Barack Obama's campaign is prepared to announce that he won't be participating in any more debates or "candidates' forums" except for the handful with Democratic National Committee sponsorship. I hope (but doubt) that others follow in his lead, since I feel a vague compulsion to watch these things and form opinions about what transpired, but they're excruciatingly boring to watch after you've seen a few of them.
« Expertise! | Main | The Old and the New »
Less Debating, Please
18 Aug 2007 12:03 pm
Comments (32)
What a p*ssy!
And this from the man who wants to be Leader of the Free World?
How audacious and hopeless of a whimp can one man be!
It's a smart move.
He'll get a lot of blowback from reasonable people like JoeCHI and Joe Biden but that will only allow Obama some devastating opportunities to counterpunch against our broken process. Sixty second answers (at most) to serious questions about foreign policy, health care, and the Constitution is just plain stupid. The fact that we judge candidates with long records based on soundbites is a joke and it's much to Obama's credit that he's going to stop playing along.
These debates/forums help Clinton because they keep everyone else from campaigning personally with the people in the early states who will actually vote. For the frontrunner, they're great, but for those who need to make their case with those in IA, NH (and, god forbid, MI), they can't afford the time to go to 3 forums in 6 days.
How about more debating of substantive issues and less show of hands? The problem is not in the number of debates but in the formats.
If a Republican had done this, the discussion would be about how isolated he was, how he was dissing groups that wanted to sponsor debates, etc. Nothing new - the media said the same thing about Nixon in '72. But in Obama's case, the discussion is about what a smart strategy is it.
In fact, these 2nd tier debates ARE about substantive issues. Whatever one's stand about gay rights, or the appropriate treatment of African-American issues by the federal government, the fact is that these issues are squarely addressed by these debates, and generally glossed over in the "big" debates.
Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report
Joe, you've got a lot to learn.
Neil, should I consult the Oracle at Delphi or are you going to share your wisdom? You could sacrifice an emu on a black tablet and we could all debate the significance of the emu entrails or you could, you know, leave a comment with your thoughts on this blog.
Wow! The Obama hate just reeks on that site. You should issue a warning. Now I have to rush to the shower.
Sorry, joejoejoe... I didn't realize that we had two Joes here.
I was talking about JoeCHI and his ham-handed attempts to attack Obama. Not that I'm an Obama guy or anything, but that just looks transparently hackish.
JoeCHI, do you have a job, or is this your job? Is Hillary paying you by the post, or is your life really so pathetic that you have nothing to do but look for stories about Obama on the internet just so that you can cut and paste the same comment time and time again? It seems that I can't go anywhere in the blogoshere without running into one of your tired, repetitive posts making petty criticisms of Obama. It doesn't even seem to matter what the topic is. Matt could write about green eggs and ham, and without fail, you would probably chime in about how Obama is such a loser because he doesn't like green eggs and ham.
My bad Neil. Sorry about the Ancient Greek smartassery.
I'll second the problem being the debate format. Here's my solution:
petitiononline.com/debateit
Of course, that plan would be resisted by both partisan hacks and the media, so don't look for too many people - including almost all bloggers - to try to push it.
A workaround is to go to campaign appearances and ask the candidates about their specific policies, then publicize their answers. If the questions are good enough that would a) force the candidates to get a little bit more serious, and b) show up the MSM.
Here's a fun question for Obama:
youtube.com/watch?v=EiullH5jU1A
Considering the number of views that's received, I think eventually someone is going to ask him that question and I think he's going to wish he was back taking a "toughie" from Wolfie or Anderson.
If the problem is really short time limits on answers, etc., then Obama could simply say that he won't participate in debates that are not designed to address significant questions or do not provide sufficient time for in-depth answers. And the DNC debates also, of course.
I suspect the real issue here is cost/benefit analysis.
Obama's team looks at it and sees that there is no real benefit to participating in the debates. They only matter if your opponent slips up, and Hillary rarely does that anyway, so...your chance of getting a real good exchange on the news is pretty small.
