baltimoresun.com

« Instant debate feedback | Main | Obama scores among Indies »

McCain finishes strongly

Obama certainly made it clear that he's conversant and nuanced in foreign policy, but McCain finished strongly and deflected deftly Obama's attempts to associate him with George Bush. McCain was tougher than Obama.

Just now I spoke with Herb Smith, the astute political science professor from McDaniel College in Maryland and one of our keenest political observers. "Eight times, Obama said something like, 'Senator McCain is right, or John is right,' and that is unprecedented in a presidential debate," Smith said. "You don't do that in a debate. By contrast, I counted McCain saying, 'What Senator Obama doesn't understand . . .' about six or seven times, suggesting his naivete in foreign policy. McCain stayed on point, stayed on message."

So Obama was too nice again, too gracious. "He bent over backwards so far," says Smith, "he almost fell on his face. His media handlers should be taking him to the woodshed for that."

 

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 10:38 PM | | Comments (16)
        

Comments

Obama had the upper hand throughout. He called McCain on ever distortion and he interjected something sorely missing in our government, reality. It was fantastic watching him handle McCain. Sure, he agreed with some of John's views, but he had vision to take it to the next level. He proved himself tonight. I kind of felt a little sorry for McCain.

McCain is a liar. Obama needs to say "That's a Lie" when the senile old fool rambles on in inane repetition.

McCain was strong tonight. I was impressed. But after pondering more on the debate, Obama was stronger on substance. The quotes you mention in your blog which make McCain appear stronger are just sound bites.

I thought the exact opposite. I felt that Obama agreed with Mccain so much that at one point, it was like every response or statement he made had 'I agree with" tacked onto the beginning. I didn't see Obama handle John Mccain. I saw Obama flustered. Mccain clearly showed that his experience level is far beyond Obama's.

I thought the exact opposite. I felt that Obama agreed with Mccain so much that at one point, it was like every response or statement he made had 'I agree with" tacked onto the beginning. I didn't see Obama handle John Mccain. I saw Obama flustered. Mccain clearly showed that his experience level is far beyond Obama's.

Obama could have been more effective in how he used that phrase, but the fact is that McCain stated certain ideas about U.S. Foreign policy as if they were controversial, when in fact, they were not. As a rhetorical tactic, this is an incredibly skillful thing to do. He said some really obvious things like "Our soilders want to win the war in Iraq." But he added enough embelishment and had the right sort of "I'm just telling you the facts" tone to make it sound like he was really saying something that was news to Obama.

What is Obama to do? Should he say, "No kidding soilders want to win any war we send them into, you old crazy fool, and by the way what you said doesn't make going to Iraq a good idea, it's just a distraction. "

I bet he wanted to, nobody get's that polite unless they are really vexed. Agreeing and moving on is the best tactic. But "What Senator Obama doesn't understand is the difference between a strategy and a tactic" (ha ha, mccain actually said that) What the handlers need to take Obama to the woodshed over is that he went to this tactic too many times.

Obama did not have the upper hand! I saw the same pattern as I did when he debated with Hillary. I agree with John is like I agree with Hillary. Anything to avoid answering the question himself in his own words. McCain isn't Bush he is his own man. McCain 1 Obama 0.

I thought it was an even debate up until Obama fumbled with the conditional talks vs prepared talks issue with foreign leaders. McCain defenatly finished stronger pointing out Obama's inexperiance with strategic vision and foriegn policy.

Sorry, but that propoganda flew out the window about two hours ago. Those money-fueld ads can't distort the truth anymore. Anyone who saw the debate knows that McCain was solid and Obama -- at best -- gave a textbook view of world events. When the chips were down, Obama proved himself to be nothing more than the college professor he really is. Tonight, I can proudly say that John McCain confirmed why he has earned my vote.

McCain may appear to be a good a military leader. The scary thing is John McCain running the economy giving tax breaks to the rich. He didn't want to touch that subject, and wouldn't refute that intent. And like Obama said, "No military in the world has survived abroad with a weak economy." At least with Obama, you're not dealing with someone with a history of financial backing from the wealthy.

Before I read this article and did feel that Obama was saying "I agree with McCain" wat too much. Heck I think if hey keep debating Obama will change his name to McCain to try and confuse the issue. I don't know if everything both of these guys say is true; power tends to distort reality. I would say on the common rules of debating however, McCain should get the nod. Obama looks like the padawon and McCain looks litterally like Yoda. I agree McCain 1 Obama 0

Someone just posted this nonsense anonymously in the Capital Times in Madison, WI. I've googled Herb Smith and he is a nobody from some suburban commuter college.

for the record, ahmadenijad never said that iran wants to nuke israel, that israel should be "wiped from the map" by military force. ahmadenijad has said he believes the israeli regime is evil, and that it would ultimately disappear. well, the united states said the same about the USSR, but did that mean we inteded to make it happen militarily? in fact, ahmadenijad is on the record (edited out of the chris wallace interview, the one for which mr. wallace received an emmy) as saying that the best way for change to come about in israel is democratically. not a madman, not a "hitler", but someone that yes, america can talk to, even though we disagree in many areas. mccain would like to keep iran and its leaders as pariahs, "untouchables", with whom contact or any kind dialogue is unthinkable, and mccain and his camp have the assistance of the mainstream media in maintaining iran's pariah status, witness the wallace interview, purposely edited to mischaracterize ahamdenijad's postions. during the debate obama was placed on the defensive when the topic shifted to dialogue with iran, and the response to the war in south ossetia. but obama was only on the defensive because the mainstream media have failed so badly in their coverage of these issues.

I will admit I have never really seen McCain debate before... turns out he is a much better debater than giving scripted speeches. Obama is a little better with speeches. I was impressed with McCain's ability to stay focused on the messages. Obama, at times, was scattered, but was pretty good himself. However in the end McCain showed that he is the one ready to take over. Round 1 goes to McCain.

Clearly, McCain won. All these spin from CNN and MSNBC and the press mean nothing. We all know they prefer Obama over McCain.

{{{{DRUDGE POLL}}}} WHO WON THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE?...

MCCAIN 66% 117,976
OBAMA 31% 55,984
NEITHER 2% 4,007

Total Votes: 177,967

FJ,

In addition Matt "Idiot With A Modem" Drudge, I'm sure that the Fox News, Christian Broadcasting Network, and National Review polls show that McCain won handily. Way to be selective in your polling data.

By the way, if you watched MSNBC last night, you would have known that many of the pundits (including Chris Matthews) gave the edge to McCain.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Please enter the letter "d" in the field below:
About Dan Rodricks
Jan. 8, 2009, marked 30 years for Dan Rodricks' column in The Baltimore Sun. Over three decades, Dan has won numerous regional and several national awards for his reporting and commentary -- in print and on the air. "I've had opportunity to write a column and work in both radio and television, never having to leave my adopted hometown of Baltimore to have those experiences," he says. "I consider myself very fortunate." In addition to writing a twice-weekly column for The Baltimore Sun and his Random Rodricks blog, Dan is currently the host of Midday, on WYPR-FM, National Public Radio in Baltimore. An artful story-teller and social critic, he has observed local, state and national political and cultural trends for three decades, and has a lot to say about almost everything.
More on Dan Rodricks
Dan's Facebook page


Midday with Dan Rodricks
Follow @middayrodricks on Twitter
-- ADVERTISEMENT --

Dan Rodricks' columns
Recent columns Rodricks talks about his column on NPR
Dear drug dealers
Dan Rodricks' campaign to help Baltimore residents "get out of the game."
Most Recent Comments
Blog updates
Recent updates to baltimoresun.com news blogs
 Subscribe to this feed