Hillary Clinton has called for a number of debates since the last held just before the Pennsylvania primary, in NC, IN, OR (two debates), MT, SD and now Puerto Rico. The Obama camp has remained, not surprisingly, largely silent about any more primary debates.
Obama spokespersons have signaled willingness to engage McCain in debates beyond the three scheduled by the CDC.
Hillary's latest call for a debate in Puerto Rico followed the challenger form: (1) the people deserve to hear (2) an actual invitation has been accepted, and (3) the move to pressure an opponent - a demand.
The difference in the PR edition is that there is no media buzz. The story of the "presumptive nominee" trumps debate speculation - rendering it mute, idol conjecture for an event that simply won't happen.
The moral of the story, debate-about-debates only has media legs when the race is real and news organizations need a fresh storyline. Fox News reported Clinton's words yesterday:
Speaking outside a small restaurant in Penuelas, where a translator interpreted her every sentence for the crowd of 50 Puerto Ricans, Clinton said she'd accepted a debate in the island commonwealth, and hoped that Obama would do the same.
"The issues facing Puerto Rico are serious and deserve a serious debate," she said. "I was informed that Univision will sponsor a debate between Senator Obama and myself about the issues affecting Puerto Rico. I accept that invitation. Any time, anywhere."
Hillary Clinton continued to press for debates in Oregon on Friday. She told a crowd "If you think you've made up your mind to support my opponent, wait awhile. Keep thinking. Keep waiting for that debate." She originally called for two Oregon debates in her Compact with Oregon video.
I may have missed them, but I do not recall a response from the Obama camp or a flurry of news articles on his ducking debate in Oregon. There nary a mention in the Portland Oregonian.
Calls for debates seemingly require viability to be newsworthy. Obviously that question is in flux, crowding out any recent advantages Hillary may have gained in local markets in calls for debates.
Hillary Clinton has accepted a Lincoln-Douglas debate in Missoula Montana to be held before the June 3rd primary. The debate would be held at the University of Montana in Missoula, the liberal epicenter of the state.
As reported in the Billings Gazette by--a friend-- Charles Johnson, State Bureau Chief, Clinton is on board and Obama is "evaluating the offer.
The Clinton campaign has for calling for a Lincoln-Douglas the last four days, with Obama resisting. I have wondered who would host the debate since the format would cut out the "talent" from the networks, allowing perhaps a real debate. If the networks are not themselves the central featured why would they cover the debate? Civic engagement surely takes second place to network ratings.
The host answer seems to be an obscure Montana newspaper, the Clark Fork Chronicle, which actually offered the idea for a no-moderator free forum L-D debate back on February 27, made by publisher John Q. Murray. There is not indication the new found headline producing Clinton proposal was inspired by an invitation from the newspaper two months ago, but perhaps.
The format for a non-moderated debate, if Clinton's proposals prevail (L-D Challenge to Obama campaign), would have free form turn taking with the candidates introducing topics and commentary, and all without `gotcha' video and "knowing" signs by journalists. June is a ways away. Should the race still be active Obama might find format and timing to his liking.
While the Clinton campaign continues to stoke the "Let's Debate" fires across four states with little chance of getting debates, there is payoff for the campaign via stories appearing in local press coverage. Every state thinks it deserves to be courted and one sure sign is hosting another debate.
Even if there are not debates Clinton continues to receive local press coverage when she and her surrogates reiterate calls for debates.
Howard Wolfson, a Clinton strategist/spokesperson dramatically, threw down the gauntlet mockingly speaking for Obama, ""You know, I'm going to take my marbles, I'm going to go home, I don't want to do this anymore.' Well, you know what, it's important for a presidential candidate to be able to debate well"
The National Journal's Hotline provides a dramatic example of how the debate-about-debates plays in local media outlets, visuals dominating:
With a band of like-minded area Clinton supporters, Dannie Chandler rented a yellow limousine, attached a chicken head to its roof and parked the avian display in front of the Obama office field office.
"He's just a chicken if he doesn't want a debate," Chandler, 64, said when reached via phone.
About 10 volunteers stood outside Obama's office for an hour and a half yesterday in the pouring rain, holding signs that read: "Too Chicken To Debate?" and "Running Scared In Indiana." Chandler and his poultry brood had to wear yellow parkas to protect themselves from the pouring rain.
