Here's an interesting piece of reporting from the Wall Street Journal:
The first debate, on Friday, will be at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, where in 1962 the enrollment of James Meredith, its first African-American student, touched off a deadly riot. The debate commission had directed that this debate would cover domestic issues, but the two campaigns agreed to change it to foreign policy. Sen. McCain's advisers wanted to lead off with his strong suit, foreign policy. Sen. Obama's advisers wanted to have the last debate center on domestic issues, particularly the economy, which they believe will benefit their candidate. Also, some Obama advisers said they didn't want the issue of race "front and center" during a debate.Easiest. Negotiation. Ever. Both campaigns thought that having the foreign policy debate first and the domestic policy debate last would help their cause. This was the reverse of how the Commission on Presidential Debates had set things up originally.
But of course, both campaigns can't be right. So who is? Let's poll this one, and then I'll have a few quick thoughts below the fold.
There is little doubt that a discussion on foreign policy is playing to McCain's strengths. Even when Obama may be winning a foreign policy argument on points, it probably benefits McCain for foreign policy to be the subject of discussion, period, as it brings his experience, war heroism and purported readiness to the fore.
However, that's not really the question. We're going to have a foreign policy debate, and we're going to have a domestic policy debate. The question is whether McCain benefits by having the foreign policy debate first.
The first debate usually gets better ratings than the last debate. In the eight campaigns since 1960 in which there were multiple Presidential debates, the first debate had 60.7 million viewers on average, and the last had 56.3. This year, however, the first debate is on a Friday, which is moderately unusual. There were also Friday debates in 2004 and 1976, and two out of the four debates in 1960 were on a Friday. In each case, these were the lowest-rated debates of the cycle. So I'd expect this to be a wash.
Then there's the question of momentum versus expectations-setting. Clearly, it would benefit McCain to have a jolt of momentum right now -- he's had a rough week. And foreign policy presents him with the better opportunity to do that. On the other hand, let's recall 2004, when George W. Bush was completely awful in the first debate (which did produce some momentum for John Kerry) but then only somewhat awful in the second and third debates -- which the press was happy to call comebacks and wins for him since the first debate had so lowered their expectations.
If Obama does badly in the foreign policy debate, he'll get maybe 30 cents on the dollar back in terms of lowered expectations for the next two debates. On the other hand, if the foreign policy debate were the last debate, there would be no more debates left, and so Obama would have nowhere to cash in that change.
When push comes to shove, the equilibrium of this campaign favors Barack Obama by a couple of points. McCain's goal is to knock the campaign off equilibrium for just long enough that one of these periods coincides with November 4. It would be easier for him to do that if the foreign policy debate, in which Obama is more likely to stumble, were held last. Conversely, a bad performance on Friday would leave Obama with two debates and 40 days to recover, and a media that will probably be happy to help him along. So, I'm giving Steve Schmidt an error on this one. Somewhat true to form, it's a decision focused on winning McCain the battle rather than the war.
183 comments
great analysis. The McCain campaign is one big greedy algorithm.
Bounces are fleeting. The one who does the best around the time of the election wins.
Team McCain is thinking short term narrative change, but Team Obama is in it for the long haul.
Nate - Sorry to do it here, but shouldn't you reflect Dole's losing in NC now and give the Dems 56.3 seats?
BTW - I think the debate format benefits Obama. The economy is going to be the hot issue and it will be important to close on it. McCain has squandered his argument about being a "world leader" with his pick of Palin and his confusion of Spain as Venezuela (or some other Latin American country).
It will be pretty near impossible for the lead story to change from domestic to foreign policy this week.
STepper said...
Nate - Sorry to do it here, but shouldn't you reflect Dole's losing in NC now and give the Dems 56.3 seats?
That's not how it works. At all.
It's a net benefit for McCain. McCain needs something fresh to reset a storyline still focused on the economy, and this will be great timing for a change of subject as far has he should be concerned. Neither men are particularly good or bad debaters, and thus will probably split the two traditional debates and win on their "home turf" (McCain's being foreign policy and Obama's being domestic issues). While the domestic policy debate is last and thus closer to the election, I can't imagine it generating as much interest as the first debate due to viewer fatigue.
I suspect Obama is wrong in this case simply by chance - his reasoning at the time was, I think, sound - close the campaign on economic issues.
However, given that the campaign is so strongly on economic issues, losing a few news cycles to foreign policy right now does not help him. But of course, he couldn't have known that the market would do what it did over the last week, so that was a genuine unknown.
On the other hand, it could be that the market woes so swallow the foreign policy debate that it has no impact - probably a best case scenario for Obama.
Economics going last benefits Obama *unless* there's a fight over the bailout or Obama winds up on the wrong side of an argument on the issue between now and then. That shouldn't happen, but it's not a lock.
Nate: Could you please get your own forums? It'd be so much nicer than this comment system.
I wonder if the public won't want to hear about foreign issues when our domestic issues are so...frankly frightening...right now.
In the long run, however, I think McCain loses the war...badly.
Given the state of the economy right now, the real key for Obama is to bring every foreign policy question back to how it effects us here at home with respect to jobs, domestic spending, etc.
He can basically answer every question by tying McCain to Bush and how Bush's foreign policy has hurt us economically here at home.
McCain will probably see a bump in the polls after the first debate, no doubt. But if the economic crises continues, he might have wished he saved that ace-in-the-hole until sometime later. Closing the debates on the issue of the economy will benifit Obama, ESPECIALLY if it is still an issue in a few weeks.
...but it's a trick question. Debates really don't change things that much. It will average to a wash for both candidates (which in this case is good for Obama if he's already leading). Even in 2004, when kerry absolutely slaughtered bush in the debates, he STILL couldn't overcome bush's lead in the polls.
I think its a win for Obama, as he'll tie foreign policy directly to the economy -- $10B in Iraq per month, global competitiveness, energy independence, etc. -- making him seem more in tune with the electorate, while McCain tries to change the subject to a more traditional view of foreign policy, which viewers back home won't have the patience for when their life savings are dwindling by the day.
and yes, as others have stated, if Obama can push the media narrative into carrying the "the economy affects foreign policy and vice versa" narrative, then he will wrap things up.
Nate, you're partially wrong. As you probably know, the McCain camp wanted to avoid the freewheeling debate between the vice-presidential candidates and asked for a straight question/answer format for the Biden-Palin match on Oct. 2.
I'm speculating here, but I strongly believe the Obama camp granted the request in exchange for the switch between the domestic and foreign themed debates in a typical quid pro quo.
Guys, don't confuse FOREIGN POLICY with ARMED SERVICES.
McCain chairs the senate armed services committee, he doesn't sit on the foreign affairs committee. Foreign affairs deals with way more than Iraq/Afghan. It includes our relations with China, Europe, Russia, NAFTA, Japan, Mexico, Canada, Australia, etc etc. McCain is usually focused like a dart directly at "Foreign Affairs" that involve us in a combat roll, aka war since he's the most hawkish senator we have. If the debates gets into troop recruitment rates, armaments manufacturing, troop deployments, etc, then McCain has a huge advantage. But if the debat is about our future relations with the European Union or the roll that NATO plays in world stability, then Obama has an advantage.
Theres two sides to foreign policy, McCain focuses on the hawk side, but theres also the dove side which he doesn't perform well on at all.
Well I think that most Foreign Policy experts (including Condi and Colin) would argue that Obama is stronger in foreign policy than McCain.
The only issue about who is declared the winner is whether the MSM buys into empty, and dangerous, one-liner sabre rattling such as "We are all Georgians", or "We must defeat evil". (anyone want to bet Fox's take in advance?).
Given McCain's current GAFFERATE, though, I do see a big potential risk for him (maybe along the lines of "I will never allow Spain to join NATO")
I feel like foreign policy is not nearly a default McCain win. Most of his recent gaffes, ignoring his apparent shifts in position within the span of hours, have been related to foreign policy, ie. sunni v. shia, prime minister of spain, czech.
Add to that the aggressive, black and white, rhetoric McCain tends to use when talking about foreign policy, ie. Russia/Georgia. Which I feel will be jading to Americans, who are suffering economically and tired of expensive wars.
I think this might be a big loss for McCain. Many Americans take it for granted that he has the foreign policy card, but many of them really haven't heard the specific details of his views. We might see a drop in his foreign policy favorables and then he's not going to have much else to run on...
exactly right shadowguidex
AGAIN, I believe you folks are oblivious:
1. Barney Frank just said that this bill for the bailout may end going into next week.
2. Tuesday and Thursday are the public hearings in both the Senate and the House with Paulson and Bernanke. THIS will get HUGE play.
3. Republican congressmen will grandstand, and led by Gingrich on the outside, apparently upto 100 Republican congressmen may block/object and/or new alternate plan. No buying the bad debt, just take equity stakes in banks and financial companies that need it. Either way, majority of Congressmen are demanding pay maximums for top execs in companies where bailout funds are to be used.
3. All of above will make markets swoon globally, the short selling blockade will help mitigate, but one can still short the financial indexes like the XLF index. So, expect mini-crash in the markets again.
4. IN the end, the bailout will be too late and credit crunch, liquidity problems will reemerge.
5. One should expect bank lines for withdrawals due to people hoarding some cash at home, countrywide in the next few days. Already beginning to happen with the richer folks, I am told!
ALL in all, the financial mess will get worse soon, unfortunately.
THIS IS WHAT THE NATION WILL BE FOCUSED ON THIS WEEK, and one should expect foreign policy to recede from the minds of most, at least in relative importance.
Finally, we will see a lot of BUSH on TV as well, at the UN....his last meeting at the UN. People will SHUN him and he will look foolish like a pariah!!
NONE of this can help McCain!!
Come on Nate, we really don't need you to tell us if you think it's better for Obama or not, of course you'll say it's better for Obama.
I think this debate is gonna be a wash. In all likelihood, we'll reach an agreement on the bailout on Friday. That will _DOMINATE_ the news cycle all weekend, and it will be paired with a bit of talk on the debates. Because the candidates will not be talking about the economy and the historic bailout, news organizations won't be able to link the two events up as readily.
