When Midgets Clash

Nate at 538 says:

The largest remaining scheduled moments in the campaign between now and November are the conventions and the debates. Is there any doubt that Obama is going to deliver a better convention night speech? Is there any doubt that, the first time he and McCain appear on a stage together, the contrast in age, height, and tone is liable to be pretty striking?

That's right in terms of convention speeches. So far as the debates go, I think the most noteworthy thing is that neither McCain nor Obama is very good at debating. To my mind, that's a stark contrast to 2000 and 2004 where we had matchups between two good debaters. I think this mostly reflects the fact that though debates are interesting media moments, they probably don't matter very much to outcomes, thus even though neither Obama nor McCain was especially impressive in their debates, they secured their respective parties' nominations. My suspicion, though, is that an Obama-McCain debate matchup will be really horrible to watch.

Comments

"To my mind, that's a stark contrast to 2000 and 2004 where we had matchups between two good debaters."

Did you actually watch the Kerry/Buah debates? Kerry was ten poitns down pre-debate, and tied immediately afterwards.

If Bush is a good debater, than Kerry was the modern incarnation of Cicero.

Posted by brewmn | June 4, 2008 2:29 PM

Bush was not a good debater. Mediocre, at best.

Posted by Al | June 4, 2008 2:34 PM

Bush is a decent performer when viewed from from a certain perspective, I'll give you that. I'm not sure I would consider him a good debater, though, if the point is to make good and coherent arguments in favor of your position.

But I don't think Obama is a bad debater at all. He was obviously exhausted and defensive during the last debate, which was really more of a 3-pronged assault of ridiculousness from Clinton and the 'moderators', but he'll destroy McCain in a fair contest.

Posted by matthewcc | June 4, 2008 2:36 PM

You lost me at "two good debaters".

Posted by shingles | June 4, 2008 2:36 PM

You should check out one of the Keyes/Obama debates, perhaps. Keyes is crazy, but he's an excellent debater and Obama ran circles around him.

I think you'll see a different Obama in debates against McCain than against Clinton, where he had to do a sort of dance to simultaneously draw contrast with Clinton without alienating people who supported her or appearing like he was picking on her. Think of how much hay Hillary's supporters made over "likable enough" and realize how guarded Obama had to be at all times during the debates.

There's a similar sort of dynamic against McCain -- anything Obama says that can be construed to slight McCain's war record will be amplified immediately -- but it's a much more specific concern, and Obama will be able to be much more aggressive.

Posted by Zach | June 4, 2008 2:38 PM

so you think George W Bush is a good debater and Barack Obama is not?

Whaaa???

Obama is a different style of debater. He doesn't use talking points, he actually THINKS about his answer.

That doesn't mean he's not a good or effective debater though.

And seriously, how could you think George Bush is a good debater? His most memorable lines from the 2004 debates were, "It's hard work" and "you forgot Poland"

cmon, matthew....you're not serious.

Posted by jb | June 4, 2008 2:40 PM

Obama has improved. If he can avoid the annoying halting speech patterns, he'll do fine.

Bush is not a good debater. His campaign was good at post-debate spin, particularly after the first Bush/Gore debate.

The reason I worry about the debate is that it is that I don't see how Obama can lose, unless he has a horrible gaffe during one of the debates.

Posted by Jim W | June 4, 2008 2:40 PM

Bush was terrible. Gore has done good debates but was bad in 2000. Kerry was good.

Posted by Anonymous | June 4, 2008 2:40 PM

Although everyone already mentioned it: "two good debaters?" Really? You think Obama would be less good at debating than Bush? Huh?

Posted by David | June 4, 2008 2:42 PM

Bush was a good debater from the perspective of the expectations game -- the press and his handlers depicted him as such a drooling moron, that when he merely said lots of stupid and incoherent things, but didn't actually drool, the press and his handlers were able to state truthfully that he exceeded all expectations.

Posted by peep | June 4, 2008 2:42 PM

so you think George W Bush is a good debater and Barack Obama is not?

Whaaa???

Obama is a different style of debater. He doesn't use talking points, he actually THINKS about his answer.

That doesn't mean he's not a good or effective debater though.

And seriously, how could you think George Bush is a good debater? His most memorable lines from the 2004 debates were, "It's hard work" and "you forgot Poland"

cmon, matthew....you're not serious.

Posted by jb | June 4, 2008 2:43 PM

...And instant polling had Gore winning his debates with Bush.

