Liveblogging the McCain-Obama debate

Can we have a real leader, please? Please?

GOOD GOD.

Maybe we should get some ordinary schmuck who's not wedded to blabbing on and on with boilerplate party stuff.

Oh, wait. Anyone who doesn't talk like that isn't qualified for office.

Sigh.

And we wonder why "us conservatives" can't get anywhere in getting people into office. We'd turn on and say "not qualified" to anyone like ourselves. But we demand they think like us. You just can't have it both ways.

Either we get political, take over a party, and play party politics, or we stay on the sideline and grouse.

Shouldn't McCain be hammering Obama on this subject? Isn't foreign policy his strength?

McCain isn't wearing a flag pin. Why does he hate America?

I'm writing in T. Boone Pickens for President, to heck with the Republicrats

Chris Mills

Oh my god, what is going to happen to Palin in a forum like this???

Rod,

From Ben Smith at Politico:

"McCain points out — accurately — that Henry Kissinger has suggested diplomacy at the Secretary of State level, not presidential summitry with Iran"

From your link, last sentence: The Nobel Peace Prize winner said any direct talks between the U.S. and Iran on issues such as the nuclear dispute would be most likely to succeed if they first involved only diplomatic staff and progressed to the level of secretary of state before the heads of state meet.

In Christ,
-jp

I've been chatting on the PickensPlan websight and the amount of people excited about energy independence is truly wonderful.

Chris Mills

YEAH! IT'S OVER.

If you favored Obama, he won. If you favored McCain, he won. If you were undecided, you switched to the movie on AMC an hour ago.

McCain was the quintessential cranky old man............scrunched over the podium, evading Obama's glance............does anybody want to look at this old crank for 4 years on the Evening News?

McCain for Senate Miss Incongeniality!

I just have to come out of my commenting hiatus to say how incredibly wrong you are, Rod, for concluding Obama won this debate. They're even saying on MSNBC - RIGHT NOW - that McCain won the debate. When you have to concede like 90 times that "John is right" well, then, you lost the debate, 'my friends.'

Look, if you don't want McCain to win the election, then just come out and say it.

But by any objective standard, McCain was able to completely turn the economic discussion to his advantage by focusing on spending and earmarks, and then looked a little bit like Chuck Norris during the foreign policy debate. I thought maybe Johnny Mac was going to spontaneously grow a beard and do a karate kick to Obama's face - the "Oh please" moment was rich.

Final score: McCain wins on points, no knockdowns and no knockouts. McCain 5, Obama 3, and Heffalumps on the other TV 7. :)

No, McCain's point about not negotiating with no preconditions was referring to the President doing so, not lower level contacts. And Kissinger did not say that a President should do so. McCain was correct and pointed that out.

I agree with cb. Yes, I'm a McCain supporter, but I also thought McCain scored points in the economics discussion. His suggestion of a spending freeze is right in line with what I think middle America wants to hear. Obama talking about national healthcare I think won't go over as well as it did 3 months ago. I think the average person thinks national healthcare is a good idea, but obviously we've got a whole lot of debt to pay off and it's not a good time to start expensive initiatives. I didn't hear much from Obama that he is committed to frugality.

Just watched the debate with a fair-sized group. For the most part, we thought it not terribly memorable. I don't know what I was hoping for--perhaps for Obama not to get destroyed--but I did expect McCain to be on the defensive. Seems to me that he was--he spent much of the debate dodging questions and inexplicably focusing on earmarks, as if that's going to magically fix our economy. What?!?

In terms of memorable moments, I don't remember which specific question this came during--but at one point while Obama was speaking, McCain gave this weird eye-roll slash very creepy "grin." Reminds me of this, from The Onion.

Hen: I disagree with your point about health care, but I suppose we'll see. I know an awful lot of people who simply aren't going to any kind of doctor because they don't have health insurance, and this election and economic crash are making them stressed and sick. Any additional option may be appreciated.

Doug

Oh good grief: CNN has Michael Ware sitting on their set as a panelist, smirking and not even wearing a tie. He did shave, though. Seriously, how ideologically stacked can CNN make these panel discussions without coming across as the TV wing of the DNC?

