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.
If I were to offer that one candidate in the Oxford Mississippi debate displayed the following characteristics, competent, capable, knowledgeable, adept, personable, comfortable, and unperturbed, which candidate would you think I was describing?
My guess is that hardcore Democrats would say Obama, hardcore Republicans McCain, and the small center, both. My take on the 1st presidential debate is all three opinions are accurate.
Certainly there were better and worse moments for each candidate but on the whole there was a standoff.
Some will be disappointed that there were no non-factual gaffes. Inventing blunders is left to the campaigns and bloggers because it did not happen in the debate.
I had the opportunity to watch the debate with an auditorium of students and community members. This audience had no audible sighs or burst of laughter; they remained as measured and serious as McCain and Obama. Not to disappoint, but a debate without a noticeable false move suggests both aspirants did their job, and with skill.
Many will find fault, and surely there were factual errors and lost opportunities, but each debater, in my opinion was solid, fulfilling their intended purpose.
I search my memory for another first-debate that was as competent for both candidates as Friday's debate and it may be as far back as 1976, when Jimmy Carter faced off with Gerald Ford on domestic policy.
Strategy and Tactics
At one dramatic point in the debate, discussing the Iraqi "Surge," McCain charged "I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy. A little later, after saying "That's not true," Obama with a touch of disdain said "We had a legitimate difference, and I absolutely understand the difference between tactics and strategy."
[editor's note, by Ross Smith] Doyle Srader, former Baylor debater and nationally prominent debate coach, is now Assistant Professor of Communication at Northwest Christian University.
This is Petty and Cacioppo's model of elaboration-likelihood in action. Obama is taking the central route, and McCain the peripheral route.
The media's is focused this week on the McCain and Obama's debate preparations, curious about what goes on in the "quasi-secret" debate camps. I was asked about what happens in preparing candidates this morning on KCBSradio San Francisco and, while only guesswork, can anticipate part of what is happening near Tampa and wherever McCain is prepping. (Welcome readers who linked to debatescoop from KCBS's web page).
The truth of the matter is that debate preparation is not that striking. Practice answers, anticipate questions, make it tougher than Friday, and build to a focused, confident, and relaxed candidate. The candidates will spend time fielding questions, sparing with opponent stand-ins (Greg Craig for Obama, Michael Steele for McCain), and humoring zealous handlers.
My recommendation for "Debate Camp" prep:
Get some sleep - these candidates have to be exhausted. Mistakes happen when the internal governor is not working.
Relax - debates are different but not that much different than what candidates face everyday. Approach the debate as "normal" not some esoteric event to be mastered.
Reflect - take the rare time to frame the larger picture, who are you really talking to. Both candidates increasingly seem to be speaking to their base, what singular message will bring them home.
Don't over prep - too much new information only serves to confuse. Briefing books should be brief. They are more for preparing the prepares than the frayed candidate
Practice answers - the only thing that can come out of one's mouth is what's in your head. Practice saying what takes five minutes in 30 seconds.
Discuss with a small number of advisers- Too many cooks spoil the broth. Everyone wants to contribute, yet however "relevant," diminishing returns kick in.
Take a risk - candidate should not be risky, but they need to take some risks. It is the spontaneous genuine moments that separate. Reagan claimed his statement, "I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience" was not planned. It just fit; it was the election.
First of all I have to say that both of them were good. I was very impressed by Sen. Obama. I had never taken the time before to sit down and watch him in this type of forum. With that said I was even more impressed by Sen. McCain. With this type of forum, the two candidates styles were very evident. Sen. Obama is very professorial in style. He gives long, thoughtful answers and tries very hard not to offend anyone. He never seems to come down firmly on one side or the other. While this is very appealing in a campaign, a leader has to be decisive. pSen. McCain tends to give short to the point answers to questions. He does not hesitate to take a firm position on an issue. That difference between the two candidates was very apparent. Obama reminded me a lot of President Carter; very smart, very cerebral but not an effective leader as he could not make decisions. McCain reminds me a little of President Reagan, full of stories and life experiences but someone who knows what he believes.
