The Debate
Just wanted to make two points about the debate as a whole.
This was a good format. Kudos to the debate folks and Jim Lehrer for allowing the candidates to go after each other. Their responses to each other really revealed their personalities.
And then my personal impression. I got off the plane at almost exactly 9PM. Which mean I had a half mile walk, through an airport of people waiting for late night flights, watching the debates on huge TV screens high up on the walls.
And everyone was rapt.
I’m sure most people had a tough time hearing what the candidates said–DTW has these huge TV screens but the sound only works when you’re reasonably close.
But, again, everyone was rapt.
We might yet get our democracy back, if people are going to watch late night Friday night debates with rapt attention.
From your lips to the ears of those deities who are listening, EW. People are excited about this election.
And I forgot to note. Being DTW, the late night flights were either going to Europe (which might explain the snickers–though those flights were mostly loaded up), and to smaller, rural-ish swing state midwestern sites.
My feeling is that this debate broke about even. They both did pretty well. People who have been paying close attention have already decided. We’ll see how the poll numbers do.
msnbc poll: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26906945/
McCain 35%
Obama 51%
Tie……..6%
Not Sure 8%
291,080 votes
Jeez, that’s awesome! Shows what I know……
I agree completely. As a 100% Obama partisan, I would have had no problem with a format and result that was 100% in favor of Obama.
That said, I enjoyed the format. It avoided the stilted “you say, he says” of the last couple of election cycles.
McCain did pretty well. Apart from not looking Obama in the eye, and playing the Gore role of sighing and showing contempt for your debate opponent.
Well, I’ve been avidly commenting at the Mother Ship, and kind of amazed and amused by a lot of negative comments over there. A lot of those commenters (many whose screen names are familiar to me) really wanted Obama to smack down McCain.
I was far, far more optimistic for a couple of reasons:
– I tried to watch it with as much perspective as I think some of my acquaintance have described to me – they are really, really fed up with constant conflict, tons of confusion, and what they perceive as ‘lies’ and deceptive claims. In that respect, I thought Obama hit a couple home runs in the sense that more than once, he courteously, firmly corrected McCain (i.e., “John, that’s not what I said”…)
– Obama came across as more ACCURATE. The first question or so, McCain made some comment about the US having the highest biz tax rates in the world, and I nearly fell out of my chair. Then Obama pointed out — accurately! — that those taxes are not paid due to the number of loopholes.
– McCain sunk to ‘gotcha’ and Obama rose above it most of the time, while still standing up for himself.
– I think most of the debates for a lot of people are ‘visual’. They don’t remember specific topics or answers, but they remember what made them comfortable, or angry. And they may remember how it ended. Obama had great body language and cadence; McCain was rigid and (incredibly, stupidly!) hardly even looked at Obama. How on earth McCain could make it through 20+ years of the Senate and a national campaign and fail to actually make good eye contact with his opponent is just incredible to me. I don’t get it. McCain did not look engaged, and he repeatedly came across like a scolding schoolmarm**.
– If you saw it with the sound off, Obama won hands-down, and by a country mile.
Prediction: the McCain people will shit bricks and try to spin this.
And I hope like hell the MSM laughs right in their faces and says something along the lines of, “yeah, McCain strategists, we’ll carry your stale refuse when you give each of us an hour long one-on-one with Sarah Palin.”
Glad you’re back safe.
Hope your trip was productive.
Agree that LOTS of people really are paying attention to this election.
Especially given last week’s news… 8-0
** a style on which I OWN the trademark, copyright, and CCL.
Just saw this clip–split screen–which is a view I didn’t see in any of the three formats I saw tonight.
The split screen made McCain look like a drunken grandfather. I would love to see the difference in response between split screen and not.
That’s a really, really good point.
Some psych or communications grad student should do it as a research topic.
Might need to employ the eye toothpicks used on Alex and his droogies to the tune of Beethoven’s Ninth. Brutal research duties.
Oh, yeah… like Clockwork. Orange.
Come to think of it, Droogs and Ferenghi’s for McCain is probably under-represented in most polls…
The Ferenghis probably prefer Obama. Gives them a lot more people with money to spend.
Yeah lets hope people everywhere watched it.
If people are paying attention I think Barak will win.
I listened to it on the radio, and thought Obama gave a more or less Dukakis-like performance: lackluster and trampled upon. To be sure, I’m vehemently anti-McCain, but the old codger’s dirty, dirty debating was surprisingly effective on an emotional level. I appreciate Obama’s above-all-the-filth approach, but he needs to sharpen his nails just a little bit for round 2.
I think so too. McCain’s performance was the debate equivalent of red meat convention. It’s a sick debasement but it works. I think McCain scores points with it when he shows himself as a fighter.
It’s good for Obama that McCain won’t look at him.
People need to see Barack show his passion, too.
But what do I know, I made up my mind months ago.
CNN Poll in right-hand Quick Vote: http://www.cnn.com/
Who fared better in the first presidential debate?
McCain 28% 29276
Obama 67% 70770
Neither 6% 5847
105,893 votes
I’m with roTL. The point of these debates isn’t to make lefty blogger types happy, it’s to persuade independents, undecideds, and low-information voters. To do that, our guy has to impress the media. I imagine that a lot of us would love to see something like this from Thomas Schaller at Salon:
Now imagine you are talking to an undecided voter and you say this. Are you going to persuade your friend with this kind of talk?
Yeah, two kinds of voters were in my mind:
1. undecideds (which I think are like a friend of mine whom I will call K; she’s having trouble with the notion of voting for someone who’s father is from Kenya, even if his mom was from Kansas…so she needed to see Obama as cool, calm, competent, collected).
2. ‘unvoters’ — those for whom voting is a new and kind of scary experience. We here on the blogs tend to forget or overlook that millions of people have either felt so powerless about their own government to believe their vote could make a difference, or else (like me) so pissed off that we’ve refused to participate in perpetuating a corrupt, screwed-up system.
I think the first group REALLY needed to see Obama as calm, level-headed, and competent.
I think the second group needed to be inspired and build some trust that their efforts could make a difference.
I didn’t see McCain as reaching either group, so I suspect that my old friend K will remain lingering with the hurdle of how to vote for a black man while she becomes increasingly horrified by Palin, and hopeless about McCain.
We live in interesting times.
Wish I had a crystal ball…
Crystal balls are more reliable the tea leaves?
Yeah, I think some of those kinds of remarks are actually written by trolls who (like Joe Scarborough) want something out of Obama that is unproductive bullshit. I think they’re trying to frame it as “hey, if he can’t rumble and bloody someone, then he ain’t tough enough.”
I have no doubt that some voters want that, but IMHO if Abe Lincoln were running today, they’d claim he’s ‘too skinny,’ or ‘too wordy,’ or ‘uses weird phrases’. I just blow off most of that b.s. because I regard it as nonsense.
And I’m convinced that some of those comments are posted by Republican trolls who come onto ‘lefty’ blogs and whine about what a crap job Obama is doing, and how he has to be ‘tougher.’ It’s 98% nonsense.
FWIW, I tried to track the Swampland blog for parts of the debate — they liveblogged, so it’s good they’re taking tips for FDL/EW ;-))
They were rather snarky, and I thought they did a good job.
I wasn’t able to follow the beliefnet.com liveblog as well, but hope to spend a bit of time scanning that tomorrow.
It’s good to see people care — and it’s good to see ways for them to participate and have to think about what they’re seeing and what it means in their lives.
I figure it’s all good.
FWIW, I ended up watching the whole debate on the NYT website; I thought the feed was really terrific. Who ever thought that I’d watch a presidential debate online through the NYT…? Not something that I’d ever expected, but it worked out very well — excellent feed. Frankly, I also think that’s a side benefit of this election, in the sense that people are trying to communicate in new and different ways.
In that sense, with respect to the debate format, I strongly concur with your views about way Jim Lehrer ran the debate. I thought that much of the most valuable information came from the fact that the two candidates were supposed to address EACH OTHER… though Obama was far more successful in that, in my view.
However, I’d argue that the ability to engage a political opponent is a critical skill for any President (or mayor, or council member, or legislator). Unlike previous debate formats, which made it impossible to assess that skill in a candidate, this one worked well.
Glad you’re home safe. No wonder things have been wonky in terms of historical events. EW was traveling.
EW @ 8
There were a few moments when McC was writing down notes and nodding his head while he was writing but the nods did not match up in the context of a response to Obama (it happened mid sentence, before Obama had even completed his point…Just odd… Appeared as though he was not even listening to Obama but to someone else…
Yeah, plus what’s been going on with his left eye recently…?
I found myself at one point wondering whether he’s ill… I was surprised at myself, but I wondered whether he’s going to make it to November. Which gave me the uber-creeps!
ditto.
If something is up, he and his party are being totally irresponsible on the matter, if there is a matter. I know a few of the posts have addressed his left side of his face.
About McCain’s appearance and body language:
Is he having that big lump on his left jaw drained periodically? Sometimes it is really big, then seems at other times diminished. (That is the side his surgeries have been on.) Big lumps and melanoma are bad news.
He twitched the muscles in his jaw several times tonight – buttons punched, angry.
What does it mean when a man rises up on his heels frequently? Trying to become taller? (I am female, so have no idea). McCain does this frequently.
Why can’t he look at Obama, even after Leher asked them to look at and address each other, not him.
Who are the “fact checkers” who will report on the debate in the next 2 days? I’d like to point out some of McCain’s lies, i.e., supporting the vets (McCain voted against the GI Bill for Iraq vets education).
The BIGGEST, UGLIEST LIE of McCain was about his “resolving” the POW/MIA question after the VietNam War. His involvement in that was SHAMEFUL!. Just Google: Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA and watch the clips showing him brow-beating the women fighting for the POW/MIA cause. Also, Google: Songbird McCain. Many of his fellow pilots and POWs don’t like McCain (that’s putting it mildly).
I thought he was probably twisting the truth on some of his other allegations that made him look good, but these 2 blew my mind!
I have always been an independent voter, but now doubt I will ever vote Republican again.
Agreed. IAVA gave him a “D” on Veterans issues.
I saw the video of McCain disagreeing with the female witness during the hearing. He totally lost it.
Re that video of McCain in 1992 Senate Select Committee POW/MIAs where he brow-beats the woman representing families of MIAs: He does totally lose control, becomes very red, stands, sits, repeatedly has difficulty putting his glasses back in his shirt pocket, finally stomps out. There are 2 versions of the same clip, one showing the F-word bleeped several times in his tirade against the woman.
The release of all documents held by DOD regarding the MIA/POWs was what the families were begging for. McCain blocked it forever with something called The McCain Resolution. I must do more research on that.
How could he have the unmitigated gall in the debate last night to claim his “resolution” of the POW/MIA matter as an accomplishment that he is proud of???
I went to http://www.FactCheck.org and searched for “POW/MIAs”. No record. So we need to send in this info since McCain used it as proof of one of his great deeds of valor (along with taking care of the vets he votes against). So many here can present this subject better than I. Please advise how best to present it to FactCheck.org.
Thank you.
Here’s a poll that counts:
While I was watching the debate, I wasn’t sure who was winning. McCain seemed like a lying jerk to me, but I wasn’t sure how it played to normal folks. Obama +14 is an astounding figure to me.
Hint: try watching five minute sections with the sound off. That generally gives me a better sense of how less-informed, less-engaged viewers will see it. Obama’s cadence, rhythms, eye contact, physical comfort, gestures, facial reactions were far superior to McCain’s.
GWBush should thank his lucky stars he never had to debate Obama (and I’m not typing that simply to slam Al Gore).
+14% in a nationwide population of 500 is a good win. I’d be even better if it were a poll of battleground states.
The Conservatives are *in shock* again!
They never really believed that MLK was anything more than an eloquent preacher, let alone a National Leader, a Statesman…
…but, Obama, otoh, left No Doubt in their minds tonight – he’s got the Right Stuff to Win this thing!
It’s very likely that tonight, for the first time, millions of previously smug “Our Way or the Highway” Conservatives formed the thought “President Obama” like it Could Be Real.
Holy Horizon-Movers, Batman!
Before We know it, it may even begin to dawn on them that Sticking to Failed Policies is a Bad Strategy, too…
I think it’s hard for those of us who watch politics play by play to judge the everyday, busy as hell voter reaction to a debate.
Lawyers can tell you that when the facts are difficut or vague that juries go on body language and appearance in a big big way. Folks who aren’t ass issue oriented or for that matter as well steeped in information of all types as many of us, notice things we do not. A big chunk of the population makes decisions from a more intuitive emotional place.
So, while I thought John did a bit better than I expected. His years of experience did show, and at least he did a good job of being in command of a wealth of world diplomatic data, to me the debate was largely a draw. McCain was not able to turn that wealth of knowledge into a clear ability to make better decisions. We could see he is in command of the dynamics of the world, but not able to see how that would enable him to make better decisions. In fact, Barack came across as more innovative, perhaps not stuck in his ways, and seemed like an even measured kind of guy. The kind of guy who would examine the facts and make good decisions. Not like the kind of guy who think’s he knows everything, and would just shoot of decisions without looking at the situation carefully as things occur.
I’ll give credit to John he did well. From a fact-based and reason based, pretty well informed POV the debate was close. Most honest informed viewers probably felt their guy won by a small margin. That’s normal.
But having some knowledge about how less informed, less logic oriented, people make decisions, I can see how Barack will break out in polls as the winner here. His presentation, body language, presence, and demenor was better, and I’m afraid that’s what matters.
In this instance I’m glad it cuts in our favor. I usually hate it that it’s that way, it hurt John Kerry, and it was unfair. It might even be unfair to John, but a certain percentage of all this is not played out on any higher level than a high school popularity contest. And that’s just the way it is.
Any way you look at it tonight wasn’t good for McCain. He didn’t hurt himself, but at the very least a whole lot of people got a good look at Obama, and he came across very well. McCain needed a clear win tonight, didn’t get it.
I predict a 2-3 point bump for Obama by mid next week.
Good points.
In case you’re interested, I just saw Biden on KO and thought Biden was borderline brilliant: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21…..6#26909602
Talk about having a political partnership to give a one-two pow!
I’m also watching for a poll rise by mid-week…
And note that we’ve seen and heard ZERO about Palin tonight… how bizarre is that…?
Biden was a busy man last night — he did a similar appearance on CNN and I’m sure elsewhere — great performance.
McCain’s opening fixation on earmarks was irritating, but it was also frustrating that Obama couldn’t rein that in by naming it for the diversion it was. I had to miss the rest of the debate, but from all I’ve read, after that Obama took over the rest of the way.
Like Olbermann, I picked up on that earmark McCain sneered at for studying the DNA of bears in Montana — Sarah of course has her earmark for studying the DNA of seals. I wonder whether Obama just didn’t want to mention her name as a way to make a point there.
I come from Alberta; we share a huge national parks system along the Rockies with Montana, and the bears (some of ‘em, anyway) naturally roamed all up and down that range. There is concern that disruptions of their migration routes and breeding patterns have affected their health, and studying their DNA would be, I assume, an important way to get a handle on that. You can make a lot of things sound silly by sneering at them, as McCain did — that doesn’t make you right.
Or as Biden said last night, “Just because I was there doesn’t make me right,” a swipe at McCain’s endless recitations of his own experiences and his condescension to Obama.
OT Warning — specific to skdadl’s 41 and McCain’s comment about bear DNA –
I knew that one of my contacts had sent me something related to grizzlies, their habitat, their health and their DNA…
http://www.wildrockiesalliance…..index.html
(I actually had a related conversation yesterday, with someone who lives in the heart of the Cascade Mountains on a once-pristine lake, where a gypo logger came in and logged a patch of land and severely impacted habitat — but trying to track that individual down, and charge them with a crime, involves about 8 jurisdictions; the criminals definitely have the advantage, and we see the results in diminished wildlife and herd health.)
John McCain’s statement that studying bear DNA is atrociously 19th century and myopic.
But consider: the gene was first sequenced in 1972 (in Belgium).
McCain (age 36) was a POW.
Barak Obama would have been 11 years old.
The gene was first sequenced in 1977; IIRC the idea that each gene could make a variety of proteins stemmed from that discovery.
McCain would have been the Navy’s liason to the US Senate, age 41, probably not much interested in biology or molecular genetics.
Barak Obama was in high school, presumably one with a better biology lab than what McCain had encountered at college in Annapolis in the 1950s.
From those seemingly-small (and literally ‘microscopic’) discoveries in the 1970s, enormous industries, educational curricula, horticulture, pharmaceutical, medical, and materials science implications have evolved in four decades. If you recognize ‘bear DNA’ is actually a metaphor for ‘biological integrity’ then you understand that McCain entirely misses the fact that ‘bear DNA’ is metaphor for entire economic sectors of the 21st century.
I’d love to have been a fly on the wall of some Big Pharma researchers when McCain dished out that unbelievable snafu. My auto mechanic might agree with McCain, but I’d look to see if Obama doesn’t get more money from Big Pharma and biotech this month.
Given the fact that McCain’s lobbyists strategists were primarily enriching themselves off housing, mortgages, and commercial development bubbles, it’s not one bit surprising that McCain is blind to the enormous economic, social, and policy implications of ‘bear DNA’.
But that one little comment is really a metaphor for how significant this election is: McCain is talking as if the microscope, the Internet, and bar code scanning hadn’t been invented. Obama is conversant with a wider range of the social implications of technology.
The ‘bear DNA’ comment was kind of a spotlight into the ignorance that’s responsible for many of the cleavages and collapses in our broken government.
And just to deepen the irony, consider that Univ of Utah — because of the Mormon’s emphasis on geneology and keeping meticulous records — has a Nobel Laureate in Genetics. And that’s in the reddest of ‘red’ states.
Go figure.
Apologies for the continuing tangent, but thanks for that link, rOTL. I’m no expert, but I know that scientists here are worried about the loss of the bears’ biological corridor (which, as Bush might say, is very very big). I’ll have to search the link further, but I sort of regret that they seem to halt their discussion at the border. Your Glacier National Park, eg, is half of the International Peace Park, the other side being our Waterton, and then the corridors head a very long way north from there. The borders do not matter to the grizzlies.
We should learn from what has happened to the pandas in China. Their small groups are already corridor-challenged, maybe beyond recovery.
Grizzlies and polar bears good — that’s not gonna sell in this election, though, is it. Doesn’t work all that well on our conservative politicians either, although no one here would dare diss the polar bear in public.
I agree. Biden was ABSOLUTELY brilliant. That guy comes across so darn well, and he’s pitch perfect on the points that need an extra tap. No candidate could ask for a better wing man. And women generally think he’s an attractive guy which works for us as well.
You’ll notice Palin was not asked her opinions of the debate.
CAN”T WAIT for the 2nd.
As a side note, a few weeks ago I sent EW a long church crowd, right wing chain e-mail that my grandmother sent me. It was glowing about how Sarah, moose hunts, and is a mom, and what a wonderful gal she is. Well, last night I sent her a clip of the “russia is next door” segment of the Couric interview, and the talking point now seems to be “well, she’s just running for VP, that’s not really an issue.” Ha!
That’s the probelem with this 20% that hangs tight with Bushco. They absolutely only look at facts they want to see. I suppose they’ll just pretend we don’t have a president next year.
I hear ya Dysmayed but condider this:
McCain didn’t blow it but I saw pat answers to hard questions. “Spending freeze”. Win with honor and all the usual crap busy people hear day in and out for the last 5 years on their TeeVee. He used such familiar jargon that I thought he didn’t represent “change”. McCain forgot to be the candidate of Change. He was the beltway guy with beltway answers.
Given the last week’s problems, busy voters don’t want the same crap they’ve been hearing.
I think he hurt himself with the “safe” beltway answer’s the guy’s rehearsed for years.
We watched on PBS which did not show a split screen.
McCain’s refusal to look at Obama was disturbing.
Lehrer kept trying to get the two to “talk to each other.”
Obama would look at McCain and address him but McCain wouldn’t look back at him or talk to him.
When McCain was talking he avoided looking in Obama’s direction altogether.
I haven’t seen any gender specific polling on tonight’s debate, but I don’t think McCain’s lack of eye contact is gonna go over big with women.
I’m glad that I’m not alone in seeing that, but I suppose it did depend on the way they were shown. I thought it was bizarre and not a trait you’d want in a leader required to get the ‘buy-in’ of very diverse interests.
RFW: Here’s hoping those results hold. I actually suspect that — depending on which YouTubes get the greatest viewership — they could build.
All signs point to a solid Obama Win tonight.
msnbc (one vote per IP) poll: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26906945/
Who won the presidential debate?
McCain 34%
Obama 52%
Tie 6%
Not Sure 8%
408,837 votes
Obama came across as Sensitive, Informed, Trustworthy and Wise – In a word: Presidential.
McCain came across as Verbally Confident, with Angry Posturing – In a word: Authoritarian.
FactCheck.org’s Debate Coverage
Check back here for our article on the first presidential debate.
Daily Show’s take on Bush’s Financial WMD Speech
That is a brilliant juxtaposition. Daily Show clip artistes do a poli-sci thesis in record time. That video ought to be seen by everyone in this country, and it ought to be seen by people abroad, too, so that they know just what they are dealing with here (in case it hasn’t been made painfully obvious already).
Why (to repeat myself) can’t the Dems have oppo research as good as The Daily Show whips up every day??
rOTL – I wouldn’t be surprised if it became clear, once the partisan pundit smoke clears away, that Obama anticipated McCain narrowly ‘preaching to his choir’ – the 30% Base – and crafted a ‘Win the Middle’ game-plan.
While McCain was worried about keeping both his eyes equally open during his rendition of “Tradition”, I think Obama may have connected with those Americans in the Middle who are Looking for a Role Model they can Respect and Trust.
Sun Tzu in “The Art of War” said, “The highest form of Generalship is to Attack your Enemy’s Plans, not his Army.”
Oh no, McCain canceled his Columbus, Ohio visit today.
What’s coming now?
I looks like McCain decided to do the show from DC instead of a Town Hall in Columbus. He may be needed for a vote on the economic bailout. This is Stephanopoulos’ statement:
I figured that was the case. He’s going to try and pull a Gang of Fourteen…
When Palin was announced as “the one!” (did you see the creepy creepy cover of the National Review with this headline?) I was worried as it seemed like some either accidental or masterful reframing. My wife, however, who barely pays attention to politics, advised that, no, give her some time and she will reveal her true, not ready for primetime self and end up being a liability. I doubted this at the time, especially when she avoided what I thought were “real” press contacts and instead agreed to be interviewed by Gibson and Couric.
But my wife was right, and it was Katie Couric who revealed this by simply and calmly asking follow up questions like “what are the pros and cons?” and “can you give us some examples?”
These exchanges clearly showed that (1) Katie is ready for primetime and, unlike a lot of her colleagues, hasn’t forgotten journalistic fundamentals, and (2) that Palin is all style and no substance, able to deliver a prepared speech but unable to withstand a simple follow up on an obvious question from Couric.
At times I wished Obama would have fought back harder against McCain, but I understand why he didn’t. Why risk. Why risk overextending your own tactics when your opponent seems to be destroying himself with every move? Why risk moving the spotlight to yourself when your rival is melting under its heat?
I seriously wonder, having watched Palin v. Couric, if her performance against Biden will fall below Perot’s VP pick (whose name I forget). I don’t know if I’ve seen anything as painful to watch on primetime t.v. as Palin’s “performance.”
Karl Rove, Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis used the google and knew all of this would come out.
I won’t bother restating my theory as to why they chose Palin.
Why do YOU think they chose Palin?
Best debate commentary ever (via Josh Marshall at TPM):
Hi WO, here I am early on a Saturday because I’m fascinated by all this — and I came to EW’s to post that very link from TPM!
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/220226.php
When I read that post of Josh Marshall’s, I kind of smacked my forehead because it triggered a memory from 20+ years ago, when I spent a six weeks watching juvenile macaques in a zoo setting, looking at socialization and imitative behavior or young macaques.
The point that one of Josh’s TPM commenters made in that post, about ‘anger being a mask for fear’, really took me back — macaques who are dominant will glare at a subservient member. The subservient member will look down, or glance away. (Yeah, I kept records, notepad in hand: Minute 1, who’s where… plot on map + plot interactions…. Minute 5, repeat… Minute 10, repeat… for weeks… and weeks…) Some of us are just DataMavens, I suppose… *sigh*
But this issue about McCain’s eye contact relevant to what Neil, aztrias, and chrisc mention above — weird interpersonal dynamics of McCain.
Something’s not right…
And the contrast between Biden and the ‘kept outta sight’ Palin just underscores the incredible gap that those of us who come here are seeing between the Dem and Repub presidential ‘teams’… breathtaking, when you think about it.
At risk of diagnosing long distance I would like to make this point. I think Mcsame’s inability to look at obama is part of ptsd.
Symptoms:
1) emotional dysregulation: mood swings specifically anger, anxiety.
2) avoidance when anxious or triggered.
3) impulse regulation problems-in an attempt to regulate mood swings.
4) his wife is an admitted drug addict-He chose her. He is either an c0-addict or co-dependent…but we are looking at putting more addiction in the white house.
I really feel we are seeing some of these symptoms. I could be wrong, but he suffered long term trauma, not one traumatic event but many and chronically. He would be at an extremely high risk to have ptsd symptoms or a personality disorder depending on his childhood.
Just thoughts…not a diagnosis.
I’m trying to process this all in the context of McCain’s increasing desperation. My initial reaction to the debate was amazement at how well McCain did, given the last two weeks. I’m well aware that I often miss body language cues that most people pick up on, so I’ve been looking for expert reaction in that area.
I didn’t even notice that McCain never looked at Obama, even though I watched the debate on MSNBC who used the split screen shots. I did notice that McCain seemed extra creepy last night, but I had no idea why and wasn’t sure if other people would feel the same way. If I look at this in the context of the craps/poker dichotomy, McCain’s already dipped into the rent money and his facade of good humor is crumbling while Obama is sitting on a big pile of chips, content to give away a few small pots as long as his pile is growing over time. A presidential general election looks like an event because we tally the votes in one night, but it’s really a long complex process and we only have indirect measures of who’s really winning until that final accounting.
Yeah, to me one of the wonders of blogs is that I get a chance to learn from people whom I would not otherwise encounter, and I think it’s true that we often ‘recognize’ things at a gut level that we can’t quite put into words.
It’s also true that lighting and staging can make a person look much better than if you were actually in the room watching them; the reverse is also definitely true — a lighting guy with a grudge or a bad attitude knows how to do some subtle damage.
I agree that the crapshoot/poker is a really apt analogy for this presidential election.
Wm O, I think you’d find this of interest:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlan…..cus-g.html
I’m unimpressed. I think Luntz is a charlatan, much like Penn. Focus groups can be useful, but not the way Luntz uses them. His ‘patented dial’ is psuedo-science at its worst.
Oh, I agree that it’s pseudo-science, and very much in short-term memory.
Also agree with your take on Luntz.
What I thought might interest you was to match the comments up with the demographics of WHO was making them ;-))
That was interesting IMHO, if not altogether surprising.
Kind of ‘can you match this statement to the voter’? It seemed like a reasonably straight forward correlation, and in my view that underscores the kind of things that George Lakoff is writing about.
Time again, I’m frustrated by Obama’s seeming passivity and reluctance to go on the attack; only to realize later that he’s much, much better at this than I am (what a surprise).
Obama’s coolness under McCain’s incessant insults and funny faces, in aggregate, makes Obama look ready to lead. McCain, by contrast, reinforced every concern out there — already magnified by his behavior this week — that he is too emotionally unstable to be president.
I’m anything but a neutral voter – but that’s the way it seems to me as I reflect on the debate.
I will stick with my earlier comments that who ever controls the emotion will win the election.
I think that during 9/11 people were not truly “scared”. They were indignant. Most folks weren’t thinking that terrorists were going to be able to keep up attacks the scope of 9/ll. And I also think that many folks have wondered how we have prevented attacks after 9/ll when we weren’t able to prevent 9/11. Bush played off the fear, and then the indignation.
Right now, my sense is that people are really scared about the economy. I think that a true leader helps regulate the emotion of the country as well as himself. The hot headed fighter is not the right man for the job right now. America needs calm reassurance and a plan.
Obama is hitting just the right tone for the times. His refusal to spend much energy attacking mcsame says to the country “Our decisions today are so important we cannot afford the energy to attack one another. We need to stay focused on the solutions not the problems”. I think he is doing an excellent job of conveying this message. Also it reassures people who ARE racist that he is fundamentally not a person who is going to over throw “whitey” which some racist people have underlying fear about. His nature, his tone, completely goes against this image and the more he is out there, not attacking the more calming I think it is to people. It takes the fight out of them. It doesn’t win their vote but it makes them feel less compelled to have the energy to fight his election.
Racists are usually so anti establishment that they don’t vote unless they are truly afraid. I think Obama does not motivate them to vote. I think some of those voices are likely to stay home instead.
I sometimes wish he would fight harder as well, but within this context, if you factor in racism and the fear people have about angry black men, he is making the right choice.
Now, I wish he would sound more like a democrat instead of a warrior…but that’s a different fish to fry. To me, there is just very little that is intelligent about war and I wish that this point would be made. I know though, that we like our revenge in america. That discussion is for another time.
Obama punches back just right. He’s in the lead, and he’s very disciplined. He’s standing there with an elder statesman and a american war hero type guy. The risk of seeming disrespectful, outweighs the potential benefit. He doesn’t need it. He hands his punches like A great fighter named Cassius Clay. Pop,pop,pop, wears them down, ropes the dope, dances and pop, pop, pop – ding, ding, ding. Knockout.
No need to push the man. He knows exactly what he’s doing.
I agree that Barak is walking a tight rope…stinging like a bee. Also I think he is being very careful not to appear black…..That requires identifying with the ‘middle class’, the ‘us’, and not ‘them’… The policies and programs are the same, but the verbal arguments have to steer clear of bringing racism and racial divisions into view….I think he’s doing very well at focusing on issues that trouble people and keeping racism in the background…
Why Voters Thought Obama Won, FiveThirtyEight.com
I listened to Bill Moyers interview Andrew Bacevich author of “The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism”. The bottom line is, and I agree with his conclusions, the continuation of the Imperial Presidency due to a one party political class. One example is Pelosi and Reids assersion the DINO’s would end the Iraq occupation. My own thought is Pelosi taking impeachment off the table and the latest is removing mortgage holder relief and bankruptcy from the Wall St. welfare plan to placate Rethugs. Our Republic no longer works for the people.
I didn’t watch the whole debate but have been looking at a lot of the commentary today.
I do like the monkey theory on McCain, but while I was looking at the split screen video above it seemed pretty clear to me that McCain wasn’t listening to what was going on around him. He had someone talking in his ear, making comments. Notice his nodding and snickering is while he’s looking down, trying to hear. He wasn’t looking at Obama because he couldn’t concentrate on both things at once.
Andrew Sullivan claims McCain said “horseshit” twice there during Obama’s comment about Spain. I guess he forgot he wasn’t alone with his inner voice…
And as far as his eye goes- I’m guessing that’s a bad botox job. If the forehead injections get too close, the eyelid droops. Not the look they were trying for, I bet.
McCain had a list of things his handlers told him to say, ie, “Senator Obama doesn’t understand” (7 times), comments about ” Israel and no second holocaust” (2 times), “Nuclear Energy ” (about three or four times), “supporting out veterens” (at least twice), “miss congeniality” (twice). He either had a wire to his ear, (you can see a daark line next to his left ear, or this is a shadow from his surgery) or he was using notes in front of him or remembering from his prep time.
McCain also relied on lies to make points, and these have been called out all over the web, his Lebanon vote, energy stance, Eisenhower “letter” and the many misstatements on Obamas record.
He is much better than Palin at stringing the “talking points” in with the lies. The result is mechanical. There was no time inthe debate that he seemed interested in what he was saying or glad to be there. Never looking or even turning to the right, where Obama stood, added to this impression. It seems he knows he has already lost, or that his campaign and his career is coming to an end, an end he cannot face. Defeat.
I worked with monkeys in my college days taking note of social interactions as well as working with monkeys on different dietary fats and oils that we hear about today.
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/r…..keys.shtml
http://www.physorg.com/news11937.html
Today I work with adolescents on the spectrum with autistic and aspergers behaviors as well as other social disorders. One of the sad and predictive behaviors is the inability/preference to avoid looking others in the eyes. Every working day I ask children to look me in the eyes.
I see this slightly differently. I see John McCain as concentrating on staying within his own world, a world he creates for himself.
Insightful to read.
Admire what you do; I sure don’t have that skill set, but I certainly respect it.
Why did Obama have go along with McCain and lie about the Georgian aggression against the people of South Ossetia? The war criminal and sometimes tyrant Saakashvili ordered the slaughter of and genocide against South Ossetia that started late one night with bombs and artillary shells dropped on the sleeping residents of Tskhinvali, the capital of the Republic of South Ossetia. The next morning Georgian tanks rolled into Tskhinvali and started destroying the buildings and murdering as many South Ossetians as they could. Finally, the Russians responded with military force and drove out the Georgian forces.
So why do most American politicians have to be automatically knee-jerk against anything Russia does? The old Soviet Union and its communist system collapsed in 1991. Russia is probably about as democratic as the US under Bush. I watch Russia Today news on a daily basis. They told me a bout hearings being held in the US Senate and House about the Georgian aggression against South Ossetia (only US politicians mostly prefer to call it “Russian aggression”). See http://www.russiatoday.com for useful information every day.
mccain’s hypocrisy in gushing over how he’ll ‘care’ for veterans was particularly heinous… What a creep…
I noticed that as well, and hated that that got let lie — But, it’s an issue that has been muddied in the media, the main narrative has not been challanged and for him to try to swim upstream on that at this time would be to open a fight where he’d be at a trememdous disadvantage.
The issue is on level deeper than is dealt with in our soundbite news, and to take it on would be to make a Kerry type mistake. He’d be right, but he’d waste way too much energy on the issue. One has to pick battles carefully here, and that is one you can easily be right on, and lose big time.
I think it’s expecting a bit too much to think that one can use 20 second responses to educate a population steeped in a century of disinformation, misinformation and miseducation to make people see the light. Obama did, in fact, state that Russian troops were in Ossetia before Georgia attacked, that he had discouraged the Georgians from provocative actions, and that he tried to get OECD peacekeepers in the region.
Unlike McCain, who is all bluster and agression, it’s clear that Obama would certainly first be involved in negotiations between parties. That’s perhaps the best time to begin changing peoples perceptions about certain events.
BTW It sure doesn’t appear that McCain always thought Putin was to be utterly mistrusted. In this 1991 interview after Bush made those “saw the soul” comments McCain comes off sounding more like a Bush lap-dog than a Maverick telling Bush that Putin is a dangerous devil.
When John Met Vlad
I agree that the game is on for a) Undecideds and b) Uninvolved. Last night was good for swinging the Undecideds toward him.
First some of the General Public responses. A CNN-Opinion Research Corp poll using telephone interviews with 524 adults who watched the debate and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.
Who “won” the debate- 51% Obama 38% McCain (13% break toward Obama). Some 60% said both did “better than expected”. 7/10 said each seemed capable of being president.
“Obama was widely considered more intelligent, likable and in touch with peoples’ problems, and by modest margins was seen as the stronger leader and more sincere.” The majority said McCain spent most of the time attacking his opponent.
And here’s some information on the Undecideds. A CBS-Knowledge Networks survey involved online interviews with 483 selected “Uncommitted voters” who saw the debate. CE +/-4 points. From this group of “Uncommitteds” 39% said Obama won the debate, 24% said McCain. 37% called it a tie. Most critically, 2 out of 3 felt Obama understands their needs than McCain.
The only good news for McCain is mixed- that 68% said he is prepared to be president, but this was unchanged from the same percentage as before the debate. 60% now said they felt Obama is ready — and while a lower score than McCain, it’s a strong 16% improvement from what the same sample of uncommitteds responded before the debate (44%). These numbers are pretty close to those in the General Public cited by CNN above. Far more said their image of Obama had improved as a result of the debate than said it had worsened. McCain’s image had also improved, but by a more modest margin.
All of this suggests that in what appears to be a very close race Obama eliminated a great deal of the issues that have allowed McCain to stay close. Given that the second poll were “undecideds” it could portend an even greater climb in results for Obama over the next weeks. McCain didn’t “bomb”…but it seems that Obama may be bringing on the undecideds.
One further point….race. Some recent surveys suggested than many individuals still have strong racial biases and this could doom Obama. I would like to make the point that while these are surely populational biases, they don’t necessarily carry over to “known individuals” who are seen as “exceptions” to the stereotype. I call this the “Huck Finn” effect…after Huck’s problematic friendship with Jim, the runaway slave.