The question is whether McCain's substance wins out over Obama's style - on that score I'm not so sure. Obama's repeated "I agree with John" lines certainly didn't help him, though. Obama was much better when he framed his answers using his "point one, point two, . . ." formulation; when he got away from that Obama seemed to flail. But it may have been enough. Who knows. I doubt this debate (on a freakin' Friday night! no less) will probably not sway voters one way or the other.

I think when push comes to shove, the average middle of the road 'swing voter' will see this as a part-wash, with a SUBTLE BUT distinct Obama edge since he looked and sounded very grounded in the century this event took place. Versus a backward glance at Henry Kissinger, even Vietnam.

WATCHING THIS, It was hard to believe Obama would be frugal and hard to believe McCain would be prudent. But both seemed like knowledgeable leaders, while only one seemed crisp and focused on the future while the other seemed grumpy, I might add usurping time beyond his allotment. Never a good thing in formal debate procedural etiquette. McCain seemed like the sort who is impatient with those who do no understand that he is the one who is right.

Obama A-, McCain B+

McCain is focused mainly on war; his view of the world is from his experience in war, almost all his foreign affair solutions relate to war His domestic policy is one of austerity when it comes to civilian life. Our nation can be more that a war machine; it has a powerful military but we are also a have scientific, medical,, educational, artistic and humanitarian endeavors. McCain does not demonstrate the broad minded perspective of the leader of such a large and powerful nation which is intricately related to the whole world and composed of people who are as diverse as the whole world.

McCain is focused mainly on war; his view of the world is from his experience in war, almost all his foreign affair solutions relate to war His domestic policy is one of austerity when it comes to civilian life. Our nation can be more than a war machine; it has a powerful military but we are also a have scientific, medical,, educational, artistic and humanitarian endeavors. McCain does not demonstrate the broad minded perspective of the leader of such a large and powerful nation which is intricately related to the whole world and composed of people who are as diverse as the whole world.

Around this time during every presidential election year, I always ask myself the same question: who out there really hasn't made up his mind on who they plan to vote for? Seriously, are there really that many voters out there who are going to smack themselves in the head like in the V-8 commericials and say "Wow! I was so totally for McCain but after watching this debate I'm going to vote for Obama"? Are there that many undecideds out there? I haven't run across any. Are there any combox denizens out there that haven't made up their minds yet?

This debate was like watching a declawed cat toy with a less-than-mighty mouse.

And I'm a dog person.

Thank you Karen. I will have to check that out. I was really thinking that I heard that about McCain, but can not remember where I heard it.

As a social conservative, I just do not think that I could bring myself to vote for Obama. But I think my reason for wanting to watch this debate was a hopeful spark that McCain would really fall on his face. I wanted an excuse to say they both suck and stay home in November. I wanted a clear vindication that there was no right choice (from my values and opinion) and I could just stop watching and reading all this political swagger and tune it out. I don't feel like I got that.

So now I have to tune into another silly debate with lots of "talking points" and "boilerplate." Hope I used those right. McCain still doesn't suck and Obama still has some good points. Too bad we can't get a good third party candidate going stronger. I like someone's point that conservatives need to stop talking about it and take back the Republican party (I'm paraphrasing here).

Rod: "(9:17) McCain cockily said Obama is wrong about what 'my friend Henry Kissinger' said about direct negotiations with Iran. Guess what? Obama was actually right."

Sorry, Rod, but you're wrong on this. What Obama supported in a CNN-sponsored Democratic debate during 2007 was Presidential-level talks with Iran's top leader WITHOUT preconditions. Kissinger wasn't talking about that (in the article you linked) ... but instead discussed the concept of talks between folks at very low levels and with pre-conditions.

During the post-debate analysis at CNN, Christiane Ananpour (sp?) very ably defined the difference here and said Kissinger's position was in agreement with McCain's position ... and not with Obama's. And, to top it off, CNN reported that Kissinger issued a statement late this evening that reiterated the point made over at CNN.

BTW, I agree with several commenters above that there were no knockout punches. I was surprised, however, by the degree to which Obama was on the defensive tonight and McCain more in charge -- especially during the first 20 minutes when most folks are watching. And, while McCain's focus on earmarks (and Obama's support for nearly a billion in earmarks for his state) at the beginning of the debate may have struck some in the commentariat as silly, I think a lot of folks at home will understand this as a symbol of the core issue of corruption (and how this has led to the financial crisis we face now).

