I understand what Obama was trying to do. He was attempting to turn McCain's points around, but saying flatly that he agreed with McCain is not the way to do it. Try this next time:
"What John says has a kernel of truth, but he's missing the larger perspective . . . "
"Some of what John says is correct, but . . . "
Anything like that is better.
September 27, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its over. Obama looked like he was always trying to catch up. His attacks were sideline attacks (never straight forward). All the independent surveys show McCain won. Obama lied about Kissinger and got caught. The party is over. Done, finished. It is over, Obama can't win......
September 27, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're kidding, right?
September 28, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The non-verbals in a debate are just as important to me as the verbals and Obama scored high in the non-verbals. Obama came across as the nice guy who is also smart but likeable and not scary. McCain reminded us twice that he isn't Miss Collegiality in Congress and since his temper is common knowledge, I wonder if he would goven by yelling or working with others. He was never an elected executive (a mayor or governor) so there is no history.
John Pitney is currently a professor (Claremont McKenna College) but he's a former aide to Dick Cheney and worked as a researcher for the RNC. After stating his bias, it's apparent he was just following the party line. Mona Charen is also spinning it, along with digs about Obama being a leftist and connecting him to Al Sharpton, implying Sharpton's that scary black preacher.
Keith Olbermann and Rachael Maddow on MSNBC and some of the panelists on Anderson Cooper's show also mentioned that McCain appeared to be angry and stiff. Age and vitality were very apparent last night, that's not a compliment for McCain.
September 27, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
My Father told me to always look the other person in the eye when talking to that person. Over the years I have been very observant of that advice and noticed when others do the same or don't. Most people don't really understand their own body language, they aren't doing it by design. My opinion is that when a person doesn't give eye contact, most of the time it is due to arrogance. That person usually thinks he is better than the person he is talking too. There are other reasons, but 90% of the time it is just plain old arrogance.
September 28, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
This whole inordinate focus on body language (in contrast to the Kerry/Bush debates and Gore -- until the MSM jumped on the infamous "eyeroll" to spin the debate in contrast to poll results in the first 24 hours -- as well as in 96 and most of the time in 92 (except Perot's running mate)) is simply a distractor pundit tactic.
This is not to deny that body language is important, but the ignoring of the divergence between popular and pundit opinion (which I suppose is to be kept a lookout for in today's TV programs, programs I refuse to watch today anyway) is FAR more crucial. So are the many substantive gaffes that Obama let slide, scoring a win instead of a knockout. The press seems to have sidestepped those also.
September 28, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink