Sealing the Deal

It's not over, but Barack Obama passed a critical hurdle tonight. In a debate centered on John McCain's area of strength, foreign policy, he fully held his own.

I tip my hat to both candidates for their preparation on the foreign policy questions. McCain scored more points on the foreign policy areas, especially toward the end, but Obama was never outclassed. I would say Obama won on style points (pleasant demeanor vs. crotchety and contemptuous). McCain's digs brought out the well-schooled debater in Obama, who got his points in consistently.

Although Obama frequently said, "You're absolutely right, John", and McCain often said, "You're mistaken, Senator Obama" (or the equivalent), that doesn't mean that John was always right and Sen. Obama was always mistaken, and I think the American people actually saw that. Obama's giving credit to his opponent is a debating tactic that sometimes throws them off, but it didn't particularly do so tonight. I think he should shift to a different, but similarly off-putting approach for the next one (like completely ignoring the last thing McCain says, whatever it is), whereas McCain will try a different style as well, one less confrontational (because the hard-edged style hurts more than it helps with undecided voters).

In the opening section on the bailout and on domestic priorities, Obama edged McCain also--basically because the whole discussion was tilted to his advantage--though neither candidate seemed fully prepared to argue the questions. In particular, Jim Lehrer's frustration with both on the parts of their plans they would be willing to defer was somewhat justified. To me, the correct answer that neither came up with is the following:

The bailout (or substitute your favorite euphemism) is a one-time event (I'll make sure of that!), possibly a one-year event from a budgetary perspective. Even a large budgetary deficit, if limited to a single year, would do relatively little harm to our economy. Therefore, the degree to which my long-term priorities should be permanently dislodged by it is limited. What would change the ability to achieve them would be if the crisis persisted: therefore we must move to complete the deal, change the confidence level in the financial markets, and contain the cost. Then we can move on all these areas which require changes more confidently.

No one approached the question that way at all. But, no matter. Maybe they'll come up it with when they think about it some more.

In terms of flash polls, Obama seems to have gained with undecided voters and in terms of the general public's perception of "who won". That remains to be seen, and seeing the result fully may take until the eve of the next "event"--the VP debate next week. (For which, I can announce, I've made my coverage plan: I will not watch it, but have my wife and 9-year-old daughter watch it and tell me what they think.) In terms of secondary, tertiary, and quarternary analysis, Rasmussen's market had moved from 51-49 a couple of weeks ago to 57-42 Obama going into the debate. I'd guess it's back to 60-40, where it's been most of the last five months. As for the CNN, from the usual 65-35 Obama, it had gone down to about 58-42; before the debate it was close to 70-30, beyond which I don't think it will go much further for the time being. I'll put actual updates on those two as comments.

Finally, two technical points that were not uncovered regarding the interminable discussion (during and after) of Iran and meeting with Ahmadinejad:
1) Obama correctly pointed out that Ahmadinejad would not be the most appropriate person for him to meet directly (as A. is not the most powerful political individual in Iran and thus a suitable counterpart--that would be Supreme Leader Khamenei); and
2) CNN showed the original question about meeting the leaders from an early Dem primary debate. The names of the leaders were not specifically given; the question was whether Obama would meet the leaders of certain named countries.