Obama has come in for a fair share of criticism for being too "nice" in Friday night's debate.  He should have hit McCain more and harder.  He should have attacked more and with greater passion.  Most of all, he should not have been so consistently agreeable, willing to say that, "John McCain is right" on point after point. I disagree.

Senator Barack Obama, candidate for President and potentially the next President of the United States, should not change his approach in the slightest degree.  What he is showing is not a debating style; it is a governing style.  And it's a governing style that we have been waiting for, for seven and a half years.

The inter-personal dynamics people will tell us that if you want to carry on any discussion, much less, any relationship, with another person, you need to start with the items that both sides agree with. Consider the following exchange:

  --You're always late.
  --That's not true! Why only a week ago last Thursday . . .
Think about how that conversation would develop, then consider the following alternative.

  --You're always late.
  --It's true; that's often the case, I know . . .

In the second example, there is the possiblilty that a conversation could continue--and a solution be found--because both sides know that they are being listened to and both sides know that in one area at least [no matter how restricted or limited the agreement on that area really is] everyone is talking about the same topic.

Obama's ability to see that other people have said things that are true, coupled with a willingness to explore how far he and his opponent might possibly agree, is part of why many of his supporters [this one, at least] have a great deal of confidence in his leadership and judgment and decision-making process.

I'm going on memory here, but it seems to me that I read that one of the reasons that Obama's selection as President of the Harvard Law Review was supported even by more conservative editors who might otherwise disagree with him, was that they considered him to be fair and willing to give the other side a hearing.

We are choosing someone not to win a debate but to govern a country. Think of it: Who would you like to be leading the discussions that lead to the decisions that affect our nation:

  --someone who would consider any consoderation of the merits of the other side's arguments as a sign of weakness? or

  --someone who can listen to the firmly held and fervent opinions of every side, and look for the best solution, whatever its source.

It is possible that an approach of considerate, thoughtful, "niceness" may in fact be a posture of strength and confidence. An approach of firm "don't tell me anything different" certitude is not [as we have seen] a posture of confidence.

Senator Obama, don't change a thing.