Friday morning Hillary Clinton stepped up her call for a televised debate in North Carolina. Speaking at a firehouse in Jacksonville NC (MSNBC's FirstRead):
She made a pitch for her campaign's interactive "NC Ask Me" feature, in which people can submit questions online and get an answer -- some of which have been used in television ads.
"It has been great, and we've gotten over 14,000 questions," she said. "We have answered every one of those questions. But the only question I can't answer is why Sen. Obama won't debate me in North Carolina. And I'd sure like to give an answer."
She said that each upcoming state deserves their own debate, because "the issues in Pennsylvania are not the same as the issues in North Carolina," and "the issues in North Carolina aren't the same as the issues in Indiana."
"There's all kinds of issues that we should be debating about right here in North Carolina," she said. "So again I offer that I'll go anywhere at any time. And we'll have that debate as long as Sen. Obama would agree to actually meet me. I think that would be good for the voters and it would be good for this important campaign."
Does a debate in NC make sense? The Obama campaign has been trying to deflect the calls invoking "debate fatigue," citing 21 previous debates. More likely they find more comfort in filling UNC's Dean Dome next Monday than taking the time out to prepare for anther debate. The recent history of debates indicates the Clinton campaign would use a debate to press attacks and find openings for positioning following the debate.
One sure way to scoop the Cleveland Debate Skit (predicted in my last two blogs-see below) is to join the show. The New York Times Political Caucus reports that Hillary Clinton will appear on SLN tonight.
Will they rewrite the script? Will she appear as herself in a debate skit? Will the news cycle of national security be dislodged?
Debates continue to interact with campaigns and entertainment. More to follow. . .
Saturday Night Live and the Cleveland presidential debatehave been driven from the news as the campaign's engage in another debate of sorts--dueling ads about 3 AM phone calls to the White House.
After tonight's SNL show, however, the fusion of comedy and politics may rejoin the March 4th calculus. As the Washington Times reports "should this week's sketches have an impact on the presidential race, Mr. Michaels couldn't be happier." (The possibilities are discussed in a prior post).
Who will be watching? Admittedly speculative on my part, the SNL's audience is younger, more upscale, informed; an audience that is Obama's demographic. But then again, the show emanates from the NY Senator's main base. Regardless, SNL's anticipated debate skit will aim at neutrality. Its subsequent use, however, may not be neutral.
Guessing what will be shown and how it will spin is obviously idle - by tomorrow we'll know. Thinking about the composition of the SNL audience however reminds me of another quality of comedy and politics, that is: for humor to work it requires familiarity with politics.
In the Washington Times piece impressionist Jim Morris observes:
. . . [G]reat political sketches demand an informed public. That's exactly what "Saturday Night Live" has.
"You're relying on the viewers to get the references. Political humor has to play to a somewhat educated audience," Mr. Morris says. "In this political season, everyone seems to be up to speed on what's going on."
Saturday Night Live has a strong record of lampooning of presidential election debates, but Hillary Clinton's use of SNL to score political points in a debate may be a first.
In what the Washington Post referred to as Clinton's "postmodern touch" she took the opportunity in the Ohio debate to scold the media for their favorable treatment of Barack Obama, offering: "Maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable or needs another pillow."
The injection of SNL into the debate discourse may have opened Pandora's Box; the use of "satire-as-evidence" in a formal debate is likely to spiral in unanticipated ways. David Bauder's AP article--"SNL Writer Surprised By Clinton Remark, Ordered To Write More"--makes clear, that this "pillow talk" is far from over.
Newsweek.com links to debatescoop.com in an interview with Allan Louden "Decoding the Debate" discussing the Ohio Tuesday debate featuring Obama and Clinton.
Update [2008-2-28 15:38:12 by Ross Smith]: By all means, click the link and read the whole thing. Allan doesn't toot his own horn enough, so to whet your appetite, here's an excerpt proving that this is the kind of analysis you rarely hear elsewhere:
Does this type of debate format put one of them in a better light?
Free flowing format was better for both of them. But there’s always a tension between talking too much and not enough. There was one point on health care when she just went on and on, while later in the debate on foreign policy, he went on and on. We often see holding the floor as dominance, but that can be perceptual. Back in the Cheney-Lieberman debate, Cheney spoke about 20 percent less than Lieberman did, but the perception was that he spoke more. With the format, because there is turn-taking and politeness factors, much judgment is not about the content or the person’s character, but about how they interact on a personal level. So, pulling a chair out, patting a hand, looking at each other, and that includes turn-taking—showing you know when to quit talking. In that sense, the open format allows relational thing to play out. And I think they both handled that well.
