THE PLANK SEPTEMBER 27, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Thanks to an accident of planning, I got on a plane in Philadelphia last night around six and landed in Seattle about five and a half hours later. So: No live debate for me. I caught up with a repeat at my hotel.But here's the thing: In the half-hour or so of furious web-surfing between the time the flight attendant announced it was OK to turn on PDAs and the time I checked into my room, I felt like I'd already experienced it all. All those reactions--From the right! From the left! Can you believe that even Pat Robertson said McCain was mean? Everyone on tinterhooks about which narrative will stick: Will Saturday Night Live mock McCain's contemptuous avoidance of eye contact with his rival? Will the Daily Show tease Obama for his instances of expressing agreement with the Republican? Partisans and prognosticators are in an epic tug-of-war over the most advantageous frame.I'm hardly the first person to feel like the political campaign has yanked him back into some half-remembered college critical theory class, where the specific contents of the text--whatever that is--have been more or less liberated from the battles over what they mean. What fascinates me about my experiencing this debate as a meta-event is how little it did do dampen the galditorial spectacle. I surfed the comment-sphere with the same anxious apprehension I'd have had if I'd actually been watching the event: Would this guy win? Would the other guy gain traction? The interpretation, and hence the interpretation of the interpretation, seemed all-important as I exited the 757's cone of silence. Far more than what a couple of highly scripted Senators had said an hour earlier in Mississippi.That's life at the information-saturated edge of the political spectrum, I guess. I'm certainly not watching politics primarily to increase my wisdom in order to exercise the franchise in November, or even to learn something about my country by observing the way we decide on our leaders. Like a lot of us, my primary fascination in consuming political news is in an effort to divine the future, or at least the single portion of the future that plays out on election day. And towards that end, you could argue that the debate is less important than what a bunch of talking heads say after watching it, which is in turn less important than what some SNL writer comes up with after turning off Chris Matthews' postgame wrapup, which is in turn less important than which SNL soundbites some Today producer picks for Monday morning's show, which is in turn less imporrtant than what someone who sees said clip will remember long enough to say to their news-avoiding neighbor across the fence a few days later. By such circuitous routes does an event, and all of us who glom onto it, apparently reach those elusive swing voters. Unless it doesn't. Fair enough: Influence is a strange thing, and truths get shaped at all kinds of points along the way. But the limited relevance of the actual debate compared to the hugely contentious and often random way it is interpreted and manipulated--well, it puts all that civics-class chatter about the hallowed importance of political debates into a certain relief. (Also, it makes my brain hurt).--Michael Schaffer
19 comments
Yeah, mine too ... Good observations. Very recognizable experience, too.
- jobeek2
September 27, 2008 at 3:13pm
As far as SNL goes, McCain doomed himself to a future of grumpy old man jokes and skits. Nobody gets tired of that old saw. By contrast, I don't see what's funny about one guy agreeing with another.
- ralphnelle
September 27, 2008 at 3:23pm
Want another example of how narrative, or meta-narrative, or meta-meta-narrative shapes perceptions, or is shaped by them?
From today's New York Times www.nytimes.com/.../27bank.html
"Wachovia, Looking for Help, Turns to Citigroup"
(from about 3/4 through the article, after it turns to more general questions of bank solvency)
"Thomas A. Richlovsky, National City’s chief financial officer, said in an interview that investors had the impression his bank was a savings and loan institution regulated by the Office of Thrift Supervision, as Washington Mutual was. “That is like saying Tina Fey is Sarah Palin,” he said. “We are not a thrift, we are not a mortgage company, we are a bank . . . "
When an SNL skit has sunk so deeply and so quickly into the national consciousness that such an observation can be made without explanation or qualification, you know that the image is indelible.
- timteeter
September 27, 2008 at 3:27pm
Earmarks and Understanding. These words were deliberately chosen by McCain's staff to goad Obama into mentioning Palin (lots of earmarks and zip understanding). A hot retort to Obama must have been waiting. Obama didn't take the bait. He stayed calm. Amazing.
McCain's words on Iran were targeted to Florida (read TNR's poll reviews). He answered "better" than Obama on this to quell old Jews from defecting in that close state.