You think that Bush is a good debater and Obama isn't? I guess speaking in complete, understandable sentences is a big turnoff to a grammophobe like you.

I would like to note that Obama's poor debating skills are a myth. He was basically even over 5-10 individual debates with Hillary, whom everyone would agree is a very talented debater. He is poor at debates with many contributors because he isn't good at the glib soundbite/attack, and he takes extra care to avoid committing a gaffe, because blacks can never be angry or uppity. He is a very talented debater, and in a one on one setting, he is going to destroy the old codger.

Posted by Client #11 | June 4, 2008 2:43 PM

SRSLY? On what planet were Bush's debate performances in 2004 even remotely "good" or effective? He had two pathetic performances and one mediocre performance.

The implication that Bush is a good debater and that Obama is not is simply too absurd to take seriously.

Posted by Andrew | June 4, 2008 2:44 PM

I think there is no debate that Bush was/is a terrible debater. Not sure MY is referring to.

Posted by Political Savage | June 4, 2008 2:46 PM

McCain is a septuagenarian Beavis. Put him in the middle of a campaign where he's getting 4 hours of sleep a night, speaking extemporaneously several times a day, putting out the inevitable brush fires or worse once or twice a week and he will not look or sound polished at the debates. That stupid laugh will sink him. Obama will look like he alighted from Mount Olympus in comparison.

Posted by DanG | June 4, 2008 2:47 PM

I think there is no debate that Bush was/is a terrible debater. Not sure what MY is referring to.

Posted by Political Savage | June 4, 2008 2:47 PM

SRSLY? On what planet were Bush's debate performances in 2004 even remotely "good" or effective? He had two pathetic performances and one mediocre performance.

The implication that Bush is a good debater and that Obama is not is simply too absurd to take seriously.

Posted by Andrew | June 4, 2008 2:49 PM

When Midgets Clash

I believe the favored term is "little people."

Posted by SoCalJustice | June 4, 2008 2:55 PM

Instead of the usual "debates", how about the candidadtes sit down and tell experts exactly how their grand schemes would work.

Debates like that would be vigorously opposed by Party hacks and the MSM. The former because it would reveal the flaws in their candidates, the latter because it would reveal how much of a disservice they've done with their "reporting".

MattY needn't worry: his candidate's proposals would stand up to scrutiny. Right?

Instead, expect more things like these:

youtube.com/watch?v=wm0uWz2BS9M
youtube.com/watch?v=nIbDAVQMKGM
youtube.com/watch?v=FIe6DSkCVxI
youtube.com/watch?v=cjOJPvDdB1c
youtube.com/watch?v=TpqKogu9bzA

Posted by TLB | June 4, 2008 2:56 PM

I think Matthew is starting the expectations game early this cycle...

Posted by sym | June 4, 2008 2:58 PM

Bush won the 2000 debates by losing. He was so bad and Gore was so overzealous about clobbering him, that Gore ended up looking like an ass; the kind of guy who would beat up a little kid.

It is worth remembering, though, that for all the affection the post-2000 Gore has earned, he ran a crappy race. He is a crummy politician, who, like Kerry and Hilary, was harmed by trying to hard too copy the Bill Clinton model of self-righteous, empathetic wonkery.

Posted by pjs | June 4, 2008 2:59 PM

I agree, which is why all this Lincoln-Douglas bloviation and today's McCain gambit is so hilarious. It will be truly painful.

Interestingly, McCain is getting all kinds of credit for being a good debater today. This is because it is the only thing he has not conspicuously sucked at for the past three months, having not participated in a debate in that time.

All kidding aside however, in terms of tactics--assuming McCain comes with the disdainful condescension he's been exhibiting--Obama would do well to smile throughout, not take anything too seriously, kill him with kindness, float like a butterfly, and you-know-what.

Posted by Mike | June 4, 2008 3:01 PM

I find this a very confusing comment from Yglesias on several fronts:

1. As hinted to by brewmn, calling George W. Bush a "good debater" is curious at best, and more accurately described as perplexing and fairly absurd. Maybe "not the worst debater," but a forensics champion W is not.

2. Secondly, as hinted to by brewmn, Kerry definitely moved poll numbers significantly during their first debate on "foreign policy" esp. since the Kerry team got the Media (and the Bush squad) to fully believe the Senator couldn't stick to 2-minute time limits for responses. Kerry showed up prepared with 30-second soundbites that night, and really tore Bush apart. The second debate was hugely marred by Kerry's illness that evening (it was still a draw by most accounts). Not sure what debates Yglesias is referring to, but assuredly not the first Kerry-Bush debate that put Kerry back into serious contention.

