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 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 Presidential Debate Commentary by Sergei Naumoff
October 8, 2008
Contributed by Sergei Naumoff.
GENERAL OBSERVATION
Before the second debates I supposed that the chosen format – answers to voters’ questions – should provide more active debate than the first round. Despite that fact both candidates were a little bit boring, especially in the first part of debate with the same verbal attacks and counter-attacks. But in the middle and the end it became more interesting.
For the first sight Obama looked more confidently than McCain, especially it was visible in the first 15 minutes of the debates. His answers were more short-spoken and clear. McCain was more verbose that was not beneficial for him in terms of my final decision on the debate.
STRATEGIES EVALUATION
McCain strategy in the round was clear: in discussing every single issue to mention of his own experience and that how Obama had wrong voting records in Senate. All his answers I can describe as: I was everywhere, I saw everything, look at my voting records – but I don’t tell you what to do….
Obama’s strategy was to tell about his plan in details. We have heard many details and figures from him. But for this time – h was more concentrated in using evidence.
It’s good that Obama had clear rank order of priorities: 1. Energy 2. Healthcare 3.Education.
McCain’s approach to deal with everything was not so convincing.
FINAL DECISION
The fact that 2/3 of the second debate were spent on discussing domestic, social and economic issues and only 1/3 on international affairs was Obama’s advantage which proved his reputation as competent politician in economic issues.
Answering question about dealing with economic crisis, John McCain blamed the liberals from Congress. Obama refuted that the crisis was predictable and reproached republicans for close ties with lobbyists. But in this mini-debate Obama caught the audience dissatisfaction and added that voters wanted to know the ways to solve the problems. His division of responsibility between democrats and republicans seemed reasonable and honest.
Besides, I would like to mention not effective time-management strategy from McCain: he spent up to 2/3 of his time to refute the Obama’s answers instead of paying more attention to his own constructive arguments in favor of his plan. Patriotic rhetoric (”we are the Americans and we can deal with that”) was effective but not efficient.
However, I would like to mention that the last part of the debate was won by McCain. I mean the question about using US troops abroad, New Cold War and Russia (Russia’s interference in Georgia, supporting Ukraine and Georgia NATO membership) were tackled more clearly than Obama’s suggestion of financial support to former USSR republics).
So McCain completely lost the first part of the debate. Although he could develop some promising points (about medical insurance, for instance) – but Obama’s position was more consistent and prepared. Even winning the second part of the debate could not change the final result for me. International affairs are really derivative in comparison of domestic politics, therefore I vote for Obama in the second election debates.
Second Presidential Debate Commentary by Chris Baron
October 8, 2008
Contributed by Chris Baron.
US Presidential debates are a special breed of debate. It is rare that genuine debate—a clash over issues of substance—actually takes place. More often, candidates come prepared to give their own pre-prepared speeches and find ways to deliver these points regardless of what the questions or opposing answers are. They debate with an eye toward how the media will dissect and repackage their answers.
While both candidates took shots at each other, both Obama and McCain sidestepped several of the tough questions asked in this town hall format. But several times, Obama made more efforts to directly answer questions, including the question about how the bailout would help the average American. On what I would regard as the most important question of the evening, what kinds of sacrifices the candidate is asking American citizens to make, neither candidate wanted to forcefully answer this question. This question has been asked in various forms in each of the three debates to date. The Obama camp has been more willing to take this on, with Biden saying foreign aid packages would need to be scaled back, and Obama in this debate saying that every American will need to think about how we use energy and that volunteer corps are an important way for young people to help their country. In contrast, McCain talked briefly about some wasteful spending in defense before returning to a prior question. This issue gets to the heart of presidential leadership and to how candidates deal with difficult challenges like the current economic climate.
Tone matters in presidential debates. McCain had an antagonistic tone that came across as defensive in places. At one point, he pointed at Obama and referred to him as “that one,” continuing a sense that McCain is not comfortable engaging his opponent. In contrast, Obama seemed much more comfortable and relaxed. At one point, Obama “broke the rules” to follow up with a response to McCain’s “talk softly and carry a big stick” point. Senator Obama cited the “Bomb Iran” and anniahliation of North Korea to characterize McCain as not speaking so softly. McCain’s rebuttal (“I was joking with an old veteran friend”) came across like many of the jokes he attempted in the debate—not particularly funny.
