In tonight's second debate b/n Barak Obama and John McCain, many pundits have opined that McCain needs to "take the gloves off" and go after Obama. This advice misses several key aspects of the race at this point. According to the polls following the 1st debate, the public really liked Obama's attempts to emphasize common ground ("John is right") and his even temper. McCain appeared to be a grumpy old guy who held his younger adversary in contempt. If McCain levies personal "character" attacks at Obama, the public is likely to take it badly.
McCain's potential lines of attack have already been partially innoculated by Obama: if McC brings up Rev. Wright, that issue has mostly been discussed. Obama's association w/Bill Ayers has been covered recently, and it is unlikely that the audience will have their opinions changed by this line of attack. It has also been suggested that Obama be attacked over his comment about "air-raiding attacks that kill civilians" in Afghanistan. However, if McCain raises this attack it will give Obama a chance to explain the context of the remark: he was stating the case for more troops on the ground in Afghanistan in order to avoid reliance on air strikes that necessarily cause more civilian casualties. Giving Obama that chance to explain the context behind these smears simply undercuts the GOP's ability to use them. It's better for McCain to let the attack ads carry the sleazy innuendo while he keeps to a higher road.
On the other hand, McCain's supporters seem to think that there are no opportunities for serious attacks on Mac. If Obama's character and associations are attacked, he can counter with Mac's close connection to Phil Gramm, who is probably more responsible for this financial meltdown than any other single person. Do you think people are more concerned with a radical bomber from 40 years ago (and never killed anyone) or the financial crisis that is wiping out their retirement accounts? Obama could even bring up Ollie North, who's actions supporting a terrorist organization no doubt resorted in far more murders than anything Bill Ayers did. But I don't think any of this will come out in the debate, because the stakes are too high in offending the public. People are scared right now about the economy, and the candidate that seems more steady, more calm, better able to address the public's concern about protecting the middle class on health care and social security, that candidate will win the debate and the election.
Does anyone seriously doubt who that candidate will be?
No comments:
Post a Comment