The CNN round-table of all 72 pundits got in their opinion. They all claimed this was by far McCain's best, and probably Obama's worst. BO looked too "professorial" (i.e. smart) and "stoic" (i.e. cool), while McCain "was on the offensive" (i.e. a condescending prick), and "passionate" (i.e. his forehead ballooned to the size and shape of the Epcot Center). No surprise there - CNN is DESPERATE to make this a horse race. Well, he snap-shot polls are in, and they showed an overwhelming Obama victory. No surprise there, either. So what did the best political team on television miss?
For me, the turning point was obvious, and it was in that pivotal discussion about the tone of the campaigns. So many stump speech attacks came up - ACORN, Ayers, Rep. Lewis, . This was an opportunity for the campaigns to set their records straight, and reject the negative tone. The contrast could not have been clearer:
McCain answered by blaming Obama for rejecting the town hall meetings, and also by bringing in Ayers, ACORN, and comments made by Rep. John Lewis into the discussion - in other words, he answered Schieffer's question by running a smear campaign. Every time Obama responded, he tried to prolong the discussion for as long as he could.
CNN interpreted this as "tough", "on offense", and "passionate".
Obama, meanwhile, answered by briefly answering those accusations, but primarily shifting the priorities to the things that Americans expect their government to help them with. He stated that he could withstand the attacks, but that they are merely a distraction from the economic crisis, health care, and the hardships the country is going through.
Yuck. Such an academic and nuanced answer. Americans don't care for constructive dialogue. They want red meat, right CNN?
For me, this was the clearest illustration of where the candidates' priorities lie. Obama's priorities lie in addressing global economic uncertainties, and laying forth his plan towards improving domestic infrastructure. McCain, in his hypocritical "I repudiate negativity" smear job, showed that his priorities lie in making his opponent look unsavory. In my view, this exchange won the debate for Obama because he demonstrated the tact and constructive dialogue that he was calling for. McCain, on the other hand, lost the debate because he revealed himself to be the instigator and aggressor of the negative attacks, while refusing to let go of the discussion. One man lived up to his rhetoric, and the other didn't.
This very same exchange is the likeliest explanation as to why there was such a disconnect between what CNN's "experts" were saying, and what the polls showed. The biggest beef I have with the MSM (and I have a lot of 'em) is that they purport to be the authority on what the public thinks. They're just so cock-sure of what we want to hear from our candidates, and how we will respond to the events we are watching. So when they attempt to determine my opinion for me, they care about only two things: rhetoric (how their words sound), and performance (how convincingly they deliver their rhetoric). The one important facet they leave out, naturally, is "logic" (how much sense their rhetoric makes).
McCain's self-contradicting response to this question was certainly damanging, but it may not have looked so on a surface level. His strategy of throwing rapid-fire darts and controlling the discussion looks effective from a political strategy standpoint, but what CNN forgets is that this isn't a competition to see who demonstrates greater political skill. This is an election about serious issues, and requires a serious dialogue. In our current climate, "political strategy" seems trivial. And I can't help but grin when these talking heads look like utter buffoons like they did tonight when the real results came in.