Third 2008 Presidential Debate
October 17, 2008
Third Presidential Debate Commentary by Sergei A. Naumoff
October 16, 2008
Competitors: John McCain and Barack Obama
Motion: Resolved – This house supports me for President of the United States
Format: Sit-down with the moderator
Adjudicator: Sergei A. Naumoff
Points
John McCain = 45
Barack Obama = 55
Winner = Barack Obama
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
The third presidential debate was the most interesting and exciting for me. McCain since the beginning took an offensive position: he started criticizing Obama almost in every single case in domestic policy and came up with typical charges against the democrat candidate throughout all the election campaign: that he is going to raise taxes, that he has no experience, a typical flip-flop politician and an old friend of terrorist Bill Ayers.
Obama for one hour and a half tried to beat off. He simply explained what is his plan on reforming tax system, health care and education system, what he thinks on abortions and clarified his acquaintance with Bill Ayers.
STRATEGY OF CANDIDATES
Of course, Joe the Plumber from Ohio became the protagonist of this debate. But generally McCain already has absolutely lost sense of harmony in his attempts to find a rhetorical path to average American’s heart.
On this debate, it was absolutely clear that the main topic of this election campaign is the ‘tough campaign’ itself. Using nasty methods, charges, labels etc methods and flame seemed very interesting. That’s why moderator’s question on the ‘nasty campaign’ became a trigger for discussion of such ‘hot topics’ as labeling Obama as terrorist. And here John McCain was hooked by Obama.
The matter is that this debate round showed that who attacks loses. Especially when attacks were designed in a well-known and predictable way for the ‘target’. Obama’s answers looked better than program speeches, besides they simultaneously discredited the ‘aggressor’. McCain has made the same mistake as he did in the second debate: he tried to mention Obama and his policies more than his own constructive approaches. Besides, there was no any unpredictable attack for Obama – the latter was ready to answer on both Ayers and ACORN issue. The culmination of this strategy was the attack on Obama’s voting for abortions. In reply to McCain’s charges Obama has answered briefly and to the point: ‘It is not true’ (and then well explained why). However, Obama himself was not trapped by question about Sarah Pallin and did not say anything about the governor of Alaska.
In the end of the debate McCain has only criticized Obama’s plan, absolutely ignoring all his rebuttal. However, both candidates for instance have avoided explanation of the exact percentage of reducing oil dependency.
MATTER
Obama’s style in this round was presenting theses, and McCain has presented slogans. Second, McCain had no skills speaking in front of the camera in this round – he constantly looked beside the camera while Obama looked very professional turned his eyes from his opponent to the audience. Therefore Obama looked more credible.
FINAL DECISION
McCain performance was the best among three previous rounds and in the beginning of the third round he even managed to get my vote. But after being involved into personal charges he concentrated too much on the image of the unfortunate Joe the Plumber that should be protected from Obama’s plans. McCain didn’t manage to propose anything new, therefore he lost this round.
Third 2008 Presidential Debate
October 16, 2008
Third Presidential Debate Commentary by Jackson B. Miller
October 16, 2008
Competitors: John McCain and Barack Obama
Motion: Resolved – This house supports me for President of the United States
Format: Sit-down with the moderator
Adjudicator: Jackson B. Miller
Results
John McCain = 142
Barack Obama = 149
Winner = Barack Obama
Matter – McCain
Strengths
- Debates are often defined by memorable examples and analogies, and the “Joe the Plumber” example is clearly one of the “moments” of this debate (one can already envision the Saturday Night Live sketch). McCain even got Obama to respond directly to “Joe” at one point. When you can get your opponent to use the examples or analogies that you bring to the debate it normally helps your side.
- It was a flub, but “Senator Government” was one of his best lines, and one of his strongest attacks. I know he meant to say “Senator Obama” (and he even corrected himself), but “Senator Government” was a powerful way to craft an image of Obama as a “big government” candidate.
