In many campaigns there exits a meta-debate--a debate about debates--where campaigns spar over enticing or resisting televised encounters. Often the call for debates is as much about occupying the "high ground" or illustrating strategic dexterity than securing actual debates. The Clinton campaign call this week for "a-debate-a-week" from now to March is a different sort. It appears they really want the debates.
This post explores reasons the respective campaigns may want to debate or to avoid debates, including the reasons I conclude: expect more Clinton-Obama encounters.
The meta-debate was underlined today via an open letter from Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton Campaign Manager to David Plouffe, Campaign Manager writes. (Full text of the open letter)
I was disappointed to see that Senator Obama rejected the idea of having more debates given the fact that he and Senator Clinton have had only a single one-on-one debate. I think we can do better and so does Hillary.
Senator Clinton believes voters should have more than one opportunity to see the candidates discuss the issues and has accepted five debates between now and March 4th from CNN, MSNBC, WJLA, ABC and Fox News.
To that end, we hope Senator Obama will join Senator Clinton for a debate a week beginning this weekend.
Below the Fold: Handicapping the unfolding debate about the debate:
The last two standing, Clinton and Obama, face off tonight, CNN 8:00 pm (EST), at the Kodak Theater in Hollywood, Calif., home of the Academy Awards. Highland and Hollywood, the Kodak's address, is close in proximity to Simi Valley's Reagan Library, but worlds away. The GOP debate held last night and Democratic debate tonight will be back-to-back on the schedule but may be light years away in character.
"Spoiling for a fight" may best describe what the media is looking for in, arguably, the long primary season's most important debate. However, overt confrontation would be a disservice for both candidates. Momentum, feeding or stemming, seems more important than sanctioning more news cycles of "petty sparing."
The Clinton camp has reason to nip speculation of defensiveness or worry; the Obama camp risks conceding the high ground that underwrites his very rationale.
Other media outlets are also previewing tonight's debate.
The story of the night will likely be that Hillary was exhausted and angry, very angry after Edward's sided up to Obama to brand her as the tired status quo As she got angrier the more dog-tired she looked; all 35 years of experience showed.
In some ways, if this becomes the characterization of the 24/7's "news" channels it is somewhat unfair. After WMUR's Spradling asked why she thought NH voters liked Obama more than herself, she revived, got a second wind and held her own the balance of the debate. But will it matter?
We're familiar with the post debate spin room, placard lead spokespersons careening from reporter to reporter. Increasingly, however, campaigns are finding more efficient ways to manipulate.
We're becoming accustomed to candidate web page's (re)interpretation of debates (A favorite of mine was Dodd's "Talk Clock" exposing disparate speaking times) but the practice seems to have stepped up a notch.
The Drexel Debate was not Hillary's best effort. After dominating the prior encounters Clinton's smooth sailing ran aground and fairly received a severe media lashing. Even FactCheck.org documented, at length, three questionable "bobs and weaves."
What is a well heeled campaign to do? Simple, fight back by extending the post-debate spin, often using video interpretations that infiltrate campaign coverage.
Last night and today one question has dominated the post debate spin and commentary about who won and lost. It also was the subject of the last portion of our blogtalk radio show when former National Debate Tournament champion and Jim Webb campaign staffer, Jon Paul Lupo, called in to discuss how the answers portray Democrats as weak or strong on defense and terrorism (you can listen to the archived version here starting at the 44:30 mark).
Listen very closely to the question in the YouTube clip. Very closely, especially to the end of the question.
The video shows the candidates in the order they answered: Obama, Hillary, Edwards. They were the only ones asked. Richardson demanded and received a chance to answer later (an attempt to show he belonged in the top tier?).
Join me below the fold and in comments for analysis on what the answers say about who "won" this part of last night's debate and more. In the YouTube age, candidate answers will be dissected more than ever. We had might as well do a good and productive job of it.
The national media needs a container to describe the debate to be held tonight at traditionally African-American campus USC-Orangeburg. For many in the media the shorthand is the state of race relations in America. Candidates, especially poll leaders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are advised on how to capture the African-American vote, characterized as half of potential SC primary Democratic voters. Beth Fouhy's AP lead speculates on Hillary's chameleon like dialects.
The New York senator added a Southern lilt to her voice last week when addressing a civil rights group headed by the Rev. Al Sharpton. On Monday, dealing with a microphone glitch at a fundraiser for young donors, she quoted former slave and underground railroad leader Harriet Tubman.
An often under appreciated aspect of voter's evaluation is the demand the candidate know their place. They want their loyalty in the sense of identifying with their voters and singing the praises of state geography and values. There is also another sense of place that sometimes factors in a debate, physical sense of presence on stage. The Senate debate between Hillary Clinton and John Spencer was about the former and constrained by the latter demands of Place.
In 2000 Hillary Clinton faced Rick Lazio in a race often revolving around accusation of carpetbagger. They postured in the debate about "who was the real New Yorker." Was it her place to occupy a senate seat in a state where she was a recent resident? By the time of the debate she has become enough of a New Yorker to be considered at least an honorary citizen, bolster by her knowledge and trip around the state. She had place.
Lazio, from down-state (Long Island) also needed to establish his state credentials up-state. He was young flashy and in the opinion of some did not know his place.
The problem of place (albeit a difference sense of the word) became a fatal flaw in their 2000 Buffalo debate (Spencer was admonished to keep his place in pre-debate coverage).
