Presidential Debates

Matt’s Musings

“So do I watch the VP debate, or Survivor? On the one hand, I could watch someone get ridiculed and voted off. On the other hand, I could watch Survivor.”

Greta van Susteren is Wrong (Shock!): In Law, It Would NOT be a Mistrial

In anticipation of a weak performance by Sarah Palin at tomorrow’s vice presidential debate (update on that: she answered questions in gibberish in Alaska, too), the Republican attack dogs are already calling the debate unfair. Talk about proactive! You see, the debate’s moderator, Gwen Ifill, turns out to have written a book supportive of black politicians (including Obama), and Fox’s Greta van Susteren is crying foul.

The GOP’s likely real concern? Ifill has a reputation for asking tough questions. In 2004, she stumped both Dick Cheney and John Edwards. No small feat. If Ifill lives up to that reputation… brace for Palinplosion.

Greta’s choice of anti-Ifill rhetoric merits consideration: according to her, “in law, [a biased moderator] would create a mistrial.” False. If judges had to recuse themselves from deciding cases that implicated their abstracted political interests, no judge would ever sit. While judges and their staff have to maintain an appearance of political neutrality, and undoubtedly must set aside partisan concerns when rendering judgment, there’s no rule that judges cannot be, in their heart of hearts, political. Greta isn’t arguing that Ifill is incapable of setting aside her political opinions: she’s merely stating that Ifill has opinions.

But let’s take Greta’s principle of judicial neutrality, and her low bar for recusal, and apply both to real law. If this is how Greta really feels, where was her firm sense of justice when, after going hunting with Dick Cheney, Justice Scalia refused to take himself off a case that directly implicated the vice president? Empty posturing from an empty mind: another low point for Fox News

That said, it would be a costless gesture for Obama to ask Mrs. Ifill to throw in the towel. If phrased right, it might even be used to make the Republicans look like bullies. Not that they need the help.

Don’t Misunderestimate Sarah Palin

As “The Caucus Blog” noted today, by way of Mitt Romney, if debates are about keeping expectations low, Sarah Palin could hardly have done a better job in the run-up to the Great Massacre of Aught-Eight. She’s so successfully and thoroughly blown every major interview she’s fielded that even conservatives are calling for her head. And who can blame them? I’m sorry, but this mishmash of tenuously related talking points -

Ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up the economy– Oh, it’s got to be about job creation too. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions.

- is not an answer to the question, “do you support the bailout.” It’s clear that Palin should have “blinked“… for the sake of her family, her country, and her party.

That said, it would be a mistake to “misunderestimate” Sarah Palin to the point that – as it stands now – if she manages not to drool during her debate with Joe Biden, it’ll be termed a victory. She may be pretty poor with tough questions, but she’s performed well enough in previous state-office debates. She’s an expert panderer, and is quite familiar with local & culture war issues… if not national, and international issues. Luckily, that’s where Biden excels, and where Palin crashes and burns.

Her mixed rhetorical record makes counting her out a dangerous proposition, compounded by the fact that, should Biden come across poorly in terms of his image, the public could largely excuse Palin’s shortcomings as endearing naivete next to Biden, the “arrogant” “elitist” “liberal” “Washington insider.” While Palin will be judged by her knowledge, or lack thereof, Biden will be judged by his image: he can’t win just by winning.

A modest recommendation for Joe Biden, then: stand back and just watch the GOP’s bright new star collapse into a black hole of her own accord. Orators abhor silence and feel the need to fill it with words: but, as we’ve seen, words are not exactly Palin’s strong suit.

If Biden keeps a low profile, he can still live up to his reputation as a statesman and a learned scholar of policy by simply injecting a few words of wisdom. Better for Palin to dig her own grave, than to have Biden help and be viewed as an elitist anti-feminist.

What We Talk About, When We Talk About Winning

NPR’s “Political Junkie” gave, on Wednesday, a thorough and provocative view of the power and importance of presidential debates, and reminds us what we’re really watching for: the public reaction. No matter how well or poorly one candidate does, all that matters is perception. From my own perspective, the juxtaposition between what I think happened and what the public saw is fairly dramatic… but, since the public thinks Obama did better than I do, I won’t object.

