On winning and losing
About half the pundits resort to some sort of boxing analogy when discussing these debates. And almost all of the rest discuss them in terms of "winning" and "losing".
Most pundits initially considered the first debate "a draw" or a victory "on points" for McCain. Then the polling showed that the majority of independents (by a 2 to 1 margin, on average) felt that Obama had "won". Now, after the second debate - less than two weeks later - the same pundits are using the same language and, apparently, the same flawed prism through which they viewed the first debate.
As I have been saying repeatedly, it makes NO SENSE to judge these debates in terms of winners and losers. It makes no sense to assess them as isolated events.
Each debate is an event in the course of a protracted campaign. The candidates must acquit themselves in a manner that supports or enhances their overall appeal to the voters, which may or may not require "winning on points" or "scoring a knockout punch" in the context of a debate.
An aggressive, give-no-ground performance - and, therefore, victorious according to those who like to score these things - could conceivably harm a candidate if he or she happens to have a reputation for hyper-partisan aggression and a lack of civility at a time when voters are inclined to seek the opposite.
In the first debate, Obama succeeded in adding dimension to the caricature of a smooth-talking tyro, charismatic but possibly naive and, worse, lacking in substance. After spending 90 minutes in his company, most viewers were impressed with his maturity, command of issues, and nice balance of calmness and force.
In the second debate, he continued in this vein. In another election year, this approach may not have been the most effective. This year, however, it's exactly what is called for. American's want reassurance, steadiness and competence.
McCain, on the other hand, stalked about the arena, looking for chances to land a solid blow, if not a knockout punch. He looked edgy, pent-up, and annoyed.
The irony is that trying to "win" put McCain in a no-win situation from the start.
And so, Obama won - hands down.
Most pundits initially considered the first debate "a draw" or a victory "on points" for McCain. Then the polling showed that the majority of independents (by a 2 to 1 margin, on average) felt that Obama had "won". Now, after the second debate - less than two weeks later - the same pundits are using the same language and, apparently, the same flawed prism through which they viewed the first debate.
As I have been saying repeatedly, it makes NO SENSE to judge these debates in terms of winners and losers. It makes no sense to assess them as isolated events.
Each debate is an event in the course of a protracted campaign. The candidates must acquit themselves in a manner that supports or enhances their overall appeal to the voters, which may or may not require "winning on points" or "scoring a knockout punch" in the context of a debate.
An aggressive, give-no-ground performance - and, therefore, victorious according to those who like to score these things - could conceivably harm a candidate if he or she happens to have a reputation for hyper-partisan aggression and a lack of civility at a time when voters are inclined to seek the opposite.
In the first debate, Obama succeeded in adding dimension to the caricature of a smooth-talking tyro, charismatic but possibly naive and, worse, lacking in substance. After spending 90 minutes in his company, most viewers were impressed with his maturity, command of issues, and nice balance of calmness and force.
In the second debate, he continued in this vein. In another election year, this approach may not have been the most effective. This year, however, it's exactly what is called for. American's want reassurance, steadiness and competence.
McCain, on the other hand, stalked about the arena, looking for chances to land a solid blow, if not a knockout punch. He looked edgy, pent-up, and annoyed.
The irony is that trying to "win" put McCain in a no-win situation from the start.
And so, Obama won - hands down.