- His “if you wanted to run against George Bush, you should have run four years ago” line was effective overall. In the last debate, he lacked a clear response to Obama’s claim that a McCain presidency is a “third term” for Bush, and this line provided a direct counterargument. It is not the most logical argument (since Obama hadn’t even been elected to the Senate in 2004), but it provided a response nonetheless.
- McCain clearly went into the debate with a strategy to attack Obama’s answers as too “eloquent.” The attempt to paint Obama as “tricky” with his words was somewhat successful (but also a potential weakness, as explained below)
Weaknesses
- One weakness is a simple factual inaccuracy. McCain claimed that businesses in the United States pay a “35% tax rate” which he noted is “2nd highest in the world.” What he does not explain is that businesses in the U.S. do not actually pay taxes at the 35% rate. Under a “flat tax” system, the 35% figure would be accurate, but the U.S. does NOT have a flat tax system. Businesses (both small and large) benefit from literally thousands of tax breaks and tax code loopholes.
- McCain did not provide a clear answer to the moderator’s question about “what would you cut?” He danced around the question for a bit and finally mentioned a few minor programs that might be cut. This response was particularly damaging given the “straight talk” image that he has tried to cultivate.
- He made an abrupt transition from a discussion about Obama’s association with Ayers to the line “my campaign is all about the economy.” It was an awkward moment because McCain seemed to realize that there was an inconsistency in his logic and you could almost see it on his face. Obama’s relationship with Ayers has nothing to do with the current economic crisis.
- While the “Joe the plumber” example was memorable, McCain repeated it way too often later in the debate. This gave the impression that he did not have new or compelling arguments to present on some of the issues raised during the second half of the debate.
- Although the attacks on Obama’s “eloquence” were somewhat effective, they seemed to lack spontaneity. It sounded as if McCain had been “coached” to make these responses, and overall this made him appear less genuine.
Score = 72
Matter – Obama
Strengths
- Obama’s responses to the initial questions about the economic crisis were clear and well-supported. Economic issues are often difficult to explain in everyday language, but he did a nice job of providing details about what will happen going forward with the bailout package. This clear and understandable language only helped to reinforce the image he is trying to cultivate as a “caretaker” of the economy.
- The comparison of the two healthcare proposals was clear and detailed. Obama made a cogent argument here where he first provided details about his proposal, contrasted it with the proposal advanced by McCain, and finally explained why his approach to healthcare would ultimately be more beneficial. He also used examples effectively here to help illustrate how his plan might affect “average” Americans.
Weaknesses
- Obama did not provide a clear answer to the moderator’s “what would you cut” question. He danced around the issue fairly effectively, but ultimately he failed to mention even one specific program that he would cut.
- He got drawn into a long discussion about “negative ads.” Overall, his responses to the issues here contradicted his overall contention that the debate should be about issues (as opposed to “personalities”).
- He also brought up evidence during the “negative ads” discussion that clearly showed that he came to the debate ready to talk about more than just the “issues.” It was clear that he had prepared a response on the Ayers issue, and he also cited figures about McCain running “100% negative ads.” This “100%” figure is not true – and it is normally advisable to avoid “absolutist” claims like this in a debate.
Score = 73
Manner – McCain
Strengths
- McCain did a nice job throughout the debate of looking into the camera. He made a lot of direct eye contact and he projected a very personable image overall.
- He also seemed more at ease in his exchanges with Obama. The two candidates actually questioned each other this time around, and McCain projected an image of comfort with this “sit down” format through his nonverbals.
Weaknesses
- McCain made several wording blunders throughout the debate. Some, like “Senator Government,” might have helped his cause. However, others (like when he said “Fannie and Freddie Mae” early in the debate) only hurt his credibility.
- Speakers often express nervousness through the use of “object adaptor” gestures. These are moments where a speaker will tug at clothing, tap a pencil on the table, or exhibit other nonverbals that signal discomfort. McCain displayed some of these “object adaptors” in the way he was holding and fiddling with his pen and notepad.
- McCain did a lot of out of context smiling. With the “split-screen” image that was used for much of the television broadcast, these smiles were particularly noticeable. This is another nonverbal that conveys discomfort or nervousness.
