I
n the first presidential debate Obama had more to prove. On the positive side, he had to return to his “new kind of politician” aura that he started with. On the negative side, he had to show he’s not a lightweight, not naive on foreign affairs, and not all eloquence with no specifics. He tackled the last best, responding to several questions with action lists, including his first response, in which he articulated four things that need to be a part of any economic solution – but still, he didn’t spell out the solution.
Against John McCain, though, he came off as a lightweight; very few wouldn’t against a seasoned foreign policy pro like McCain. And McCain said several times, believably, that Obama’s positions were naive, and Obama was not able to make a convincing argument they were otherwise.
As for returning to the new kind of politics, he didn’t even get through the second question (on the economic crisis) without sounding like an old Dem operative:
The question, I think, that we have to ask ourselves is, how did we get into this situation in the first place?
Well, that’s a question but it’s certainly not the question. The question we need to ask is how to get out of it, then we can deal with how we got into it. The answer he gave to how we got into it was Bush, of course, which is a very, very old school approach designed to appeal to those who will never work across the aisle, not build a new consensus. And again, his leading sentence on Iraq:
Well, this is an area where Senator McCain and I have a fundamental difference because I think the first question is whether we should have gone into the war in the first place.
No, again, that’s old pol. The new kind of politician tells us his plans for the future, his vision, not his politically obfuscated re-hash of the past.
Obama did indeed come off as a hair-splitter, more concerned with phrasing than policy, as evidenced in this guffaw-generating thigh-slapper:
I just have to correct the record here. I have never said that I object to nuclear waste. What I’ve said is that we have to store it safely.
Why else would one object to nuclear waste were it not for the storage issue? On principle? Because the color doesn’t go with the decor?
Still, because Obama kept his head above water and because of McCain’s messaging strategy, the debate was a draw. And that’s why McCain needs a new messaging strategy.
McCain’s core messaging thus far in the campaign has been drawn from his experience: His wartime POW experience, and the many bills he’s supported, leaders he’s met and countries he’s visited since. Here’s how that was articulated in the first debate:
War stories: Eisenhower before D Day; re-enlistment ceremony in Baghdad; Matthew Stanley’s bracelet; our defeat in Vietnam, “”Jim, when I came home from prison …”
McCain definitely has dialed this part of his messaging back. His POW experience didn’t enter into the debate at all; the last comment was just a bridge to his POW/MIA work. This is excellent because America knows his POW experience but many suspect he’s just an old fogey compared to the robust, young Obama. Too much focus on the physical abuse he endured over 40 years ago – when Obama was in elementary school – no longer serves him well.
Also, McCain needs to walk a fine line between having military experience and being too steeped in the military ethos. Not as many Americans have a personal touch with the military as used to, so for more and more voters, it’s a mysterious, misunderstood and even somewhat threatening thing. McCain shouldn’t, indeed can’t, walk away from it, but he has to put his love for the military in context. Telling stories makes him an old vet of a long-ago war; putting it in context makes him presidential.
Legislative experience:: A much too passing reference to his 2005 Freddie/Fannie bill; earmark reform; the Littoral combat ship; a Boeing contract; a long ramble on positions on war from Lebanon through Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia; “When I’m a subcommittee chairman …;” “I supported Nunn-Lugar back in the early 90s;” :I have worked across the aisle. I have a long record on that, on a long series of reforms;” “I’ve been involved, as I mentioned to you before, in virtually every major national security challenge we’ve faced in the last 20-some years,” resolving the POW/MIA issue after the Vietnam war.
This is of course McCain’s strong suit and it needs to be positioned against Obama’s legislative inexperience, which is one of his greatest weaknesses. McCain did not do this; he just pulled out bills and issues from his hat, which effectively showed him to be a greater senator than Obama, but did not necessarily more presidential.
We Americans tend to think of professional politicians in much the same way we think of professional athletes: They don’t have real jobs. We work every day, getting our hands dirty (or at least sore on the keyboard), racking up miles on the car, and coming home beat. The play sports and play politics, so we begin zoning out when politicians start talking about bills – especially bills from the early 90s that none of us remember. Sure, McCain’s record is impressive, but the only way he can make it truly interesting and purposeful is to use it against Obama’s record.
Leaders and Countries: “I went to Iraq in 2003,” “Two Fourths of July ago I was in Baghdad,” “George Schultz … told me once,” “I’ve been to Waziristan,” “Dr. Kissinger, who’s been my friend for 35 years,” “I looked into Mr. Putin’s eyes,” “… Tbilisi, where I have spent significant amount of time with a great young president, Misha Saakashvili,” “I was there (Osetia, Abkhazia) once,” “I know our allies, and I can work much more closely with them,”
McCain is in danger of getting into POW stories trouble here. He has established that he knows world leaders and is well traveled, so too much use at all is over-use today. We certainly don’t need to know about two trips to Baghdad and two trips to Georgia; one each will more than do.
As with legislation, face time with world leaders and hands on, on the ground experience with troubled lands differentiates McCain from Obama, and needs to be used in that context. McCain would have been better to say just once on Iraq, “I’ve been to Iraq seven times, and each time I’ve gone with an open mind, talked to troops, officers and generals, and formed my opinion based on what I learned. Senator Obama has been once, and he issued his statement before he left.”