McCain did not fall on his face in this debate by any stretch, but in each area: tone, style, content, refutation, and even the “zingers”, Obama was firmly in control. This debate should be put into context: Barack Obama has the momentum. McCain wanted a clear victory. This was far from a win, let alone a win of the type McCain needs.
Second Presidential Debate Commentary by Derek Buescher
October 8, 2008
Contributed by Derek Buescher.
It is important I begin with some transparency: as a collegiate debate coach and argumentation and media scholar (and fairly staunch liberal) I don’t find presidential debates to be useful examples of what a debate can be. For my interests, presidential debates look too much like spectacle and not enough like deliberation in the forum for the benefit of the public. Productive debate offers an exchange of ideas in order to better inform both the debaters and an audience, in the case of a presidential debate the public.
Rarely an “undecided voter” and someone who votes on issues, I tend to watch political debates keeping in mind how the public audience may interpret the debate and the candidates. I tend to pay more attention to the post-debate spin and media framing of a debate than I do the debate itself because many voters do not vote on issues, but on style and the public’s sense of style is often defined by media framing. As a debate coach, I am interested in argumentation that allows for responsive exchange of ideas and a dialogue that moves beyond out-of-context and unexplained statements. As an adjudicator of formal debates I expect debaters to tell me how to understand and interpret the debate by providing criteria for evaluating the debate. Presidential debates are different. They don’t generally engage in argumentation so much as a listing of arguments; they don’t often explain in detail as they lack the time to do so; and they don’t provide a means to evaluate the debate. Instead, the candidates rely on style over substance and glibness (the hope of a sound bite one-liner) over depth of analysis.
I could select any moment of the debate for a rhetorical analysis or discussion of argumentative validity, but I will focus on two that I think are important. The first moment was my favorite moment of the 2nd Presidential Debate when both Senators Obama and McCain refused to answer moderator Tom Brokaw’s question regarding the status of Russia as an “evil empire.” Brokaw stated: “This requires only a yes or a no. Ronald Reagan famously said that the Soviet Union was the evil empire. Do you think that Russia under Vladimir Putin is an evil empire?” Thankfully for the watching and listening audiences both candidates refused to answer the question as requested noting instead that questions asked of people in their position require nuance and care.
Senator McCain’s answer to the “evil empire” question was likely his finest moment in the debate. His response of “maybe” was greeted with laughter from the studio audience and afforded him an opportunity to explain the significance of how a presidential candidate answers any questions: “If I say yes, then that means that we’re reigniting the old Cold War. If I say no, it ignores their behavior.” He continued his answer, but it was his explanation of his refusal to answer in the manner asked that indicated McCain understands the importance of his position.
However, this moment was overshadowed by another comment Senator McCain made. After polls indicated a poor response to McCain repetitively stating that Senator Obama “doesn’t understand” in the first debate McCain attacked Obama with more care this evening. From the outset of the debate he painted Obama as inexperienced and unprepared; as someone who would make bad decisions. Then, fairly early in the debate on a question about energy policy McCain said the phrase that the media has picked up on: “You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one. You know who voted against it? Me.” When McCain said “that one” he pointed his finger at Senator Obama.
This was the first topic that CBS News broached after the debate referring to the statement as tomorrow’s “water cooler” topic. Within 4 hours of the debate’s ending the 3-second YouTube clip had nearly 90,000 views. The phrase was included in the on-line post debate discussions of the BBC, New York Times, CBS, CNN, ABC, Fox, and the Huffington Post, to name a few. The next few days of discussion will likely determine how significant McCain’s comment becomes, but the early indications, combined with McCain’s new tactics of attacking Obama, as evidenced in the debate and recent campaign stops and advertisements, will likely come back to haunt McCain. The comment was derogatory and the public seems, as evidenced by the “dials” of the first debate, to be opposed to name-calling.
It seemed all too fitting that after the debate I happened upon Norman Jewison’s In the Heat of the Night. The 1967 film about racism in the South is likely best known for the scene where racist plantation owner Eric Endicott (Larry Gates) slaps black detective Virgil Tibbs (Sydney Poitier) and Tibbs responds by slapping Endicott. McCain’s “that one” carried with it the vestiges of Endicott’s slap. Obama’s response was as remarkable as the 1967 cinematic Tibbs’: calm in the moment and intelligent and determined for the evening. In a phrase, Obama was “presidential.”