Meanwhile, what are the costs?
If you skip, you risk letting other candidates attend and trash you without you there to defend yourself.
If you attend, you risk making your own mistakes, but, more importantly, a good editorial in the Boston Globe described how attending is especially devastating to Obama. Why? Because seeing him over and over try to answer questions in 30-60 seconds, and he loses that freshness, that a-political aspect sheen, that he had early on. The more time he spends soundbyting his policies, the more he stops looking like a new, freshface and instead just another pol. And that's a huge cost for Obama.
On top of that, it seems like the media has already settled into its debate narrative anyway. Obama gives an answer on summitry that jives with Dem primary politics and rates well with focus groups? He's naive. Hillary gets booed for an answer on nukes? She handled it well. Etc etc.
So, if the best you can hope for is a tie, where you and Hillary both go gaffe-free, it really a cost/cost analysis. What's more costly? Skipping and the bad press that could come with that? Or attending, risking a gaffe, risking bad press even if you don't have a gaffe, and chipping away at the image you're trying to create of a fresh, new face and different type of politican?
Yes, TLB, Obama had better be worried about losing the votes of all the Americans who think that the ongoing "invasion" by Mexico is the number one threat to the nation. They're a key component of the Democratic base, which any candidate would be nuts to write off. I suggest a series of appearances at Minutemen events, and maybe even a few Council of Conservative Citizens meetings.
Shorter Chris Kelly: "in spite of my relentless sneaky multimedia blogwhoring, no Democrat will grant me the personal audience I so obviously deserve on whether the 100-foot border wall should have a shark-filled moat on either side."
Here's a hint: Obama's not going to talk to the crazy guy on the street corner shouting about alien abductions, either.
I can't say I blame the Obama camp, if you say no selectively you're going to offend those groups even more.
On the other hand I feel little sympathy for MY. Have courage of your convictions, kiddo, if you think they're a boring waste of time, stand by that and ignore the guilt.
I pretty much agree with Obama's handlers that it is pretty unproductive for 8 candidates to show up for a special interest group's summons and - limited to 30 sec or 1 minute sound bites - explain how they are the leader that will best pander to the special interest group.
The NAACP started the "we demand candidates jump when we summon them to out-do one another in a forum on how they will help us". Gays, the Israel Lobby, ACLU, millionaire ethanol farmers followed the NAACP lead.
Republicans "get it" from other special interest groups like the Religious Right. With the same impediments as the Dems. Who can pander best with 30 sec answers, who was the youngest in age when they first wanted to execute or jail people who had abortions. Who is the most "pure" and so ideologically rigid that they have done the least "flip-flops"? Is it Sam Brownback? "My mind was cast in stone at age 5!! I've never had to rethink a single thing and flip-flop!"
Or is it Dennis Kuchinich? "I think the same now as when I was 16. I no longer need to think about what I believe..."
I'm happy to hear that Obama and his staff have made this decision. Special interest groups, like lobbyist, view a Candidate's duty is to pander specifically their interests, whether or not their interests have a negative effect on others. These forums are like a 'How to Cater to Lobbyist 101' prep course. Thank goodness there is a candidate who knows that he has to lead 300 million Americans, regardless of affiliation, ideology, race or religion. As a democrat, I hate seeing Bush cater to the conservative base. It would be hypocritical for me to expect Obama to do the same.
I'd agree with Obama, I think.
I think that a candidate for President should be required to give, say, 5 one-hour speeches on any topics he chooses. These would then be broadcast in prime time on one of the networks on a regular schedule, say once every month in the five months before the election.
Only the candidate could speak and the only visual aids allowed would be charts and tables.
It would be impossible to say "nothing" for such an extended period of time without inviting ridicule, I think.
Some of the time could be devoted to responding to the other candidates; perhaps only 20 minutes of each hour would be allowed for direct response.
Therefore, after this week, we will only be attending the five DNC debates through the sanctioning period of December 10, Univision, and the two Iowa debates previously mentioned.
