As I collect my thoughts for this first impression of the 3rd and final presidential debate of 2008, I am invigorated. In many ways this was the closest we've come to an actual debate. It was intense, compelling, and should offer voters a clear choice between the candidates on the issues that matter the most to them. I haven't listened to the spin room or the punditry, so I have little idea what will actually play in the morning. However, if this was a "win or go home" moment for McCain, he didn't win. In fact, he lost and lost badly. When he needed to persuade us to vote for him, he left us with a feeling that we might not even like him.
Substantively, Obama evinced a seriousness of thought as well as a tenor and tone that should "seal the deal" for many undecided voters. As I said after the second debate, McCain appeared that night to be in the middle of a strategy shift. This debate offered further evidence that the fluctuations in strategy have taken their toll on candidate McCain. In this debate, more than any other, he seemed...surly and unlikable. He had one shining moment where we could feel a genuineness start to percolate when he looked at Obama and said, "I am not George Bush." Unfortunately, that moment of authentic emotion was lost in the haughtiness, condescension, and disagreeableness that followed.
First thoughts: We've heard this debate before. We heard it on the stump. We heard it in the first debate. Overall, I was underwhelmed. As I work up what I'll say in the morning and while early polls and punditry seem to be scoring it with a considerable edge to Obama, I'm thinking about the format, the moderator, the strategy, the final debate, and the memorable moments.
Welcome to the third presidential debate live from Belmont University in Nashville, TN. Tonight's debate will be moderated by Tom Brokaw. Join us below the fold for a real time discussion from coaches, students, and guests!
If you do not have an account, register for free. In the top right hand corner of this page, click "Create an Account" and follow the directions. You'll need to verify your account by checking your email.
Once you do, join us in the liveblog of tonight's debate by clicking on "Permalink :: Read More... " at the bottom of this post. Then, just submit a comment or reply to one.
If you are looking for a homerun, tune in Thursday for the next round of the MLB playoffs. The hype for tonight's debate paints a cornered McCain needing to go negative. The storyline has more to do with the need to build excitement (ratings) than tonight's debate realities.
There are good reasons to expect a civil, moderately benign debate. (Then again, making predictions in this most unusual election cycle is a risking business.)
Why `Going Ballistic' Won't Happen:
1) The Town Hall Format requires a more hushed presence. The simple reality of standing next to your opponent obliges decorum. Voters do not assess just issues or character, they also judge the way candidates interact, how they treat each other. Politeness and respect matter--every viewer, after all, holds a lifetime of norms they apply.
And the room is not just shared with an opponent; the candidates must also interact with the live questioners. These folks represent the American people, and it's more than a cliché to "feel their pain."
Empathy and flattery are required. Each candidate has spent years trying to connect, why throw it away in a moment of angst.
2) McCain cannot count of Obama responding inelegantly. Obama may be too cool, even aloof, but he makes few mistakes. Why expect one now? Obama's passion is measured, apparent; he is no Michael Dukakis. His temperament seems deeply dispositional, unlikely ruffled.
A solitary irritated person would stand out. And with a narrative of McCain's anger just below the media radar, the risk of going negative seems immense.
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.
Throw most of the of tonight's debate preview stories out the window (but do see also Ross Smith's extensive, hot off the press preview just below). In the last three days the political landscape has transformed in essential ways.
Who has a memorable misstep, who wears the right tie, which exceeds expectations all matter, of course, but not in the same way they did when the Ole Miss debate was hyped as politically seismic.
Two events fundamentally change the narrative: McCain's "suspension" of his campaign and the economic "crisis" on Wall Street.
Debate Held Hostage
McCain's placing the debate in doubt, whether bold or erratic, diminishes the importance of strategic minutia. We recognized we'd be just fine if the debate were canceled, reminding us that the stage is much larger than the one in the Ford Center, Oxford Mississippi.
And the new landscape from Wall Street, to corridors of power in Washington, to rebellious Main Street is more serious than another campaign event, however outsized.
