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.
There was a chance, even a good one, to restructure the Presidential fall debates. The Commission on Presidential Debate (CPD) was on the ropes following a primary filled with debate events, ready sponsors, and pressure from the new media. BUT ALAS!
Today the Obama campaign appears to have nixed debates beyond the three scheduled by the CPD.
Obama spokes person, Plouffe, wrote in a letter to the commission agreeing to their three debates:
In letter to Commission on Presidential Debates, writes
"Due to the late date of the two parties' nominating conventions, and the relatively short period between the end of the conventions and the first proposed debate, it is likely that the four Commission debates will be the sole series of debates in the fall campaign."
The campaign is putting a lot of eggs in one basket. Debates, even without memorable moments, have power to drive candidate's narrative, positive and negative, materially influencing electoral outcomes.
For a campaign that depends on the change message the decision to forgo more debates, for the staid Commission productions, appears wholly political.
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).
Friday morning Hillary Clinton stepped up her call for a televised debate in North Carolina. Speaking at a firehouse in Jacksonville NC (MSNBC's FirstRead):
She made a pitch for her campaign's interactive "NC Ask Me" feature, in which people can submit questions online and get an answer -- some of which have been used in television ads.
"It has been great, and we've gotten over 14,000 questions," she said. "We have answered every one of those questions. But the only question I can't answer is why Sen. Obama won't debate me in North Carolina. And I'd sure like to give an answer."
She said that each upcoming state deserves their own debate, because "the issues in Pennsylvania are not the same as the issues in North Carolina," and "the issues in North Carolina aren't the same as the issues in Indiana."
"There's all kinds of issues that we should be debating about right here in North Carolina," she said. "So again I offer that I'll go anywhere at any time. And we'll have that debate as long as Sen. Obama would agree to actually meet me. I think that would be good for the voters and it would be good for this important campaign."
Does a debate in NC make sense? The Obama campaign has been trying to deflect the calls invoking "debate fatigue," citing 21 previous debates. More likely they find more comfort in filling UNC's Dean Dome next Monday than taking the time out to prepare for anther debate. The recent history of debates indicates the Clinton campaign would use a debate to press attacks and find openings for positioning following the debate.
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've often thought that Barack Obama may be a better debate coach than a debater. In this space I even questioned his debate preparation.
I turned out to be wrong. He is both a great coach and a great debater.
If you've watched the 20 democratic debates, you've seen the maturation of Barack Obama from a relative novice to a "great debater." He's figured out what few ever do - and that is the best strategic and tactical position is to speak in the language of the judge and judge the debate as you go along. In a 2005 article in the Debater's Research Guide, I argued that debaters should learn to speak in the language of the judge. Obama did that tonight and more. Over the past two month's he's been framing himself as the best debater and that's worked well for him.
Debates can change the dynamic of an election, but they can just as easily solidify the narratives controlling a contest. Tonight's CNN/Univision Debate at the LBJ Library in Austin likely did the latter.
I believe three things happened that convince me the debate will better serve Obama's purpose than a Clinton shakeup.
1. Clinton's finest moment of all nineteen debates was, in the end, a concession.
2. Obama's narratives were sustained, even advanced.
3. The ability for Hillary to go negative after the debate was functionally forfeited.
Each point is found in statements directly from the debate.
I. Clinton's Closing.
Hillary's closing statement was perhaps her best moment in the campaign. For a rare moment ambitions, history, and wonkish manner were traded for what felt authentic, moving, grounded. She showed humanity, a genuine rationale for "hanging in there," and invited the affect that delivered New Hampshire. Of course closing statements alone cannot sustain 24/7 news needs for long, assuring other interchanges will soon dominate.
