First Debate Uneventful, But With a Clear Victor

Like many of you, I watched the debate last Friday night. In all honesty, it was not as eventful as I had believed it would be. Both candidates were hesitant on initiating the hostility for fear of appearing as the aggressor, something you can be sure will change for the next two upcoming debates after they hear the feedback on the debate's overall dullness. 

It is clear by most objective observers that Obama won, but the margin of victory was not a substantial one. He won because he was able to display more knowledge on foreign affairs than many had expected he possessed while seeming more Presidential than McCain as he did it. The conservative media has been spinning it to seem as if a tie would still be a victory for McCain, which is simply an act of double-think. How could a tie in a debate about McCain's strongest area be a victory for him? Intuitively, McCain should have dominated the debate, save the first 40 minutes of it. Even then, why should we overlook his weakness on the economy if we are supposed to focus on Obama's "alleged" weakness on foreign policy? This is just another example of the right wing's agenda to manipulate realities. 

Obama's largest folly during the debate was constantly repeating the phrase "John is right," something he should have known the Republican Attack Machine was going to use ad nauseum. Clearly, he meant it in a tone of humility, but the right seldom preoccupy themselves with how things really are, and tend to emphasize how they seem. He should transition from saying "John/Senator McCain is right," to "John/Senator McCain and I agree." And although he was the only one actually speaking directly to his opponent on some occasions, he didn't do it enough. It would of been a wiser strategy to do so, given McCain's obvious discomfort with it. 

McCain's weakness during the debate was not only his demeanor, which was much more stiff than his opponent's, but it almost seemed as if whenever asked a question, he only had one "tactic" (not to be confused with strategy), which was to tell old war stories. If he wishes to create distance between himself and the image of an old politician with nothing left but his past, then he needs to start talking about what's happening now, and not what happened then. It is clear that his intention was to emphasize the fact that he has stories because he has experience, but to the audience it just gives the appearance of another seasoned public servant on his way to retirement. 

If McCain wishes to have a fighting chance in the next two debates, then he needs to become both more animated and more Presidential in his demeanor. Otherwise, he is doomed to the same fate that befell Richard Nixon in 1960 when he debated John F. Kennedy, who's calm composure and executive disposition served as his propellant into the White House. Obama's strategy must be to maintain his air of Presidential presence and continue to consistently challenge McCain directly when debating, which will trigger McCain's discomfort as well as his notorious temper. If Obama can effectively push McCain's buttons, the Senator from Arizona will bury himself by displaying a hint of frustration that Obama can then capitalize on with the contrast of his inherent ability to keep a cool head. Hopefully both candidates employ the aforementioned strategies, which should make for a much more lively debate.