Fess up. On Friday night, you wanted Our Guy to strike back. You wondered why he didn’t say, “As a matter of fact, John, I do understand.” You wanted him to smack somebody upside the head.
Or maybe that was just me.
But as the polls have come in and I’ve had a chance to look at the internals, I was the one who was smacked upside the head with this realization: These folks know what they’re doing.
For a lot of us (on both sides) the election is already over. The Twelve Apostles could come canvassing at my door for John McCain and I wouldn’t change my vote. So in that debate, Barack Obama didn’t have to talk to me.
He did need to talk to the undecided voters. Who loved the fact that he wasn’t mean. Who loved it when he said he agreed with his opponent. Who want a President, in other words, who acts Presidential.
It’s always satisfying to get off a real zinger in an argument. (This is a sin with which I am not unfamiliar.) But it is not worth it if you have to spend the next few days making amends.
It is clear to me that the people who had the foresight to devote extra primary resources to the Congressional districts that elected an uneven number of Convention delegates also had the foresight to know what they needed to do on Friday night.
And then they had a candidate with the discipline to do exactly what he needed to. Even when the Other Guy was calling him names. And even when most of us would have lost our temper–and maybe, along with it, the election.
Thank you so much for this, Del. Amundson. I agree, I love it when my candidate lobs a grenade at an opponent and grind my teeth when they don’t. Which is why I don’t watch debates anymore–why should I? My mind is made up. If I want to know who actually “won,” I shouldn’t trust my own instincts on how to dismember an argument, I should reserve judgement until I see the press coverage the next day to find out what’s going to get highlighted, check the Nielsen ratings to find out how many voters tuned in and from what parts of the country, and read the focus group data to see how a collection of swing voters felt about each candidate’s performance.
Now if I can only follow my own advice! I regard debate watching as pretty much a (loud) spectator sport. Which is why I don’t go to debate parties. I’m usually not too festive.
LOL…interesting point. I thought even so that Barack fought back in the best way he could have–calmly, evenly, and by riveting in on the issues where he knew he could catch McCain off guard.
Right after the debate, I talked to my friend in Florida and the first thing he said to me was “John McCain wouldn’t even LOOK at Barack the entire night. That was RUDE!” I think this oft ignored point did more to help Obama “win” the debate as well, even though it isn’t anything substantive.
And don’t get me started on Caribou Barbie, there….gosh! Let’s look forward!
Caribou Barbie — I love it!
Why is Obama recruiting the ex-felon demographic to wedge-in his take-over of Virginia?
Seem a little too cynical to me.
Here’s today’s AP story that confirms it:
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_el_pr/felons_voting;_ylt=AuIex4Q.IBQu1kBbiiFOrJKs0NUE
You know, the facts don’t really bear that out. For eight years, Virginia has restored the rights of a small number of nonviolent ex-offenders who have paid their debt to society. This really is nothing new. But second, before you make this accusation, you might want to read what Tom Davis has to say on the subject (this is from tomorrow’s New York Times story on him): “At one point, discussing voting rights for felons, he [Davis] allowed that not all felons are Democrats. “There are a lot of Republican felons,†he said. ‘I served with them in Congress.'” So how do you know how these folks would vote?
But the twelve apostles aren’t democrats. Face it, you wouldn’t vote for a non-democrat, so your point is moot.
Mr Obama went negative within the first minute of opening his mouth. I don’t need a candidate who stays AGAINST everything and not FOR a darned thing.