Respectfully disagree Rod. I have not felt this good about Sen. McCain's chances since the convention. McCain was playing to win and Senator Obama was playing not to lose. Advantage McCain. McCain was on offense most of the night. The American people's instincts are to win wars, and the Iraq war is a much less potent issue now that it is going better. After the first part, in which Obama did well, his instincts carried him left when he needed to tact to the center. Big night for McCain. I expect him to be leading in the polls in the near future.

I thought Obama carried the night. I felt McCain came off as basically inept. Makes me more enthusiastic about voting Obama.

I don't see how tonight's debate changed much of anything. McCain was perhaps a little stronger on foreign policy while Obama had an edge on the economy.

It seems like McCain's plan is to talk about experience when the issue is foreign policy and to talk about change when the issue is the economy. Only the former approach appears to be working with voters. McCain's earmark bashing seemed robotic and somewhat trivial considering the financial crisis the country is currently facing. I was a bit surprised that McCain suggested that he might freeze government spending. Who is going to spend money if neither consumers nor the government will?

I think mostly, this debate would more confirm the way people already leaned than change much. If you liked McCain, he would have seemed decisive and assertive. If you didn't, he would have more likely seemed mean. If you liked Obama, he would have seemed articulate, calm, competent. If you didn't like him, he would have seemed cool, maybe detached. A few zingers here and there, but not much to remember. I think the fact-checking after the fact may harp on Pakistan as a failed state, but that's not going to change a lot of minds, either - only confirm those already concerned that McCain's going off the deep end about truth-telling.

My thought is, Obama needed to not lose, and didn't - so he won. McCain needed to win, and got a draw. So he lost.

Given how McCain's campaign has gone for the past several days, a draw at least has the virtue of not hurting his effort any further - if he could do one of these every night, he might help himself. But now, it's back to campaigning for several days again, and that's NOT turning out to be McCain's strong suit.

I think it's fascinating how both of these guys seemed to get where they got in large part because their opponents self-destructed. McCain just outlasted a field that had a lot of candidates who appealed to one faction or another of the Republicans, but none of them could build on their base enough to survive, and they ate each other up, and he survived. Obama raised a mountain of money, and called the Iraq war accurately, but mostly seemed to benefit from Hillary's miscalculation about where to start her campaign from. McCain was just the least flawed candidate in his field, and Obama couldn't in a million years beat Hillary again, if she had a do-over.

Both won by letting their opponents beat themselves. Now they face off. On the debate floor, neither one seemed to slip badly, though McCain may have turned people off a bit with his manner. OFF the debate floor, McCain seems to be imploding. Is it really so easy for Obama, that all he has to do is let that happen?

Jeff, what were you sleeping during the 2000 Presidential election debates? Republicans did the same thing when Gore agreed with some points that Bush made. If someone states something you agree with, you have to agree.

Rod, I don't know which debate you were watching, but McCain dominated the thing from start to finish. (Maybe it was a draw on the first question, but that's it).

Start with the economy. You mock McCain's earmarks line, but he's absolutely right. The number may be small now, but it's tripled in 5 years! And all of those corrupt politicians who are in jail or are currently in trouble? Duke Cunningham, Ted Stevens, Don Young - that all came from the ease with which they could abuse the earmark system. At a time when Americans are outraged by a potential $700 expense of their money by the federal government, looking out for the taxpayer is not going to hurt McCain. As you noted, also, Obama answered a question about what he'd cut by talking about what he'd spend.

Foreign policy - people, lets get this straight. What we refer to as the "surge" was not just additional troops. It was an entirely new strategy. Rather than train Iraqi troops to take over, we shifted to the population protection strategy (classical counterinsurgency strategty). The troops were just a means of making it easier to carry out that strategy. McCain made this clear when he said Obama didn't get it. McCain said he advocated something similar to the clear, hold, build strategy from Iraq for Afghanistan while Obama just advocated additional troops. McCain's plan was a strategy. Obama's plan is a tactic, and as McCain pointed out, they already added additional troops to Afghanistan - that in and of itself isn't going to do anything.

On Iran, the truth of what Kissinger said is between what McCain and Obama claim, though it's closer to McCain. Kissenger did not say to do it at the Presidential level. He suggested the Secretary/Under Secretary of State, and the Bush administration sent an Undersecretary of State to a meeting between Europe and Iran to essentially be a fly on the wall, not to engage in direct discussions with Iran. Obama said he'd meet with Ahmadinejad himself within the first year, with no preconditions. That's not a responsible position.

