As I collect my thoughts for this first impression of the 3rd and final presidential debate of 2008, I am invigorated. In many ways this was the closest we've come to an actual debate. It was intense, compelling, and should offer voters a clear choice between the candidates on the issues that matter the most to them. I haven't listened to the spin room or the punditry, so I have little idea what will actually play in the morning. However, if this was a "win or go home" moment for McCain, he didn't win. In fact, he lost and lost badly. When he needed to persuade us to vote for him, he left us with a feeling that we might not even like him.
Substantively, Obama evinced a seriousness of thought as well as a tenor and tone that should "seal the deal" for many undecided voters. As I said after the second debate, McCain appeared that night to be in the middle of a strategy shift. This debate offered further evidence that the fluctuations in strategy have taken their toll on candidate McCain. In this debate, more than any other, he seemed...surly and unlikable. He had one shining moment where we could feel a genuineness start to percolate when he looked at Obama and said, "I am not George Bush." Unfortunately, that moment of authentic emotion was lost in the haughtiness, condescension, and disagreeableness that followed.
The video is the context for "Joe the plumber," who was the off screen star/foil for tonight's debate.
Notes:
Obama took 6 minutes to really go into detail with Joe, and enacted his mantra of disagreeing without being disagreeable, being patient and asking Joe to be empathetic.
Ask yourself: was McCain fair and respectful to Joe by invoking him as he did to cover every generic GOP talking point?
The time spent in the give and take with Joe was more informative of the depth of the Obama policy than any 6 minutes of tonight's debate.
Join us in the comments below as we liveblog our reactions to tonight's third and final debate between Barack Obama and John McCain, The last of some forty or more debates if you count all of the primary debates and fora of the two parties.
You must be registered to comment, but it's free and anonymous, so if you do not yet have an account, just get one by clicking on "Create an account" in the upper right of the page.
My advice to Obama: have an answer to the Herbert Hoover argument McCain has been making. McCain says raising taxes and restraining free trade is Herbert Hoover again. Obama needs to say that reducing federal spending (the McCain freeze) is Hoover, and that he, Obama, supports tax cuts and is pro-trade, just for fair trade which is a great populist move.
In case you think this debate will slide into Ayers territory, for those arriving early, here's some pre-debate entertainment:
Tune in by 9:00 p.m. Eastern on your TV, participate via many means on the internet, and/or the liveblog with me and other debate geeks at debateScoop and elsewhere for tonight's opening salvo in the debate series leading up to the November general election. The University of Mississippi is the host site, all networks will carry the debate, and Jim Lehrer of PBS is the moderator.
Below the fold we will dive into a number of weeds for people who, like me, study and care about debates.
But even if you are not into the details, several items are worth noting.
First, McCain's Ploy (no debate unless bailout deal) has been exposed for what it is, most damningly by the internet ad declaring him the debate victor that he was running well before he announced he would debate at all.
Second, the economy and the "bailout" is likely to be the first topic tonight even though this was originally billed as a foreign policy and national security debate.
Third, the CW ("common wisdom") while often close enough to accurate on debates (it's circular -- since the media both defines CW and has the biggest influence on perceptions it's hard to throw CW off track), is way off base in one important respect: without exception I have read, even from people who should know better, that Obama needs to be concise and pithy and that nuance will get him in trouble. Sound familiar? The problem with that analysis is that it ignores the very first item every debate coach and debater considers: format. Tonight's format allows extended discussion and does not confine the debaters to ninety, sixty, or thirty second fragmented answers. The CW is based on the early primary debates when up to ten candidates at a time were vying for time and the formats were devised to account for the multiple candidates and multiple questions. Tonight's format has nine segments of ten minutes each and the candidate who best uses that format boosts their chances to "win" (more about what that means below).
Below the fold, let's delve more deeply into all of the variables that might influence tonight's debating and its effect.
John McCain said that getting an economic plan accomplished was so important that he needed to suspend his campaign. While that may or may not be reasonable, whether or not tomorrow night's debate should be put on hold is a separate question. McCain has made no explicit arguments (claims supported by reasons) for postponing the debate. At best he argues by enthymeme. Obama has argued, without refutation from McCain, that holding the debate is important so the American people can hear from their candidates, that presidents must be able to multitask, and that their airplanes and other means of staying in contact allow the candidates to stay sufficiently in contact with Congress. The "threat" not to debate is a ploy.
Nothing wrong with ploys. This one is ironic in that the ploy is a tactic of the campaign that McCain has nominally "suspended." For now, the ploy is working in that McCain has garnered a great deal of attention for his refrain that he is a maverick man of action. As long as the debate happens Friday night, McCain will not be hurt.
The debate most likely will happen. As I write, and hours before McCain makes it to Washington (along with Obama) to meet at the White House, the folks actually responsible for reaching an agreement in Congress are meeting to hammer out the details. McCain and Obama will most likely give political cover to members of their parties by simply showing up today. Sufficient progress will then be declared so that the debate can go forward. Disagree? Intrade has a new market up today, currently trading (on very low volume) at 70% chance the debate happens.
But there is still a chance McCain's bet (ploy), and those of the Intraders, is a loss. If the debate does not happen as scheduled, it's hard to see how that's a plus for McCain. There really are no decent arguments for canceling or postponing the debate. And remember this: the only way the debate is canceled is if McCain's return to Washington (where he has not darkened the door of the Senate since April) fails to cement a deal that appears to be all but concluded. The charges, already being levied by Democrats and Republicans alike, that he is politicizing the deal would then have more traction.
Below the fold I will review the potential arguments for postponement in more detail.
"Constrained by a 60-second limit for replies that worked against Obama's speaking style -- a very long windup to the pitch -- his tendency to generalize meant he did not directly answer some questions" (Lynn Sweet, Chicago Sun Times, April 29, 2007, http://www.suntimes.com/new
s/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-swee
t29.article).
Can/should Obama be prepared to move away from this style? After all, his attack on the demands of the sound bite-style of politics (the very style demanded by debate formats like the one in South Carolina), forms the center of Obama's campaign.
Join me below the fold to consider Obama's rhetorical challenge further...
The question in this title requires us first to ask, "What is the Purpose?" The format, invented and controlled as it was by NBC, should be expected to serve NBC's purposes. Those purposes, typically, are those that best serve commercial media interests in selling news coverage and advertising time. Those purposes include: generating short sound bites, pressuring candidates in the hope they will make notable gaffes, and inducing conflict and controversy that can lead to televised fireworks. For those purposes, the fast-moving format of the South Carolina debate seemed very well designed. A little humor, a little controversy, some awkward pauses, and some incomplete answers gave Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman plenty to talk about for quite some time following the debate. And don't forget the expectations game. With systematic regularity, the questions demanded the candidates to demonstrate not just or even primarily their grasp of policy issues, but rather their ability to meet the expectations laid out for them before the debate by NBC commentator Tim Russert.
NB- All Citgo/Rudy/Chavez material will be dissected in a special report tomorrow, on my regular posting day.
-Rudy's new MySpace page and YouTube feed
-More of the same from social conservatives
-Rudy hates black babies?
-Rudy's son not campaigning, Rudy asks for privacy
-Kerick: Rudy's scooter
-Firefighters disagree with Rudy over 9/11
-CPAC fallout
-Some new polling data
-And much, much more...