That's eight more debates/forums in the next five months, after God knows how many he's done already. People who think that's not enough need to get a life.
KCinDC - apparently realizing that he has no argument - was forced to resort to completely misrepresenting my question for Obama and various smears.
You can see the breezy introduction here:
youtube.com/watch?v=EiullH5jU1A
In brief, Obama marched in support of IllegalImmigration, and the march was organized by persons linked to the MexicanGovernment and MexicanPoliticalParties.
And, until they renounce such foreign meddling in our internal politics, we can safely assume that the leaders of the Democratic Party - including U.S. Senator Barack Obama - fully support such meddling.
It's just a "different kind" of patriotism.
If Edwards is smart, he'll take this as his cue to skip these debates, too. Yeah, it makes him look like a johnny-come-lately, but these debates are hurting him and Obama more than anyone else, and sticking around with Clinton and the various third-tier folk isn't going to do him any favors.
Chris -- well-said. If eight forums/debates in the next four months, after the 15+ he's already done is not enough, then those watching are not paying attention. I've seen most of the forums. And with the exception of the LGBT one, the difference in the questions has been minimal.
I'm agnostic on whether or not this is a good/bad idea, but am amused by the reflexive support for it from those here that don't like Clinton.
If she had made the same announcment, I can only imagine the howls of outrage about this out-of-touch, DC insider who refuses to engage her opponents and inform the electorate.
"...I feel a vague compulsion to watch these things and form opinions about what transpired, but they're excruciatingly boring to watch after you've seen a few of them."
How could they be anything but boring? They prove nothing beyond the candidates' ability to memorize safe, focus groups tested answers.
I find this disappointing. I've at least enjoyed this cycle's greater emphasis on face to face debates-- it's nowhere near where we need our discourse to be, but it's vastly better than the usual cycle of firing broadsides at eachither via TV ads.
If Edwards is smart, he'll take this as his cue to skip these debates, too.
I'm not sure what to think on this issue, but one nice thing about the debates is that Edwards ends up with free media attention, which he needs. The YouTube debate was good for him. And if Obama's exit causes the media to latch on to Clinton/Edwards storylines more than Clinton/Obama storylines, I think that's probably a positive.
Neil is correct, Edwards, who, if I could wave a magic wand, I would annoint the Dem nominee, would be crazy to skip anything that puts him on TV.
Even if he wins Iowa (and that is tenuous, if he starts skipping public events), he is all done if he gets 12% in NH.
So we finally get a year where there are more than just one or two carefully scripted debates and you're complaining?
Honestly, I'm glad we've had all these opportunities to hear from candidates. I'm glad we've heard that the Republican field is overwhelmingly pro-torture. I'm glad we've heard Tom Tancredo is a lunatic who'd nuke Saudi Arabia. It helps whittle down the options quite a bit.
I also thought Obama had a great opportunity to challenge Clinton and Dodd over whether the American people should be part of our foreign policy discussion. We'd never hear these differences without the debates we've had.
A forum with 8-9 candidates may not be the greatest format, but the alternative isn't some great one-on-one exchanges. It's Hillary's latest commercial or the endless discussion of John Edwards hair.
So, er, are you actually claiming that the best way for primary voters to get information about candidates is through paid advertising?
Because, honestly, that's the alternative. Yes, a blitzkrieg on the early primary states might help more, but it's still really just going to come down to advertising.
Me, I like the debates. By and large, I think they're actually pretty interesting, and usually contain some interesting, defining moments: such as Hillary defending lobbyists at YearlyKos, Obama's ForPol at Youtube, and Richardson's "choice" gaffe at the LOGO debate. Paid media would have revealed none of this, and is even more excruciatingly bad. Why on earth claim it's superior?
Comments closed September 01, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I feel a vague compulsion to watch these things and form opinions about what transpired, but they're excruciatingly boring to watch after you've seen a few of them.
And yet you watch the NBA.
Posted by Delicious Pundit | August 18, 2007 12:07 PM