3. Sen. McCain is largely lackluster on the stump, largely avoids economic and domestic issues (outside of corruption), and had unmemorable GOP debate performances (remember Romney v. Giuliani?). Sen. Obama is extremely lively and engaging on the stump, but somewhat vague on policy specifics, and has become remembered as having 'lost' debates with Hillary.

But how the debates between McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee & Thompson, or those between Obama and Hillary, or between Obama, Hillary, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd & Dennis Kucinich, are representative of coming debates between Barack Obama and John McCain....

That I can't entirely understand.

The Obama - McCain fireworks won't be flip-flopping, Wright, flag lapel pins, and Bosnia. The fireworks will be Health Care, the Economy, Iraq, Iran and Israel. And I expect they will be big, huge fireworks.

Those policy differences aren't ones of nuance.

There's going to be plenty to debate about.

Posted by Miguel Pakalns | June 4, 2008 3:02 PM

My feeling is that Obama will do much better against McCain than he did against Clinton. First, because McCain is much worse debater than Clinton, and Obama is a lot smarter than him and, you know, actually understands the issues. But also because the contrast on issues such as the war will be greater. Against Clinton he had to reduce his argument to her previous bad judgment since she was also in favor of withdrawal. In the debates he can talk about McCain's current bad judgment, which will helpfully be on display at the next podium. On healthcare, he had to explain the problem with mandates, but against McCain he can just point out that he favors government action and McCain doesn't. Obviously, a lot of people prefer McCain's positions on these things no matter who does better in the debates, but I think Obama will be more appealing when he gets to talk about the larger moral issues instead of policy details and semantics.

Posted by ibid | June 4, 2008 3:02 PM

...And instant polling had Gore winning his debates with Bush. - Client #1

Exactly. It doesn't matter if, in an Oxford-style debate contest, Obama would have cleaned McCain's clock. What matters is the post-debate spin. If the media -- out of love of St. John's BBQ or fear of being perceived as "liberal" or whyever -- decides that McCain wins the debate, well, that's what becomes the "conventional wisdom" and "even the elitist liberal media realizes that simple, ol' John McCain, that rafish maverick, managed to outbest that poindexter, richy-rich Obama in the debates". Add constant fear mongering about Obama's connections (through marriage or his former church) to "scary people who have a bit much melanin", and it'll be an uphill battle for the Dems.

If the Dems. could have managed to make the whole MI/FL issue go away (no matter what the Dems. do at this point, it'll be used as evidence that either "the Dems are out to disenfranchise voters" or "the Dems. can't even play by their own rules") ... if HRC's surrogates could have managed to refrain from stoking certain prejudices at this stage ... we'd be going into the general campaign with momentum and could have won. But instead the Dem. party has assembled its usual circular firing squad.

I hope they are prepared for the predictable things that'll come from the media and the GOP. But something tells me, they don't have plans in place to respond to what will be an entirely predictable smear campaign, too many disgruntled HRC voters will buy into the "McCain's a maverick" crap (no matter how much GOoPers may hate McCain, they'll pretend they like him and vote for him -- they know that what matters is the courts and will vote accordingly ... why can't we Dems. get it together and look at the big picture like this? and what does that say about us Dems. anyway that we can't? would you trust us in office?), enough disenfranchisement will occur (as the GOP screems about voter fraud to cover it up) that McCain'll win.

It's the Dems' election to loose in 2008 ... and something tells me the Dems. will indeed manage to do so.

Posted by DAS | June 4, 2008 3:04 PM

I find this a very confusing comment from Yglesias on several fronts:

1. As hinted to by brewmn, calling George W. Bush a "good debater" is curious at best, and more accurately described as perplexing and fairly absurd. Maybe "not the worst debater," but a forensics champion W is not.

2. Secondly, as hinted to by brewmn, Kerry definitely moved poll numbers significantly during their first debate on "foreign policy" esp. since the Kerry team got the Media (and the Bush squad) to fully believe the Senator couldn't stick to 2-minute time limits for responses. Kerry showed up prepared with 30-second soundbites that night, and really tore Bush apart. The second debate was hugely marred by Kerry's illness that evening (it was still a draw by most accounts). Not sure what debates Yglesias is referring to, but assuredly not the first Kerry-Bush debate that put Kerry back into serious contention.

