The most shocking and terrifying moment of tonight's debate – the moment when I yelled out “Holy f*&%ing sh#t” – was not the moment when Obama got angry and told McCain that he did know the difference between a tactic and strategy (work it out, Barack), or even the moment when Obama almost found his stride and accused McCain of being a pretender to the change mantle.
Nope, it was the moment (near the end) when McCain nearly got away with tying Obama to Bush (!!!) by arguing that Obama was unable to admit that he was wrong:
McCain: You know, we've seen this stubbornness before in this administration -- to cling to a belief that somehow the surge has not succeeded and failing to acknowledge that he was wrong about the surge is -- shows to me that we -- that -- that we need more flexibility in a president of the United States than that.
Brilliant! Not 100% successful, but brilliant! Talk about a “Hail Mary” pass… :)
Now is this comparison factually accurate? Of course not. But the scary thing was that this moment resonated because it reflected the tone and timbre of the entire debate. Tonight, McCain sounded like the positive, hopeful candidate, and Obama sounded negative and defensive. This could be just my subjective impression, but I don’t think so. According to a preliminary transcript on cnn.com, Obama used the word “can’t” thirteen times in the debate. McCain used it four times.
Why did this happen? I think it comes down to this: Obama wasted too much of his precious air time attacking Bush and trying to link him to McCain, instead of being clear about what he would do if elected and framing his answers with a message of hope.
By now, the flaws in the Bush foreign policy are conventional wisdom. Most of the public and the media have accepted this, moved on, and are trying to decide what to do next. McCain articulated this quite well in the debate:
McCain: The next president of the United States is not going to have to address the issue as to whether we went into Iraq or not. The next president of the United States is going to have to decide how we leave, when we leave, and what we leave behind.
But the issue is not just substance. While Obama went on the attack, McCain won this debate – and continues to win on foreign policy in general – because he was able to craft his answers into a hopeful narrative. McCain answered Jim Lehrer’s questions with stories that communicated his vision coherently and effectively. For example…
I went to Iraq in 2003 and came back and said, we've got to change this strategy. This strategy requires additional troops, it requires a fundamental change in strategy and I fought for it…
This strategy has succeeded. And we are winning in Iraq. And we will come home with victory and with honor. And that withdrawal is the result of every counterinsurgency that succeeds.
Obama didn’t. His answers were disjointed. Often, they came off sounding like lists of good ideas.
Obama: Well, first of all, I think that we are safer in some ways. Obviously, we've poured billions of dollars into airport security. We have done some work in terms of securing potential targets, but we still have a long way to go.
We've got to make sure that we're hardening our chemical sites. We haven't done enough in terms of transit; we haven't done enough in terms of ports.
And the biggest threat that we face right now is not a nuclear missile coming over the skies. It's in a suitcase. This is why the issue of nuclear proliferation is so important. It is the -- the biggest threat to the United States is a terrorist getting their hands on nuclear weapons.
And we -- we are spending billions of dollars on missile defense. And I actually believe that we need missile defense…
The other thing that we have to focus on, though, is al Qaeda…
This would have been a great outline for a high school history essay, but it’s not convincing when spoken aloud on national television. (Reminder to Obama: don’t become Al Gore! Remember the lockbox!).
Even worse, Obama’s answers seemed to suggest that he lacks an approach to foreign policy. This is a serious weakness on the part of Team Obama. I mean, I love the guy, but after tonight, even I was starting to wonder whether he has a coherent approach to foreign policy. He has a lot of good ideas that I agree with (focus on diplomacy, restore America’s standing in the world, non-proliferation), but there doesn’t yet seem to be an approach. If there is, he didn’t communicate it tonight. And one thing that people – especially Americans – look for in a leader is that they have an approach, even if it's not perfect.
Does McCain actually have an approach? I don’t know. David Brooks sure doesn’t think so. But he looked like he did tonight. And tonight he also showed us that if you have even the appearance of an approach, you can set the tone of the debate and keep the other guy on the run.
We know Obama is a great storyteller. That’s what made his speech at the 2004 convention so electrifying, and that’s why he’s sold enough books to buy that big ol’ fancy house. So, please, Senator Obama, take back the change mantle! Go back to those themes of hope and opportunity that got you where you are. Tie McCain to the Bush administration, but only after you’ve clearly outlined a positive vision for what you are going to do if – when – you become president. Americans want you to be that leader right now… tell us your vision for change!