Obama may have won the war, if not the battle, by not fighting harder. Florida may be tougher though.
- dashendorf
September 27, 2008 at 3:32pm
Pat Robertson said McCain was mean?? Did you perhaps mean Pat Buchanan?
- miceelf
September 27, 2008 at 3:44pm
dashendorf: I'm not Jewish so allow me to brag: The Jews are the smartest voters in America. What they saw I saw: McCain is a martinet, a foolish militarist who is intoxicated with the perks of the Senate. He really does believe he is always right. Unfortunately for him, and fortunately for us, this isn't the Roman Senate, and he's not Caesar.
Time for this schoolyard bully to exit. Time for leadership and statesmanship = enter Barack Obama.
- fougasseu
September 27, 2008 at 4:50pm
...But here's the thing: In the half-hour or so of furious web-surfing between the time the flight attendant announced it was OK to turn on PDAs and the time I checked into my room, I felt like I'd already experienced it all. All those reactions--From the right! From the left! Can you believe that even Pat Robertson said McCain was mean? Everyone on tinterhooks about which narrative will stick: Will Saturday Night Live mock McCain's contemptuous avoidance of eye contact with his rival? Will the Daily Show tease Obama for his instances of expressing agreement with the Republican? Partisans and prognosticators are in an epic tug-of-war over the most advantageous frame...
Respectfully, honestly respectfully, I think this is so much awful, pointy-headed horse shit.
McCain beat Obama like a step child. Read Roger Simon for example: www.politico.com/.../14005.html
And what's this you say, and Pat Robertson says, " he was too mean"; he did not make eye contact; he appeared contemptuous? Really, who gives a shit?
On the other hand, I just cannot for the life of me see Obama losing the election, this the debate to the contrary notwithstanding.
- basman
September 27, 2008 at 11:39pm
teeter - a banker named "Richlovsky"? Really?
Was that from an SNL skit, too? Or maybe a minor sketch by Bertolt Brecht?
- teplukhin2you
September 28, 2008 at 3:01am
I thought Simon's piece the silliest thing I've read in, oh, a week or so. It's just projection of a desired reading onto an event. It's what Obama supporters do too. The only difference is that there's some polling basis for believing that, in the broader picture, Obama did succeed in assuaging people's worries and McCain went at him like (I'm re-using my own analogy here, sorry) the grumpy old guy at the country club who discovers to his irritation that the black barman, whom he thought spoke so politely, is running for mayor of the city.
- ironyroad
September 28, 2008 at 3:11am
...I thought Simon's piece the silliest thing I've read in, oh, a week or so. It's just projection of a desired reading onto an event. It's what Obama supporters do too...
And isn't this an example of that.?
By your post I have to call you infiniteregressroad.
It is inconceivable to me that anyone watching that debate was not impressed by McCain's superior and demonstrated command of foreign policy. He soared like an eagle, an old eagle; Obama here
fluttered around like a, a, a, hummingbird, in a, a, a, route of evanescence.
Plus, in thundering defiance of your premise, thundering I say, kettle drum earth shattering, if you hear me, Simon is a no spin reporter with no announced dog in this hunt, who calls it as he sees it, an equal opportunity crtiic and praiser, and like me a perspicacious and observant Jew.
Get me?
- basman
September 28, 2008 at 8:38am
...observant as in checking things out and seeing thing the way they are: the opposite of infinite regress.
Get me?
- basman
September 28, 2008 at 8:40am
..I noticed during our debate that even as American troops are fighting on two fronts, Barack Obama couldn’t bring himself to use the word “victory” even once. The Obama campaign saved that word for the spin room, where they tried to convince themselves and others that their man had left the stage victorious. Well, maybe this attitude helps explain why it wasn’t such a good night for my opponent. When Americans look at a candidate, they can tell the difference between mere self-confidence and an abiding confidence in our country. They know that the troops who are bravely fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan want to come home in victory and in honor. And we need a president who shares their confidence — a commander in chief who believes that victory for America will be achieved...
And those aren't my words, they are John McCain's, the man who will not be your next president. Who should know better whether he won?
- basman
September 28, 2008 at 9:26am
Another pro Obama take from a neutral observer:www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2008092701357.html
And another: www.desmoinesregister.com/.../article
My thesis: McCain beat Obama in the debate like a dusty rug, but he cannot win the election!