3. Sen. McCain is largely lackluster on the stump, largely avoids economic and domestic issues (outside of corruption), and had unmemorable GOP debate performances (remember Romney v. Giuliani?). Sen. Obama is extremely lively and engaging on the stump, but somewhat vague on policy specifics, and has become remembered as having 'lost' debates with Hillary.

But how the debates between McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee & Thompson, or those between Obama and Hillary, or between Obama, Hillary, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd & Dennis Kucinich, are representative of coming debates between Barack Obama and John McCain....

That I can't entirely understand.

The Obama - McCain fireworks won't be flip-flopping, Wright, flag lapel pins, and Bosnia. The fireworks will be Health Care, the Economy, Iraq, Iran and Israel. And I expect they will be big, huge fireworks.

Those policy differences aren't ones of nuance.

There's going to be plenty to debate about.

Posted by Miguel Pakalns | June 4, 2008 3:07 PM

I find this a very confusing comment from Yglesias on several fronts:

1. As hinted to by brewmn, calling George W. Bush a "good debater" is curious at best, and more accurately described as perplexing and fairly absurd. Maybe "not the worst debater," but a forensics champion W is not.

2. Secondly, as hinted to by brewmn, Kerry definitely moved poll numbers significantly during their first debate on "foreign policy" esp. since the Kerry team got the Media (and the Bush squad) to fully believe the Senator couldn't stick to 2-minute time limits for responses. Kerry showed up prepared with 30-second soundbites that night, and really tore Bush apart. The second debate was hugely marred by Kerry's illness that evening (it was still a draw by most accounts). Not sure what debates Yglesias is referring to, but assuredly not the first Kerry-Bush debate that put Kerry back into serious contention.

3. Sen. McCain is largely lackluster on the stump, largely avoids economic and domestic issues (outside of corruption), and had unmemorable GOP debate performances (remember Romney v. Giuliani?). Sen. Obama is extremely lively and engaging on the stump, but somewhat vague on policy specifics, and has become remembered as having 'lost' debates with Hillary.

But how the debates between McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee & Thompson, or those between Obama and Hillary, or between Obama, Hillary, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd & Dennis Kucinich, are representative of coming debates between Barack Obama and John McCain....

That I can't entirely understand.

The Obama - McCain fireworks won't be flip-flopping, Wright, flag lapel pins, and Bosnia. The fireworks will be Health Care, the Economy, Iraq, Iran and Israel. And I expect they will be big, huge fireworks.

Those policy differences aren't ones of nuance.

There's going to be plenty to debate about.

Posted by Miguel Pakalns | June 4, 2008 3:07 PM

jb -- you forgot "want any wood?"

Posted by dbt | June 4, 2008 3:13 PM

Anyone want some wood?

Posted by SP | June 4, 2008 3:14 PM

I disagree with Matt on Bush as well. I was a Bush supporter (well, relative to the other options - I don't think he would have gotten my primary vote in 2000 if I had been old enough to vote in that race, and he was unopposed in 2004), and any time the man does public speeches, I'm flabbergasted. Can it really be THAT hard to defend a position? I guess so, because watching this is like having toothpicks stuck up your eyes. Kerry was pretty good, and shined next to Bush.

I'm not looking forward to the Obama-McCain debates, which I suspect is going to bring the toothpicks back to mind. I'll probably skip them - after all, I've missed every debate so far, and am still pretty well informed about the candidates.

Posted by B. Minich | June 4, 2008 3:15 PM

Other Dem candidates were crippled against Obama by being unable to bring questions about his black separatist church to the debate for fear of alienating the all-important (to Democrats) black vote.

McCain is free to ask away in debate:

1. Have you read any of James Cone's books recommended to all TUCC congregation members?

2. Do you believe as black liberation theology teaches, that Jesus Christ was black and black Africans, not Jews, are the Chosen People?

3. Do you believe as BLT instructs, that white people are evil and block descendents of the Chosen Race (black people) from salvation?

4. Do you believe as BLT instructs, that capitalism is immoral and the end sytem must be redistributionist?

5. BLT teaches that slavery reparations are a moral necessity. Do you believe that?

6. You claim you never heard any of Wrights anti-white, anti-American sermons while "sitting in the pews". That is lawyer parsing. Have you heard it in the spillover areas with no pews where the sermon is on TV, caught up to "missed sermons" offered on tape and later on DVD as Rev Wright recommended? Did you hear anything of that nature from fellow congregation members, including your wife, discussing Wright or guest speaker's sermons?

7. Cone also believes that the white man is the "devil" and the white church in America the "anti-Christ." Does Obama wish to tell McCain and the American public if he holds these views, as well?

