Blood in the Water in McCain/Obama Debate
October 7th 2008 22:32
Oh dear. If you thought the first McCain/Obama stoush was a bit soft, and you thought that Palin and Biden didn’t trade enough barbs then I think today is the day you are rubbing your hands together with glee. Boys and girls, today is the day that the gloves come off and two candidates who can barely stand to look at each other will have a showdown the likes of which has not been seen since Rosie O’Donnell went histrionic at Elisabeth Hasselbeck on ‘The View’. At least those two were separated by a long desk. This one might actually come to blows if someone isn’t careful. Boys and girls, prepare yourself for one of the most brutal debates in recent Presidential history. I give you Barack Obama versus John McCain.
The last debate was, as the candidates themselves admit, relatively emotionally neutral. McCain made a few scathing attacks on Barack Obama, but he maintained a cool dispassion for the man bordering on being dismissive. Obama, on the other hand, struggled to assert himself as he tried in vain to counter McCain’s punches and land some of his own. But, for the most part, it was civil. Obama agreed with McCain half of the time, after all, and it is hard to viciously attack someone whose central point you agree with. I know that was only a matter of days ago. But since then there has been a major shift in the campaign dynamics on both sides. The economy isn’t a strong point of the McCain campaign, so it is understandable he would want to switch the focus during a time that is watching his short time as the frontrunner evaporate. But the problem for McCain is that the economy is so pervasive at the moment that it is dominating the news cycle. People are genuinely affected by it and want to hear more about how the rescue will be undertaken. Some days it seems like House Minority Leader John Boehner is getting more screen time than John McCain, so the McCain camp had to figure out a way to divert attention from their lack of presence in a way that would frame Obama in the worst possible light. That is probably why the candidate uttered two of the most poignant words in electioneering, words that change the face of the campaign and shake it up dramatically: “Go negative”.
It is easy to go negative with Obama. He leaves himself open to it by having personal associations with some pretty dodgy people. It doesn’t help that slumlord and long-time Obama friend and backer Tony Rezco is due to be sentenced for his dodgy dealings sometime before Election Day. It doesn’t help that Obama has been obscuring his relationship with former domestic terrorist William Ayers, who he first said he didn’t really know, then he did, then he was a fundraiser, then he was a personal friend, then he had not seen him in years, then he saw him a few months ago. As they say, the cover-up is usually worse than the crime itself. Connect those two genuine criminals up with other figures of scorn like Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger and there is more than enough ammunition for the McCain camp to go to town on. They have questioned whether or not Obama is a “friend of terrorists”. They have pointed to Tony Rezco and talked about how he used his dodgy dealings to Obama’s benefit. They have pointed to Wright and Pfleger and said “Are these the people you want having the ear of the President?” It is your typical negative campaigning in action. And Obama really doesn’t like it.
His response in the negative campaigning game has been less focussed on actual incidences than on general dishonourable characteristics. He has made mention is McCain’s role in the Keating Five scandal but since McCain was unequivocally cleared of any wrongdoing over twenty years ago, there isn’t a lot to be said about it. So Obama has made a point of portraying McCain as a liar, aggressive, irresponsible and dangerous. It is typical negative campaigning fare, but Obama has had to scramble to come up with some way to hit back at the suggestions that his social group may, in fact, be a reflection on his own behaviour. Either way, both camps have launched scathing volleys at each other over the course of the past week, to the point that it has gone beyond typical electioneering. These attacks have been getting nasty. Which is why the debate tonight should be an absolute bottle-rocket.
McCain has a temper, and he has been almost keeping it in check throughout the campaign thus far. The result of tonight all depends on how much Obama bites at him. The format of the debate is a town hall meeting, something McCain is famously good at working in. If Obama was to launch an attack, McCain might use his control of the format to cut him to shreds. Or he might get too angry and come off looking like a madman. While McCain is restraining himself, however, Obama needs to let himself get angry. He was criticised for not defending himself and fighting back against Senator McCain before. This time if McCain attacks, Obama has to let himself get mad and use the aggression to take swipes at him. That way he will stop looking like McCain’s little brother and start looking like a United States Senator. This is going to be a debate about who gets under whose skin the most effectively.