Anything major that happens (say, good or bad for either candidate) will probably not hit the fever pitch that it would have when there were no other catastrophes.
Just look at Hurricane Ike, for instance. All that shit is still unfolding down there, but there is literally no discussion of Ike. That's astonishing.
Just a guess.
It's simple. The most viewed debate is the first one and a debate on economic policy favors Obama. Changing it to foreign policy was a slight miscalculation by Obama.
Steve Schmidt is an idiot. More and more I'm starting to think the problem with McCain's campaign is Schmidt, not McCain. If his plan for winning news cycles now is to keep attacking the media then he'll sink McCain.
Well, I said I wasn't going to waste my time reading your analysis since I already knew what it would say (McCain bungled by having the foreign policy debate first).
Well, no surprise, that's pretty much Nate's opinion.
If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it still help Obama?
Nate: Yeah
it all depends on how the economy does in the next month, wouldn't you say?
it all depends on how the economy does in the next month, wouldn't you say?
it's amazing how many GOPers you can spot that didn't read the article...
Unertl, Nate addressed the viewership issue in the article:
"The first debate usually gets better ratings than the last debate. In the eight campaigns since 1960 in which there were multiple Presidential debates, the first debate had 60.7 million viewers on average, and the last had 56.3. This year, however, the first debate is on a Friday, which is moderately unusual. There were also Friday debates in 2004 and 1976, and two out of the four debates in 1960 were on a Friday. In each case, these were the lowest-rated debates of the cycle. So I'd expect this to be a wash."
NEXT talking point please...
This is tought to figure out and nobody will really know until it's all over on Friday. McCain is going to talk in stump-speech sound bites and is undoubtedly being given one-line zingers to use that will be played over and over again by Fox/CNN/MSNBC etc. Remember, intelligence has nothing to do with winning a presidential debate -- as a matter of fact, it can downright hurt a candidate.
My guess is that Obama is prepared for McCain's aggression and McCain's incessant talking points -- that McCain will talk on end in this debate about how Obama has no experience, how his judgement sucks because of how well the surge worked, and how spending all those years in the Hanoi Hilton has made McCain the shoo-in candidate to lead our country (heaven help us if it works).
Somehow, Obama is going to need to figure out how to counter-punch and effectively turn McCain's stump-speech talking points in muddled-pablum induced garbage. And at some point, Obama will need to get aggressive himself by talking about how much the Iraq war has killed out standing in the world, destroyed our economy in the homeland and how we've all been duped by Bush/McCain into believing that they're still looking for Bin Laden.
A great line Obama could use, "Senator McCain likes to speak about how he, and he alone, can find Osama Bin Laden, how he would follow Bin Laden to the Gates of Hell -- well, I'd like to know, if Senator McCain has known all along how to find Bin Laden then why did he allow so many of our brave soldiers in Afghanistan to die in THEIR search for Bin Laden?"
Great question and good analysis Nate. I think that the economy will continue to overshadow everything and make whatever shift in focus to foreign policy fleeting.
Solid points by all, especially shadowguidex. The issue for BO will be whether the general public sees that difference.
Bo is in his stride and JM is faltering. It will help JM to get back to comfortable ground, but his current state makes the probability of a gaffe much higher and that would end it all. BO has a lower bar and just needs to come across as competent, calm, and steady.
Overall, a good move by BO but the proof is in the eating of the pudding. And, there are always the uncontrollable factors - see Pakistan.
This will benefit McCain because Obama will mis-prepare for this debate and McCain won't, just like Saddleback. Obama will be all foreign policy-fied, thinking like you do that this means Georgia/Iraq/Afghanistan. McCain knows that domestic policy is actually foreign policy.
McCain will push domestic drilling as a means away from foreign dependence, and Obama will stutter and say short term excuse.
McCain will push financial health as a way of securing our foreign interests, and Obama will stutter and say it has nothing to do with foreign policy.
Obama, all prepped up, will finally have his 'surge' answer ready, and McCain will respond with the details on Afghanistan, not to mention Ukrain, Georgia and Russia.
Obama will finally catch his feet and go all 'they hate us and the US needs to behave better' stuff, and McCain will counter with his actual experience in working with foreign governments, including his experience in managing financial markets (whatever it is, but he'll find something to claim).
Then McCain will close with his actual experience in crossing the party lines, and Obama will be left saying 'me too.' McCain's call to service v. Obama's hopenchange.
This change benefits McCain because Obama's view of the agenda will be too short sighted, just like yours and just like what he thought of Saddleback. McCain will through a couple topic curves in and Obama will be unable to address them. He will stutter. He will 'um'. And he will look the amateur to McCain's experience.
Maintain your comfort in the poll leads. It won't last until Nov 4, my friends.
The Truth About Debates: Mostly people see what they want to see. McCain partisans will think he won, Obama supporters will insist he cleaned McCain's clock.
People in the middle will break down on one side or another depending on whether they were secretly leaning for Obama or McCain. A "great" performance will move the polls a bit.
I'm trying to remember the last time that a debate changed the outcome of an election and it might be 1980. Before that 1976.
The trailing candidate in 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 tried to somehow grab some momentum from the debates and failed have them make any real difference.
In truth while the media goes wild over who "won" the debate mostly people watch the debates the way they watch a prize fight. They want to see their candidate knock the other guy out. And they salivate over every verbal blow and wince at every "gaff" and elevate every triviality into earth shattering importance.
Most likely the debates are a draw. McCain will tell more moving war stories. Obama will talk about the economy and both will attack the other. McCain will bloviate about victory, and Obama will accuse him of bad judgment for supporting the war in the first place.
I used to think that this election would be like 1980, where voters were basically ready to support Reagan because they wanted change. But, Obama's black and too many Americans will NEVER be comfortable voting for him. There's just no way that a good debate performance will resolve enough people's "doubts" about Obama so that he'll win in a landslide as Reagan did.
He's going into the debates winning. All he has to do is keep McCain from gaining ground after both debates are completed.
The VP debate is always an afterthought. It never matters a damn what they say. Even Dan Quayle's performance couldn't sink Bush. Palin will "exceed expectations" and it won't matter at all. The same people who love her will still love her no matter what, and those who don't like her won't like her much better after she's done.
I think Nate is on the right track, and there is another reason to add to his list.
In 1980, Reagan was seen as a naif on foreign affairs and was behind in the polls (I think, somebody pls chk) going into first debate. But by doing basically OK against the more experienced and incumbent Carter, he increased his stature, adn went into a lead that he kept thru the election.
The 2008 election has been compared to the 1980 election in a number of ways, and this could be one more similarity.
McCain has already thrown away half his trump cards by (a) nominating a VP who makes Obama look seasoned on affairs foreign (in fairness, the wingnut base believes that she knows Russia by geo-osmosis and doesn't agree with me, but everyone else does) (b) commiting some major gaffes on foreign policy (incl. provocative talk at Russia, definitely not smart or cool, except to the wingnut base and Palin who think war with Russia
over Georgia is a neat policy option).
So--if Obama comes across as informed, thoughtful, serious, and plays well the cards he has---Bush is now following exactly Obama's long enunciated path on Iraq and even pakistan--while shrugging off the bellicose remarks of McCAin on the surge, Iran, Russia etc. ---he will come out no worse than he goes in, and maybe better off.
And after that, having economics on the front burner right before November plays to his strengths and the tenor of the times.
Que le meilleur gagne!!
A gamble by BO on the debate order that could go either way. But in the end, Cugel you are right on. Barring any major gaffe, people will see what they want to see. So, this should just crystallize some opinions and take out some of the noise in the polls.
NC_voter said...
McCain will probably see a bump in the polls after the first debate, no doubt. But if the economic crises continues, he might have wished he saved that ace-in-the-hole until sometime later. Closing the debates on the issue of the economy will benifit Obama, ESPECIALLY if it is still an issue in a few weeks.
I think that's where having the domestic debate last is a winning move for Obama. The bailout plan will probably pass this week, the news will turn away from it and into this debate. In all likelihood the news cycles will have turned away from the economic turmoil by the last debate, and that last debate will bring it back to the foreground. Essentially the debate layouts will control the turns in the news cycles (unless there are unforeseen events) and after the debate the election focus will be right back where it started before the debates.
The real wildcards in the debates are the second debate (town hall format) and the VP debate.
Advantages to McCain would be 1) the possibility that Obama makes a verbal mistake that can be exploited via new TV/internet commercial spots (though I'd argue the reverse is true if McCain makes a gaffe), and 2) it does steal news cycles from the economy.
The main advantage to Obama is that as of right now, 4 days before this debate, there is no shiny !NEW! foreign policy scare that requires him to quickly form a reasoned opinion on before debate time. If the "official" foreign policy debate was later on, the chances of such an event increase, though realistically if something crazy happens in the world it will be a topic of debate regardless.
So, I suppose that is another reason why the earlier foreign policy debate is better for McCain -- more of the total debate time could center on foreign policy if something happens later.
Now, I personally feel that Obama is better suited to handle foreign policy issues than McCain is anyways, but since McCain's strong-talk foreign policy will "work" for him regardless of what happens in the world (or when, since he will use the same talking points on an hour's notice as he would with a year's notice), it all comes down to whether or not *something* happens within a day or two of any of the debates.
If Obama has three days notice, I think that he can debate McCain effectively and even win, but there is risk for him if he has to formulate debate points on less notice. He is better off debating foreign policy issues that he has already had weeks/months/years to carefully consider.
OzJohnnie: Right, and then Obama will go, "You're a stupidhead," and McCain hits him back with "I'm rubber and you're glue!" So Obama thinks he can win with "Nuh-uh," but McCain will be all, "Yeah-huh, STUPIDHEAD!" Then Obama will stand there crying while McCain does fake Kung-Fu moves in celebration.
That more or less what we should expect to see on Friday?
@Cugel
The 1976 debate had a foreign policy gaffe by Ford who was, despite the Nixon pardon, still ahead of Jimmy Carter. Until he said Poland wasn't behind the Iron Curtain.