8. Obama's church uses Cone's 1969 book, "Black Theology and Black Power," as a second Bible. Wright keeps asking his critics if they've ever read Cone's books. The real question is whether Obama has ever read them in 20 years. Nobody has asked him.
Or whether he's taught Sunday school classes on Cone's theology. Never asked, never answered.
Maybe McCain can.

9. What about all the kooky conspiracy theories Obama's preachers and "fellow Trinitarians" believe? Does Obama, too, buy that the U.S. government cooked up AIDS and crack to destroy blacks? Will Black Messiah assure McCain and the American public that such beliefs are silly nonsense?

Link to that and other issues Obama's Dem rivals and Obama's media cheerleaders were afraid to ask even at the height of the preacher controversies:

http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=297384729501947

Posted by chris ford | June 4, 2008 3:39 PM

I wonder if McCain will be able to borrow Bush's unforgettable "you forgot Poland" rebuttal when things turn to the Iraq war.

Posted by Angry Sam | June 4, 2008 3:45 PM

I'm sorry, even die hard conservatives admitted that Bush was a sorry debater. Kerry was a weak candidate that lost the elections, but the debates were not even close. Was this some sort of typo, or does Matt have alternate realtiy TV?

Posted by freddiemac | June 4, 2008 3:45 PM

I agree with chris ford, it would serve McCain well to ask Obama some racially pointed questions at the debates. Once he shores up the angry white vote he's a shoo-in. Clinton would have brought it up, but she was so reliant on the black vote and would never say anything to alienate them.

Posted by ibid | June 4, 2008 3:54 PM

Bush, Gore, and even Kerry were all bad debaters. Obama's better than any of them. Which isn't to say he's especially good.

Posted by Asher | June 4, 2008 3:55 PM

I object to even calling them debates. They're more like bizarro joint press conferences.

I look forward to the doublethink that will allow people to buy into chris ford's nine points while at the same time believing that Obama is a double-secret Muslim sleeper agent.

Posted by daveNYC | June 4, 2008 4:05 PM

Finally, McCain, unworried about the black radical vote, can ask:

If you do conceed black liberation theology and politics is crap, Barack, what possible reason were you there for 20 years but crass political positioning? Or, did you wife demand you attend?

Posted by chris ford | June 4, 2008 4:08 PM

Okay, I've been trying to figure out why the McCain campaign floated the idea today to have a series of weekly joint "townhall"-style appearances with Obama through the summer. It would put the two candidates on the same stage, in front of independent audiences, about 10 times before the fall debates. I thought this would be bizarre and mildly insane for McCain's camp to agree to, let alone propose, for exactly the reasons we've been discussing: McCain is old, small, hunched, bad at giving speeches, unenergetic, hopelessly pale, and fond of creepy fake smiles. Just standing next to him, Obama wins the crowd.

But, when considering the optics of the televised debates, this idea could make some sense. Instead of spending all summer taking shots at Obama from afar, only to have Obama walk out on stage at that first debate and, simply by his appearance, cement his argument as the candidate of change--instead of that, a series of 10 joint townhall appearances before the debates may dilute that impact. People will have gotten used to seeing the tiny old white man next to the taller, fitter, browner, young man. I think the McCain campaign will be doing anything they can to lessen the impact of the visuals described in Matt's post: "Is there any doubt that, the first time he and McCain appear on a stage together, the contrast in age, height, and tone is liable to be pretty striking?."

I can't really think of any other reason why McCain would want to tour the country, barnstorming with Obama. That can't be to his benefit, can it? Also: I'm bored today.

Posted by Chesser | June 4, 2008 4:11 PM

Bush is a terrible debater but a quite good politican. Whereas, Gore and Kerry have it backwards. In terms of debate phronesis, Bush went Ofer. But, he managed to lovable idiot himself into making his base and a few swing voters like him.

Since McCain is neither a good debater nor a good politican, and Obama is good at both, I tink Obama'll do ok.

Posted by David B. | June 4, 2008 4:17 PM

MY is somewhat correct in saying that the debates don't matter. Those who say that the post-debate spin matters enormously have it right. In the 2000 election, Gore clobbered GWB in the debates, but was roasted by the press and so he lost the post-debate spin. No one watching the debates noticed his so-called sighing. But then some enterprising technician isolated a few seconds and jacked his mic feed way up and next thing you knew you had the horrid sighs on infinite loop for about a week.

