Followup notes to the debate.
First, it’s amazing how different the debate looked to me on PBS, where there was no splitscreen and the McCain reaction shots came from a lateral camera that showed Obama in profile and McCain in 3/4s. I wrote that I couldn’t tell if McCain was angry, but that he looked like he was trying to keep it under control.
Switch to the splitscreen clips like the one below, and I’m willing to take that back. There are more tics on display here than at a Saturday night 2 AM 2-4 Hold ’em game after everyone’s been doing shots.
Incidentally, at 1:57 in this video, you get to see a McCain tongue jut, which was introduced to me in Joe Navarro’s Read ‘Em and Reap. Navarro says it’s something people do when they think they’ve gotten away with something; McCain uses it when he gets to toss in a rehearsed talking point, both in debates and in media interviews. (He uses it here while Obama is speaking, so it means something else in that context. It’s also a more languid jut than usual, which also implies a secondary meaning.)
Speaking of tongues, it struck me as odd that McCain, in the post-debate wave to the audience, put up his arms and stuck out his tongue, smiling. It was like Richard Nixon meets Gene Simmons. A photo circulating this morning indicates why you perhaps shouldn’t do that when you’re running for president.
Finally, here’s the interview with Joe the Plumber. If you haven’t watched it yet, really, do so. I’ll wait.
What’s striking to me is how respectfully Obama answers the man, and how thoroughly. What’s more striking is Joe’s body language:
- 0:41: Joe jumps in to ask a question, after nodding his head a few times. Obama keeps talking, and he immediately crosses his arms. Read: Joe had a prepared question, and wanted to put Obama on the defensive about a tax plan he doesn’t like. Crossed arms means he’s still waiting for his opportunity.
0:52: Joe scratches his head and cheek, and drops his arms. That’s a comfort signal; he’s aware he’s on national television, and it’s making him nervous. Perhaps he’s consciously aware that he crossed his arms — that’s a read that most people know about, and most people don’t want to be that visibly defensive.
1:16: “Well, the reason that I asked you about the American Dream….” Actually, that’s the first mention of it. Again, implies that Joe had a prepared question he didn’t get to articulate.
1:40: Joe’s hands go on his hips. More of a comfort stance, less defensive than crossed arms. Obama starts asking specific questions about his business.
1:57: Joe starts to put his hands up, doesn’t try to say anything. Obama agrees with him when Joe says he works hard. Joe agrees with Obama when he talks about people working hard making less than Joe does.
2:39: Licked lips and tight smile after Obama says that Joe would have done better ten years ago.
2:47: Obama: “we’ve cut taxes a lot for folks like me who make a lot more than two-fifty”.
3:05: “I’m going to cut taxes more for folks who are most in need….” Joe leans back and looks up and right. I think he agrees with this more than he wants to, and the defensive rock is a shifting of his argument.
3:27: “It’s not that I want to punish your success.” Much more genuine smile from Joe.
3:37: Joe asks about a flat tax. He’s well-informed, slightly switching the terms of the discussion. When Joe looks skeptical of Obama’s claim of a 40% sales tax being needed, Obama catches it and immediately explains.
4:46: Another genuine smile when Obama says, “even if I don’t get your vote”.
5:15: When Obama starts talking about zero capital gains taxes for small businesses, Joe’s head cocks. He’s clearly listening to something he didn’t know before.
So, what do I make of this? First, that it’s somewhat fascinating that this exchange has been boiled down to Obama’s use of the phrase “spread the wealth” in the talking heads section of the media. This back-and-forth between a candidate and an informed voter who is hostile on an issue is probably the epitome of what we want retail politics to be. But if Joe hadn’t been used as a ping-pong ball last night, few of us would have seen this.
Second, I’m guessing based on what Joe prepared to ask that he’s probably a solid McCain voter. (Granted, interviews with Joe today help reinforce this idea.) But what Obama does here is engage him and try to find areas of persuasion — and to a small extent, it succeeds. Obama and Joe both acknowledge this dynamic when Obama says he won’t get his vote; Joe’s smile is tacit agreement. But I think Joe got something different than he was expecting, and just maybe that changes his point of view — if not in November, then maybe between here and 2012.
I don’t remember seeing a politician ever doing this so well before. (Perhaps I’d feel differently if I had YouTube in 1992.) Obama is present in the moment of his discussion with Joe, and my gut feeling — unfortunately, no camera angle on Obama’s expressions to support this — is that he really gives a damn. I can see Bush and McCain doing this with their supporters — but with the opposition? Snowball’s chance in hell.
I think you’re reaching out to make a point here, to the point of breaking your own strawman.
Joe the Plumber is the guy that Obama really doesn’t want to talk about. When Obama talks about “people making more than $250,000 per year,” he wants people to think of limousines and caviar, not a plumber who’s trying to buy a second truck. If you took Joe out of the context of this election, gave people his bio and asked them if he deserved a tax hike, I’m guessing you’d get 80%+ agreement that he did not – and most of that from Democrats. He’s basically a blue collar guy who’s business makes more than $250,000.
Regardless of where everyone’s hands, hips, tongue, lips, and face were at various points in time, I think McCain articulated the difference between himself and Obama (and between Republicans in general and Democrats in general) better in last night’s debate than I’ve ever heard it before. Obama wants to tax Joe so the “guys coming up behind him have a chance.” He fails to mention why it’s Joe’s responsibility to fund some other plumber who’s just starting out. McCain wants to cut Joe’s taxes (in the form of a corporate tax cut), so Joe can buy the second truck, expand his business, and probably hire several folks just like that up & coming plumber that Obama wants to help personally.
Bottom line: Obama wants to help the up & coming plumber because he doesn’t think that anyone else can/will do it as well as he can/will. McCain thinks the job of hiring plumbers should be left to, well. . . plumbers. I find it hard to argue Obama’s side on this, especially when a case study is so clearly laid out.
As for Bush & McCain – I don’t think you’ve been watching McCain very carefully. If anything, this is his strength. Go Google his appearance on “The View,” where he talks about Supreme Court justices who strictly interpret the Constitution the way the founding fathers wrote it. Whoppie Goldberg asks him if that means she has to worry about being a slave again. McCain immediately realizes his mistake, acknowledges her point, and thanks her for the correction. There are lots of examples like this out there…
One other note: In your liveblog, you characterize McCain’s side-comments as an obsessive need to talk while Obama was talking. But here in this video, I counted at least a dozen times where Joe the Plumber wants to say something and Obama simply will not let him speak. Maybe it’s because I already understand progressive tax systems, or maybe it’s because I’m assuming that Joe the Plumber also understands them (given that his business brings in >$250,000), but I find Obama’s tone here very condescending, not respectful. In that light, all of the arm-folding, head-cocking and hip-holding reads much more like a guy who has a point to make, but can’t make it because the person he’s talking to is too busy explaining simpleton concepts to him like he’s a third grader.
Joe the Plumber is the guy that Obama really doesn’t want to talk about. When Obama talks about “people making more than $250,000 per year,” he wants people to think of limousines and caviar, not a plumber who’s trying to buy a second truck.
Sorry, I don’t buy this at all. This might be a preconception in Ohio and West Virginia (I don’t know how family incomes are perceived there, and I doubt you do either), but here in the major metropolitan areas where 80% of us live, $250K is a decent income for any two-person household if both are professionals. I think that across the broad swath of the middle class, associating with such people is uncommon but not rare.
It seems to me that we’re arguing the progressive tax rate system, and it also seems to me that you’ll have a hard time making that case publicly. A family making $26,200 a year (federal minimum wage, two earners) needs more of that to survive than a family making $262,000. A family making $50,233 (US median) needs more to thrive than a family making $251,165. If you go on the presumption that the government needs money to pay for stuff, your options are to choose who you tax, or run up another $5 trillion in debt.
He’s basically a blue collar guy who’s business makes more than $250,000.
Not entirely sure that blue-collar and white-collar means the same things they used to these days — but under the old definition of the terms, once you buy the business, you’re bleaching your collars. And according to the video, he’s thinking about buying a business which “makes” that — which doesn’t mean it clears that. So you tell me, what’s the purchase cost of a business with those numbers? Does Joe have that on hand? Is he looking for financing? Seems to me that that’s one hell of a bigger hurdle than whether he can buy a new truck — and in either case, it seems to me that the incremental costs of extending his fleet should probably be part of his business plan that is not affected by a variation of a few thousand dollars in taxes. A variation like that can be addressed by the used truck market.
I think McCain articulated the difference between himself and Obama (and between Republicans in general and Democrats in general) better in last night’s debate than I’ve ever heard it before.
Alright, this is something we need to put an end to. As of last month, the starkest contrast has been drawn between what Republicans say they’re for, and what they’re actually doing in office. They’re not small government fiscal conservatives: we’ve gone $5 trillion in debt in eight years, and before Bush II, Reagan held the previous record. They’re not for the “little guy” exemplified by Joe Sixpack: he does worse under Republican presidencies even when the economy is doing well.
Now, before you pop open your can of “Congress, market cycles, and presidential policy delay”, I’ll tell you I’ve heard that all before. I’m talking about reviewing the results of the last 40 years as if they’re a sociological experiment. The only possible conclusions are: 1) presidents are useless at affecting the economy (in which case you should vote on completely different issues — and also forget everything you’ve ever read about FDR); 2) Republicans deliberately do not act in accordance with their public image; or 3) Republicans are astoundingly incompetent at economic policy.
Personally, my current thinking on this is that it’s a mix of 2 and 3, mostly 3, and that there’s an added factor that Republicans are good at short-term policies that make their ideological points look temporarily sound. What we’re seeing now is the paying of the piper of the inflated numbers of the last 10 years.
Obama wants to tax Joe so the “guys coming up behind him have a chance.” He fails to mention why it’s Joe’s responsibility to fund some other plumber who’s just starting out. McCain wants to cut Joe’s taxes (in the form of a corporate tax cut), so Joe can buy the second truck, expand his business, and probably hire several folks just like that up & coming plumber that Obama wants to help personally.
I have absolutely no idea how your numbers get you here. Let’s start with Joe’s income, presuming that he personally clears more than $250,000. You argue against the NYT numbers elsewhere, so we can’t use those — but are we in agreement that the difference between McCain and Obama’s tax plans are somewhere in the four figures? If so, that’s not a quantity of money that should particularly affect a new hire — you can’t afford one with either tax policy.
On the other hand, when you make a hire, you are paying mandatory expenses on your employees in the form of Social Security, health insurance, worker’s comp, unemployment, etc. etc. Average plumber salary being $48K, then the above add up to around $20K. Neither Obama or McCain discusses these in the PDFs I just downloaded, so let’s presume this cost of doing business remains static. (My instinct is that Obama will reduce the cost of healthcare to most small businesses, but I’d rather bypass that for now than spend 2,000 words on it.)
The result: when you’re talking the folks who just edge into the $250K line, the question of hiring new employees seems to me to be a major red herring. If you want to talk about these businesses having access to credit so they can expand, that’s a whole ‘nother matter entirely. But it’s ridiculous to say that Barack will stop Joe from hiring Bob down the street.
Bottom line: Obama wants to help the up & coming plumber because he doesn’t think that anyone else can/will do it as well as he can/will. McCain thinks the job of hiring plumbers should be left to, well. . . plumbers.
Again, I wonder if you really believe this hooey. Obama wants to shift the tax burden from those making less than $250K to those making more. If those people happen to be plumbers, teachers, or Wharton grads whose options just tanked, so be it.
McCain, on the other hand, wants to cut everyone’s taxes, blow out huge amounts of money in five different plans to stabilize the economy (not sure which one is currently operative), increase military spending, and balance the budget by 2013. A cursory reading of past history indicates that one of two things occur: 1) he implements his spending freeze and the billions of dollars that actually do go into the economy vanish (in which case, hello, 1933), or 2) in 2013 the national debt is $12.5 trillion or more, and the national discussion is on when we hit our debt ceiling and take down the entire planet.