I've often thought that Barack Obama may be a better debate coach than a debater. In this space I even questioned his debate preparation.
I turned out to be wrong. He is both a great coach and a great debater.
If you've watched the 20 democratic debates, you've seen the maturation of Barack Obama from a relative novice to a "great debater." He's figured out what few ever do - and that is the best strategic and tactical position is to speak in the language of the judge and judge the debate as you go along. In a 2005 article in the Debater's Research Guide, I argued that debaters should learn to speak in the language of the judge. Obama did that tonight and more. Over the past two month's he's been framing himself as the best debater and that's worked well for him.
Saturday Night Live has a long tradition of successfully framing presidential debates. SNL's post-strike-return lead with their version of the CNN/Univision Texas debate last Tuesday.
The "debate" instantly became part of the political discussion when on Sunday, Hillary urged donors to watch the latest episode of Saturday Night Live. Campaign talking points also encouraged viewing of the SNL segment.
In another reference, Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer chided journalists for their "woefully inadequate" coverage of Obama. "A point," he stated that "has been certainly backed up by the 'Saturday Night Live' skit that opened the show this past Saturday evening, which I would refer you all to."
They have a point as the skit's humor works because we understand how the campaign is playing out. What is less clear is the reason for the media tilt; left unexamined by the Clinton spokespersons is how much of this is created by the campaigns' respective strategy and message.
I was wrong; the Texas conciliatory debate did not signal, as I wrote, a reduction in negativity by the Clinton Campaign. Attacks on Obama have notched up and are directly signally the tone and content for the MSNBC debate to be held Tuesday in Ohio.
At a campaign event today Hillary Clinton challenged Obama mailers in a strident tone:
"Meet me in Ohio, and let's have a debate about your tactics."
She compared"Obama to President Bush during the rally, suggesting the country had already taken a gamble on an inexperienced candidate who promised change."
The democratic reunion, alluded to in the Texas debate closing statement, seemed out the window. Clinton's closing statement received more positive press than she has enjoyed in weeks, but is at odds with her retort to reporters following an Ohio stop.
Below the fold, Video of full Clinton Statement , analysis of the ongoing "Mailer" debate, Video Obama response, and Video bloggers respond.
The spot is entitled "resolved," showing her narrative about wounded veterans. It stopped short of showing a handshake and compliment of Obama or the ending-they'll be all right- a segment received by pundits as conciliatory, perhaps an opening for exiting the race. Appeasement seemingly was limited to the hour and half debate, exchanged immediately for provocation.
Debates can change the dynamic of an election, but they can just as easily solidify the narratives controlling a contest. Tonight's CNN/Univision Debate at the LBJ Library in Austin likely did the latter.
I believe three things happened that convince me the debate will better serve Obama's purpose than a Clinton shakeup.
1. Clinton's finest moment of all nineteen debates was, in the end, a concession.
2. Obama's narratives were sustained, even advanced.
3. The ability for Hillary to go negative after the debate was functionally forfeited.
Each point is found in statements directly from the debate.
I. Clinton's Closing.
Hillary's closing statement was perhaps her best moment in the campaign. For a rare moment ambitions, history, and wonkish manner were traded for what felt authentic, moving, grounded. She showed humanity, a genuine rationale for "hanging in there," and invited the affect that delivered New Hampshire. Of course closing statements alone cannot sustain 24/7 news needs for long, assuring other interchanges will soon dominate.
CNN, Univision Communications Inc. and the Texas Democratic Party in conjunction with the Lyndon B. Johnson Foundation will host a Democratic presidential primary debate on Thursday, Feb. 21. The program will air live from the LBJ Auditorium at the University of Texas in Austin on CNN and on CNN International from 8 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. (ET). CNN’s Campbell Brown will moderate with their John King and Univision’s Jorge Ramos helping ask the questions.
The CNN press release touts their hosting, oh, and incidentally it may have something to do with the election.
It is the ninth presidential primary debate sponsored by CNN this cycle. CNN's debates in 2007 and 2008 have been among the most-watched in cable news history.
There is surprisingly little news about the debate in media outlets. Even CNNPolitics.com is muted in the hype (often promoted on air, however). There may be reasons including other political news crowding out the debate and the debate "belongs" to CNN so don't promote competitors.