Barring that sort of media interference in the process, Gore's debate performance would have easily put him over the top.

Also, I don't get those like pjs who keep telling us what a terrible campaign Gore ran. I'm not saying I agree with every decision the man made, but we're supposed to consider Karl Rove some kind of transcendent political genius for taking the son of a former president with the same name as that former president and running him against a man who got the most unfavorable press treatment in history and then losing the popular vote. I mean Gore wins the popular vote and loses the election by 5 electoral votes after an unprecedented series of court battles and street fights and he's the one who was a lousy politician.

Posted by Rob Mac | June 4, 2008 4:21 PM

chris ford,

Do your parents know that you're a pederast?

Posted by drjimcooper | June 4, 2008 4:27 PM

I'm certain this "Bush was a good debater" business from MY is a joke, right?

You are planning a GOTCHA post for tomorrow -- reminding your readers to not take life to seriously...?

How else to make any positive statement about W's speaking ability -- it hovers between embarrasing and horrifying 99% of the time.

Posted by CHoward | June 4, 2008 4:34 PM

I'm glad that 42 people logged on before me to point out the obvious. Bush's first debate in 2004 almost lost him the election. Kerry was almost dead in August; any chance he had between the first debate in September and the election in November, he got from out-debating Bush.

Posted by tomemos | June 4, 2008 4:46 PM

I agree. Both are terrible debaters and watching them debate each other will be painful.

As for whether McCain is a lesser politician than Obama, I think that remains to be proven. (Interestingly, both these men will be campaigning with a similar disadvantage -- they are not viewed favorably by a significant number of people in their own party).

Before hailing Obama's great political skill (in terms of appealing to voters vs. good tactical use of the primary rules) one needs to acknowledge the fact that in terms of actual votes, the contest between Obama and Clinton -- a woman, despised by the press, a considerably less eloquent speaker, etc. -- was pretty much a tie. He has won the nomination, but just barely. And, he won it on the basis of greater party leadership support, not overwhelming popular appeal.

McCain enters the race with great disadvantages -- the unpopularity of his party and the current administration, his age, the country's desire for change. But his lack of rhetorical eloquence relative to Obama is probably not much of a disadvantage. In American politics, the more plain spoken candidate usually trumps the eloquent speaker.

The reason for this, I think, is that the plain speaking politician is perceived as the more egalitarian politician. Democrats are often confounded by the fact that their candidates are perceived as "elitist" when Republican members of the country's actual economic elite are not. That is because, I think, they fail to understand that Americans DON'T resent elites -- but they do expect politicians to act in what they perceive to be an egalitarian manner. It is quite possible to be elite and egalitarian (FDR) and to be non-elite and yet non-egalitarian (most of the Democrats, with the exception of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, nominated over the last 40 years). The problem the Democrats have isn't that they are elitist, it is that they are meritocrats. And meritocrats are not especially, if at all, egalitarian. Meritocrats believe they have earned the right to respect and authority, to lead others, based on credentials, study, etc. But most Americans believe political power has to be earned in a more egalitarian manner -- based on the candidate's genuine and demonstrated understanding of, and respect for, them, the voters.

Can Obama find a more egalitarian way to relate and speak to voters -- the working class especially? Whether he wins or loses may depend on it.

Posted by esmense | June 4, 2008 4:59 PM

Obama is a very good debater. He only looked slightly not so good when he was up against Clinton and Edwards, who are both excellent debaters.

There is a lot of talk here about style, voice and stature. But the key thing that is going to emerge during the McCain-Obama debate - and I think will even be somewhat shocking to some of McCain's fans - is how little McCain knows about vitally important parts of the world, including parts of the world here in the US. This doesn't come out as well in a Republican debate, since Republicans don't debate anything much to do with government policy detail, because they all agree they hate government and just compete over how much to cut it. They spend most of their time on values issues, and in trying to one-up each other on things like how many Muslims they would like to kill with their bare hands.

Republicans are going to have to retreat into their typical values patter, anti-intellectualism and "who would you like to have a beer with" stuff. But I don't think the public is at all in the mood for more of that incompetent crap.

Posted by Dan Kervick | June 4, 2008 5:00 PM

I'm fine with McCain asking the questions Chris suggests, because it will be McCain asking them. Having robocalls accuse a candidate of having a black baby is one thing, but you didn't see Bush trot out that accusation on stage (and when McCain tried to call him out on it, Bush was like "who, me?").

So a simple response of "I had hoped that we were here, as Sen. McCain promised, to talk about the issues facing the nation. Instead, you've decided that---since you can't win on the issues---you're going to cross-examine me on my Christianity.