As for Pakistan, McCain had a great, if obvious point. Regardless of what you determine you have to do when the time comes (as McCain said, you do what you have to do), you DON'T advertise ahead of time what you'll do. Obama looks like an amateur there, McCain looks like the seasoned statesman. Liberals have been crying for years that there's no diplomacy from the Bush administration. Well, Obama's the one who looked more Bush-like in this debate.

Finally, Obama has to pray that a certain clip doesn't go viral - the one where he forgets the name of the soldier whose name is on his bracelet after he childishly says "I have a bracelet too!"

Patrick wrote: "But if you are on the fence, meaning that you are seriously considering both candidates, this also means that you do not share McCain's contempt for Obama. By extension, McCain's contempt for Obama is also contempt for the fence-sitter's judgement. I can picture a guy sitting watching this thinking, "Man, that McCain sure treats Obama badly, and to tell the truth, I kinda like they guy, I'm just not quite sure that he can be the commander in chief, yet. But at least he has manners." Check the box for Obama on that one."

Yes, this is exactly my interpretation as well. Most of the folks I know who may genuinely still be undecided are pretty quiet about it. After all the sturm and drang of the past years, I don't think any of them are in the mood for more political sniping and posturing.

Obama came across as respectful, and I think people will conclude that's an appropriate temperment for the times. After the past 8 years, do we want the boring technocrat or the fiery hawk? I think our national indigestion will drive a lot of people towards the former, just to chill out a little.

That's why I had an entirely different take to the "I agree with John" points. They struck me at the time as magnanimous, and in the rapidity of the exchanges, and with Obama's confident body language, I think much of it came across as potentially areas where McCain had come around to an Obama position. IOW, the takeaway wasn't that Obama was caving, but simply that they agreed. Big whoop.

I think McCain would have done vastly better if he could managed a couple of "I agree with Barack" lines himself.

I'm also struck by how Obama struck the generational themes. The need for 21st century efficiency in regulatory structures; the example of a parent buying a computer for their kid; the reference to his online transparency program.

It all said to me, between the lines, "I can handle this. You know it. I know it. The challenges we're going to face over the years ahead will be nothing like those we faced in McCain's formative years, those of the second half of the 20th century. I think people will remember this contrast to McCain's Dolish "bridge to the past" moments. It was obvious that McCain doesn't really get excited about tackling future challenges, the way Obama does; he gets personally excited recounting and recalling events from the past.

I know which perspective I'd rather see in the White House.

Bless,
Doug

Holy Moley...

Watching body language, eye contact, gestures, and dismissive attitudes...

How FREAKING SHALLOW CAN YOU ALL BE???

Obama: Can't bring himself to either endorse or oppose the "bailout", but given the premise it occurs (700 billion of it) he can't bring himself to suggest that adding more liabilities on the part of the federal governemnt (health care, a MUCH larger liability than the credit bailout) would be insane.

McCain: A spending freeze. Oh. Suppose it makes headlines, but how underwhelming. This is Beltway-speak for "sneak your spending in elsehwere". This isn't guts. This is abdication and letting some simplistic policy wonking suffice for leadership.

Obama: Can't bring himself to name a single department of the federal government he wants to get rid of, but opposes a spending freeze because he thinks the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has to get into the business of young children's education so much more deeply that it overrides the need to reign in a 3 trillion dollar budget.

McCain: Why can't you just say it: Obama never gave a flying flip about Afghanistan until it scored points on TV? We don't give a rip about your references to committees in the Senate.

BOTH of these guys are so utterly mired in the business of "scoring points" the media in the Beltway will notice that they almost never talked to us about real things that matter.

And here you are, all ga-ga over their silly histrionics, claiming one "won" this thing. In who's flipping eyes?

Why aren't they blaming Fannie and Freddie and the CRA for the mess, and telling us how they're going to stop the Congressional meddling in stuff Congress can only screw up worse - and is incapable of "fixing"?

Why would McCain even CARE about this utterly moronic nonsense about CEO pay limitations? It has absolutely NO relevance to anything facing the nation. It fixes nothing and diverts attention from anything that MIGHT be good.

