When we look back, it may turn out that one of the most important, and brillaint strategic moves of the campaign, was when Obama asked the debate commission to have the first encounter be about foreign policy. Remember, the commission had proposed beginning with the economy. McCain suggested going to foreign policy -- and, in a move that probably delighted and surprised the McCain camp, Obama also asked that the first debate be about foreign policy.
If the first debate had been about the economy, pundits would have been looking for Obama to win and show his dominance. That would have been very hard because McCain's a good debater, and, despite all the juiced-up sports metaphors candidates almost never deliver "knock out blows" to other grown up nominees.
Since the debate was on McCain's perceived strong suit, all Obama had to do was tie in order to win. The Obama people knew what the press apparently forgot and the McCain people never believed -- that Obama has always been at least as strong if not stronger on foreign policy.than on economic policy.. We forget: he took off during the primaries because of his positions on the Iraq war, and struggled when it came to duking it out with Hillary on economics. I disagree with the pundit (and apparently poll) verdict that in the debate last night, Obama won on economics and McCain on foreign policy. I thought they were equally vague and off-point on the economy, and Obama was stronger on foreign policy.
In an economy debate a tie goes to McCain. In a foreign policy debate, a tie goes to Obama. The only way to not see this is if you, as a candidate, feel you're so inherently superior to your opponent that you'll be able to crush him. McCain may have felt that way about Obama and foreign policy, and thereby allowed his own self-confidence (arrogance?) to draw him into a no-win situation
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Agree with your analysis.
Which begs the question: when it comes to negotiating with those who don't much like the US, who do you want planning strategy?
In my case, that would be Obama. For some of the reasons you astutely point out.
I do not understand why people think McCain would on wars. McCain was pushing for the Iraq war on TV and radio the day after 9/11. There was no justification for going into Iraq. Gov Palin has been making statements that she agrees with Bushing going into Iraq because it makes us safer. Even Bush admits there was no weapons of mass destruction and bin Laden was associated with Iraq.
Voter reaction is more important than the pundits:
CNN's instant poll of 524 voters had Obama winning 51% to 38%.
MediaCurves had a focus group of Independent voters.
61% said Obama won, 39% McCain won
http://mediacurves.com/
The Frank Luntz focus groups also said Obama won. Body responses are measured to determine the effect throughout the debate. The highest positive response was Obama telling McCain he was wrong about Iraq
Mr. McCain’s judgment in supporting the Iraq war. Youtube has video of McCain's ever changing statements on Iraq and Afghanistan.
“You like to pretend like the war started in 2007 — you talk about the surge. The war started in 2003,” Mr. Obama said. “At the time, when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong. You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i23rDuymLwk
The Frank Luntz focus groups on Palin was 2 to 1 against Palin (video)
http://tinyurl.com/4jd2cn
CBS poll
40% of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. 22% thought John McCain won. 38% saw it as a draw.
68% of these voters think Obama would make the right decision about the economy. 41% think McCain would.
49% of these voters think Obama would make the right decisions about Iraq. 55% think McCain would.
In my opinion, while Obama held his own, he failed to deliver the knock out punch. He could have proven his Christian training by quoting Matthew 5 38-39. "You have heard it said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.38 But I say to you you should not resist evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also" 39
"Turn your cheek" is a Aramaic idiom meaning "Do not start a quarrel or a fight." It was Augustine of Hippo (St. Augustine to the Roman Catholic church) whose writings helped formulate the theory of the "just war". He also advocated the use of force against the Donatists, (who opposed state intervention in church affairs which Augustine clearly did not)asking "Why---should not the church use force in compelling her lost sons to return, if the lost sons compelled others to their destruction?"
Thus the concept of "just war" was set in place in 400 years after the death of Christ in the Roman Catholic church, and later advanced by Martin Luther and John Calvin. This is in direct violation of the teachings of Jesus. It is here that the Neo-conservatives in the Bush administraton find their misdirected immoral concept of "pre-emptive war". The whole invasion of Iraq was then, and the present occupation is, of a direct violation of a basic Christian tenet.
Barack analyzes the moves to come often wisely in advance. Sometimes I want to imagine that it is Michelle who cares for the good campaign preperation like it was done for the weeks to came after the superthuesday which have brought barack the nomination. I would not wonder eighter if the republicans and the democrats would finaly be excluded from the general election in texas and that baracks late pick of biden as vp was executed to achieve this exclusion in the first place. Then the democrats have no delegates to lose in texas and we should also remember how Obama had won the race for delegates in texas primaries. The choice to pick Biden on the other hand showed three things: First a great respect for romney who barack feared most and who would have needed to be neutralized by joe biden. On the other side it showed the fact that biden is a man who will be able to implement all the new laws which must to be passed through the congress. Finaly it stressed the importance of the state of pennsylvania which barack maybe couldn't have won without biden and which is one of the biggest swingstates. We should remember that barack had invested during the primaries an extremely big amount of money and time into the state of pennsylvania but couldn't get out more then 40% of the votes.
If the Supreme Court's makeup changes, and IF Roe v. Wade is overturned, that doesn't mean there will be support for significant restrictions on abortion at the national level (this is especially true if Democrats retain control of Congress).
In such a case, then "leave it up to the states" is a PRACTICAL, PRAGMATIC approach, since at least some states would have strong support for major restrictions, if not outright bans on abortion.
And if Supreme Court's makeup doesn't change, then I believe the best anti-abortion approach is persuasion - and I think Sarah Palin's devotion to Trig will be a powerful persuader.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.