America’s “Direction”: A Simple Recipe for Debate Victory

In a recent article, politics bloggers at The Atlantic hypothesized that, the more the election veers into personality, the better it suits McCain; as a converse, the more the election is about the country’s “direction,” the better for Obama. Thus, on the economy issue (which goes more to “direction”), Obama wins. We concur. Obama has to make this election about direction: if McCain pushes “experience,” Obama should push back by parsing the difference between “experience” and “judgment” to emphasize McCain’s lack of the latter.

That distinction is often subtle. Alternately, Obama could try a blunt approach, and take a cue from Ronald Reagan:

Attack ad lovingly crafted (in about half an hour… does it show?) by yours truly.

UPDATED: Debate Reactions?

It was Obama’s until he opened the door to the “meeting without preconditions” debate: while Obama’s position is defensible, it’s too nuanced for debate airtime… Primary violation of Rove’s Law. Obama needed to shout McCain down and get his points in: he didn’t. Obama’s working his way back up now, but that was a bad exchange.

Update: Tie Goes to Obama

After a debate that I, personally, would call a tie, I’m surprised to see that the opinion polls are giving it to Obama. In the era of the 24-hour news cycle, it’s more important to note who the media views as the winner than it is to see how the candidates actually perform… so this is a good sign.

A couple of notes. Obama clearly won questions on the economy. More importantly, he got to directly rebut McCain’s old lie about the effects of the Obama tax plan on the middle class: in unequivocal terms, Obama spelled out how his plan benefits middle America. No attack ad will be able to claim that turf again.

He was significantly weaker on foreign policy, but foreign policy, of course, is traditional Republican turf. If McCain was looking to obliterate Obama on foreign policy, he did not succeed. On account of the expectations game, then, McCain does lose.

Two comments on demeanor: McCain was downright odd, vacillating between contempt, anger, sneering laughter, and some legitimately strange expressions (what was that face?). Obama, on the other hand, was too frequently conciliatory. At various times, Obama agreed with McCain on some fairly basic valence issues (earmarks are bad, responsibility is good) and, in truly contemptible but predictable manner, the McCain camp has tried to characterize Obama’s polite & statesmanlike endorsement of basic, abstract principles of good governance as surrender. For shame – but predictable shame. McCain, the bipartisan “maverick,” mocking bipartisanship. Obama should know by now that the McCain camp will stoop this low, and he should avoid giving them the opportunity

How cool is it, though, that the McCain camp is trying to ride Obama’s coattails to victory!?

Also, at some points of disagreement, Obama let McCain shout him down, which is (1) bad debate and (2) not the image he needs to project. When McCain got hold of a point, he wouldn’t let anyone – moderator or Obama – stand in the way. Obama played by the rules, and looked like the weaker (albeit more honorable) party. That was good form but bad debate.

That said, the polls show what the polls show. At this point in the cycle (as tmtoulouse points out below the line), tie goes to Obama.

And, while we debate the debate, lurking in the background is the fact that McCain’s campaign is in shambles. Conservatives are deserting Palin in droves, disappointed with her truly shocking ineptitude and inability to field even basic questions. And conservatives are referring to McCain’s endorsement of the bailout as “the last straw.” All the goodwill McCain reaped by picking Palin is draining away. He needed a game-changer, and this was not it.

Watch the debate below the line, on an embedded video from CNN. Comments, as always, are welcome!

Update #2: see our article on McCain’s newest TV ad, “McCain is Right,” here.

Continue reading »

Revisiting McCain’s Debate Gimmick: Have We Been Had?

I wrote yesterday that a presidential debate, more than any other political event, is a game of expectations. While no-one can legitimately doubt that McCain’s “hold everything! Washington needs me!” moment was a gimmick, perhaps it was more a way of lowering expectations than anything. Should the debate go forward, he’s crunched his prep time and given the impression that he’s been very busy. Tricky…?

The First Debate: Playing the Expectations (and, Saddleback’s Legacy)

Although McCain is trying his darnedest to repeat Bush’s feat of 2004 – hailing Kerry as “the best debater since Cicero” in an attempt to make what would no doubt be a predictably medicore performance against him seem positively triumphant – the victory, which is to say the “defeat” of low expectations, goes to Obama. The New York Times has been consistently lowballing Obama’s debate performance, and his reputation for eloquence appears to have been confined, of late, to respect for his great orations, not his debate talent.  As much as McCain may want to win this race to the bottom, the widespread perception (which, again, I dispute) that Obama “lost” the Saddleback Forum means that the public won’t be looking for Obama to blow McCain away.