- His gestures were repetitive. For the most part, he only gestured with his left hand and he made a simple “up and down” motion each time. A little more variety was needed to help emphasize his points and enhance his credibility.
- He allows his vocal pitch to go too high in spots. McCain probably increases his pitch in this way in an attempt to convey conviction for his ideas, but this increase in pitch also gives the impression that he is either annoyed or overly emotional.
Score = 70
Manner – Obama
Strengths
- Obama’s gestures were excellent overall. From watching his gestures, you would not know he was sitting down at a table. He incorporated a nice variety of gestures, and they were well-timed.
- His vocal cadence is a real strength. Obama naturally places vocal emphasis on the right words, and his inflection patterns convey a sense of confidence in his ideas (without making him sound condescending or egotistical).
Weaknesses
- Obama tends to repeat the word “look.” This is the generic word that he uses as a sort of transition to his next example or idea. It is not a bad word for him to use, but the repetition of it does get old.
- He also makes frequent use of the stock phrase, “the last point I want to make.” Many of his answers contain this phrase, and the repetition gives some of his responses a “formulaic” feel.
Score = 76
Third Presidential Debate Commentary by Kerith Woodyard
October 16, 2008
Competitors: John McCain and Barack Obama
Motion: Resolved – This house supports me for President of the United States.
Format: Moderated Question and Answer
Adjudicator: Kerith Woodyard
Winner: Barack Obama
In the third and final presidential debate, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama fielded questions from moderator Bob Schieffer on a range of domestic issues: the economic crisis, the budget deficit, energy and climate change, health care, education, and Supreme Court appointments. Although these issues are likely among the most important to voters in the upcoming election, a segment of the debate focused on the mudslinging and character attacks that have dominated the presidential race in these last several weeks leading up to the election. Schieffer, in addition to asking the candidates to elaborate their policy positions on domestic affairs, called upon the candidates to discuss the “very nasty” tone of the race. Noting the Obama campaign’s charge that McCain is “erratic,” “out of touch,” and “losing his bearings” and the McCain campaign’s allegation that Obama is “palling around with terrorists,” Schieffer challenged both men to say these things directly to the opposing candidate.
Initially, both candidates were tentative about repeating any specific negative comment about the other. McCain, responding first, acknowledged that the two were in the midst of a “tough campaign” but suggested that things could have been different between the candidates had Obama followed through on his agreement to have multiple town hall meetings with McCain. On this point, Obama responded that “we expect campaigns to be tough” but that not having town hall meetings doesn’t justify the negativity in the campaign. In his defense, Obama cited a PBS poll in which two-thirds of respondents perceived McCain’s campaign as more negative than Obama’s own. In addition, Obama asserted that McCain’s campaign ads are “100% negative,” a charge that McCain immediately denied.
Without further prodding from Schieffer, McCain raised two specific negative attacks against Obama. First, McCain implied that anti-Americanism and domestic terrorism somehow resonate with Obama because of a tenuous association with William Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground. Second, McCain suggested a problematic relationship between Obama and the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a group now under scrutiny for fraudulent voter registrations.
Despite stating that the American people are concerned with the domestic issues directly affecting their daily lives and not with whether the candidates suffer from “hurt feelings” over a negative campaign, Obama defended against the ACORN attack and explained his limited association with Ayers, a connection Obama argued had become the “centerpiece” of the McCain campaign at time when attention to the critical issues facing the country is needed. With just under three weeks left until Election Day and with the country in economic turmoil, Obama’s point is well-taken. Yet, the focus lingered on mudslinging as McCain also criticized Obama for an “out-of-bounds remark” made by Senator John Lewis that compared McCain and his running-mate Sarah Palin to segregationist Governor George Wallace because they were, according to Lewis, “sowing seeds of hatred and division” with their campaign. Calling upon Obama to repudiate Lewis’ comments, Obama responded that his campaign in no way prompted Lewis’ remarks and had already issued a statement condemning them.