There seems to be little hope there will be more than three presidential debates in the fall. One obvious reason is in the post below, Obama refuses. The McCain camp, long proposing ten+ town hall debates, has taken up the "debate-about-debates" to further construct their characterization of Obama.
In a statement posted soon after Obama anointed the CPD debates, reported on TPM Election Central, their themes build, Obama words defect; his real character vialed.
"Unfortunately, it appears that Barack Obama's tough-guy talk on 'duels' this week was just more empty words. Americans are quickly coming to the conclusion that it's better to look at what Barack Obama actually does and not listen to what he says."
And then there is the reoccurring Celebrity narrative ["it might be beneath a worldwide celebrity of Barack Obama's magnitude to appear at town hall meeting"]. Perhaps the McCain camp ought to read Alan Schroeder's Celebrity in Chief. Maybe more people read People Magazine than Foreign Affairs.
Alan Schroeder, author of published Presidential Debates: Fifty Years of High-Risk TV, an informed observer of presidential debates, often in theater where he has absorbed the political atmospherics of the last several Presidential Debates, has written a reasoned analysis on the Columbia University Press Blog, previewing what to expect in fall Commission of Presidential Debate events.
Professor Schroeder weaves his analysis around the missed opportunity for a July 4th debate between McCain and Obama and why the demands of presidential debates are likely to thwart real innovations in the fall. He hints that this years unconventional campaigns had the hope for unconventional debates, but don't hold your breadth.
Schroeder writes:
By traditional metrics, the McCain camp was probably accurate in its assumption of low viewership on the Fourth of July. But the unorthodox nature of this year's presidential campaign challenges that expectation. A holiday debate would undoubtedly have generated a high degree of media hype, drawing an audience unable to resist the lure of live political theater. . .
[editor's note, by Ross Smith] promoted to front page and time stamp updated to kick this to the top -- Ross
(co-authored by Kelly Congdon and R. Gordon Mitchell)
As debate scholars, we applaud the June 4th letter from John McCain to Barack Obama proposing an ambitious series of town hall debates prior to the Democratic National Convention. While debates have become routine fixtures in modern presidential campaigns, there are some striking features of the McCain proposal.
Now that Bob Barr (GA) has secured the Libertarian nomination for president efforts to get him in the political mix pick up pace. Not surprisingly some in the Libertarian party have begun to push Barr's inclusion in the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD).
Rock the Debates has called McCain and Obama to include third party candidates in debates this fall. They write in an open letter to McCain "In all likelihood there will be four presidential candidates who will have a mathematical chance, in addition to the Democrat and you."
Names of the other candidates are not mentioned, perhaps because other candidates are still to be determined.
Imagine the insights with Bob Barr and Ralph Nader chiming in.
They cite Clinton and Obama's willingness to open the debates, a dubious claim at best and ask McCain to respond by May 20.
Don't hold your breadth. Multi-candidate debates only make sense when the contenders have a chance. Otherwise they are distractions. Mike Gravel could take time away from charming the Obama Girl to give comic relief.
Alan Schroeder, School of Journalism at Northeastern University and author of Presidential Debates: 50 Years of High-Risk TV, handicaps the potential McCain/Clinton and McCain/Obama debates anticipated for next fall.
McCain lacks his rival's efficiency, and unlike Clinton, he operates close to the emotional surface. A debate between them would represent a reversal of stereotypes, with the male candidate appealing to the heart and the female appealing to the head.
Meet the Press offers an interesting format for ongoing debates involving public officials. Russert's great skill follows a basic formula. He addresses the questions on people's mind rather than throwing the softballs for sound bites that you get in many other places. Russert presents the basic question and listens closely to the initial response. That much, you can hear anywhere. Following that response, however, the debate really begins. Maintaining objectivity by treating all his political guests the same, Russert will follow up the initial position with a serious challenge. Usually, the challenge is the guests own statements, if they are at odds with the response just given, or the statements of others who, although not present, are still in the debate. Russert follows up until the guest says something clear about the conflict, and then he leaves it to the viewers to consider the response.
Keeping up with Meet the Press offers a good understanding of the political debates beyond the sound bites. Here, I will offer analysis of these Russert-constructed debates. As always, the best way to check this analysis is with your own read. You can always see the MTP transcripts at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id
8987534