Bye, bye Jerry.
I think having the first debate be about foreign policy helps McCain in 3 ways.
1) It shifts attention away from the economic crisis, which according to CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/22/cnn.poll/index.html) voters blame on the Republicans.
2) It gives McCain the chance to establish momentum early by relying on his strong suit. A solid performance in the first debate would convince people to listen to his other ideas in later debates with reassurance.
3) Obama tends to give long, drawn out answers to foreign policy questions (1 to 2 brigades a month, residual forces, etc). All McCain has to do is pound his hands on the podium and say that he's no "cut and runner" or "I will never surrender" and the crowd is his.
thinkingman;
If Obama has three days notice, I think that he can debate McCain effectively and even win, but there is risk for him if he has to formulate debate points on less notice. He is better off debating foreign policy issues that he has already had weeks/months/years to carefully consider.
And in here is Obama's issue. McCain HAS had years to think about all this and formulate opinions. If the debate gets the slightest bit out of Obama's comfort zone, how will he respond? If you are all not worried, then you should be.
Oz.
Sept 22 Polling Update
Obama 282, McCain 256
Youth Vote: The Draft in Your Future?
.
Foreign Policy???
Economic Policy???
It's getting to be all about "race" . . .
I don't know if Nate has seen this one yet, but . . .
There is a real eyebrow raising internet poll out from Associated Press/Yahoo in conjunction with Stanford University on "race" . . .
After reading the methodology, and in light of the timing, this one comes off as one of the most egregious "push polls" conceived.
It's being interpreted by the pundits and radio fog horns as Obama having a 6% over actual polling because folks aren't telling the truth to the various polling firms.
I know ... I know ...
But it's not as Silly as Seems. . .
I think a foreign policy debate will only hurt McCain because he will inevitably mention Georgia and Russia, which most people don't care about. People care about the economy and McCain bringing up Georgia will make them think his priorities are in the wrong place. Obama, on the other hand, will focus on Pakistan and Bin Laden, which is always good.
Oh yeah, plus I love this:
McCain will counter with his actual experience in working with foreign governments, including his experience in managing financial markets (whatever it is, but he'll find something to claim).
You think some Charles Keating stories might play well at this stage of the script?
tomemos;
School ground taunting. Last refuge of the weak thinker. Nice.
Your efforts here are a good reflection of how well Obama thinks when faced with something unexpected. Not the silly taunts, or course, but their complete non-responsiveness and lack of value. Obama will do as well as you in responding to challenges.
Oz.
The problem with the media coverage is, if McCain makes a foriegn policy gaffe (etc Confusing spain with Latin america), they consider it "cute" and take have a chuckle before dismissing it as "classic mccain, that rascal"
Yet if Obama were to do something like that, you'd know the MSM would be on it 24/7, questioning obama's "readiness" and stuff like that, while praising the foreign-policy-GOD that is McCain...
Debates will be a wash, just like they were in for the last twenty four years. But now, a democrat is leading in the polls for the first time...
And in here is Obama's issue. McCain HAS had years to think about all this and formulate opinions.
Yet all those years of wisdom flew out the window when he cheaply pandered with "We are all Georgians now."
dog knows;
It's being interpreted by the pundits and radio fog horns as Obama having a 6% over actual polling because folks aren't telling the truth to the various polling firms.
I know ... I know ...
But it's not as Silly as Seems. . .
So, the Bradley Effect doesn't exist, but the reverse-Bradley Effect. Sure! Why not!
You guys are figgin' delusional.
Oz.
With a consensus of folks claiming, 'Foreign Policy is McCain's strong suit'...does this mean that if he actually FLUBS in this first debate, its over?
In seriousness, I think Obama would prefer to be debating economic policy right now, to keep the story alive for a while. (On the other hand, when every domestic initiative can be countered with "so how you gonna pay for that?", that doesn't necessarily help him.)
I agree with what was said above, that if Obama does a competent job in the foreign policy debate that counts as a win for him. The McCain campaign let the expectations get too low for Obama on foreign policy.
Everyone is assuming that Obama will suck in the first debate. What if he keeps toe to toe with McCain. McCain makes a lot of gaffes everytime he opens his mouth. Obama won't look so bad if McCain starts making up countries again or starts saying that he will keep us in Iraq for 10 000 years.
I don't expect either of them to really shine in this first debate
Oz, I think that it's a wash on that point. Obama (or the moderator) is just as likely to ask McCain a question slightly off-putting as McCain (or the moderator) is to ask one of Obama. And I think Obama and McCain are equally likely to handle those questions without completely bombing. The bigger danger for Obama that I see is if something along the lines of another Russia-Georgia conflict arises on Thursday night (or the night before any of the other debates) and McCain is more than comfortable going with his gut -- which it seems is how he would govern -- whereas Obama will not have the chance to weigh all the angles and could trip up.
I just want Obama to keep bringing up how much the Iraq war costs. And then say something like, "given the cost of this war, in precious human lives and treasure, ADDED TO THE FINANCIAL MELTDOWN WE ARE EXPERIENCING, the end game of this war did not make sense".
Jeez, Oz, I wasn't taunting you. I was imitating your absurd characterization/wish fulfillment fantasy of how McCain will make Obama look like a little boy. In order to taunt you, admittedly.
tito;
Yet all those years of wisdom flew out the window when he cheaply pandered with "We are all Georgians now."
This zombie like chant works well with Obamaphiles, but McCain cleaned the deck with Obama on the Georgia issue.
Here is what the debate will hinge on: decisiveness v hedging.
McCain will speak in short confident answers. Obama will pontificate and 'um'. McCain will seem experience and reliable. Obama will seem unsure and risky.
You all can claim that Obama's speaking style really reflects a deep intellect and the need to convey great nuance, but these questions aren't all that difficult. The electorate will perceive weakness, and rightly so.
As you are watching the debate, ask yourself this: Which candidate best placed the buzz quotes that can be easily understood and repeated by the evening news? The uncertainty you feel is your heart letting you know that Obama may fail. How many McCain supporters expect him to fail?
Oz.
I voted that it was better for McCain simply because he desperately needs some momentum right now.
But there is also another aspect to this. The VP debates are the very next week, and if foreign policy becomes the talk of the nation after this first debate, it increases the interest in the subject right before we get to watch Sarah Palin debate Joe Biden. And then whatever blunders or weakness Obama could possibly show on that issue sort of gets blocked out by the Biden versus Palin specter that will happen 6 days later.
We're not the ones who you have to psych out, Oz.
cugel;
The VP debate is always an afterthought. It never matters a damn what they say.
Now that Biden is proving himself to the be the shallow-thinking gaffe machine that he is, despite the nutroots best efforts to deny that reality when he was picked, you had better hope so.
I don't think your right, however. Too bad.
Oz.
It's best to start strong and finish strong. Put your weak points in the middle. If you think the debate is the first time undecideds will pay attention and you can change the narrative through last second commercials, then advantage McCain. If you think undecideds have already started paying attention (conventions?) and the last debate is what they'll remember when voting, then advantage Obama.
Adanthar:
Nate: Could you please get your own forums? It'd be so much nicer than this comment system.
+1. It seems like on a cutting-edge site run by really smart people, this would be self-evident.
shadowguidex:
McCain chairs the senate armed services committee, he doesn't sit on the foreign affairs committee.
Err, I think you mean he's the ranking Republican, since he's in the minority party. Carl Levin is the chair.
- Equal Opportunity Cynic
tomemos;
The McCain campaign let the expectations get too low for Obama on foreign policy.
Expectations can never be too low on content for President, just on style. And McCain and his blogging supporters are attacking Obama's style. When he 'ums' his way to the world's most unimpressive content, the expectations will be fulfilled.
Time to get nervous.
Oz.
Nobody cares about Georgia, OzJohnnie. I can assure you, "we are NOT all Georgians now". When McCain dropped into his Iraq monologue on 60 minutes he seemed more out of touch than anything. This hawkish defense stance is just too expensive and most of the country knows it, even if McCain "wins" the debate by coming up with some cute soundbytes, if he says anything that even remotely implies either another war, or staying in an existing war for longer (unless it is Afganistan which most Americans actually associate with OBL)- he will lose.
I think everyone is going to get a "Debate" surprise.
I expect that both McCain and Obama will do VERY WELL in both debates. Obama will perform BETTER than ANTICIPATED in the first debate and McCain will perform better than ANTICIPATED in the second.
It'll come down to people deciding which approach they prefer. I've decided a LONG TIME ago that I prefer Obama's cool intellect to McCain's shoot first ask questions later. Even on this financial crisis McCain came out so quickly with an answer that he's had to dance back from it - and away from his LIFE LONG work to DEREGULATE everything - a true Repub! He continues to look foolish.
This is why Republicans fail at foreign policy:
You all can claim that Obama's speaking style really reflects a deep intellect and the need to convey great nuance, but these questions aren't all that difficult.
Oh really? I guess when your candidate sings "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" then the bar isn't really set too high to begin with.
Hint: Every time the GOP trolls proclaim a variation on "you libs should be getting nervous", it in fact means that there is absolutely nothing to be nervous about, and that they are simply covering up for some insecurity.
Remember, last time we were supposed to "get nervous" was after the palin pick's "fundamental shift" LOL!
Question #1: If Obama bombs in the first debate, can he still win the election?
Question #2: If McCain bombs in the first debate, can he still win the election?
bay area resident;
Nobody cares about Georgia, OzJohnnie.
Nobody cares in your zipcode, but that's not true for the rest of the nation. And it's not Georgia that is the issue, but the Russian bear.
Your inability to see how a small question plays into a larger topic is the same liability that Obama struggles with.
He will fail.
Oz.
emonokari;
1: No.
2: No.
If someone "bombs" and everyone can recognize it, then the election is over.
Oz.
Hint: Every time the GOP trolls proclaim a variation on "you libs should be getting nervous", it in fact means that there is absolutely nothing to be nervous about, and that they are simply covering up for some insecurity.