And with I end, till I face more regress.
- basman
September 28, 2008 at 9:32am
The New York Times piece on McCain's many connections to the gaming industry is troubling and provocative, but a bit of a head fake.
The deeper, more lucrative connections to Vegas and The Mob are through the Hensley family's buried connections to Gus Greenbaum, Kemper Marley, et al. I wish the Times would dig deeper in a different spot...over there, in Arizona. That's where the story lies.
Jack Abramoff knows quite a bit more than he is willing, or feels safe, to tell.
- fougasseu
September 28, 2008 at 9:57am
basman quotes McCain, but John does the two-step and more: "They know..."? John is claiming to read my mind and also assumes I know what the troops want, "that the troops who are bravely fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan want to come home in victory and in honor."
No John. I do not know what "the troops want" but when I've spoken to individuals I've heard concern about their friend's safety, the impact on their family and lastly their own survival. They don't see themselves as Bush's army or McCain's army when an IED takes out their friends in the HUMVEE in front of them.
Victory and honor? Professional soldiers aren't athletes in a competition. Save that speech for half-time at a Super Bowl when a team is three scores behind.
Do not insult soldiers, after a third or fourth tour and after they have a clearer perception of their role than anyone at home and they aren't relying on John McCain to define their character. A mother who may leave her family for a fourth time in six years will not allow McCain to use her dignity or courage and "confidence" to be characterized so it serves McCain.
Wars are political but to seek votes or defend a strategy by tying the success of a campaign to what "the troops want" is shameful and McCain can't use any soldier's "confidence" as a slogan.
McCain should know better than anyone he can't co-opt these volunteers and use them as a pawns for his success. They don't have to share anything with John McCain, the confidence he refers to is theirs. Let McCain find another way to win, our military is too busy to volunteer for his campaign.
- michael
September 28, 2008 at 12:46pm
basman: Get me?
Not really.
basman: Get me?
This time.
And, as the perspicacious and observant Freud said, the voice of reality is small and weak, but it is persistent and it will have its say.
- ironyroad
September 28, 2008 at 2:40pm
In the WaPo column that basman links to, Broder suggests that McCain established himself as the "alpha male." His evidence is that McCain wouldn't look at Obama while Obama looked frequently at McCain. However, a scientist who actually studies primate behavior, whose comment is posted at talkingpointsmemo.com, says the opposite. He/she writes: "...low ranking monkeys don't look at high ranking monkeys. In a physical, instinctive sense, Obama owned McCain tonight and I think the instant polling reflects that."
Who knows if primate behavior is the right yardstick. To me McCain's body language just signalled petulance, crankiness, and contempt (rather than deference or fear.) Obama's body language, by contrast, was assertive and firm, but respectful. When Obama looked McCain directly in the eye he was challenging him on substance. It was the equivalent of walking right up to your opponent in a fight and putting up your fists. McCain, by contrast, was crouching behind a desk throwing spitballs and sticks. I suspect there's a gender difference in how viewers interpreted this, with more women seeing in McCain's body language the meanness and seething anger of the schoolyard bully.
For Broder and the other pundits basman cites (all of them male and older), "beating someone like a rug" seems to mean simply *asserting* over and over and over that they "don't understand." But Obama clearly demonstrated, to anyone who was actually listening at least, that he does understand a great deal about the issues. There are some things he understands even better than McCain. (Strategies versus tactics, anyone?)
For the record, I thought both candidates were pretty strong on substance. But on body language and comportment, Obama did indeed own McCain.
- hemlock41
September 28, 2008 at 3:01pm
Here's the exact link to the discussion of body language and primate behavior at TPM that I mentioned in my last comment:
talkingpointsmemo.com/.../220226.php
- hemlock41
September 28, 2008 at 3:15pm
...And, as the perspicacious and observant Freud said, the voice of reality is small and weak, but it is persistent and it will have its say....
Irony, I'm good with this, but it contradicts the relativism that denies any possibility of objective assessment and insists that reality is comprised only by what the prism reveals.
I'll leave off with the "get mes" at this point.
- basman
September 29, 2008 at 10:37am