I like to read Red State to see what's going on on the other side of the fence, in part because it's a mirror of DKos, even in its layout. After lurking for a while time, I finally decided to post, thinking that maybe I could cross the aisle and have a debate.
Who thought I'd be banned based on my first post?
In response to this post on the debate by Pejman Yousefzadeh, which is well-stated, although I disagree with it, I posted the following:
You're right: "I agree with John" is the takeaway line of the night, and for all the wrong reasons for McCain, even as he releases an ad trumpeting it.
Obama feels comfortable agreeing with McCain because a statesman knows he can agree on some points with an adversary but not others. And each time Obama agreed on one point, he went on to say he disagreed on several more larger points. These are, of course, missing from McCain's ad.
McCain sees any agreement as a sign of weakness. Then again, McCain sees even speaking with an adversary as a sign of weakness. I'm surprised, given McCain stance on negotiating with Iran, that he'd debate Obama without preconditions.
The larger issue here is the message of both campaigns. Obama's campaign, as he said at the DNC, is not about him, but about us: do we want a statesman to speak for us or a soundbyte? McCain's campaign, as his actions just this week, has shown is all about the gotcha, the dramatic gesture, the pinhole view of world, the soundbyte.
Do I know who won the debate tonight? No, although I don't have much faith in American going for the statesman.
Within a few minutes I received the following responses:
From Rod Patrick:
Are you crazy? It's a debate. Obama is uncomfortable in all his answers. A Stateman NEVER LIES. Obama did lie this evening. It only proves that Obama no "original ideas" of his own.
He's a big copier machine.
And Obama showed in inner anger - NOT VERY STATEMAN.
Go to DKOS and KOS which need more Obama fans right now who think and believe like you
.
Then from Moe Lane:
Did you know that nothing ever goes away on the Internet, angryyoungman?
Yeah, not quite good enough to cover tracks. So sad.
Bye!
I'm not exactly sure what Lane meant, but when I went to reply to him, I discovered my spanking new account was banned! Unbelievable, but then again that's the character of the voter McCain is courting.
It's worth noting that right after my first post, but before it received any comments, I added a secondto extend it:
I would also correct you also: McCain didn't stare Obama down. In fact he never once turned his way, even as Lehrer encouraged them to engage one another, and after some initial reluctance Obama began addressing McCain directly. I'm sure some people will think this as petty but effective a tactic as Clinton never mentioning Dole's name in 1996. But to many people it came off as churlish.
Again, though, it goes to the character of his campaign and the type of people he hopes to vote for him.
Which received a perfectly respectful if contrary response from Uma Richie:
On the flip side, Sen. Obama's use of "John"
instead of "Sen. McCain" sounded as flippant as a teenager trying to impress his friends by calling his dad by his first name. I don't recall Sen. McCain saying "Barack."
And I have to say, I'm with Richie on this one. Senators deserve to be addressed by their title in public, however familiar even another senator is with them.
So maybe there is some hope for bipartisanship