Aye. When your adversary warns you to 'Be Nervous'...it means HE is. You see this from Playgrounds to Poker-Rooms to Politics.
The balance in the first debate is that Obama has to "reassure" on foreign policy and not screw up, while McCain has to live up to higher expectations.
I think there is substantial risk for McCain, because despite his supposed "experience," he doesn't appear to have a lot of interest in foreign policy other than wars. He may produce some good sound bites, but the ones in his stump speeches have been increasingly ludicrous attempts to blame everything bad in the world on Obama, and I don't think that will play nearly as well in a forum where there are followup questions and requests for actual evidence.
Honestly, though, I think both campaigns have done an unusually poor job of managing expectations for this debate.
tito;
I guess when your candidate sings "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" then the bar isn't really set too high to begin with.
And that is why Obama will be unprepared. He will be no better prepared to face McCain than you are, and you would wilt in an actual debate with that petty snark and playground taunting.
Oz.
There's also something to be said for shifting the discourse towards foreign policy after two weeks' relentless hammering on domestic economy. There's no way people can keep focused on the bailout for that long in this soundbite-driven media climate. So if they had kept the economy-first schedule, I suspect a lot of people would've been so sick of the whole thing already that they wouldn't have given Obama any actual props for shining during the debate, nor penalized McCain for flailing.
There is also the other foreign-policy-first scenario: Obama actually outperforms McCain, either because he is better prepared or because of lowered expectations, or both. This gives him another boost in the polls, potentially driving him towards landslide territory. Which thoroughly and finally unbalances the McCain campaign and the candidate himself, for the rest of the general election.
I agree with Nate on the scheduling: advantage Obama.
If someone "bombs" and everyone can recognize it, then the election is over.
Just curious, considering what we saw in 2004's first debate. I was a Bush supporter at the time and was sick to my stomach by the end of it.
"If someone "bombs" and everyone can recognize it, then the election is over."
How I wish that were true in 2004. But here I think you're right. Since there's no incumbent here, people will welcome an excuse to drop one candidate or the other.
emonokari;
Aye. When your adversary warns you to 'Be Nervous'...it means HE is. You see this from Playgrounds to Poker-Rooms to Politics.
All things being equal, yes, but all things are not equal in this election. Short of a miracle, McCain will not win. This is Obama's election to lose - remember how scared you all were a week ago that he was blowing it?
Well, your short lived respite in the polling will disappear. McCain's chances can only improve - he has no fear of losing because that prospect will happen anyway.
But, remember how "deer in the headlights" Obama was for two weeks after the Republican conventions? When the meme gets out of his control again, and you can't rely on a financial meltdown every week for the next six weeks to distract the election narrative, then he'll panic.
You may want to consider panic soon as well.
Oz.
Oz-
You are an idiot. Stop posting, please.
Plus, with all the economic news, I doubt the moderators (or the candidates) are going to be able to resist discussing the economy at least a little on Friday. If the current economic situation detracts from foreign policy as the sole focus of the debate, Obama might end up with the equivalent of, say 1.25 debates on the economy, and only 75% of a debate on foreign policy.
And, the expecations game. Right now, between the "Obama is a poor debater/he's too professorial" meme (which I think is only partly true, and which I think Obama can overcome), and the assumption that foreign policy is McCain's strong suit, Obama has the benefit of lowered expectations for this debate. If the domestic policy debate had been first, and he'd excelled in it, then McCain might be the one benefitting from low expectations going into the foreign policy debate.
And, I think Obama is stronger on foreign policy than people give him credit for! He may surprise some people.
The final debate this year is not on the weekend before the election like in 1980 but rather takes place in mid-October.
So even if one of the candidates does a great job in the final debate, there will still be plenty of time for twists and turns and October surprises to undercut the debate champ's momentum in the final three weeks.
Barack was terrible in the most important primary debates (NH and PA).
I think foreign policy first helps McCain because if a good performance by McCain in the first debate is followed a week later by a Palin defeat of condescending, gaffe-prone Biden -- that would be a knockout one-two punch Obama would be unlikely to recover from.
redshift;
The balance in the first debate is that Obama has to "reassure" on foreign policy and not screw up, while McCain has to live up to higher expectations.
Wrong. Obama must be better than McCain. If Obama is OK, but McCain is stellar, you think the electorate will say, "What the hell, let's vote for the new guy"?
The expectations game relates to unknowns and style only. Obama has really low expectations on style. What him mentally kick himself the first time he 'ums'. It will be all downhill from there.
Oz.
OzJohnnie, people in all zipcodes only care about the "Russian Bear" IF
- their economic livelihood is ok
- their jobs are not threatened
- they can afford the basics, etc (no inflation)
In other words economic concerns trump all others like Mazlow's hierarchy of needs. That is why McCain didn't poll well when he tried to bring up the surge on 60s minutes. Yes he was right about the surge but so what? we are on to another subject now. Next week, we will start to get news releases on the thousands of people laid off on Wall Street, then it moves downdraft. I can assure you the car dealerships just had a complete HALT in their business and this is nationwide.
I would love it if McCain got up there and talked about every scary place in the world and said we needed 300K troops in each of those locations.
One reason why it might help Obama to have the foreign policy debate now: McCain's Spain gaffe is still a recent memory. Expect to see a question asking him to clarify. He'll either have to double down on dissing Spain, or backpedal furiously. If he doesn't handle it well, it will become the headline story from the debate.
The original gaffe wasn't covered all that much outside the Spanish-speaking media. Depending on how it plays out, this could help the general public become better acquainted with the ugly sequence of McCain getting confused during an interview, and then intentionally alienating an ally to avoid having to admit his mistake.
AxmxZ, I agree. People are in overload with the current economic crisis. If this debate was on the economy, the baliout would be the primary topic, to the exclusion of any others. By having it later, it will hopefully broaden the discussion and open people's receptivity to it.
I also think JM is sounding more tired and dated on foreign affairs. He is also known for his arrogance and I think he may not prepare as much as he should.
BO has been working on his speech patterns and improving some. See the 60 minutes interview as an example. But, he still does have his faults there and really needs to figure out how to net out his message. Like it or not, it is what sticks with the audience. BO can do it. The question is whether he will deliver.
People are worried about their pocket-books now and will be so on 4 Nov. Having foreign policy first simply means Obama has the advantage of the focus on the economy after the last debate and then through to the election. And what makes people think McPain will out-point O on foreign policy. The GOP are figuring that having foreign first means their candidate is not knocked out which would have happened if they went with the economy first. Which ever way you slice it it's a win for O. But apart from whatever reasoning, an old man with early-onset Alzheimer's will always perform badly. Keep a look out for the stumbles, mumbles and vacant stares.
@ Cugel, 11:55 pm
Your analysis is pretty much correct. I'd like to add that the electorate is much much more partisanized now than in 1980, so a huge sweep would have been unlikely no matter who the candidates were.
At first, I thought advantage McCain. However, upon further reflection, this is better for Obama. It's best for him to get the foreign policy debate out of the way and have the last debate that is in people's minds be the economic debate.
Demockracy.com
Demockracy.com
For those who believe that Obama made a miscalculation on deferring to foreign policy first, then you really don't know Obama who will tie the current Iraq war into the economic situation thus getting a two-fer debate on the economy.
It has been stated over and over again that the war is costing us the ability to obtain universal healthcare and building/improvement of our infrastructure.
Obama will also weave into the debate our need to speak with both friends and foes - something McCain disagrees with but a strong talking point and area of agreement to most Americans that we must restore our place in world standing.
Iraq has over 80b dollars of surplus - Obama will charge that they need to assist in financing their rebuilding (again economy)
Obama has taken the lead on most current foreign policy issues such as a timeline (naive McBush called him) only for the Iraq Prime Minister to demand timetables to the Bush time horizon.
Obama called for an increase in brigades to Afghanistan - help is on the way!
The wars and the economy are one in the minds of Americans who are suffering with job losses, home foreclosures, decreased income, higher food/gas prices - so as stated earlier - Obama gets a two-fer.
Oz: So, we should worry because Obama is winning?
Man, why don't you just post analysis? You made a non-partisan point just a few minutes ago and I responded to it, wasn't that nice? Let's just do that from now on.
prof skunk: I'll be watching for that temper, too. It's gotta come out sometime, and the pace of the campaign has to be wearing on him.
Oz -
I'm not Obama, and I'm not debating McCain. You are not McCain and you aren't debating Obama.
I'm free to be snarky and taunt you all I want, and exercise that right with joy. But you didn't really address the bold-faced issue that I was pointing out: If you think foreign policy issues aren't all that difficult than your an idiot, one who probably thinks that ever foreign policy crisis involves sending in troops and dropping bombs. Personally I've had enough of the same militaristic foreign policy we've had for the last eight years, and all McCain offers is more of that same disturbing vision.
Come on, a gaffe can win it for the other party, we know that because it happened with Hillary "you're likeable enough". Thats why Biden has to be careful about the Palin debate but Palin comes off as such a shrew somehow its hard to see her as a victim. And her demeaner/speaking voice/accent turns off so many she could bomb with the independents just by showing up. I remember hearing her 'sorrrtaa like a coooommmuuuunittyyy ooorrrrrrganizzerrrrrrr" while I was in the other room at home and it was like screeching nails on a blackboard. But back to Obama - he Can lose a lot in these debates. He can't win with them, but he can lose.
Oz:
"Obama has really low expectations on style. What him mentally kick himself the first time he 'ums'. It will be all downhill from there."
I just realized that, when we talk about "expectations," you actually have it completely backwards.
You want your own expectations to be reasonably low going into the debate, because if you exceed them then that's counted as a win. (See: Palin, Sarah.) If your expectations are high, that's bad because you have to match them or you lose.
If Obama has low expectations on style, as you say, then all he has to do is speak competently and he'll be all right. And if he were as disastrous a debater as you think, he never would have gotten out of the gate.
bay area resident;
I would love it if McCain got up there and talked about every scary place in the world and said we needed 300K troops in each of those locations.
Saddleback... Saddleback... Saddleback...