Altogether... this debate simply confirms what we know: Obama is an empty suit, without an iota of wisdom or judgement, McCain's a washington DC "inhabitant" (so is Obama, just a somewhat more corrupt version in the branch that runs to Chicago) and his 'reality' is more centered around DC than anything else.

Obama uses "generational themes"? What kind of utterly pointless gibberish is that? How did he divert you form anything relevant to his speechwriters and consultants efforts at diverting your attention? I mean, they succeeded, obviously.

So what did either learn from Iraq? Obama can't admit he's utterly and hopeless wrong. McCain never seemed to catch on that you need to sell the idea based on VIRTUES AND VALUES that matter to everyday people. Just like Bush failed to do. Bush is content to let the polls fall and let history judge. I suspect history will do so with great respect. Too bad he doesn't care enough about his own self enough to get out and defend what's fully defensible.

How will the bailout effect your governance? All each could do is get mired in policy-wonking. NO wonder Senators make horrible at governance. They're totally mind-warped into the artificial universe of Congressional Internal Politics.

Did anyone win? no. Did anyone lose? probably.

Who will I vote for? On a basis of morals alone, you could not get me to vote for Obama with a gun to my head. Since I gotta choose one or the other, it's McCain.

If Palin were running for POTUS, on the other hand, I might even be tempted to be a Republican... Not just a politician who turns off the DC Politics game at election time, but one who doesn't even KNOW the game. Now THAT is something to get excited about!

homer: Kissinger? Kissinger? Who cares about Kissinger's opinions? He was relevant in the 1970s. Today he's good for photo ops with inexperienced VP candidates.

Old people (who vote more than any other demographic slice), that's who. McCain is going for the old voters; the ones who even care or remember who Kissinger is.

Although I think Obama scored the "point" on that one - Kissinger's position seemed closer to Obama's (especially when the reporters were busy fact-checking it during the end of the debate.)

In the opinion of the 40-something who has read a lot on this election but seen very little live (don't watch TV much) McCain came across as a nasty, cranky old man.

My favorite moment was when Obama called McCain, "Jim."

I think, after eight years of stupid debacle, America is hungry to elect someone smart, strong, and gracious. They just want to feel that Obama can be Commander-in-Chief.

It was a tie on substance, if you will, but still a big win for Obama. He stood toe-to-toe with the self-proclaimed foreign policy expert, and Obama was a class act. Amid all the rancor of our politics, I think people are finding that refreshing.

(9:44) Michael Beschloss: "If I had to save my life, I couldn't quote a line from the last 90 minutes." True enough. How weird is that? Not a single memorable line or moment.

Actually, for me that was a bright spot about this debate. For too long our politics have been bound up with creating the great sound bite or sharp one-liner -- substituting sloganeering for substance.

I too thought that this debate probably didn't change any minds. Neither candidate was stellar, but neither one embarrassed himself, either. Jim Lehrer probably did at least as good a job as anyone could have to try to get them to respond to the questions asked, though I could sense his frustration at being unable to get the two to engage each other more.

It was obvious that the section on the economy had been added at the last minute (for obvious reasons), because I thought both of them came across as less prepared for it than for the foreign policy segment. It will be interested to see how they deal with economic issues at the next debate.

If nothing else we got to see both of them looking confident and knowledgeable, and got a clear sense of at least some of the policy difference between them. This might not have been a memorable debate, but I think it was useful and helpful.

***

I thought both of them did reasonably well, but I agree that the funniest moment was when Obama said "I have a bracelet too," and then couldn't really remember the name on it! He had to think fast and it looked like he didn't care.

Yeah, I noticed that too. But what I first noticed about that whole exchange was that, as McCain was leading up to his "bracelet" moment, he kept raising the wrist with the bracelet, and -- until he mentioned the bracelet -- I thought he was about to pull a George HW Bush and look at his watch. It was obviously a planned gesture, and I don't think he executed it very gracefully. (Yes, I know that he has trouble raising his arms because of the treatment he suffered while a POW. But this whole exercise is about appearances, after all.)

***

My favorite moment was when Obama called McCain, "Jim."

I heard "Tim", and I assume it was due in part to the fact that Obama then immediately referred to someone else named Tim in his comments.

Tom Coburn was the senator (OK) Obama was thinking of when he mistakenly called McCain "Tom". Not a big slip considering Coburn was the subject of the satement he was beginning to make about bipartisan work. Also, there was one time when Obama spoke directly to Lehrer, Jim Lehrer, so there was only one time that I saw that Obama flubbed on McCain's name. McCain flubbed a few names, but the "difficulty factor" was a bit higher on those. I agree that it was a draw and McCain needed more than that to reverse or even stop Obama's momentum.

Actually, I think McCain did much better then Obama in the debate especially towards the end. When McCain can go very far back to the Korean war and state the dates, who was the president of the foreign countries, what decisions where made and when these decisions were good or when the decisions were wrong…he was able to state all the different wars, and the names throughout all the different decades…and yes b/c of his Age…Believe it or not his Age is Actually helpful to him. You just really got this knowledgeable sense of McCain last night. Obama kept agreeing with McCain and then went into a lot of rhetoric…I do like Barack and I know it is time for a democrat…but unfortunately Barack is lacking in not only foreign and veteran affairs but even in the economy. That is because McCain is taking a very democratic approach to the economy issues. McCain sounds more independent in his thinking and more of a centralist then Obama. McCain has separated himself from Bush tremendously. McCain even referred to Obama as “stubborn like Bush.” I believe that too b/c McCain always but heads with Bush. But yes I agree at least Obama “held his own” last night. But unfortunately we needed Obama to hit it out of the ball park and that just did not happen. I am confused this election…but in God we Trust and may the Best Man Win.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger says the United States should begin direct negotiations with Iran over its nuclear enrichment program. Kissinger, speaking Monday at George Washington University along with four other former U.S. State Department secretaries, said the next president should initiate high-level discussions with Iran "without conditions," ABC News reported.

Kissinger did not say how high the high-level discussions should go
with Iran but he did say they should be held without conditions.
He has since denied this.

I will be voting for Obama but McCain won. He was in top form
and his dismissal of Obama as naive and the snide laugh was
just fair debate tactics. I respect his command of history
and context in complicated matters. However, his temper, his
inability to do details and nuance, his overall street fighter
temperament and gut reactions are not what I am looking for.
Bush has the same problem. It is probably physically painful
for him to read complicated detailed memos. McCain's contempt
for the people and the political process was exemplified in
his pick of Sarah Palin. That was a killer. But I correct
myself, he did not pick her she was picked by none other
than William Kristol and McCain nodded his head.

As for the economy, if I can understand a good deal of
what's going on anyone who can read can understand it
b/c it's a matter of common sense. How anyone in their
right mind can not take an interest in the biggest
financial crisis since 29 is beyond me. I noticed
many of the southern pols were not up to the task.
It was like, do I really have to do this economic stuff?

"I thought the line of the night was 'I have a bracelet, too.'" EddieinCA

TR: I thought that was one of the weirdest moments of the night. They were both trying to outdo each other in sob stories or "who's got the bracelet" stories.

"Pakistan was not a failed state when Musharraf took over."

TR: This is what FactCheck says, and although they're not precisely wrong this is a matter open to interpretation. So far as I know there is not a universally agreed definition of "failed state.' Pakistan was not a classic "failed state" in that it had not fallen into a state of civil war or anarchy. However some nations are counted as "failed states" despite that. Nawaz Sharif had centralized power into himself and begun their nuclear program. He had also encouraged the advancement of Islamic law, which is often a sign a leader of an Islamic nation is starting to lose control. In addition he did have to deal with instability in what's been called "The Kargil Conflict." Pakistan was nearly broke at the time and full of corruption.

I disapproved of the military coup and it has not improved most of these problems. However to present it as the overthrow of a thriving and free regime is highly misleading. It was the overthrow of a deeply flawed and pro-Islamist semi-free nation rife with ethnic conflict and a heavily armed/vengeful population. It was a step-down of a sort, but about as close to being a lateral move as a military dictatorship gets.

"I can't believe some of you folks. "John was right" is a huge gaffe from Obama?"

TR: I find this baffling too. Most of the debate he was about as harsh to McCain as I've seen anyone be to the man and the overall media spin is he was too deferential. I'm thinking many just want someone to be absolutely and unrelentingly vicious, but I really don't think that would have helped Obama. I think many who vote Obama like him for being, or I might say appearing, more understanding and respectful. Angrily snarking at an old guy for 90 minutes straight without ever giving him credit on anything would've been a dumb way to go.