Although only one segment of the debate was devoted to a discussion of negative campaigning, McCain found ways to infuse negativity into the rest of the debate by attacking Obama’s character, especially his integrity. In response to Obama’s statement on the potential use of off-shore drilling to meet U.S. energy demands, McCain insinuated that Obama was using language to mislead. “I so admire Senator Obama’s eloquence,” McCain said sarcastically. “And you really have to pay attention to words. He said we can ‘look at’ offshore drilling. You got that? ‘Look at.’ We need to do it now.” And, responding to Obama’s insistence that legislation banning partial birth abortion must include an exception for cases in which a woman’s health is at risk, McCain again mocked Obama’s “eloquence” and charged that “health” is a word “stretched by the pro-abortion movement” to include any non-medical reason for having a late-term abortion. Never mind that seconds earlier Obama had explained that “no one is pro-abortion,” that abortion is always a “tragic situation,” and that both sides of the abortion debate can agree on the need to reduce unintended pregnancies, promote adoption, and enable single motherhood.
While McCain and Obama both held their own on the substantive issues of the debate, McCain lost points by engaging in ad hominem character attacks against Obama, attacks that are both a distraction from the critical issues facing America and an indication that the McCain campaign may be willing to say whatever it takes—however baseless—to win an election.
Third Presidential Debate Commentary by Kevin Minch
October 16, 2008
Competitors: John McCain and Barack Obama
Motion: Resolved – This house supports me for President of the United States
Format: Presidential Debate
Adjudicator: Kevin Minch, Truman State University
Points
John McCain = 85/100
Barack Obama = 92/100
Winner = Barak Obama
One of the problems consistently confronting us when we attempt to compare campaign debates to academic debates is how to factor-in the notion of presumption. This is a particularly significant problem when there is no incumbent in the race. If anything, given the poll numbers favoring Obama before the debate, Obama possessed the presumption in the round. He needed to defend his positions, and defend his credibility. McCain needed to overcome the perceived inevitability of an Obama victory by going on the offense—causing the viewer to question Obama’s credibility and question the efficacy of his policies. While I feel McCain succeeded in performing better than he has in previous debates, and while I feel McCain probably succeeded in raising some important questions about Obama’s credibility and policies in a way he has not done previously, I feel Obama’s patience, calmness, and balanced responses to McCain’s attacks helped him maintain his grasp on presumption.
I believe Obama had a superior grasp of the arguments in the debate. He recognized the need to continuously direct discussion back to a few central propositions: the need to address the economic crisis, the need to support the middle class, the need to invest in the future, the need to balance new initiatives with cuts in unnecessary spending. When attacked on his policies—or even attacked in a personal way—Obama consistently redirected the debate back to these themes. He made a wise choice to continue arguing on his own ground, focusing on his own themes rather than allowing himself to be drawn onto McCain’s turf and add credibility to McCain’s position. Also to Obama’s credit was his ability to succinctly organize and reiterate the details of his plans, often numbered in lists that could be easily remembered. While McCain’s tone was more aggressive, and his use of repetition may have helped to cement certain arguments in the minds of his audience, it was more difficult to pick-out consistent themes in McCain’s message and more difficult to identify the specific details of McCain’s proposals.
Presentation style may well be more important in a televised political debate than it tends to be in an academic debate. As in some of his previous debates, McCain’s tone and non-verbals contrasted sharply with those of Obama. Obama looked calm and restrained. McCain looked angry and uncomfortable. Of note was the way in which the two speakers interacted with one another when directly attacking each other’s policies or character. When McCain attacked Obama, Obama would consistently turn to McCain and look directly at him, showing both that he was attentive to McCain’s criticisms and calm in the face of conflict. McCain, in sharp contrast, actively avoided eye contact with Obama when Obama was addressing McCain’s policies or character. He generally diverted his gaze to his legal pad and appeared to be busy jotting-down notes, even at moments where note-taking seemed less-than-necessary. Those networks that carried reaction shots revealed McCain rolling his eyes, raising his eyebrows, and even audibly sighing in response to his opponent’s responses. When situating these non-verbal behaviors in the context of an economic crisis, Obama’s relaxed non-verbals and calm voice likely reinforced the sense of security from Obama. One cannot help but reflect on the similar contrast people must have felt when comparing the calm and confident Franklin Roosevelt with the frustrated and defensive Herbert Hoover during America’s last great depression.