Second Presidential Debate Commentary by Jackson B. Miller
October 8, 2008
Competitors: John McCain and Barack Obama
Motion: Resolved – This house supports me for President of the United States
Format: Town-hall style
Adjudicator: Jackson B. Miller
Judging Presidential Debates
First, it is important to understand that presidential debates, and indeed most debates between politicians, are not the same as the competitive debates featured in high school and college forensics tournaments. The lack of clash on important issues, the fact that candidates are not presenting clear cases on one topic, and the absence of substantive refutation makes presidential debates more “infomercial” than “debate.” That being said, in this critique of the debate my goal is to approach the task as if I were providing feedback to students after an intercollegiate debate round.
In a British-Parliamentary (BP) debate round, judges are asked to evaluate competitors on both “matter” (the substance of the arguments presented by each side) and “manner” (the delivery, linguistic choices, and other issues of style). In BP debate participants work with a partner, and the team gets a total score out of 200 points for the round. However, since the two candidates are working individually in the presidential debates they will receive individual scores out of 100 for both “matter” and “manner.” I will then total the scores to give each of them a cumulative score out of 200, and declare a winner of the debate based on their marks. Please note that, in a typical BP debate round, a score of 85 out of 100 is considered a VERY HIGH mark and it is reserved for exceptional performances.
Matter – McCain
Strengths
- A clear and concise answer to the question about the economic crisis. McCain proposed a government program to buy up bad mortgage loans so that people who have seen great declines in their home value can get a new loan for their house based on a revised assessment of the actual value in today’s market. This (as far as I know), a brand new proposal that McCain rolled out for this debate. While the specifics of the plan (and how to pay for it) need to be spelled out, it did show that he is concerned about the impact of this economic crisis on individuals.
- A good explanation of when and where he would use military force. McCain’s answer was direct and he sounded every bit the part of “commander and chief” here.
Weaknesses
- The response to the question about what his administration would prioritize (out of energy, healthcare, and entitlement reform). McCain provided a “do it all” response here which showed a lack of decisiveness.
- McCain’s response to the question about whether healthcare is a “right” or a “responsibility.” He replied that it is a “responsibility,” but then he made it sound like “responsibility” really meant “right” in discussing his answer further. Either he picked the wrong word here or he did not clearly understand the distinction between viewing healthcare as a “right” versus a “responsibility”
- A lack of specifics on the Pakistan question. McCain glossed over the complex cultural, religious, and political tensions that need to be considered when discussing any foreign policy toward Pakistan.
- McCain’s response to a question about Russia. He replied that he looked “into Putin’s eyes and saw three letters: KGB.” Tactically this was a serious mistake. Throughout the election (and even throughout the debate), Obama has made the argument that McCain represents a third term for George W. Bush. McCain’s comment about Putin played perfectly into this narrative, since Bush, when he first met Putin, famously remarked that he looked into his eyes and “gained a sense of his soul.” Even accounting for the fact that most people will not remember this specific comment by Bush, the “look into his eyes” statement ties McCain to the “go with your gut feeling” approach to foreign policy decisions.
- Too many ad hominem arguments overall. Precious time was spent attacking Obama when it could have been used to further develop his own positions. Both candidates presented some ad hominem arguments, but McCain clearly used more of them and it took away from the time he had to explain what he stands for and to discuss why he should be elected.
Score = 68/100
Matter – Obama
Strengths
- Obama’s response to an early question about the economic crisis. He addressed the audience questioner directly, and did a nice job of really explaining in clear language how and why the economic crisis impacts the lives of individual U.S. citizens.
- His response to the healthcare question. Obama looked very decisive here, and he said that healthcare is a “right.” He also provided some nice contrast at this point between his healthcare proposal and McCain’s approach.
- The “hatchet” and “scalpel” analogy. This was one of the most memorable analogies presented throughout the debate. McCain suggested a “freeze” on all budgets (except for military, veterans affairs, and other “crucial” areas) as a way to help address the economic crisis. Obama compared McCain’s approach to using a “hatchet” to solve economic problems, and explained that he preferred to use a “scalpel” so that he could cut spending with more surgical precision. Obama used this analogy effectively to help support his broader economic argument about spreading the economic burden.
