Cleveland State University, a college of working class and middle class students, had to raise $300,000 to help put on the Democratic debate last week at the Wolstein Center.
Why?
Debate sponsors NBC-TV, its affiliate here WKYC, and its cable network MSNBC are all profit making entities. They all enjoy government-anointed, semi-monopolies using the public air waves. They are being fed by millions and millions of dollars of election advertising. Yet CSU had to go take $300,000 out of this community to host the event. I don't understand why the profit-makers didn't pay their own way.
The Cleveland debate drew 7.78 million voters, a historic best for MSNBC, according to Nielsen Media Research.
So shouldn't NBC pay CSU, rather than the other way around?
Not much of a debate at all here. Cleveland State might muster the argument that they benefit from the prestige of having hosted. They had better be able to prove that $300,000 could not have earned a better return had it been spent on other forms of recruiting or fundraising.
We know MSNBC got a huge return on their investment.
A small part of the debate last week has now become Hillary Clinton's strongest argument against Barack Obama's national security credentials.
Obama's explanation that he had not held a subcommittee hearing because he only became chair after the campaign began, has now become he's too busy campaigning "to protect our national security," something Hillary Clinton claims she will never be.
The latest in the "3 a.m." ad war uses a tiny excerpt from a debate that most observers "scored" for Obama into a potentially powerful closing argument for Clinton.
Below, in chronological order is the complete debate about more debates (which has, obviously, turned into something else entirely) as played out on the Wisconsin airwaves.
Obama has responded quickly to each attack and both campaigns have hewed to their respective narratives.
Opening salvo from Hillary:Reply from Obama:
Other ads below fold
After prefacing the liveblog below with the prediction and challenge to the candidates that tonight was a once in a generation opportunity to really debate as the next president and the first black or women, I owe it to readers to do something I have become somewhat disenchanted with -- pick a winner.
But to explain what a winner is it is important to explain why I have become disenchanted with that. Several reasons. First, the debates have been multi-candidate debate up to now. Second, the format has not always given equal opportunity to contestants. Third, and most importantly, the idea of winning is so dependent on expectations and on contexts outside of the debate that the "winner" was not determined by the debate but by the press coverage and other later, intervening events.
This last factor still has importance, but the context tonight was clear enough and the variables were reduced enough that I can posit a judgment. My judgment is just that. Considered, but not "objective" or definitive. Please help me and yourself by engaging me in dispute about or questioning of this judgment.
With a Democrat favored to win the White House in November and just this one debate between the two remaining Democratic hopefuls, a woman and a black man, there arguably may not be a single debate that has had more historic significance.
Kennedy/Nixon may be your quick reply. Yes, in retrospect, that is true. Interesting, too, since Obama has been anointed Kennedy's successor.
Surely this has sunk in for the candidates. Let's hope Wolf Blitzer and CNN treat the event with the dignity and significance it potentially has.
As for the candidates, join me in the comments to see whether they rise to the occasion. For in the end, it is they, two unique and powerful figures, who can prove me right or wrong on my pre-debate take.
GOP candidates shown shaking hands with Dem candidates as the former leave and the latter enter. Audience gives sustained applause.
GOP version of this proved candidates can and will mix it up when left to own devices but less so when moderator asks them to do so. Romney was clobbered.
Update [2008-1-5 18:51:5 by Ross Smith]: Liveblogs of tonight's debates are in the two posts just below. Join me there.
Just three days until the pivotal primary in New Hampshire two debates on ABC tonight and one on FOX News tomorrow night may play a role in the outcome.
The double header on ABC begins with the GOP (Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Paul, Romney, Thompson) at 7 pm ET for 90 minutes followed just as quickly as they can rotate audiences by the Democrats (Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Richardson). These debates can also be seen at co-sponsor WMUR's website.
The FOX News debate, best known so far for its exclusion of Ron Paul, will air at 8pm ET Sunday night and will be replayed on FOX News at 11 pm.
Click "Read more" for a complete preview, including discussion of the participation criteria, formats, and speculation about the course the debates will take and the effect they may (or may not) have.
After getting our hopes up and having them dashed yesterday, it's tough to preview today's Democratic version of yesterday's disaster. Since most of the blame lies with the moderator and the format, today's Des Moines Register debate might not be much better, but a few factors offer hope.
First, there are three fewer candidates, and no Alan Keyes. Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson are the debaters. Dennis Kucinich did not meet the sponsor's criteria and complained with a press release, but his grounds for complaint are weak as Jason Zengerle explains.
Fewer candidates could mean longer time given to each answer, more follow ups, and/or more total questions. If the last is the adaptation, the debate will be no better than yesterday's.
Second, the moderator and her employers surely cannot have escaped the stinging and nearly unanimous rebuke of those who watched or participated. Maybe, just maybe, some crow will be eaten and the format and moderation will be improved.
Third, the candidates can learn from yesterday. They might run roughshod over the moderator knowing the media is sympathetic. They can exploit the rules to attack without naming names and to demand answers. They can "frontload" their sound bites to adapt to the very short response times. They can question the question, question the premise, and use "go backs" (go back to an earlier issue after being very brief in reply to a current one).
On the other hand, the poor format and weak moderator also allow candidates to avoid debating if they choose. They might bet on little follow up and not name names so as not to elicit a rebuttal. This afternoon we'll hear a debate if the Democrats want one and the moderator allows it.
To see for yourself at 2pm EST:
Tune in to Iowa Public Television, CNN, C-SPAN3, Fox News Channel, C-SPAN Radio or Fox News Radio.
You can also watch via the web at C-SPAN 3 or at the Des Moines Register website
Update [2007-12-4 19:29:28 by Ross Smith]: You can listen to selected clips or the entire debate at NPR's site here.
The Democratic candidates for president will debate today on NPR from 2 to 4 EST. This is the one and only (so far) radio-only debate. Details of the format are in this press release. You can listen live on your local NPR station or at their website, and at NPR.org. Additionally, the press release notes:
The first broadcast of the debate will be exclusive to NPR Member stations around the country; many stations will also rebroadcast it that evening and in other time periods. The debate will also air on Sirius Satellite Radio, in more than 150 countries through NPR Worldwide Service and on American Forces Radio reaching U.S. military around the world. The debate will be streamed lived on NPR.org and numerous Member stations' websites. Following the initial exclusive broadcast and webcast, NPR will make the recording fully accessible to all media outlets and individuals, without license restrictions; it will also be available for permanent on-demand streaming at NPR.org and via NPR Member stations' sites.
That's good news for scholars and citizens alike.
Since the days of Marshall McLuhan and the first Kennedy/Nixon debate, scholars and pundits have discussed the difference the medium makes. If time permits I'll post some cites to research on that subject.
Meanwhile, use the comments on this thread (click "Discuss")to discuss this debate, the format, and your reactions as you listen.
The eight Democratic presidential candidates are debating at the University of Miami right now. Spanish language television Univision and its website are hosting the first of its kind debate.
Questions and answers are simultaneously translated. But the broadcast only amplifies the Spanish. The candidates, whether they speak Spanish or not, are required to answer in English. This English-only requirement disappointed Spanish speakers Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson.
The Republican Univision debate which was supposed to be held a week from now was called off after John McCain was the only GOP candidate to accept the invitation. Unsurprisingly, Tom Tancredo was the first to turn down the debate offer.
McClatchy's Glenn Garvin has an excellent article previewing the event and discussing its significance.
I cannot understand the debate now since I do not know Spanish. But the event clearly seems significant for several reasons. First, the Latino voting demographic will be of increasing importance in the future and is presently strong enough to swing some close states in a Presidential election. GOP avoidance seems shortsighted. Second, the transcript will reveal how well Univision probed areas of special concern to its viewership. Third, and most important for our purposes, scholars and coaches should study the translation effects on candidates' ability to perform effectively.
This morning DebateScoop and the Huffington Post "Off the Bus" project are teaming up to produce unique coverage of and data from the Democratic debate on "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos held at Derake University in Des Moines, Iowa (check your local listings and look for a web stream (not live) later today at ABC).
We have two researcher/correspondents with press passes who will ask follow up questions and report from the spin room after the debate, Jane Munksgaard and Paul Johnson. Jane and Paul were debate partners at Pitt (2001-2005) and are now both in the doctoral program in rhetoric at the University of Iowa.
During and after the debate a team of debaters, coaches, and debate scholars will be communicating with one another and Jane and Paul via a chat room. We will be discussing what the best follow up questions might be for the spin room and discussing which of the arguments of the should be subjected to an "argument check" (like a fact check, but testing the strength of the argument, not just a fact).
Jane and Paul will upload the digital audio they gather to a site and our group will transcribe the Q and A. That audio and the transcript will be posted here and the audio will be able to be embedded in any blog or web page.
Update [2007-8-9 11:48:16 by Ross Smith]:The format, each candidate alone on stage for 15 minutes at a time, is closer to an interview than to a debate. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden have "scheduling conflicts" and will not attend. Pam Spaulding has more.
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) reminder:
On Aug. 9, presidential candidates will gather in Los Angeles for a forum on issues affecting the lives of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in the United States. Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese, Melissa Etheridge and esteemed journalist Jonathan Capehart will appear as panelists at the event.
The historic two-hour forum, moderated by Margaret Carlson, will be televised live on the Logo network and the Logo website on Thursday, Aug. 9, starting at 6 p.m. Pacific time and 9 p.m. Eastern.
Joe Biden is the only Democratic candidate who will not attend.
Mid-July produced a mini-drama when Mike Gravel complained he had not been invited despite having positions more supportive of the GLBT community than the other candidates. The HRC had said he did not meet a $100,000 fundraising threshold (a miniscule amount in terms of presidential politics). But GLBT activist bloggers prevailed and the HRC reversed its decision. For links to the arguments about Gravel's inclusion and other previews of the debate go to del.icio.us and enter "debatescoop GLBT" in the search box (without the quote marks).