Which candidate had a better grip on what moved the electorate at that forum? And not just the people in the hall, but the MSMers that all (Bar Olby, of course) agreed McCain won handily.
And speaking of talking tough? Which candidate do you think will feel more pressure to make 'tough guy' statements? So what do you think Obama's 'tough guy' gaffe will look like?
Here are my guesses:
* "I was right to say we should invade Pakistan"
* "I'll talk to Iran, but bomb them to stop their nuclear program"
* "If Al Qaeda manage to get strong again in Iraq, I'll go back in regardless of what the Iraq gov't says"
* "I, too, will surge in Afghanistan, and will more divisions that McCain promises"
There is just too much potential for Obama to promise something stupid, like he has on the trail, but in this forum the MSM can't bury the story.
And that, my friends, is why this was a bad move for Obama. He displays his weakness, thinking that if he makes a gaffe he has time to correct it with the other debates. McCain knows it's important that Obama make it early and then they hit it often. He is being end run on this just like he was with Palin. He doesn't see the danger and neither to you all.
Oz.
RE: OzJohnnie
I know something about Russia (lived and worked there, speak the language) and I work on things nuclear.
Rules 1-3 of dealing with Russia and ALL Russians wherever they are are forever the same:
>>>Do not talk lightly of war with Russia.
They have survived horrors Americans absolutely cannot imagine (like losing nearly 20% pf their population dead in WWII) and they intend to survive anything anyone else throws at them. And they are rich again, thanks to oil and gas, and they intend to stay that way, no matter what. And their real President, Vladimir Putin, is an elite graduate of the best KGB education there was to be had.
And ANYONE who snaps off a remark (as McCain and Palin both did) about teaching a Russia a lesson to support a charming idiot President of Georgia, or "perhaps needing to go to war with Russia" is totally unqualified to come within 10,000 miles of Vladimir Putin.
I cannot find the words to describe how idiotic these hipshooters are and how ineffective and dangerous they would be in power.
Fortunately, I have both US and Australian passports. Useful in an On the Beach scenario.
At first, I thought advantage McCain. However, upon further reflection, this is better for Obama. It's best for him to get the foreign policy debate out of the way
And it will be turned back to the expense of foreign policy in the first 2 minutes. With a pointless war currently costing 1 trillion and another 1 trillion bailout on the way the american people are all into costs now.
Which candidate's foreign policy will be less likely to bankrupt the country? That's the one we want.
I think Obama made the right choice specifically because the focus is currently on the economy. When the last debate comes around, he gets to renew focus on the economy if it has fallen out of the spotlight. If the bailout bill is delayed for until Monday, the foreign policy focus will effectively last a weekend.
And Oz, you really have no idea what you are talking about. Obama's substance on foreign policy is much better than McCain's, as his ridiculous backing of Georgia, who started that conflict, showed. The guy claims to be a foreign policy expert, yet every time he talks foreign policy, he make some huge factual error. I don't know why you think he'll do good.
But back to Obama - he Can lose a lot in these debates. He can't win with them, but he can lose.
Obama can't win in the debates? But he can lose? Please explain further. Thanks.
For VP debate: Biden has already lost the debate because of the expectations game. At least by ceding to McCain campaign demands about VP debate format, news media can remind people about Sarah Palin's incompetence and maybe allow Obama camp to claim victory after the VP debate by saying that "in spite of McCain camp's demands favoring their VP candidate, Biden won the debate."
I don't think that the Catholics in Pennsylvania will decide how the state ultimately votes.
I believe that the blue collar male workers in the Rust Belt states Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, and maybe even, Wisconsin will end up voting for "the Babe" in droves, giving the election to McCain.
It's going to cause irreparable damage to the country especially if, as cannot be discountd, Ms. Palin becomes president. She's already linked the almighty to the war in Iraq. Perhaps she thinks God will take our side in a nuclear war with Russia.
tomemos;
So, we should worry because Obama is winning?
No, you should be worried that he doesn't know how to campaign from behind. If the financial meltdown hadn't hit, would Obama be back in front? What action did he take to change the dynamics?
Oz
(And I noticed you comments. I too concede points from time to time (at least once anyway) but this is a debating forum, no? We gotta hammer it out.)
tito;
If you think foreign policy issues aren't all that difficult than your an idiot
This issues are difficult, the answers aren't. The "Straight Talk Express" has years of experience at honing complex issues into simple questions.
Contrary to many of your opinions, the ability to express complex things in simple terms is not a sign of a dimwit. The ability to make both simple issues seem complex, however, is a sign of inexperience.
Oz.
Rovian response, shown several times above: "Anyone who thinks this will hurt my candidate is biased."
With the amazingly short news cycle of this election, I cannot see how having the final debate strike a domestic policy note helps McCain in the slightest, unless there is a significant October Surprise militarily or in terrorism.
That's a poor bet for a candidate to make.
That's a poor bet for a candidate to make.
Unless you have help in the White House.
Nate, your ability to analyze politics is limited. You have very little grasp of the political history needed to offer more than junk food. Stick with numbers crunching.
Oh, Oz. Your constant assurances that Obama will fail miserably and that we should all be nervous is amusing in how you have to keep repeating it again and again to make it look like you're not the nervous one. As is the irony of you referring to others as resorting to schoolyard tauntsd and snarkiness when you yourself are hypocritically stooping to the same level, but thinking that in your case it's alright because it's you and anyone who isn't on your side isn't allowed to employ the same tactics you use.
Typical GOP hypocrite, sweetheart, that's all you are.
No issues we face are simple.
Simple minds like Bush's show what those types of leaders provide...
...failed banks, failed markets and economy, failed war policy, failed disaster recovery, no energy policy...
None of these issues are simple but they were passed off with lies and simple Homer-Simpson phrases. America has paid dearly with its tax dollars and lives.
Time for a leader with a Brain (not McCain)--vote Obama
jhh112;
Useful in an On the Beach scenario.
Everyone ended up dead in that movie.
And despite your vast experience of Russian affairs, I trust McCain to know better how to deal with Putin. The same will be true with Obama.
I wonder... when the question comes up on how to deal with Putin, will Obama waffle and claim "pay grade" excuses? And will McCain offer a short, terse answer similar to his abortion response?
Hmmm... This looks like another bad decision by the Obama campaign.
Oz.
Oz -
It's not a black and white world. You can't generalize every foreign policy issue into a soundbite. I'm sure you think that's a winning strategy because your campaign is focusing on winning news cycles, but it's a mistake for voters and media who are looking for meat and potatoes answers for pertinent issues facing us in the next four years. Sometimes it's good to go with your gut, but people expect more out of foreign policy. Besides, McCain can't even figure out the difference between a Sunni or a Shia, nor does he know where Iran even is on a map (Game Time Hint: It IS that border between Iraq and Afganistan).
I notice you keep talking about Saddleback, as though something monumental happened there. You realize that wasn't a debate, correct? Obama and McCain will be on the stage at the same time Friday night and people will be able to contrast and compare in real time. Sucks for McCain.
I firmly believe that the first debate is perhaps the single most important event remaining between now and election day....
Yes, McCain's alleged strong-suit is foreign policy. He comes in with high expectations (and, I suppose, Obama, in turn, comes in with lower expectations). But the real significance is that--like a gift from the gods for McCain--this first debate rudely interrupts the current all-economy-all-the-time news cycle, and puts him in his comfort zone.
Now, IF (and that is no certainty) McCain has a great night and Obama faulters, McCain has a chance to drill home this advantage and make the undecideds lock in to foreign policy issues as the deciding factor. This only has to hold up for a few weeks, which is do-able. And, of course, it is game/set/match for McCain should anything "happen" (excuse my cynicism) in the "war on terror" before election day.
ON THE OTHER HAND.... If it is a draw or better for Obama, all of a sudden McCain is down, the conversation can return to the economy, and barring some miracle McCain is too damaged to cross the finish line.
So, I guess my point is that it is probably even odds either way as to whom this benefits, but once the first debate is in the past, I think we will see a firm and solid trend for the remainder of the campaign.
Plus, I think that the voters may lose interest in the debates after watching the first--boosting its relative importance. Remember, famously, that Nixon looked bad in the first 1960 debate, but excelled in the later debates--but the damage was already done.
tito;
It's not a black and white world. You can't generalize every foreign policy issue into a soundbite.
On this we agree. In the debates, however, there is no detail. There is no subtlety. The questions are inane and the answers more so. Trying to make inane questions look complicated does not indicate subtlety. It indicates weakness and insecurity.
Biden, of course, realizes this, which is why he keeps offering up sound bites. Deliciously, however, he's a gaffe-a-minute amusement park ride so it isn't too helpful to his cause. But his instincts are correct.
Oz.
tito;
I notice you keep talking about Saddleback, as though something monumental happened there. You realize that wasn't a debate, correct? Obama and McCain will be on the stage at the same time Friday night and people will be able to contrast and compare in real time. Sucks for McCain.
Yes, of course, I realize that. It was the only think that saved Obama. I seem to remember both Obama and Hillary! on the stage during the last couple Dem primary debates. How did those work out for him? Sucks to be Obama.
Oz.
(And yes, I know he limped over the line. Shame there are no caucuses in the General Election.)
I notice you keep talking about Saddleback, as though something monumental happened there.
Well it did, we saw Obama give good answers and McCain have a total soundbyte meltdown - shoot he even answered questions before they were asked.
Sadly for John Sydney the third it seems to have been a last gasp - shoot lately he can barely read his speeches anymore. Now that there is a real emergency people are going to realize the team of early Alzheimer's and naked ambition just is too risky.
the bob;
Now that there is a real emergency people are going to realize the team of early Alzheimer's and naked ambition just is too risky.
That's the spirit! Let's hope Obama plays to his base with the same sort of "lipstick", "old fish", "can't type" shots that have served him so well.
You guys are brilliant.
Oz.
funny guy, they don't have to bring it up - its been obvious for the last couple weeks - McCain is on his last legs mentally and Palin is all naked ambition without any finesse.
No one will need to bring it up - they will act it out for all to see.