Weaknesses
- Like McCain, Obama lacked specifics in his response to the Pakistan question. Hopefully, the one who gets elected will bring a Pakistan expert in as part of their foreign policy team.
- As in past debates, Obama still provides no response (except to say that he was “right” about opposing the Iraq war in the first place) to McCain’s argument about the “surge” working. All Obama has to do here is, as we call it in competitive debate, raise the issue of “alternate causality.” In other words, the “surge worked” argument assumes that there is a clear cause-to-effect relationship between the increase in troop levels and the reduction in violence. It is a loose-link causal argument at best, since in any complex system there are too many variables at work to attribute one outcome to one simple cause. Obama’s continued repetition of the phrase “I opposed the war in the first place” isn’t really a response, and it is a classic case of deflecting the issue at hand rather than engaging in the argument.
- Obama’s response to the “Yes/No” question about Russia that the moderator posed. The moderator asked, “Is Russia an evil empire?” Obama’s response was that Russia “might do evil things.” This response brought to the surface a contradiction in the Obama message. He is both a candidate who wants to change the U.S. relationship with the rest of the world in a positive way, and a candidate who wants to look strong on foreign policy. The “change the U.S. relationship” part of him would have answered a clear “no” to this question, and the “strong on foreign policy” would have answered “yes.” His middle-of-the-road “might do evil things” response allowed him to maintain both sides of his foreign policy image, but it did not show an individual with a great deal of certainty with regards to foreign policy.
Score = 74/100
Manner – McCain
Strengths
- Talking directly to the audience. McCain did a nice job of approaching specific audience members and he projected an overall comfort in moving throughout the space. He also effectively used proxemics (distance between himself and the audience) to show his concern for the public on issues like the economic crisis.
- Good energy and conviction in his vocal delivery. McCain showed a clear enthusiasm for his ideas vocally, and his vocal variety was also excellent throughout. His style was more “conversational” than “public speaking,” but it worked in this town-hall format.
Weaknesses
- His repeated use of the phrase, “my friends.” It was clear that he was trying to use this phrase to connect with the studio audience, but the use of it was excessive. Under such tight time constraints, it makes no sense strategically to devote so much of your time to two words that do little to advance your arguments.
- Interrupting the other speaker. McCain had the tendency to just jump in and make short comments while Obama had the floor. This pattern of interruption came across as an attempt to take time from the other speaker. These interruptions may even be perceived as a sign of nervousness or a desperate attempt to assert control over the other speaker.
- Using the phrase, “that one” and pointing at Obama when discussing Obama’s vote for a Bush energy bill. The level of formality of the debate event calls for using first names at the very least, and it seems odd to use a descriptor like “that one” to refer to one’s opponent. It conveys a lack of respect and shows a lack of decorum.
Score = 71/100
Manner – Obama
Strengths
- His vocal delivery. Obama’s voice was expressive, but at the same time he maintained a very “professional” and “calm” tone throughout. His responses were always quick (low “response latency”), which helped to convey the sense that he is knowledgeable on the issues and confident in his ideas.
- Obama’s variety of gestures. He uses hand/arm gestures to compliment important ideas, and the timing of the gestures blended very effectively with the verbal message. Good gestures should always come just a fraction of a second before the words they are meant to accent, and Obama’s timing in this regard was excellent. The gestures also looked very natural overall.
Weaknesses
- Obama sometimes has trouble with keeping his focus on the main claim in each of his answers. Ideally, he should begin each response with a claim and end on that same claim to reinforce the answer. At times, he seems to get somewhat “lost” in the middle of a response, and he can have trouble connecting back to the central idea.
- His tendency to go overtime. The moderator had to remind both of the candidates about the time limits, but Obama was clearly violating the rules a bit more in this regard. Going overtime is bad because it shows a lack of respect for the rules of the debate (which the two candidates agreed to at the start), and it can lead to the perception that the candidate is “long winded.”
Score = 77/100
Results
John McCain = 139
Barack Obama = 151
Winner = Barack Obama