Michael Seitzman spells out fully a point I've been trying to make to people who felt Obama should have attacked McCain more. This is not what Obama is about. And it is part of why Obama won the primary and why he is winning the general as well.
There's nothing wrong with recognizing that your opponent makes a good point. Voters want someone who is tough, but also someone who is classy and fair and decent. Obama came across as decent last night; McCain didn't. And that's what people come away with after they've forgotten all the words that were tossed around.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
As a trial lawyer for 25 years, I have observed that there is tremendous strength in admitting that your opponent has made a good point, or that you agree with him. I have always thought of that act as powerful -- only someone comfortable with his/her own position can do it. It demonstrates authority, and it also moves the debate forward to other points that you might not have gotten to. That is the leadership part, because it showns the audience that you have mastered the facts and the situation, and aren't afraid of it. This isn;t high school debate, where each point requires a counterpoint, it is real life where arguments are messy, and you have to thread your way through to the point you need to make with calm and reasoned logic.
All of this is what Obama projects. I think that is one reason people feel he won the debate. And what they feel is all that matters.
I think the debate was not about winning. Each candidate had an objective. McCain did not project the comfort and mastery of the situation because he could not treat Obama as an equal -- not behavior we want in the White House when things are a little tough. So he loses. If he could have interacted as Lehrer wanted him to, he probably would have won, but he couldn't, or wouldn't. Obama wanted to look powerful and presidential, and he did, in part because he was not afraid to admit when he agreed with his opponent, giving him the chance to move the debate forward to other points he wanted to include. So he wins. The result is a double win for Obama -- when your opponent screws up it is as good as a win for you.
"As a trial lawyer for 25 years, I have observed that there is tremendous strength in admitting that your opponent has made a good point, or that you agree with him. "
I would phrase that a little differently:
"You can admit your opponents premises, but you should always deny their conclusion"
Agreeing with your opponents conclusions is never good in a debate.
Post a Comment