JHH112-
It's my measured opinion that if an American President finds himself leading a war against the Russian Federation, then his presidency is a faliure.
But, I guess that OzJohnny doesn't get that. Makes sense. He doesn't have a dog in this fight. Fucking kanagroos.
roger;
I firmly believe that the first debate is perhaps the single most important event remaining between now and election day....
Not a bad post. If you are correct, however, then this is a bad decision, yet again, by Obama. Why would he give McCain a chance to grab the narrative? Only answer is that Obama thinks the last debate will be more important to election day. Shame he didn't have you advising him, because I firmly believe you are correct.
Oz.
mason;
It's my measured opinion that if an American President finds himself leading a war against the Russian Federation, then his presidency is a faliure.
Under every reasonable circumstance? Russia isn't an independent actor here, free to make decisions in their interest regardless of the White House's position on any issue? Your, and Obama, naiveté with foreign affairs is that you assume that the US instigates or can influence all actions. And that is simply not true.
But, I guess that OzJohnny doesn't get that. Makes sense. He doesn't have a dog in this fight.
Another demonstration of your poor assumptions and lack of imagination.
Oz.
Yes, Oz.
After eight years of a pathetic loser who leads with his gut and 'doesn't blink' and is 'decisive', I'm sure that's EXACTLY what Americans are hungry for now.
The Republic party just doesn't get it, and this year that will be great for Barack Obama.
bill p;
The Republic party just doesn't get it, and this year that will be great for Barack Obama.
I certainly agree that Obama has every advantage. His ability to squander the goodwill and inclinations of the American electorate has been nothing short of remarkable.
In a climate like this, to have an election so close is a disgrace. Bush beat Gore when Clinton was leaving office with what? 70% approval ratings? Bush is at 30% now and the best Obama can do is a margin of error tie?
He's a poor candidate nominated in a fit of hubris by the Democratic Party.
Oz.
He's a poor candidate nominated in a fit of hubris by the Democratic Party.
So what will it say about McCain when he gets his pathetic old ass kicked by such a 'poor candidate'?
:~)
Under every reasonable circumstance? Russia isn't an independent actor here, free to make decisions in their interest regardless of the White House's position on any issue? Your, and Obama, naiveté with foreign affairs is that you assume that the US instigates or can influence all actions. And that is simply not true.
Did I qualify it or do you just like to hear yourself type? A war with Russia would have the potential to destroy all human life on this planet.
Clearly you don't like to think, because you seem to think that Russia is run by some sort of "Crazy Ivan" equivalent to Muslim Fundie. They're not. They're a country that has produced some of the best chess players in the world. They're cool, calculating, and will try to play a few moves ahead of you if you let them. If you do, you'll lose, and it will be too late to do squat. There's no point in flipping the board over and destroying the game when you're already mated. Your only hope is to try and play ahead of them. That's why they didn't run the blockade. Kennedy and the got ahead of them.
I fear that McCain would try to play checkers with the chess masters.
Blogger URL:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/08742999642953783214
Screen Names Used in "Today's Polls 9/22":
Hillary
Vanessa
Strangeite
dario
Boulder Liberal
eric
ed meese
NC-voter
Inkstain
matt j.h.
becky sharp
FYI:
Here's a secret to finding the impostor posts. In IE click on View then Source, or in FireFox click on View then "View Source" Then hit ctrl+f to bring up the find dialogue box and paste in the blogger id (08742999642953783214). This will find all of the posts by that unique blogger ID and help you weed out all the fake posts.
as to why John Mccain is considered a great expert on foreign policy I really don't understand. He apperas to be locked into a cold-war view of the world: Cekoslovakia is a revealing gaffe. Then there is this funny thing about not being so sure if to meet with the prime minister of Spain - he probably has some hearing problems and didn't understand the question, but really he gave the impression of placing Spain in Latin America. So his genious advisor thought it was better to throw an ally under the bus than explaining his poor hearing (AGE).I think he is taking a huge risk over his largely untested foreign policy skills. Obama is usually very strong when there is a subject on which he can prepare himself, he is vulnerable when there is no central argument to a debate, as was the case with Clinton.
A debate on foreign policy on a Friday night will have little lasting news value come next week when we are treated to the latest episode of the saga on Wall Street. Advantage Obama.
"But of course, both campaigns can't be right."
I disagree, I think they both made the right choice! At least when it comes to eliminating the risks they are most afraid of.
For the Obama campaign, they probably think the order won't affect the outcome either way, but one scenario they may be especially concerned about, is if McCain manages to do better than expected during the first two debates (or if that is the perception), or is otherwise able to keep the election close, and then has momentum after the third debate going into the election.
For the McCain campaign, they are probably worried about falling too far behind that they can no longer recover. In any debate that doesn't have a clear winner, most people will think that the candidate they favor was the winner, so there is some incentive to have the debate you think best suits you happen first. They may very well end up having more difficulty later on, but at least they get to fight another day.
I think the McCain campaign believes that they can win the first battle of the spin war after *any* debate, and they may be right. Putting McCain's weakest category last gives Obama less time to refute the McCain camp's attacks, meaning McCain has a chance to "win" both the first and last debates.
I think one of the first storylines to come out of every debate will be a "gaffe" that Obama or Biden made. It may be an actual gaffe, but more likely it will be the trick the Republicans do very well of attacking a line so uniformly the media feels they have no choice but to treat it as a gaffe.
mason;
Clearly you don't like to think, because you seem to think that Russia is run by some sort of "Crazy Ivan" equivalent to Muslim Fundie. They're not. They're a country that has produced some of the best chess players in the world. They're cool, calculating, and will try to play a few moves ahead of you if you let them. If you do, you'll lose, and it will be too late to do squat. There's no point in flipping the board over and destroying the game when you're already mated. Your only hope is to try and play ahead of them. That's why they didn't run the blockade. Kennedy and the got ahead of them.
I fear that McCain would try to play checkers with the chess masters.
Your the one equating dealings with Russia to chess and checkers and I'm the one that doesn't think?
Chess and checkers aside, Russia acts in their interests, not ours. Undoubtedly, war with Russia would be bad. But you seem to forget that there are two parties making a judgment as to the soundness of war. Remarkably, you seem to place greater trust in Putin, who demonstrated wanton aggression when invading Georgia.
You can push that line if you wish. And I hope Obama does as well because it's an electoral loser.
Oz.
I think that the economy should be the last thing that the voters here about before the campaign. This simply gives McCain more time to implode from the schism between reality and his economic views.
Had the economy been doing fine, Obama could have done the opposite just as successfully, and I'm sure he'll wipe the floor on Security issues as well.
cognitive dissonance;
I disagree, I think they both made the right choice! At least when it comes to eliminating the risks they are most afraid of.
Post of the day winner. You correctly established the basis of Nate's false dichotomy.
An interesting post you have here. Obama can weather a debate loss, making hay closer to election day, and McCain can fight another day, crossing the bridge of the domestic debates when he comes to them.
The hit on Obama during the Dem primaries of him not being a closer looks correct. He's hedging his chance to put McCain away, leaving McCain the opportunity to keep playing as an equal.
Is Obama really pursuing a 'poll tie plus ground game' strategy? Why wouldn't he go for the knockout, particularly with so many inherent advantages for the Dems in this cycle?
Oz.
paul;
I think that the economy should be the last thing that the voters here about before the campaign. This simply gives McCain more time to implode from the schism between reality and his economic views.
But considering cog dis's post, it also leaves McCain more time to recover. Does Obama still need McCain to stumble in order to win? Obama is in front, shouldn't he be on the front foot trying to run away, rather than coasting and hoping for McCain to "implode"?
Oz.
I think it works out perfectly for Obama because:
#1 There will probably end up being a lot of economy talk in this debate anyway because it's just too huge an issue right now to be ignored.
#2 It gives Obama a shot to make the case on foreign policy earlier rather than later. I think this will help get more people comfortable with voting for him.
#3 If somehow the economy has dropped back in the public consciousness by the 3rd debate (that doesn't look likely the way things are going now) - the 3rd debate will bring it back up again. That's definitely good news for Obama. The more the economy is the #1 issue, the better Obama's shot at winning.
oz - Obama doesn't NEED McCain to "stumble" (although McCain's pathetic performance over the last week certainly has helped) at this point - I think Obama is in a position to play defense. He just has to avoid making any serious mistakes and of course respond quickly to any outrageous McCain attack ads.*
The thing is, McCain is likely to make more gaffes because his campaign is likely to get very desperate if they see Obama's lead holding up.
I think McCain has actually really made a mistake by running so many negative ads with OBVIOUS lies in them. It's now common knowledge that McCain's attack ads are filled with lies. This means future McCain attacks will be very easily deflected as just more lies.
McCain probably should have waited to run his lying ads until later in the cycle.
I agree completely. McCain would be much better to have the momentum going into the final days of the campaign rather than up front. Plus the economy will also have to be discussed which gives Obama another advantage.
I feel this will be one of the highest rated debates because of ratings of the conventions. The fact that it is on Friday will cut into the ratings obviously as well--another loss for McCain.
Even if Obama does poorly, the VP debate I feel will be a win for the Obama camp judging from Palin's performance on her only real interview.
This thought's been in the back of my mind, and I haven't seen anyone else touch on it. One other thing that could swing the election back to the economy around the time of that last debate is that in mid-October there will be a lot of companies releasing their quarterly earnings reports. The earnings season for the quarter ending in September usually occurs in mid-to-late October. Even though day-trading went bust years ago, people still pay attention to the market more so than they used to. It will be interesting to see if there is impact on the race.
I give McCain the "benefit edge" on this for one reason. McCain DESPERATELY wants to shift the topic from the economy right now.
If the economy debate was first, discussion about the economy would run uninterrupted for weeks and peoples' opinion that Obama is the better candidate would get cemented.
Since the foreign policy debate is first, there's a chance, especially if a gaffe is made, or some other newsworthy event happens, that the media focus will shift from the economy for a while. Of course this puts a lot of pressure on McCain, if Obama holds serve, McCain has nothing left to count on.
