Obama '08?

Obama's strongest moments may have been toward the end when the debate shifted to Iraq. Clinton struggles to defend her actions at the time with her new position now and it just doesn't come across well. If this debate were being scored like a boxing match, the first 60 minutes would have been judged as a draw but the last 30 minutes would have been given to Obama on points, thanks to the Iraq issue.

for ... McCain to sit there and imply that somehow there is something wrong with private enterprise, is in fact an insult.

But his eyes are amazing. He looks to moderator, audience, moderator, and then down for effect, especially to convey deep thought. He holds the moderator's gaze for long stretches. All of this is very natural and comes across as very sincere. Hillary does this shifty-eyed thing that was much worse at the beginning but she still does, especially when it's a topic she's less comfortable with. Down-right, down-left, down-right UP down-left, down-right, UP. Comes across as very insincere.

I'm glad Obama didn't lose, and that by at least one measure he won (I'd imagine the 68/32 thing is an outlier...)

But I sure understand his frustration after all that self-excusing BS of Hillary's about the reasons to at the time believe that Saddam etc etc... she should have been at one of the anti-war rallies in '03, then she could have heard then already the stuff that she and all those other top US Democrats of the time only discovered years later...

Well, thats something I definitely didnt notice.. either Obama's amazing eyes or Hillary's insincere shifty-eyed thing. And I dont even like Hillary. All in the eye of the beholder I guess.

And of course, thats what comments like these are for, to just give instinctive responses, I did it too -- so no prob -- just saying that this one sounds particularly.. well, like it says a lot more about your feelings than their "aspects of communication"

One of the things that I have noticed is that many people are comparing Obama with John F. Kennedy. You are too young to remember this, but the word that was bandied about (ad nauseum) when Kennedy was in office was "charisma". He looked presidential, whatever that means. He had a presence that would have done him well at Central Casting.

Could be of course, but remember that this is what I do. I communicate without any aural information whatsoever -- I get all of my information from faces and body language.

Found two more "Obama won"s without even really looking: Andrew Sullivan (not as obvious as you might think, he's been critical of Obama's debate performances in the past even though he's a fan) and Josh Marshall (TPM).

Could be of course, but remember that this is what I do. I communicate without any aural information whatsoever -- I get all of my information from faces and body language.

Still on The Plank, John B. Judis also calls it a tie; his is a good item, I will post it below.

Pro and Con

Many of my friends and colleagues are firmly committed to either Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Obama, but I am among those Democrats who shift their allegiance from week to week, and sometimes from day to day, and will probably finally decide who to vote for when I enter the polling booth in Maryland on Feb. 12. And the debates don't help me decide. They exacerbate my indecision, because they invariably highlight the complementary strengths and weaknesses of the two candidates.

Clinton is substantive; a policy wonk who knows what she is talking about even when she is hedging her position. Healthcare certainly, but her discussion of immigration or foreign policy also seems to respect the complexities of the issues. Yet Clinton seems incapable of articulating broader political themes--saying in a novel and interesting way what is wrong with the country and what needs to be done about it. She is running on experience, which is to say on her own past, and on a promise to use that experience to solve problems. That tells voters something about herself, but nothing about how she sees the country or them. The two prior Democratic presidential candidates, Al Gore and John Kerry, had a similar problem.

Obama is the epitome of a thematic politician. He is very much a Democratic version of Ronald Reagan. He captures the essence of his own appeal--and his own biography--in his promise to unite a hitherto divided America and world. But his discussion of policy is perfunctory and plagued with inconsistency. That was evident during this debate. As my colleague Jon Cohn has explained, you can't really have a well-functioning universal healthcare system--or a social security system--without everyone participating. But Obama keeps saying that he doesn't want to "force" people to buy insurance.

Obama spoke seemingly eloquently of America as a nation of immigrants. He said it was "scapegoating" to blame immigrants--and presumably he meant illegal immigrants--for taking inner city jobs, but later in the debate, he justified giving undocumented workers a path to citizenship "because if we don't, they will continue to undermine U.S. wages." Well, if they undermine U.S. wages, they do so by replacing native workers who were getting higher wages. And it's not clear why providing a path to citizenship would eliminate the downward pressure on wages. It didn't seem like he had thought it through--and perhaps like Reagan and unlike Clinton he is not that interested in the details.

Clinton was clearly not at her best in trying to justify her vote for the Bush administration's resolution on war with Iraq. But I have never found Obama's promise to bring the world together through diplomacy very compelling. He thinks setting a specific date for withdrawal will "prompt the Shia, the Sunni, and the Kurds to actually come together and negotiate." Maybe, but I have my doubts. I am not sure Clinton knows what to do either, but when she refuses to be pinned down on a date for withdrawal, I hear someone who appreciates the difficulty of what she would inherit if she becomes president in January 2009. I worry about Clinton's political ability to get the country behind what she wants to do; but I worry that Obama wouldn't know what to do. And the last debate didn't ease these concerns.

--John B. Judis

okie wrote:

for ... McCain to sit there and imply that somehow there is something wrong with private enterprise, is in fact an insult.

But of course he never implied anything of the sort. He merely said that in order to be a President, you dont need to be a business manager - those you can hire.

But by all means continue the internecine strife in the Republican Party, I sure as hell dont mind