Spots and web ads are fast becoming an obligatory aspect of post -debate spin. The McCain and Obama camps produced spots following the Mississippi debate. The practice was refined in the primary debate with both positive,negative, and neutral effects.
It is not clear that given the blizzard of post debate spin and coverage for presidential debates these entries accomplish much.
VP Spot Spin
McCain's entry, again out before sunrise--"Lies and Sighs" frames VP debate- Joe Biden, "Ready to exaggerate, not ready to lead."
Obama's effort is readied for the morning blogs--"Can't Explain"-emphasizes not their opponent, but an issue. Quoting Biden tiered quip - "Taxing your health care benefit, I call that the ultimate bridge to nowhere"
Below the fold: Pre-debate spots and more post-debate video rebuttals
It didn't take long. Both the Obama and McCain campaigns are out this morning with television spots drawing upon last night's debate.
Obama's emphasis is economic, middle class appeals and breaking with the past.
McCain's, out last night, highlights Obama's capitulating style, too eager to agree.
Do these ads have influence? Can they turn the media-spin? In 2004 Bush made gains in refining the first debate by using Kerry's listening to alliances against him, but these new ads seem more continuation of fundamental campaign themes, bolstering but not redefining the debate.
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.
The mediated “debate-about-debates” launched by Hillary’s invitation to four debates on Super Tuesday (see “Empty Chair”) was fairly short lived, in one sense.
Before the dust had even settled from the Tuesday's voting the Obama campaign accepted two debates (By early Thursday) (Houston Chronicle). This is one way, too often overlooked, to stem debate challenges from becoming the story itself; just accept a reasonable number and move on.
The interpretive frame regarding who is “hiding from the people” has not exactly stopped, however. Even as it appeared that Obama’s swift move might truncate the story, the spin continues.
When Obama accepted two debates, the Clinton camp responded in a manner aimed at keeping alive pressure on Obama to accept even more. "We are glad he finally accepted a debate with us, and we look forward to many more debates with him in the future," Adrienne Elrod, a spokeswoman for the Clinton campaign, said in a statement.”
Localized Spin
In addition to the national spotlight the “debate-about-debates” has a local angle that is alive and well, playing out in state media outlets, serving as a Clinton skirmish advantage. The campaign used non-acceptance for venues other than Ohio and Texas to get local headlines critical of Obama.
Read more below on the Maine, Ohio, and Chesapeake narratives.
Early in the primary debate process the candidates often followed up debates with spin on their web sites. Among the more interesting efforts was Dodd's "Talk Clock," which logged disparities in speaking time awarded "first" and "second-tier" candidates.
The most infamous was Clinton's "The Politics of Pile On" posted (and soon pulled) after the Drexel University debate, and the subsequent appearances from the debate on other candidate web pages and even a McCain TV spot. (Link to earlier blog with video)
It could just be that there is too much happening to merit attention, but even after the contentious, up-for-grabs, encounter in SC Jan 21, the candidate web page are essentially silent. Perhaps they did not want to repeat the additional controversy web-spin created after Philadelphia. Perhaps web spin is not an efficient way to influence media or public.
I have checked the web sites of the three principal participants looking for post debate spin. Here are the results.
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.
The best Santorum/Casey debate may be on their web pages.
The post debate spin following this mornings Meet the Press "debate" between Santorum and Casey shows considerable sophistication. There are predicatable blog defenses and attacks; the spin you expect campaign to provide reporters. But these sites do more, and do it quickly.
Rick Santorum's web site has a page of "debate facts", "documenting" the background of issues raised in the debate. If one were not skeptical the page could be seen as a way of introducing the evidence the candidates would like to bring up in an debate, but time precludes. Of course, the fact page is more likely the campaign way of speaking to reporters (and others). Some research may make harried reporters life easier . . .
An interesting question is: does posting the "facts" on the web page invite an opponent or others to "fact check the fact check?" The Campaign's opposition research is, in part, made transparent. Is there a special political risk in defending your truth telling when critiquing the opponent's "truths?"
Bob Casey's web team appears less active in correcting the "facts" but does some internally in the "debate story." What they do that is interesting is provide selected video "documenting" their debate story of Santorum's stagnation.
Philadelphia InquirerTribune-ReviewRick Santorum and Bob Casey met for the first of a series of Senate debates September 3, 2006 on Meet the Press. The lively forty minute exchange was punctuated by pointed questions from host Tim Russert framed with visualized quotations from news sources and clips from current and past-campaign political ads. The program is, of course, the embodiment of media intersecting with politics. Media asks the questions, utilizes the media as authoritative source framing questions advanced, and encapsulated the media narratives for "what matters." Russert controls the converstion with visual "gotcha."(Watch the program)