To add to the thought of earnings reports in mid-October, this is also the time that retailers start forecasting for the Christmas (yes Christmas, not holiday) shopping season. The more I think about it, there will be a lot of economic news sitting on the periphery come mid-October and going into voting day. No way to predict if it will impact the race, but it will be sitting out there nonetheless.
I disagree and am surprised by the analysis. McCain is regarded, by the public, as being stronger on foreign policy, but we have all seen his gaffes, etc, while Obama's foreign trip was perfect. But McCain's gaffes are barely reported while Obama's trip and his celebrity status became a fodder for attack. Thus, we could say that the public perception of McCain's strength is better than what it actually is, or at least apparent to the few who have been following the election closely. So it actually is a great chance for Obama to get a comeback.
I disagree with Nate. Tactically it is clearly best for McCain to have the foreign policy debate first. He needs a game changer and an economic debate could have seen Obama get so far ahead that a final debate on foreign policy debate wouldn't matter. In short, it allows McCain to change the narrative at a time when he is getting spanked on the economy on a daily basis.
The flipside of course is that because the economy is such a big issue, Obama can legitimately bring the economic crisis into the foreign policy debate as a matter of national security.
There is also the point that no one has addressed which is that Obama's judgment has been proven right on the decision to go into Iraq, a timetable for withdrawal, increasing troop levels in Afghanistan and pursuing AL Qaeda in the Pakistani hills. McCain has been wrong on all counts. McCain was right on the surge but given that he was wrong on the war itself, he loses on any objective analysis. Daily soundbites have not permitted Obama to explain directly to the American people why he has the judgment and temperament to lead and McCain does not but in a 90 minute head to head debate, McCain's half truths and lack of judgment can be exposed. I think we are all in for a surprise and that Obama will flip conventional wisdom and take McCain to school.
McCain is not going to be able to stop himself from obliquely questioning Obama's patriotism (Country first or Obama first for instance) and at that point Obama should respond "At times I'm not sure whether I'm running against McCain or McCarthy".
Election over.
I personally wonder if McCain is such a Foreign Policy expert, and if he is, if thats such a great thing for him now. What is his FP expertise built on? The surge? Is that all, what else is there to his FP credentials. I wonder if this is one debate when appearing experienced isn't something of an advantage. BUT when everything shakes out, Obama has done pretty well out of foreign affairs. His line about meeting with foreign leaders showed he could stand up to Hillary Clinton. His long standing opposition to the Iraq War brought him to the fore. He offers a real change from the Bush/Cheney/Rice foreign policy, which isn't so clear for McCain.
Overall I wouldn't be surprised if a self fulfilling prophesy gives McCain a small bounce coming out of this debate, but that being dissipated by both of the other two debstes. (Personally I think the twon hall format, long thought of as a McCain strength may turn out to be a weakness for him. Its the oddball question that he has trouble with and there could be another George HW Bush moment in that, when McCain isn't quite sure what to say.)
Good to end strong with the economy. Remind people what they are voting for.
Article on CNN similar to this discussion.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/22/cnn.poll/index.html
I have to disagree with you. McCain's reeling on economy issues right now, and rather than set him up for a knock-out punch, shifting focus back to foreign affairs will help recenter the debate around McCain's strength. The last debate may well see the current financial crisis calming down, it'll be old news.
One thing people are forgetting is that the economy (Wall Street) was not as big an issue until the last few days. The debate schedule was decided upon before the conventions - Ben Smith reported on August 21 that the first debate would be on foreign policy (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Debate_schedule_set.html). Did anyone foresee the Lehman Brothers failure on or near that date? Did anyone foresee the AIG problems on or near that date? Morgan-Stanley? Goldman Sachs?
Yes, there were economic issues back then, but they were considered major, but not critical, problems like they are considered now.
Personal viewpoint - with the first debate on foreign policy, it will take a bit of discussion off the economic talk for a few days. That will lessen the 'information overload' hitting the low information voter. Then a couple weeks later (Oct. 15), the domestic issues and economic debate will allow the issue to be reintroduced to the 'low information voter' - exactly the voter who is most likely now to be 'undecided' since they have no information on which to decide which candidate to support. With the break in discussing the issue, this will allow the debates (foreign policy AND domestic issues/economy) to make more of an impact on those 'low information voters', IMO, to Senator Obama's advantage.
Maybe they are both right, I think there is a good possibility the debates do not change much this year.
I suspect they both considered it right when they made the switch, and that there is no hard or fast answer. The peson behind wants to stay in touch: the person ahead wants to keep a future option in play.
However, given the economic crisis McCain badly needs to change the direction of the election so is happy to have the debate now. Overall, I can't help but think that a strong debate on the economy would help Obama right now while even a draw in the foreign policy debate could siwtch the narrative away from the economy for a while.
Obama needs to tie foreign policy to the economy: the cost of the Iraq war, $10 billion a month etc. If he does that he's on strong ground.
The Obama recovery continues. Quinnipiac polls released today
Michigan - Obama 48 McCain 44
Minnesota - Obama 47 McCain 45Wisconsin - Obama 49 McCain 42
Colorado - Obama 49 McCain 45
PPP are also set to confirm a healthy lead for Obama today in Colorado.
My initial take on these figures is that the WI and CO figures are fantastic news for Obama. Michigan is comforting and supports what we are seeing elsewhere. The only concern is the continuing tight race in MN.
The general pattern though is that the Kerry states are starting to firm up for Obama leaving him able to attack the key Bush states of CO, VA, NV, OH and FL
@p smith
I'm not sure MN is really in play. McCain is yet to lead in a single poll there (same for Penn), although both will be close.
long enough that one of these periods coincides with November 4
November 4 is less of a line in the sand then in the past since some estimates put the number of people who will vote early as high as 40%.
Early voting starts here in Georgia THIS week!! It starts in other states next week or maybe two weeks from now. I'm voting this week. You have to think that the early voters have made up their minds.
So perhaps having the last debate as what is considered BO's strong suit will help will change the undecideds. It might have been the smart move by his campaign after all.
Like it said on Broken English, I think Obama's gonna' take a temporary beating. But here's the thing: I think both campaigns actually are right, as far as it goes. Your own polling shows that McCain must do something to shake up the race, like he did with Palin. This is his attempt. On the other hand, Obama is negating the national security issue now, and will be able to spend the final weeks of the campaign talking about the economy. So Steve Schmidt is correct to take a gamble, even if it has a low chance of success, and David Axelrod is right to get this out of the way now.
If Obama holds is own what does McCain have left?
Who wants to bet that McCain claims hes such a "Maverick" that hes a "POW" of the Republican Party!? hahah
I missed Oz, the one conservative on here who is capable of making his case without making up facts?
:(
"If Obama holds is own what does McCain have left?"
The same thing he has now: The desperate hope that something utterly shocking happens and we get a rare, but possible, last-month shift in an election.
I agree with NC_voter. When I first saw the original debate schedule, my thought were, "Oh yeah, it FIGURES that the domestic policy debate would be on a Friday when nobody's going to watch it." I have to say I couldn't be happier about the little switch-a-roo.
The best reason to have foreign policy first is that, despite McCain's many gaffes, polls show voters still bafflingly give McCain the edge on foreign policy over Obama by nearly 2:1 margins, likely because most voters aren't following news that closely. Hopefully the debate changes that.
Memo to OzJohnnie: In On the Beach, Australia dies to--but long after everyone else is gone. And the McPalin war scenario is probably proceeded by the installation of a neo-fascist state apparatus in the US anyhow. Don't believe me? Look at the Paulson proposal: give me immediate, unchecked authority with blank check on the US tax payer and a guarantee of immunity and I will dole out enough money to keep the guys I worked with for 30 yrs in business, and I'll fix the market.
Last Sunday's NYT had an article on how Polish-Americans were moving back to Poland. The LOT airline planes are full going to Warsaw, and have empty seats coming back. I've been in Poland, and outside of the trendy city centres, folks it's Russia ca 1977 in terms of housing, and not many can afford to eat out in the nice restaurants they built up for the Euro trade.
In another article I saw elsewhere, young finance wizards laid off in NYC were being recruited to work in (hang on) by Chinese firms---in China.
Bush et al are turning the US into a banana republic in more ways than one. And McPalin will do it faster, esp. after she gets in. Imagine having a Prez who believes the Flintstones was real (dinosaurs and humans together), thinks her family can use the state to get back at all the folks she doesn't like, and thinks God has chosen her to lead us to the Rapture. Un fucking believable.
It's Evita, Adolph, Stalin and Jim Jones all in one.
"I missed Oz, the one conservative on here who is capable of making his case without making up facts?"
Actually, I think VACon is not only better at relying on actual facts, but he is far more reasonable and thoughtful than Oz.
"Actually, I think VACon is not only better at relying on actual facts, but he is far more reasonable and thoughtful than Oz."
Oh yeah, I forget about him because he's more of a moderate.
I was thinking of a true, hardcore McCainite.
"Oh yeah, I forget about him because he's more of a moderate."
No, I don't think so. He just seems like a moderate because he doesn't deny reality. He said yesterday that, short of an act of treason, there is no way that he wouldn't support McCain in November. He has never expressed a moderate position, to the best of my knowledge. It's just that he is realistic. Like he believes (rightly) that the race in VA will be close. And that McCain has little chance in MN or WI. He's a realist, not a moderate, in my view.
Also, Glenn_in_CO is very fact-based and knowledgeable. FL GOP is also reasonable and grounded in actual facts. They're out there. Oz only looks good when compared to jack black or dariencrow and those types.
Well clearly McCain is going to hit for the fences right now. He's had an awful cycle and needs a(nother) game changer. But I think Obama is wise pitching to him here - and the McCain team may have walked into a trap - for several reasons:
- Obama might be pitching for McCain's wheelhouse but he's going to be gunning for the big K. If he's able to land a big line, pin something bad on McCain, or successfully tie in domestic kitchen table issues to the foreign policy debate, the narrative that Obama's a smarter, more well-equipped candidate will begin to solidify. That will spell doom for McCain's campaign.
