Obama v. McCain: Impressions from ’round the blogosphere

Mark Hemingway for The Corner (it’s important to read it all):

I don't want to get to overheated about what occurred tonight, but I do think McCain had a clear and decisive victory over Obama. It all comes down to something that Phil Bredesen, the Democratic governor of Tennessee recently said about Obama: “Instead of giving big speeches at big stadiums, he needs to give straight-up 10-word answers to people at Wal-Mart about how he would improve their lives.”

By that standard, McCain did extremely well and Obama did very poorly. McCain's answers were direct, confident and, most importantly, serious. …

Chuck Todd for MSNBC’s First Read:

Quick first impressions: Obama spent more time trying to impress Warren (or to put another away) not offend Warren while McCain seemingly ignored Warren and decided he was talking to folks watching on TV. The McCain way of handling this forum is usually the winning way. Obama may have had more authentic moments but McCain was impressively on message. [...]

[T]his reminded me of the many comparisons we made between Obama and Hillary Clinton. She was much more effective at answering questions in 90 seconds and always staying on message while Obama too easily allowed himself to get knocked off his talking points. Remember, Obama doesn’t need to win over his supporters, he needs folks who are just now tuning in. [...]

Obama better be thankful for the timing of this; he seemed a little rusty and clearly has some work to do before he meets McCain face-to-face on Sept. 26, the night of the first presidential debate in Oxford, MS.

Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic:

9.57 pm. McCain’s evolution into a candidate who knows how to stroke the Christianist base is somewhat impressive. It was a little canned at times, but it will work with evangelicals. All in all, this struck me as pretty much a draw. But it also struck me that the questions could have been asked in a non-religious setting and by a real journalist who might have even followed up the questions and not allowed both candidates, but especially McCain, to go on anecdote auto-pilot. …

From The Moderate Voice:

[...] Once again McCain has proven to be far stronger than some predicted he would be, exceeding expectations. And Obama has proven to be a tad less dynamic and overpowering than earlier hype suggested, not meeting some expectations. [...]

Obama’s performance has not been judged bad (except by some GOP partisan writers who likely would have proclaimed it bad no matter how well he did because that’s how the spin game is played). But it was NOT a buzz-creating home run or or game-changer. And McCain — once again — came across as highly likable, sincere and decisive. Will the word “nuance” — once considered a plus — again become a dirty word in campaign 2008? …

OF NOTE: The Moderate Voice also offers a good round-up of blog reactions.

Michael M. Bates for Newsbusters.org (”CNN’s Analysis: At Saddleback, Obama Was ‘Thoughtful’”):

[...]

That Obama is just so darn thoughtful. This isn’t just CNN’s judgment. Over at MSNBC, political director Chuck Todd noted that "every Obama answer was certainly thoughtful enough. . . " San Francisco Chronicle political writer Carla Maninucci writes that Obama "appeared more thoughtful and comfortable discussing faith and domestic issues, exploring with relish the issues and moral dilemmas with Warren." Dan Glaister, Los Angeles correspondent of the UK Guardian, reports: "Where Obama was thoughtful and cautious, McCain was abrupt - so abrupt in fact that his short responses meant he got to answer more questions in his hour than his rival."

I watched the forum and would describe many of Obama’s responses as vague. Thoughtfulness, like beauty, apparently is in the eye of the beholder. At CNN and in other mainstream media outlets, they all behold it the same way.

Ed Stoddard for Tales From the Trail:

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama side-stepped a pointed query about abortion on Saturday by “mega-pastor” Rick Warren during a televised forum.

Asked at what point a baby gets “human rights,” Obama, who strongly supports abortion rights, said: “… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.”

He went on to reiterate his view that it was important to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who followed Obama onto the stage of the nationally televised event, was more blunt and more emphatic.

He said a baby’s human rights began “at the moment of conception … I have a 25-year pro-life record.” …

Jeremy Lott for The Guardian:

[...]

Warren disclosed to the audience, “Both these guys are my friends.” He passed over the chance to ask hard follow-up questions. He began his one-on-one interview with Obama by joking “If you were a tree…” In fact, the candidates tried to cover up for the puffball nature of some of the queries by pretending they were real stumpers.

This was surprising because Warren is no intellectual slouch. Last year when he went up against atheist wunderkind Sam Harris in Newsweek, he proved an able debater with a real talent for bloodying his opponent. If he’d decided to turn up the heat on the candidates, they’d have felt it.

Perhaps he took it easy because they flattered him. McCain quoted from Warren’s book, The Purpose Driven Life, claiming that it was essentially his own campaign message. Obama contrasted the sales of his own books with Warren’s phenomenal publishing juggernaut. “I haven’t sold 25 million books but I’ve been selling some books lately,” the Democrat said.

Either that or Warren simply doesn’t have a strong preference either way. From their answers it’s clear that we’re about to get a purpose-driven president. Obama would expand healthcare and other programmes domestically, and raise taxes to pay for them. Except for Iraq, Obama is bullish on the benefits of American action abroad.

And readers will no doubt be shocked to learn that McCain wants a more belligerent foreign policy and professed a willingness to follow Osama bin Laden to the very gates of Hades.

The real surprise of the night was McCain’s entrée into domestic issues. Warren asked: when is a fetus “entitled to human rights”? “At the moment of conception” McCain answered, without blinking. (Obama had danced around the issue, calling the determination of when life begins “above my pay grade.”) McCain also began to pivot away from his past support for government funding of embryo destructive stem cell research by saying he is “wildly optimistic” about research to make skin mimic embryonic stem cells.

Warren asked what current Supreme Court justice McCain might not have appointed. The Arizona senator named justices Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer - the entire liberal wing of the Court. And he called Bush appointees justices Alito and Roberts “two of my most recent favorites.”

McCain offered a sweeping embrace of school choice, calling it a “civil rights issue.” On energy issues, he said “We gotta do everything.” “Everything,” included a mix of more subsidies for hybrid cars, more offshore oil exploration, and more nuclear power plants. He proposed large tax credits for children and for healthcare, condemned efforts to increase unionisation by eliminating secret ballots, and railed against high taxes and “class warfare” generally. The crowd loved it.

It could be a preview of things to come. If this new crusading conservative McCain shows up at the presidential debates in October, will Obama be the one left hoping for help from a higher power?

As always, for the very best round-up, check Memorandum.com.