Senator, faith is a very personal thing. I know that at some point you say you switched from Episcopalian to Baptist. No one knows exactly when, no one knows why, and frankly its none of our business. And we all know that you at first sought and accepted the endorsement of Rev. Hagee and Rev. Paisley, only to later decide that these men did not represent your views. I commend you for your decision to reject the viewpoint, and would have hoped that you would grant me the same courtesy. Apparently, that will not be forthcoming.

So, suffice it to say that I will not subject those who helped me find faith to a political prosecution from a candidate who has promised better. You may be ready to break your word, but I'm going to hold you to it. I have said these are not my views, and I will not attack a Church when families still come together to find joy and hope in the words of Jesus Christ."

Although I'm sure Obama can come up with something better.

Posted by JoshA | June 4, 2008 5:06 PM

The Obama - McCain fireworks won't be flip-flopping, Wright, flag lapel pins, and Bosnia. The fireworks will be Health Care, the Economy, Iraq, Iran and Israel. And I expect they will be big, huge fireworks. - Miguel Pakalns

And how will Joe and Jane Sixpack come to learn of said fireworks? Via the media, of course. Nu? The fireworks will be about whatever the media says the fireworks will be about. And the out of touch media elites (*) don't care about the economy, don't have any interest in Iraq or Iran except for their own egos and only care about Israel because they own stock in Military Industrial CO which wants to sell as many arms as possible to them ... so the media will make sure the fireworks will be about "flip-flopping, Wright, flag lapel pins" rather than anything substantial.

And McCain can come in, do his "my friends, let me give you some straight talk" schtick, and come off as a "maverick" and "win" the debates.

*viewed by Joe and Jane Sixpack as exemplars of liberalism whence Joe and Jane Sixpack view all us liberals as out of touch and whence Joe and Jane Sixpack will view every bit of media fawning over St. John BBQ through the lens of "wow, even the liberal media likes him" and every bit of race-bating in re. TUCC with "even the liberal media thinks they're over the top"

Posted by DAS | June 4, 2008 5:15 PM

Josh

What you said is correct, but I think the complete right answer is in the first sentence. The only possible answer is "We are here to debate the issues, since you can't you seem to want to question my Christianity. Next question."

Posted by Sherry | June 4, 2008 5:22 PM

My first thought was that McCain asked for these debates because he was gambling that Obama would refuse and then he could attack him for refusing.

There is no scenario in which Obama will look anything less than spectacular in a head on head debate with McCain. There will be people who share McCain's world view and who will find some reason to support him. But anyone who watches will be impressed by Obama's relative understanding of the issues. It would be like putting me (old, fat, female) in the boxing ring with Mike Tyson.

Posted by Sherry | June 4, 2008 5:27 PM

I think esmense is onto something and to the extent that esmense is right, it's actually an indication that too many Americans do not understand what it means to be a citizen of a democratic republic taking part in a Presidential election.

Of course, the real elite are more likely to relate in an "egalitarian" manner than a meritocrat: about whom do you say "oh, he has the common touch" (or, in modern terms "he's someone I'd like to have a beer with")? A member of the gentry, of course.

But we citizens of this democratic republic are not electing a prom king, we are electing someone to steer the ship of state. Ergo, we really should be viewing this as a hiring process -- we need to hire the best person for the job. And of course that person is gonna be a meritocrat.

That sounding like a meritocrat is a negative rather than a positive indicates that too many of our so-called citizens are failed citizens with a feudal rather than democratic mindset. If the neo-feudalist McCain wins over Obama for this reason, well -- as Pogo said "we have met the enemy and he is us".

Of course, part of the problem is that for meritocrat you could substitute "uppity scalawag" ... that the historically most feudal part of this country seems to have so much sway in our electoral process really is problematic, dontcha think? And I do reckon 'round these heah parts of the South, scalawags (which Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter certainly are) are still, if only for historical reasons which are important in the history besotted, reactionary land of the Lost Cause, disliked, eh?

Posted by DAS | June 4, 2008 5:28 PM

DAS --

It is perfectly possible to be a meritocrat AND egalitarian. Bill Clinton is one example.

The problem meritocrats have isn't that they are meritocrats -- Americans don't resent intelligence and credentials anymore than they resent elite status -- it is that the AREN'T egalitarian.

Posted by esmense | June 4, 2008 5:35 PM

Chesser - People will have gotten used to seeing the tiny old (hunched) (pale) white man next to the taller, fitter, browner, young man.