- As has been noted elsewhere, if Obama falters a bit, he's still got the next rounds to pick up.
- With the bailout in negotiation, the markets still volatile, and potential other shoes left to drop Obama is buying himself some time. Were the economic debate to take place Friday, he would be on the hook to come up with statements, ideas, solutions to a crisis that is very much still in development. That could come back to bite him if he steps wrong. Here he has taken an opportunity to punt (while appearing aggressive in moving to foreign policy, McCain's turf). That to me is quite a shrewd play.
Doesn't matter that it is supposed to be about foreign policy. No matter what the chosen topic, the candidates will use the forum to say whatever they want to say. They will each have a message they want to convey. They will give the question asked a brief acknowledgment and then go to their message.
I think it would take a colossal gaffe for the debates to change the election outcome.
My question for this debate is: How many times will McCain point out he was a POW? Will it hurt him more than help him?
Obama edge. I thought it would have been much better for people to have the commander-in-chief question h sa the last thing in their head. Having foreign policy lasts leaves people with "Are you better off than you were eight years ago?" stuck in their head. If Obama pulls this off right, anyway. He's not a very good debater compared to McCain.
It is unclear to me why you say Obama is more likely to stumble in the foreign policy debate. Is this "common wisdom" of something unsubstantiated creeping in?
Every year it seems, the person who looses on logic is declared the winner by the press. This will almost certainly happen again this year.
McCain desperately needs to change the subject off the economy, so this gives him an opportunity.
If Obama can get across the point that foreign policy and the economy are inter-related, by saying something like "this bailout package costs roughly the same amount of money as we've spent in Iraq" then Obama can trump anything McCain says.
The issues with Nate's analysis is that candidates do not always win the topic of their strong suits. Kerry "won" the foreign policy debate in 2004 and Bush "won" the first domestic debate in 2000. In both cases, the victor was determined by scowling, sighing, makeup, etc. which had nothing to do with the topic discussed. So Obama may have a chance on Friday to have what will perceived to be a road win (or tie) on a topic that people falsely believe gives some advantage to McCain, helping him beat expectations. Of course, just because substance did not dominate the last two debates does not mean either candidate could not say something deleterious (e.g. Ford: Poland not under Soviet occupation) to make the topic of discussion matter this time around.
Having a debate on foreign policy first will work to Senator Obama's advantage. The best analogy is the first Kennedy/Nixon debate when Senator Kennedy appearing along side VP Nixon mitigated the experience issue and stature gap. McCain will be expected to out perfom Obama is McCain's perceived field of expertise. The bar will be higher for McCain and lower for Obama. If Obama holds his own against McCain the advantage will go to Obama. In light of the numerous mistatements McCain has made recently (Sunni/Shia, Iraq/Pakistan border, Spain in Latin America) it would not be surprising if McCain makes another fumble and Obama plays an error free game with no turnovers.
ermibr said...
"In both cases, the victor was determined by scowling, sighing, makeup, etc."
Maybe this time it will be: CREEPY SMILE
McCain is now the underdog. He LOVES being the underdog. He does very well coming from behind at the last minute. I think he actually prefers it. I think it fires him up and plays into his "mavrick", "leadership" self-image. These are the exact types of polling numbers that are perfect for John McCain going into a debate. Hopefully it's true that debates rarely make or break a candidate and Obama's trend will continue regardless.
I disagree comepletely. McCain needs foreign policy first to prop himself up for the domestic issues debate and gain credibility over all. A decisive win in the first debate followed next thursday with a decisive win in the Vice Presidential debate (bring up coal Palin please) can be a lasting momentum. It can be the Bush Gore debates, where Bush came out first debate stronger than expected, and Gore had to change his tactics to look less attacking for the second and third.
In debate even multi-session debate you should always lead with your best argument. Foreign Policy is McCain's best argument.
There are two huge reasons why Obama wanted to swap the debate topics.
First, he wants the economy to come last because he wants to see how the chips fall with the bailout. He has a lead on the economy and doesn't want to risk it by ending up on the wrong side of the equation. That this benefits McCain for the same reason doesn't really matter.
Second, if you recall, Obama called out McCain for a foreign policy debate during his nomination acceptance speech. Does he have an ace up his sleeve? Who knows, but it clearly shows that he thinks he can win this debate.
The potential for this to be a win-win for Obama is definitely there.
Essentially, for everyone but political junkies and wonks, the debates will boil down to the following:
Foreign policy = I'm not a wimp
Town Hall = I'm not insane
Domestic policy = "I feel your pain"
Obama can do both all of these reasonably well. McCain does great at not being a wimp, okay at convincing us he's sane, and fails abysmally at connecting on domestic issues. Advantage Obama.
For comparative, I would recommend watching Obama on O'Reilly. I am anything but a fan of O'Reilly's, but I think the approach Obama took there was a foreshadowing of his approach to debating McCain. And he definitely "won" the foreign policy segment, as Papa Bear himself seems willing to admit, with his repeated assertions that Obama is "not a wimp," is "steely," etc. "Not being a wimp" is how a Democrat "wins" foreign policy, and Obama can do that believably while still speaking to the issues in an intelligent, rational, non-war-mongering way.
The prevalence of early voting may help the party that "wins" whatever game is being played in the earlier debates, as perceived by whoever is keeping score, IM(not-so)HO.
Your the one equating dealings with Russia to chess and checkers and I'm the one that doesn't think?
That's the problem with you convicts. You don't understand metaphor because the Royal Marines didn't give you any books.
Chess and checkers aside, Russia acts in their interests, not ours. Undoubtedly, war with Russia would be bad. But you seem to forget that there are two parties making a judgment as to the soundness of war. Remarkably, you seem to place greater trust in Putin, who demonstrated wanton aggression when invading Georgia.
Wanton agression? There was a three year buildup to that where he set the trap with Kosovo, giving citizenship to the SO's, and putting in peace keepers. Putin knew Georgia would attack. Georgia tripped the wire. Putin didn't just wake up and say, "Yep! Gonna invade Georgia today."
As for their part: They understand MAD. That's why Russia or the USSR have never attacked a NATO country. That's why they turned around in the Atlantic. They're smart enough to know when not to push their luck, and if you can stay ahead of them, they won't be much of a threat.
You can push that line if you wish. And I hope Obama does as well because it's an electoral loser.
Yeah... Working with other world powers to ensure global security is an electoral loser. If that's true, maybe we deserve global nuclear holocaust.
Read: Do Debates Affect Presidential Contests? http://www.gallup.com/poll/13651/Debates-Affect-Presidential-Contests.aspx ; Average debate winning margin: 1984-Reagan (-8%), 1988-Bush (-9%), 1992-Clinton (19%), 1996-Clinton (25%), 2000-Gore (-1%), 2004-Kerry (10%).
I think it is definitely possible that both campaigns could benefit from making the first debate about foreign policy. This is because they are not playing a zero-sum game, although it does seem like it at times. I don't think that's why both sides agreed, but the point is worth making.
The candidates care not just about winning, but about governing, future/lower ticket elections, about their families, their reputations, etc., and so there may be times when they may eschew an action that would increase their chances of winning this election if they believe the cost is too great. This is the logic behind Gore's decision not to challenge Bush v. Gore in 2000.
You might say, "Duh! Everyone knows that sometimes candidates believe the fabric of democracy or their children's privacy trumps winner-at-all-costs politics," and I would agree, but I think we could all benefit by reminding campaigns more often, even if it's posed strictly in terms of self-interest. Is there any doubt that government was more effective and the public happier when people revered their leaders?
What about Early Votes? Isn't it the case that for some people this may be the only Debate they watch before they pull the lever?
I'd like to see your analysis of that.
I think a saying I hear during football games applies here.
Often times towards the end of the game one team is down by two scores with a few minutes to go. They need a field goal and a touchdown to win/tie. The smart decision is almost always to take the fieldgoal on 4th. Reason being, you keep the other team playing where as if you go for the touchdown and fail, game over.
I think that The McCain campaign is simply trying to keep the Obama team on the field. If McCain goes for the domestic policy debate on friday and gets crushed then he may never recover, going with the Foreign Policy, at least he keeps close to Obama and can hope for a late development.
Love the work you do around here.
The observation that this race is pro-Obama in its equilibrium state with McCain's only hope being to create a disturbance event in that equilibrium at the right time appears to be quite accurate. According to the Gallup daily tracking poll, there have been only 4 such events in the hundred-something days since Obama clinched the Democratic nomination, totaling 9 days with ties and 11 with McCain leads. Since June 5th, Obama has led 91 days. Although Rasmussen's numbers are slightly less clean cut and more favorable to McCain, they tell a strikingly similar story: since June 8th, McCain has led 11 days, the race has been tied for 12, and Obama has led 88. What's more, for McCain to get a lead in either poll has required an extremely favorable political environment for the Republican. 7 of McCain's 11 leading days in Rasmussen occurred during or immediately following the RNC and the same is true for 10 of McCain's 11 lead days in Gallup's poll. Hard to say, but it seems highly unlikely an event will take place between now and November creating such a GOP-friendly environment.
A capitol post. For your amusement, Rickey presents: Sarah Palin's NYC Itinerary
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,潤滑液,自慰套,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,自慰套,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,潤滑液,威而柔,FleshLight,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,跳蛋,按摩棒,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣商品,情趣網站,情趣網站,潤滑液,性感內衣,充氣娃娃,按摩棒,情趣精品,跳蛋,情趣網站,情趣商品,跳蛋,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣內衣,情趣精品,按摩棒,威而柔,自慰套,成人玩具,Nexus,lelo,聰明球,後庭,後庭g點,g點,美國fleshlight,STU訓練大師,Fleshgirls,Toys Heart,Tenga,日本 Vibratex,日本Toys Heart ,日本Tenga,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,
徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信
徵信, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信,徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵, 徵信公司, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵, 徵
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要打工兼差、打工,兼差,八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,便服店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當日領上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有鋼琴酒吧又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、想要兼職、有缺錢的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的賺錢,酒店和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment