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 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 ongoing debate-about-debate initiated by the Clinton campaigna week agocontinues, turning up the heat with a new ad running in Wisconsin that chides Obama for ducking voters. The jury is out on which campaign will win this round, but the move further illustrates how debates interact with campaigns.
The unknown factor is the effect, if any, the spot will have on actual voters. Voters have lives and may not know the context privy to political insiders and junkies. The ad asks they conclude Obama has spurned Wisconsin or has something to hide.
It also may be the case that the ad will make little sense when voters are seeing Obama on every newscast greeting Wisconsin voters. Simple word-of-mouth from the tens of thousands of Obama rally attendees (17,000 in Madison alone) may reach even the least involved voter. In the age of news and more news, when candidate speeches are viewed by millions on-line, the proportion of voters who "don't have a clue" is a rapidly shrinking.
Round 3: Practical effects of debate-about-debates below
With both Democrats scheduled to visit the state before the Feb. 19 primary, the question for some has become, will Wisconsin host a debate between the Democratic presidential contenders?
That appears to be up to the Obama campaign. It also appears unlikely.
Clinton's camp has accepted invitations to participate in two potential debates here. Obama has not ruled out participating, but his campaign has suggested he will not.
The Journal Sentinel, National Public Radio and WUWM-FM are trying to put together a nationally broadcast, radio-only debate tentatively set for Friday.
