Getting in tune

[Brassmask]

I think some of his recent gaffes are fatigue driven. Give him a week off and he'll be fine.

How do you explain McCains poor performance the other night? Can't be fatigue, he hasn't campaigned hard since March.

Maybe you are right , but when do we see him speak impromptu?

Do you dare?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/7/233541/1086/910/532016

My understanding is that Barack writes alot of his own speeches.  This is especially true of the one he gave back in April in response to the Reverend Wright nonsense.

[Plane]

Maybe you are right , but when do we see him speak impromptu?

Do you dare?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/7/233541/1086/910/532016

Ahhhh don't dare me so , elese I might dare you also to listen to McCain for a quarter hour.

He wasn't bad , he is glib and charming , in a face to face with McCain he is very likely to come off well.

I think he is wrong though to say that Republicans are against doing good things or that people who suffer are depending only on the government to help them.

I try to avoid letting my own vote be dependant on the glibness of a canadate , I don't want a "gotcha" or two to make my mind up for me , but I must realise and admit that this is important in a contest of  hundreds of speeches and millions of listeners.

I do take him seriously as a canadate.

[Plane]

http://www.redstatenetwork.com/stories/elections/2008/mccain_invites_obama_to_debates

McCain Invites Obama To Debates [Updated. Cruelly.]
If We Can Only Tear Obama Away From His Teleprompter
By California Yankee Posted in 2008 | debates | McCain ? Comments (58) / Email this page ? / Leave a comment ?
On a conference call with bloggers this afternoon, Senator McCain congratulated, Senator Obama and announced that he invited Obama to a series of weekly town hall meetings:

Dear Senator Obama:

In 1963, Senator Barry Goldwater and President John F. Kennedy agreed to make presidential campaign history by flying together from town to town and debating each other face-to-face on the same stage. In Goldwater's words, those debates "would have done the country a lot of good."

Read on there is more.

Unfortunately, with President Kennedy's untimely death, Americans lost the rare opportunity of witnessing candidates for the highest office in the land discuss civilly and extensively the great issues at stake in the election. What a welcome change it would be were presidential candidates in our time to treat each other and the people they seek to lead with respect and courtesy as they discussed the great issues of the day, without the empty sound bites and media-filtered exchanges that dominate our elections. It is in the spirit of President Kennedy's and Senator Goldwater's agreement, in the spirit of the politics of change, and to do our country good, that I invite you to join me in participating in town hall meetings across the country to discuss the most important issues facing Americans. I also suggest we fly together to the first town hall meeting as a symbolically important act embracing the politics of civility.

I propose these town hall meetings be as free from the regimented trappings, rules and spectacle of formal debates as possible, and that we pledge to the American people we will not allow the idea to die on the negotiation table as our campaigns work out the details. I suggest we agree to participate in at least ten town halls once a week with the first on June 11 or 12 in New York City at Federal Hall until the week before the Democratic Convention begins at locations to be determined by our campaigns. Federal Hall is particularly fitting as it was the place where George Washington took the oath of office as our first President and the birthplace of American government hosting the first Congress, Supreme Court and Executive Branch offices. These town halls should be attended by an audience of between two to four hundred selected by an independent polling agency, could be sixty to ninety minutes in length, have very limited moderation by an independent local moderator, take blind questions from the audience selected by the moderator and allow for equally proportional time for answers by each of us. All of these are suggestions that can be finalized by our campaigns. What is important is that we commit to participate in these history making meetings to join in the higher level of discourse that Americans clearly would prefer.

To show our good faith, we should both commit to the first town hall I have suggested. In the mean time, we can work out dates for future town hall meetings.

I look forward to your favorable reply and to the opportunity to work with you to give Americans a better opportunity to understand our differences, our agreements and the leadership we offer them.

Sincerely,

John McCain

During the conference call McCain said the town hall format is the best because it provides voters more participation and a greater voice in our democracy:

Unfortunately, the town hall debates aren't likely to happen. Obama wants changes to the format before accepting the invitation:

?As Barack Obama has said before, the idea of joint town halls is appealing and one that would allow a great conversation to take place about the need to change the direction of this country,? said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe. ?We would recommend a format that is less structured and lengthier than the McCain campaign suggests, one that more closely resembles the historic debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas.?

That's consistent with my impression that Obama is usually heavily scripted and prefers to deliver long speeches from a teleprompter. Without that remote control from his handlers, Obama is prone to gaffes such as his infamous clingy remarks at that San Francisco fundraiser.

In the Lincoln-Douglas debate format preferred by Obamna, one candidate spoke for an hour, then the other candidate spoke for an hour and a half, and then the first candidate was allowed a half hour "rejoinder."

[UPDATE, Moe Lane] For our lurkers: what this means, of course, is that contra Plouffe's suggestion for a "less structured" format Barack Obama is instead aiming for a more structured one - one where he has sufficient time to do everything except think on the fly. So, my question to the Obama supporters out there: how does it feel to know that your candidate is afraid of matching his wits against that of a 71 year old?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Being a good leader very rarely has to do with the ability to wing one-line responses to others. We only remember silly  gotcha's like Reagan's "there you go again", "I PAID for this microphone Mr Breen!" and the quip about how Mondale was young and unexperienced. as part of a political campaign.