A word of warning to people in the front rows: wear a raincoat, because there may be blood.
The last debate was, as the candidates themselves admit, relatively emotionally neutral. McCain made a few scathing attacks on Barack Obama, but he maintained a cool dispassion for the man bordering on being dismissive. Obama, on the other hand, struggled to assert himself as he tried in vain to counter McCain’s punches and land some of his own. But, for the most part, it was civil. Obama agreed with McCain half of the time, after all, and it is hard to viciously attack someone whose central point you agree with. I know that was only a matter of days ago. But since then there has been a major shift in the campaign dynamics on both sides. The economy isn’t a strong point of the McCain campaign, so it is understandable he would want to switch the focus during a time that is watching his short time as the frontrunner evaporate. But the problem for McCain is that the economy is so pervasive at the moment that it is dominating the news cycle. People are genuinely affected by it and want to hear more about how the rescue will be undertaken. Some days it seems like House Minority Leader John Boehner is getting more screen time than John McCain, so the McCain camp had to figure out a way to divert attention from their lack of presence in a way that would frame Obama in the worst possible light. That is probably why the candidate uttered two of the most poignant words in electioneering, words that change the face of the campaign and shake it up dramatically: “Go negative”.
It is easy to go negative with Obama. He leaves himself open to it by having personal associations with some pretty dodgy people. It doesn’t help that slumlord and long-time Obama friend and backer Tony Rezco is due to be sentenced for his dodgy dealings sometime before Election Day. It doesn’t help that Obama has been obscuring his relationship with former domestic terrorist William Ayers, who he first said he didn’t really know, then he did, then he was a fundraiser, then he was a personal friend, then he had not seen him in years, then he saw him a few months ago. As they say, the cover-up is usually worse than the crime itself. Connect those two genuine criminals up with other figures of scorn like Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger and there is more than enough ammunition for the McCain camp to go to town on. They have questioned whether or not Obama is a “friend of terrorists”. They have pointed to Tony Rezco and talked about how he used his dodgy dealings to Obama’s benefit. They have pointed to Wright and Pfleger and said “Are these the people you want having the ear of the President?” It is your typical negative campaigning in action. And Obama really doesn’t like it.
His response in the negative campaigning game has been less focussed on actual incidences than on general dishonourable characteristics. He has made mention is McCain’s role in the Keating Five scandal but since McCain was unequivocally cleared of any wrongdoing over twenty years ago, there isn’t a lot to be said about it. So Obama has made a point of portraying McCain as a liar, aggressive, irresponsible and dangerous. It is typical negative campaigning fare, but Obama has had to scramble to come up with some way to hit back at the suggestions that his social group may, in fact, be a reflection on his own behaviour. Either way, both camps have launched scathing volleys at each other over the course of the past week, to the point that it has gone beyond typical electioneering. These attacks have been getting nasty. Which is why the debate tonight should be an absolute bottle-rocket.
McCain has a temper, and he has been almost keeping it in check throughout the campaign thus far. The result of tonight all depends on how much Obama bites at him. The format of the debate is a town hall meeting, something McCain is famously good at working in. If Obama was to launch an attack, McCain might use his control of the format to cut him to shreds. Or he might get too angry and come off looking like a madman. While McCain is restraining himself, however, Obama needs to let himself get angry. He was criticised for not defending himself and fighting back against Senator McCain before. This time if McCain attacks, Obama has to let himself get mad and use the aggression to take swipes at him. That way he will stop looking like McCain’s little brother and start looking like a United States Senator. This is going to be a debate about who gets under whose skin the most effectively.
A word of warning to people in the front rows: wear a raincoat, because there may be blood.
| 63 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