New Messages
So, how should the McCain camp revise its messages? Let me play Obama and give you some numbered points.
First, it must confront the age issue. The way to do this is not to say, “I’m pretty chipper for a 72 year old;” rather, it’s to show him as a man who’s continually thinking, who’s on the move, dynamic and ready for new ideas. Do this, and the public won’t necessarily see him as younger, but will no longer see his age as a problem. This means spending less time telling stories from a decade or more ago and more time talking about his quest for hands-on information and how he processes that information to stay ahead of issues.
Second, the campaign needs to let us see a little of the intense McCain who’s now covered up under a personable guy who seems too laid back to be a maverick. This is a fine line adjustment, of course, because on the other side is that mean, nasty McCain who really shouldn’t be seen before Nov. 3, but there is room for improvement. It’s about passion, and we didn’t see or hear passion from McCain last night. It needs to be doled out in very small doses – just once in a debate, no more – but I want to see him raise his voice a little, stab at the podium or even choke up a bit. If we see that, it will reinforce my first point, because being perceived as more dynamic helps to nullify the age difference.
Third, McCain has to humanize his tax and economic policies. A poll conducted overnight after the debate by CBS found that twice as many thought Obama understood their needs as McCain. I can see why because Obama’s tax cuts for 95 percent of the middle class sounds more in touch than McCain’s plan. McCain needs to flip his economic messages 180 degrees, explaining its benefit not to “the economy” but to “you.” It’ll be a nifty trick, but it’s easy to contrast the short-term, modest benefit Obama’s 95 percent will receive with the long-term job and salary benefits that will come with McCain’s program.
Fourth, experience in Washington and around the world always needs to be contrasted with Obama’s lack of experience. McCain didn’t draw the distinctions forcefully enough last night and he missed many opportunities. A passing reference to Obama’s three years in the Senate comes to mind, but it was not enough. McCain needs to have Obama’s complete Illinois and DC work product memorized, and must be facile at using it against his opponent.
Fifth, McCain needs to get stronger on his energy talking points and stronger on belittling Obama’s. The playing field for this game isn’t nuclear power, which is where McCain was playing last night, but drilling. The new Dem drilling bill is outrageous, and Obama outrageously said this about it last night:
We’ve got an emergency bill on the Senate floor right now that contains some good stuff, some stuff you want, including drilling off-shore, but you’re opposed to it because it would strip away those tax breaks that have gone to oil companies.
The bill has nothing in it McCain likes, and he opposes it, as does every single Republican, not because of tax issues but because it simply would not lead to a meaningful increase in offshore oil production. Earlier McCain referred to the bill (I think it was this bill) as “festooned with Christmas tree ornaments,” but he never closed the loop and attacked Obama and the Dems for being out of touch with the American people on energy. Again, he has to stop talking so much about what he’s done and begin putting it more in context with Obama’s policies and Dems’ actions.
Finally, McCain needs to be who he is, a man who puts country first. He said that term only once last night, which is about right, but let me show you two passages in the debate that reveal the great potential offered McCain by building up this message deck. First, here’s McCain:
But I have a fundamental belief in the goodness and strength of the American worker. And the American worker is the most productive, the most innovative. America is still the greatest producer, exporter and importer.
But we’ve got to get through these times, but I have a fundamental belief in the United States of America. And I still believe, under the right leadership, our best days are ahead of us.
Now, Obama:
You know, my father came from Kenya. That’s where I get my name.
And in the ’60s, he wrote letter after letter to come to college here in the United States because the notion was that there was no other country on Earth where you could make it if you tried. The ideals and the values of the United States inspired the entire world.
I don’t think any of us can say that our standing in the world now, the way children around the world look at the United States, is the same.
That was the second time Obama said the world’s opinion of America has deteriorated. Look at the structure: To Obama, America’s glory is in the past tense – “the notion was,” “inspired the world.” Between Barack and Michelle, there is a litany of such phrases and McCain has to pull them up regularly, turn them around for the audience to see, and then go “Country First” all over them.
The big fear that is keeping Obama from pulling away from McCain in a race the liberal pundits think should be a cakewalk isn’t fear of his skin color, it’s a fear that we may not really know the man, that we may be misreading him, that he may be hiding something. That utterly is not the case with McCain, who has no questions at all swirling about him. By reworking the “Country First” message deck, the McCain campaign can accentuate these worries and doubts, build on national pride, and make a McCain vote that much easier to cast.
The article delves into the Cloward-Piven strategy, spawned in 1966 by two radical socialist professors from Columbia University, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. The strategy was promptly – and accurately – described in The Nation, a publication that would like to put an end to our nation:
Soon, if I noticed, we only had one car – that 8-passenger Lincoln disappeared but I wasn’t aware of such things. I didn’t even know, or would I have cared, that Dad had been building a portfolio for each of us although I do remember the occasional dividend check from Indiana Gas and Electric that arrived periodically at each of our places at the dining room table – that $1.75 was really exciting. Dad always took me to the bank and helped me deposit it. This was the bank my Grandfather owned, a beautiful building, all highly polished brass and marble and ceilings way up there! Dad always brought candy for “the girls” who worked there – he was actually quite debonair. Some of it eventually regained its value.
Jack was working there then learning the business, but after the crash, he was selling Realsilk Hosiery door-to-door, hoping to save enough money to get back home.