I wouldn't diminish the white guy who was an elite carrier combat pilot for 20 years, plus 5 1/2 years fighting torture by people that were closer to Obama's Lefty ideology than his own. He is hunched because his shoulders were torn out of their sockets many times by his captors and he has spinal, neck arthritis from injuries caused by enemy fire and rocket ejection from his jet. He is pale because he comes from what James Webb calls the "Scotts-Irish" warrior class.

People seeing them will see an older white war hero with the scars of a tough life of duty against a browner, younger and fitter elitist college professor,

*********************
chris ford,
Do your parents know that you're a pederast?
Posted by drjimcooper

No, as I recall, you and another gay kid offered to tag team and blow a German Shepard if a crowd I was in would pay you 50 bucks for drug money.
Instead, we threw rocks at you pervs and you fled squealing like little girls.
I suppose we would have been "sorta pederasts" if we instead chose to pay to watch your dog-blowing show, drjimcooper..

Posted by chris ford | June 4, 2008 6:08 PM

height

I forgot where I heard that the taller candidate typically won elections. Kerry is definitely a few inches taller than Bush but they used the podiums and camera framing to make them appear as the same height in debates.

I think a few iconic pictures with McCain and Obama together could really demonstrate how much of a midget McCain is (he's something like 5'5" or 5'7"). Subconciously (if not completely fairly), that might help undermine the Soldier/Daddy-complex people have towards him.

Posted by ben | June 4, 2008 6:25 PM

Bush was a good debater from the perspective of the expectations game -- the press and his handlers depicted him as such a drooling moron, that when he merely said lots of stupid and incoherent things, but didn't actually drool, the press and his handlers were able to state truthfully that he exceeded all expectations.

More than that: in 2000, the press actively worked to change the perception of the debates. I watched them from abroad with a group of Americans, absent the post-matchup spin from the pundits, and was staggered to hear the conventional wisdom kick in afterwards. Somerby's described it at (his usual) length.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 4, 2008 6:49 PM

I think the town hall style fits Obama better than it does McCain. McCain can ramble certainly, but he rarely says much nor has a clear train of thought. In a town hall style set up where the candidate can speak at length (Obama's strength) I think McCain will come off as more fumbling and searching for answers. I'm surprised he chose this over the Network preferred style which are 1 minute answers and 30 second responses which Obama has always had trouble with.

Another thing that irks me personally about McCain's debate style is he's incredibly rude, he talks over other candidates when they are speaking and often doesn't speak to the question, I think a town hall style format is too freestyle for him and he'll come off as a curmudgeon and not a very well-informed one at that.

Posted by tom.a | June 4, 2008 6:56 PM

Bush was a poor debater.

Posted by croatoan | June 4, 2008 7:11 PM

Sherry, you may be right, a simple to the point answer working best.

And the hope for refusal might be a good guess as well. Obama is young, fit, and tall, McCain looks...well, let's be diplomatic and say "not good." Comparing it to JFK-Nixon, I'd note a few things:
1. JFK was not also much taller than Nixon.
2. JFK was not also much younger than Nixon.
3. The debates were not in HD TV.

Posted by JoshA | June 4, 2008 7:24 PM

Whoa whoa whoa there, Mr. Ford...

McCain was tortured??

Sorry, no he was not. Stress positions are not torture.

Posted by Panasonic Auto-Stop | June 4, 2008 9:43 PM

And seriously, how could you think George Bush is a good debater? His most memorable lines from the 2004 debates were, "It's hard work" and "you forgot Poland"

You're forgetting "I hear there's rumors on the, uh, internets." "Internets" has passed into such common snarky usage that people seem to forget where it came from.

Posted by C.L. | June 4, 2008 10:34 PM

The idea that Bush is a good debater is the nuttiest ideas I've heard MY say. Yes a lot of people have said it but it's dumb! The conventional expectations-game wisdom in 2004 was the Bush has never lost a debate. It was hogwash. He lost two in 2000, and played to a draw in the other one because Gore was on drugs or something.

In 2004 Kerry mopped the floor with a sitting president for whom the expections were so low that managing to produce a complete sentence was seen as a victory.

In 2004 Bush had Fred Barnes pouting that George Washington probably wouldn't be a good debater, either. It was obvious to all how pathetic he was.

Kerry>Gore>Hillary>Obama>McCain>pick a random 3d grader> GW Bush

Posted by Colatina | June 4, 2008 10:51 PM