Reagan was noted for being the "Great Communicator" by his ability to read his lines--something he learned well as an actor.

The rest of his spoken legacy that turned out to be successful was written, almost certainly by someone else, far in advance of the old geezer uttering it.

But to judge a future leader by his abilities to ad lib like Seinfield surrounded by a tough and drunken audience is just dumb. This is how one gets them to laugh in the audience and buy the sponsor's catfood at home. Stadup comedy is unrelated to competent political leadership.

A good leader hears all sides, consults the best advisers he can find, and follows the best advice he can in the most effective way. Such talents are not in any way revealed by any sort of media event 'debates', 'town meetings' or such we have yet devised.

30 second spots and crapola like 527 swiftboard drek is even worse, as it is utterly counterproductive to the process of selecting a competent leader.

[BT]

Good leaders inspire confidence.

How much confidence do you have in a person who can not input, process and respond to data in real time.

Is being a quick study a requirement for the presidency?

Is it something you would look for in a candidate?

 

[Xavier_Onassis]

No, I do not believe that an ability to come up with a simple and quick solution is a major priority for a president.

JFK had over a week to decide what to do in the Cuban missile crisis.
Pushing the button and starting a war with China over Quemoy or Matsu (look at a map) would be a really bad idea.

I expect a president to be able to understand a complicated situation in the same way I would expect a student to know when calculus was required to solve a problem. It would not be necessary for him to do the problem in his head.

I suppose McGuyver might have been a lot of fun as a president, but we know McCain was not McGuyver, or he would have not spent all that time locked up by the North Vietnamese. I saw Rambo free dozens of POWs in under 90 minutes.

Reagan was rarely quick on his feet, and he was greatly respected despite this. His campaigning skills were not required for his performance as president.

Being a quick study is not the same thing as being a great ad libber or a McGuyver.

What makes a good movie or good TV is not what we need for a political leader. This is a good thing, because in reality, there are no McGuyvers or Rambos or even Dr Houses.

[BT]

It's not as important to know the answer as it is to know where to find the answer.

When we are comparing Obama to McCain,  Reagan does not fit into the equation.

Nor does McGuyver or any other video action figure.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It's not as important to know the answer as it is to know where to find the answer.


I could not agree more. That is my point precisely.

In a presidential 'debate', however, it would not look good for some candidate to say that they knew where to find data on the capital of Kazakhstan, the world's largest deposits of Uranium, or the projected annual interest on the money the US owes China. This is why I don't think 'debates' as we normally do them are all that useful in predicting who will be successful as a president.

McGuyver and Rambo would win hands down if they existed, but, alas they don't.

A real debate (as are held between university debating clubs) would not be a great improvement, either.

I do not think a satisfactory vehicle for proving future presidential success exists.
As they say in every mutual fund prospectus, "Past performance is no guarantee of future success".

[BT]

The debates and campaign appearances are nothing more than vehicles to improve comfort levels with the voters.

Trustworthiness, beerbuddyness, who has the better dog.

Important stuff.

I doubt i could vote for a candidate who had a chihuahua or other type of ankle biting drop kick dog for a pet.

A lab or retriever owner would get my vote hands down.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I doubt i could vote for a candidate who had a chihuahua or other type of ankle biting drop kick dog for a pet.

I don't think I care about what sort of pet a president owns. Perhaps if a candidate had a parrot on his shoulder all the time, that could make a difference.

I am opposed to anyone drop-kicking dogs, even yappy lapdogs.

Chihuahuas (Chihuahue?os) were originally used for food by Mexican Indians. This is why they bred some of them to be hairless. Not having to  pluck one's diner is an advantage. Properly fattened, escuintles (the official Nahuatl name) were the perfect size for a dinner, not unlike the goose Scrooge gave the Cratchetts for Christmas dinner.

FDR had a Scottish Terrier named Fala. My parents were so impressed they got one, too. He lived to be 15 years old and required a weekly bath to avoid the entire house smelling like a Scottish terrier.

I imagine that stinky dog washing was less a problem for FDR than for me.

[hnumpah]

A lab or retriever owner would get my vote hands down.

If that's all it took to get your vote, you must have loved Jimmy Carter, then.

'Over the years, Jimmy Carter has had occasion to fight rattlers, train bird dogs...'

http://www.jimmycarter.info/book_7.htm

[BT]

I voted for Carter in 76

[hnumpah]

I voted for Carter in 76

Don't feel too bad. I voted for Bush in '00.

[Michael Tee]

I liked the article at the head of the thread. 

"Comfort level" is a pretty superficial way to judge a candidate, even if it's something more than mere racial prejudice.  Of course, some voters will make "comfort level" the primary reason for voting for the candidate, but even amongst those who are most influenced by it, I don't think they'll score one candidate 100 and the other zero in comfort level.  And my theory is that it would take a very wide gap in comfort levels to swing a vote one way or the other.

But on the "aura" or "vibe" level, there is youth, energy, optimism and hope on the one side and age, tiredness, meanness and rearview-mirror driving on the other.  McSame has got a huge uphill road to travel and I can't see him even making it halfway up.

[BT]

Don't feel too bad. I voted for Bush in '00.

I don't feel bad.

He was a decent governor of Georgia, figured he'd be able to do it at the fed level.