As for Bush & McCain – I don’t think you’ve been watching McCain very carefully. If anything, this is his strength. Go Google his appearance on “The View,”
I can’t believe that I just spent 20 minutes watching The View. Next we’ll be discussing proper spin strategies on the Showcase Showdown.
Here’s my (first) question: what I meant is that I don’t see McCain doing well on man-on-the-street interviews. Yeah, he’s good onstage, and not all of the journalists who interview him are in the bag. But I just scrolled through several pages of YouTube videos and I can’t find one of McCain talking to people who weren’t previously vetted. (Sarah Palin did this, famously, with the grad student in Philly who asked her about Pakistan; her handlers restricted that conversation to two sentences in each direction.)
Whoopi Goldberg asks him if that means she has to worry about being a slave again. McCain immediately realizes his mistake, acknowledges her point, and thanks her for the correction.
Actually, McCain says, in full, “I understand your point.” That’s an interesting form of thanking her for a correction; what’s perhaps more interesting is that you seem to remember this differently than it actually happened.
Before that, though, Barbara Walters gives McCain a very thorough grilling on what it exactly means that Sarah Palin is a reformer, and his answer is exactly what I’m talking about. It’s a rambling mishmash of platitudes about Palin, with a dash of misstatements and lies about her record and abilities in office. Example: she’ll end earmarks in Washington, which I gather means that McCain thinks that every earmarked bill for the next eight years will be a 50-50 vote going to her to break the tie.
you characterize McCain’s side-comments as an obsessive need to talk while Obama was talking. But here in this video, I counted at least a dozen times where Joe the Plumber wants to say something and Obama simply will not let him speak.
Well, that’s the difference in protocol between 90 minutes of airtime when both people have a right to equal time, and a five minute Q&A. Obviously, I don’t see this as Obama hogging the interview — I see it as Obama taking the prerogative to fully answer the man’s question. Seeing as how the questions were “I disagree with your tax plan” and “what are your views on the flat tax”, yeah, I buy that a well-thought out answer might not be completed in the first ten words, and that the questioner can’t jump in to argue every time Obama draws breath. If Obama were the type of politician who could answer those questions in one sentence, then we’d both be calling him a master of the sound bite and denigrating him for that.
Rewatching the video now — the first time Joe wants to ask a question, Obama is mid-sentence and hasn’t yet said anything about $250K tax changes. After a one-minute reply, Joe speaks for 30 seconds and asks his flat question in under ten; Obama’s replies clock in at one, two, and two minutes.
Maybe it’s because I already understand progressive tax systems, or maybe it’s because I’m assuming that Joe the Plumber also understands them (given that his business brings in >$250,000), but I find Obama’s tone here very condescending, not respectful.
Arguably, the whole point of a question is for Obama to point out how you and Joe are in error on your understanding of progressive tax systems. Otherwise, why ask the question? To provoke an argument, or to change Obama’s mind on tax policy (the odds of the latter being small enough that I’m willing to call this “provoking an argument”).
Obama’s answer is to say that it’s his version of progressive taxation — and knowing you might not agree with that interpretation, Obama takes pains to walk through his answer with specifics and examples.
At this point, I’ll bring up the old canard (can’t remember where it’s from) that the problem with most people is that they don’t engage in listening, they just spend time in conversations waiting for their turn to speak. That’s the impression that Joe gave me (and one reason I recognize it is that it’s one of my bad habits as well).
Hey, I’m a liberal; no question that the content of what Obama is saying might affect my views on his presentation. But I don’t think that I’m off-base saying that Obama is one hell of an orator and thinker who doesn’t need to have his lines planned out for him. I can’t see how that is condescending, presuming a context where the questioner really gives a damn about the answer to his question. Condescending might be, instead, “You’ve probably never heard of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac until a few weeks ago.”