Fallows on Obama

It's ridiculously rainy here, so in between bouts bailing out my basement with Education Dudette, I thought I'd blog. I know, it's a CRAZY Saturday.

Anyway, James Fallows nails it on the debate, which he almost always does. I have to say, it's amazing that the guy can write the most prescient commentary on both the U.S. and China. His thesis is that the "strategy vs. tactics" debate that caused so much disagreement between the candidates is somewhat of a microcosm of the entire campaign. McCain is the wily tactician, and Obama is the strategic mastermind. This dichotomy explains both McCain's grumpy condescension and Obama's cool authoritativeness:

"Obama would have pleased his base better if he had fought back more harshly in those 90 minutes -- cutting McCain off, delivering a similarly harsh closing judgment, using comparably hostile body language, and in general acting more like a combative House of Commons debater. Those would have been effective tactics minute by minute.

But Obama either figured out, or instinctively understood, that the real battle was to make himself seem comfortable, reasonable, responsible, well-versed, and in all ways "safe" and non-outsiderish to the audience just making up its mind about him. ... The evidence of the polls suggests that he achieved exactly this strategic goal."

In other words, the base of each party is consolidated, and undecided viewers don't like debaters who come off as bitter and small-minded.

-Education Dude