Winning the Debate
A day ago I advised to the candidates to not be risky, but to take some risks. To be attuned to ways their messages will be parsed, used and misused. I think my advice today is much simpler. The candidate who wins the debate tonight is the one who can concisely define who we are and where we are as Americans.
Ronald Reagan crystallize voters sentiment when he asks in his 1980 debate with Carter, "Are you better off then you were four years ago." Uncertainty pervades the election in ways not imaginable before the credit meltdown. Which candidate can memorably answer these questions?
What is happening with the American economy?
What just took place on Wall Street and in Washington?
What ought the future to look like?
What does leadership mean in this world?
The Responsibility at Hand
The winning candidate needs to transcend the petty, define the exigencies, and enact the bipartisan mantle both camps seek. Tonight's debate is certainly important but for different reasons than last week.
It presents a unique opportunity to rhetorically construct reality much like we remember Franklin Roosevelt's redefining another banking crisis in his first fireside chat from the White House, March 12, 1933.
"After all there is an element in the readjustment of our financial system more important than currency, more important than gold, and that is the confidence of the people. Confidence and courage are the essentials of success in carrying out our plan. You people must have faith; you must not be stampeded by rumors or guesses. Let us unite in banishing fear. . .
It is your problem no less than it is mine. Together we cannot fail."
The influence of the Internet as a player in the post-debate spin is unknown. What is known is that millions of Americans will be adding their voice to the post-debate constructions.
An interesting example is the invitations of Current TV used of Twitter to "broadcast" the voices of American youth during and after the debate. A provocative post at The Presidential Debate Blog by Joel Hyatt,CEO of Current TV is worth reading.
The Commission on Presidential Debate is stuck in the 80s. They may voice the parties concerns, but cannot control the diffuse Internet. Their "interactive" initiatives have been widely panned. The MySpace.com is little more than streaming the debate on line with pseudo polling. Lots of folks will stream the debate.
This Tuesday join in a preview of Friday's Presidential Debate. The National Communication Association (NCA) is initiating a Webinar series on Campaign 2008.
My class participated in the inaugural Wedinar a couple weeks ago on campaign oratory. Having students interacting in real time with the panelist proved thought-provoking. I recommend giving it a try.
For Tuesday: Date & time: September 23,noon to 1pm (EDT): Do Presidential Debates Matter? This Webinar explores the importance and place of debates in Campaign 2008.
Panelists: Bill Benoit (Missouri), Gordon Mitchell (Pittsburgh), Kathryn Olson (Wisconsin-Milwaukee)
PRNewswire-USNewswire- Feb 14
Mrs. Ronald Reagan will invite the major GOP Presidential candidates to the Reagan Library for a presidential debate on May 3, 2007. The Library has confirmed MSNBC cable as the television partner and THE POLITICO as the internet partner for this historic event. THE POLITICO (http://www.politico.com) will stream the debate live and provide an exclusive and unprecedented opportunity for viewers to question the candidates via the internet. The debate will air nationally on MSNBC cable, with full coverage on http://www.MSNBC.com.
Click this for a rundown of the other primary debates scheduled thus far.
Thank you for spending time at DebateScoop over the last several weeks. We've gotten off to a great start this election season, generated some buzz, and developed a loyal group of readers. We've also learned a lot along the way in this, our inaugural year. Now that the midterms are over, it is time to look ahead.
For example, the first debate between GOP presidential candidates is slated for May 15, 2007 at the University of South Carolina. The event will be jointly hosted by the South Carolina Republican Party and Fox News. For other upcoming political events, we encourage you to check out ABC's The Note Futures Calendar.
What should DebateScoop do next? Should we cover issue debates in the 100th Congress? Should we present more retrospective debate analysis? Should we offer coaching advice for prospective candidates? What can we do to improve the site? What ideas do you have for developing an online community built "for the sake of better debating"?
In the coming months, we'll be working with our design team to completely overhaul the site. If you have ideas for building the premier debate site on the web, we want to hear from you!