So, I’ll contribute: Obama is going down. Hard. McCain will debate him into next week. It’ll be a miracle if Obama can even go outside before the second debate: that’s how embarassed he’ll be. Poor Obama.

But seriously folks, as great as it is to watch the pre-debate narrative going against Obama (and, thus, for Obama), I expect him to do well. While Obama’s adversarial style was indeed somewhat disappointing in the primaries, he’s changed and improved. His performance against O’Reilly in their “interview” series is a better predictor for the debates, and on that ground, Obama succeeded wildly -

- with even O’Reilly admitting “new respect” for Obama, who he declared “is no wimp.” In part 3 of their interview set (which I’ve neglected until now to cover – transcript here), Obama defended his associations with certain unsavory characters in pithy one-liners (“I joined to worship God, not a pastor”; “I know a lot of people”) and demonstrated that he’s learned to avoid the “academic” discussion style. I expect him to make good use of the time to call McCain out on his dishonest, deceitful, and disrespectful campaign. It may be an appropriate time to drop one of the more memorable lines of modern politics (look for Reagan’s first reply):

Look for Obama to make a game-changing, but moderately phrased, rhetorical assault. I have high hopes. But don’t tell the undecided voters.

Delays, Sequestrations, and Complaining: the Timbre of the New McCain Campaign

John McCain was once a fighter pilot (had you heard?), a fact that has tempted some political pundits to re-imagine his entire campaign as a metaphorical dogfight – often quite favorably. Given McCain’s history, and the pundit class’ seeming willingness to inject flight metaphors into the campaign, I would have expected McCain to remember this little nugget of pilot wisdom: in a dogfight, your afterburners are quite handy at getting you out of a tight spot, by rocketing you far, far out of harm’s way. But they only work once… twice… maybe thrice… before they guzzle your entire fuel supply, and put you in a far more dangerous predicament: running on empty, far above ground.

At every turn, in the dogfight of his life, with the odds stacked against him, McCain has similarly attempted to win this election by injecting short-term bursts of energy into his campaign, and to hell with the long-term consequences. Picking Sarah Palin was the ultimate “afterburner” gambit. The short-term gain the choice gave him is undeniable (hence McCain’s only electoral lead… ever…), but its fleeting nature is, now, equally undeniable. The predictable fade of the RNC afterglow, combined with the inevitable fallout from the unvetted, irresponsible selection of Sarah Palin, has left the McCain campaign vulnerable and on the defensive everywhere.

Thus, in a struggle to do anything to get out of Obama’s sights, McCain has simultaneously lashed out and pulled back, accusing The New York Times of bias (while Fox News continues to redefine bias by boosting pernicious riverdaughter-quality rumors) and, in a thoroughly unpresidential manner, hiding his running mate from public scrutiny wherever possible (then again, who can blame him for that?) In so doing, McCain has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Palin was never anything more than a gimmick: apparently McCain thinks it’s best for America to not learn anything about Palin, at least until they’ve voted for her.

All this is to say that McCain’s hand on the throttle is shaking: he’s running out of fuel, losing speed, and slipping squarely back into the Obama campaign’s sights. Time to hit the afterburner again: enter McCain’s nakedly political attempt to stall the debate, citing the trouble in the economy. Hoping to seize again the decreasingly-meaningful “maverick” label and play the statesman, McCain hits the afterburner, and…

…stalls. McCain’s attempt to make bipartisanship partisan comes with numerous obvious flaws. As Obama has pointed out, “part of the president’s job is doing more than one thing at once” – this is arguably why (h/t Letterman) it’s important to pick a running mate/vice president who is capable of managing things while you’re busy. But McCain, instead, chose to pick an empty showpiece. Trying to cancel Palin’s debate, too, is unconvincing: what’s she going to do to help the economy? The McCain campaign’s inability to split their resources and deal with urgent matters without breaking stride is shaping up to look like a leadership failure, exposing “country first” as just more empty rhetoric.

In short, the McCain campaign didn’t start this dogfight with much fuel in the tank. By squandering it in one big afterburner burst – and now another – McCain is just proving that he doesn’t know how to fly the ship plane of state.

McCain Calls for a Debate Stall

Citing increasing problems in the national economy, John McCain sought to (nominally) put “country first” for a change and reschedule the first presidential debate, pending resolution and passage of emergency Senate relief measures. I call BS; as Ben Smith of Politico put it, “The only thing that’s changed in the last 48 hours is the public polling.”