Rhetorica: Press-Politics Journal

Today I continue what’s becoming a series of “visceral” reactions to the Democratic presidential debates. Think of the following as an experiential analysis. You can read the previous analyses (and justifications) here and here. Again, I’m posting this without having read a news account or a transcript of the debate.

Last night I saw one potential president: John Edwards. I am not suggesting he “won” the debate. Since these televised political events can hardly be called debates, I refuse to think in terms of winning and losing. In overall performance, I thought John Edwards sounded and appeared more presidential. The format of this debate fit his personal style and working-class message.

I thought Edwards handled the town-hall portion of the debate effectively. He looked relaxed and sounded engaged. Like the others, he used the questions as an opportunity to pontificate. But, unlike many of the others, he sustained eye contact with the audience member asking the question–important in projecting a caring attitude.

Clark, Kerry, and Dean had their moments when they looked and sounded presidential. Each of them, however, slipped at crucial moments.

The debate was structured to foster contention. In that way it made for dramatic television, but it also made for a more debate-like atmosphere. Several of the candidates took this opportunity to attack Clark. And I thought Clark handled the attacks badly. Oh, he was quick with his answers. But he made the most serious mistake a politician can make when attacked: he didn’t hit back. In fact, he asserted his lack of counter-attack as a virtue. It isn’t a virtue if your goal is to be elected. Numerous academic studies indicate that the American electorate views such a “high” road as a sign of weakness. Contrary to what the media often claims and polls purport to show, Americans have no problem with so-called negative campaigning.

Kerry looked bored during the town-hall portion of the debate. Kiss it goodbye, Senator, if you can’t muster more enthusiasm than that. And, who taught you how to handle cheap shots? CNN’s Judy Woodruff pulled off an egregious cheap shot against Kerry, and the Senator rolled over and took it. She interrupted the town-hall portion of the debate to announce that Kerry’s campaign people were circulating a flyer criticizing one of the candidates. Kerry, apparently knowing nothing about the flyer, attempted to address the issues. Geez! Call her on the cheap shot! Chastise her for taking valuable time away from the voters! Question CNN’s commitment to a free and open exchange of ideas! Don’t take a cheap shot seriously.

Dean took some heat and deflected it well. But I kept thinking that we’ve heard too much of his schtick. It’s time to evolve. Certainly, sustained messages are important to building a political image. But “sustained” does not mean keep doing the same ol’ thing the same ol’ way. That’s a criticism I could level at each candidate. As the fund raising leader, he now needs to make that final push to take a measurable lead in the national polls. That requires growth in the message.

Sharpton and Kucinich are Sharpton and Kucinich. These guys need to drop out. It’s over.

Braun–I still like her style. She should drop out, but I hope she sticks around until March.

I thought Dick Gephardt had a good night. I detected a few stumbles–especially during the town-hall portion of the debate. He did, however, pull off the best line of the evening in regard to the Clinton economy (quoting from memory): “If you want to live like a Republican you need to vote for a Democrat.”

Joe who?

I’ll be discussing the differences between the press’ questions and the voters’ questions in another post after I’ve had time to study the transcript.