It is also worth devoting some time to the discussion of McCain’s frequent use of “Joe the Plummer,” who evolved from an initial reference to an Obama rope line encounter to a metaphor for the common person in search of the “American Dream.” McCain not only frequently referred to Joe the Plummer as though he were an anecdote, but he also referred to him directly, as though he were addressing all the “Joe the Plummers” in the audience. Even Obama eventually got caught-up in the references to Joe. Stories can be a powerful rhetorical tool, illustrating a concept or providing a vehicle for audience members to identify with a speaker’s description of the world. Unfortunately, McCain’s excessive references to Joe killed the effectiveness of the vehicle. Joe’s story gradually evolved from one that was representative of one kind of American to a focus that excluded consideration of other kinds of Americans. Obama capitalized on this pattern by noting that his plans for taxation are aimed at empowering those people who don’t yet have Joe’s income, but who need to catch a break so that someday they might attain Joe’s wealth.
In the end, while I give McCain credit for mounting a much more successful case than he or his partner have in previous contests, McCain’s effort lacked the argumentative coherence or the stylistic flair necessary to overcome the sense of inevitability that Obama appeared to carry with him into the debate.
Third Presidential Debate Commentary by Joseph P. Zompetti
October 16, 2008
Competitors: John McCain and Barack Obama
Motion: Resolved – This house supports me for President of the United States
Format: Sit-down presidential debate, moderated by journalist Bob Schieffer
Adjudicator: Joseph P. Zompetti, Ph.D., associate professor at Illinois State University
Points
John McCain = 49/100
Barack Obama = 51/100
Winner = Barack Obama
First, I want to say that the so-called “motion” that “this house supports me for President” is not exactly what occurs in a presidential debate, nor is it completely accurate to examine the debate in terms of matter and manner. These concepts are premised on parliamentary debates, which is not what the two presidential candidates are doing. Instead, they are engaging in a confrontational discussion that combines elements of both value and policy debating, but the format itself is really unlike anything competitive debaters actually do at tournaments (whether American policy debate or American/World parliamentary debate). I make this point, not to create animosity with my colleagues who frame the debate in parliamentary terms, but rather to point out a very painful issue with most American presidential debates: they are disjointed, disorganized, underdeveloped and largely frustrating to watch. Tonight’s debate is no different. Despite Bob Schieffer’s efforts to ask direct and poignant questions, both candidates either repeated answers they have given in the past, or used the opportunity to levy attacks at each other. What is perhaps even more frustrating is my perception that Senator McCain, on many different occasions, appeared to not listen to Senator Obama’s answers. Thus, although this was an opportunity to have both candidates engage in a fruitful and meaningful discussion about each other’s positions, what we ended up seeing was two candidates passing remarks riddled with inaccuracies, largely in part because they weren’t listening to each other.
Second, this debate points out an underpinning thread that has been occurring during the entire election process – namely a contest between Republican (conservative) values of smaller government, low taxes, and a faith in free market capitalism, versus Democrat (liberal) values that were characterized (by McCain) as “spreading the wealth” (which is code for “communism”) and big spending and big government, despite Senator Obama’s refutation of such characterization. The power of political rhetoric is that naming carries values that become shortcuts in the minds of voters. In other words, instead of carefully and critically thinking about particular policies or positions, voters hear what the policies are “named” and then believe it as such. For example, instead of listening carefully to Obama’s proposal for a new tax policy (i.e., cutting taxes to 95% of the middle class which includes 98% of small businesses), McCain continued to characterize Obama as one who would raise taxes on small businesses in an effort to “share the wealth.” Not only was the statement inaccurate, but it was also a shorthand way of raising the fear of many Americans that Obama is more radical than he may appear to be. In this way, McCain distracts from the actual policy debate by derailing the discussion.
Third, in terms of overall presidential debating acumen, Senator McCain did very well tonight. Undoubtedly, tonight’s debate was his best of the three presidential debates. While I personally believe he did not answer all of the questions directly, nor did he listen carefully to his opponent, he did do the best job to date in terms of advancing his arguments while providing sufficient evidence to support them. He also was offensive in his arguments (not necessarily aggressive in a negative way against Obama, but rather he strategically advanced his own arguments). In fact, he probably did a better job of offensively advancing his arguments than did Obama. However, I believe that Obama had more substantial evidence supporting his overall positions and arguments while simultaneously more accurately and more carefully listening to McCain.
Overall, given the current state of affairs both in terms of the American economy and in terms of the recent polling of the election, this debate was a pivotal moment for both candidates. McCain needed a clear and decisive victory to alter the campaign in his direction. Did that happen? Definitely not. Obama needed to “not lose” the debate. He needed to maintain his stability in order to not drop in the polls. Did that happen? Probably. Given the dynamic of the current election process, the idea of presumption – a long and important concept in competitive debate – rested with Obama. Obama, in other words, was winning the election going into tonight’s debate. If there was a tie, for example, Obama would still win. McCain, on the other hand, needed to overwhelmingly beat Obama. This dynamic is another reason why framing the presidential debate in parliamentary terms and language is not very helpful and why it isn’t very accurate. Obama did not conduct an earth-shattering debate performance tonight. But, he didn’t need to. McCain did, and he didn’t decisively win either. In objective terms, tonight’s debate may have been a “tie.” But, as I said above, a “tie” means a win for Obama. The inertia Obama’s campaign has generated before tonight’s debate will continue since McCain clearly did not have a sufficient victory for his campaign to bounce back from its recent political hemorrhaging.
Points
John McCain = 49/100
Barack Obama = 51/100
Winner = Barack Obama
Third Presidential Debate Commentary by Chris Baron
October 16, 2008
Pundits and judges
Hypocritical spin doctors
Obsessed with not so hidden agendas
Ready to make their cases
Freeze frame the faces
Sleaze and slop that debases
Breeze through any traces
Of keys to unlock higher graces
As we board this straight talking train
We are not neutral
We can feign objectivity and neutrality
But let’s be real
We vote for nice short stories
Not reading too much or listening for too long
Settling for sound bites and verbal jabs
Over tough answers to important questions
We admire slick maneuvering without demanding serious debate
We let our leaders give vague speeches while planning our fate
Does manner really matter when the stakes are so high?
Scoring a point here or there while so many soldiers die?
To dead Afghani children we turn a blind eye
We live with “I will get them” when we should be asking “Why?”
Whoa! What about Joe the Plummer?
No Dream for him—Bummer!
If we transfer the wealth, we’ll have class warfare
Tax breaks for all, broke or millionaire
A taxing campaign—we all have the scars to prove it
Anger expressed almost civilly
With hatchets and scalpels
Liars, terrorists, death threats and un-apologies
That reach across the aisle, stabbing with smiling faces
Déjà vu
The same answers again and again
While America imprisons more of its citizens than any country in the world
Silence.
While the income gap widens and more dreams deferred
Silence.
While Guantanamo continues to operate in violation of international law
Deathening silence.
Dangerous acorns destroying democracy
Washed up terrorists in the air
Foxes startling us in the woods
What we need is a bresh of freth air
Adding up the “points” in the debate—yes, we can
Pressing approval buttons as we watch—yes, we can
Voting on the web in a debate—yes, we can
Voting in November—yes, we can
But this will not be enough
As historian Howard Zinn put it:
Voting is easy and marginally useful
But it is a poor substitute for democracy
Which requires direct action by concerned citizens.
This, we need.
Second 2008 Presidential Debate
October 8, 2008
Second 2008 Presidential Debate
October 8, 2008