The day of freedom has arrived! I can actually start thinking about the election.

These things are not about giving the public specific information about policy — although focus groups of undecided voters usually claim to want exactly this kind of information.

The rules? Once a “debate” has begun you’ll see exactly what you saw last night (although I think last night was particularly bad): candidates breaking the rules and/or asking to break the rules and moderators facilitating the breaking of the rules by breaking the rules themselves.

I think Congress needs to step in and propose comprehensive legislation regulating the whole debate process by forcing candidates to accept a minimum number of debates and setting rules that must be followed — rules that actually make it difficult to spin your way through 90 minutes. (I know — fat chance.)

Who won last night? I don’t know. Ask an undecided voter.

If I were advising the candidates for the next debate (you’ll notice I’m advising spin here because the format we have to work with demands it):

McCain: It’s the personal story, stupid. Stick with it. That throws the focus off your support of the Iraq war, which hangs around your neck like a festering albatross. You may be correct about what needs to happen there and why just like Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis may have been correct about the need to raise taxes. See the parallel?  The American people are sick of this war, sick of George W. Bush, and sick of anything that sounds like four more years of the same. Stick to your story. Remember this phrase: “I have a plan…” followed by something sort of specific that also accentuates your story.

Obama: Man, you’re winning. Stop being so defensive. I don’t ever want to see you whine about wanting to counter McCain based on his answer to a question that has passed. Just let it go. The rest of America is.  Relax fercrissakes. You actually committed a couple of Bushisms last night. Remember this phrase: “I have a plan…” followed by something sort of specific and delivered in that commanding style you have when you have a script.

Here’s a transcript of the debate. I’ll be taking a look at how Obama and McCain used fear in the next installment.

Technorati Tags: Journalism, Politics, Rhetoric

Brokaw selects the questions to ask from written queries submitted prior to the debate, according to the “contract.”

An audience member will not be allowed to switch questions. Under the deal, the moderator may not ask followups or make comments. The person who asks the question will not be allowed a follow-up either, and his or her microphone will be turned off after the question is read. A camera shot will only be shown of the person asking — not reacting.

While there will be director’s chairs (with backs and foot rests), McCain and Obama will be allowed to stand — but they can’t roam past their “designated area” to be marked on the stage. McCain and Obama are not supposed to ask each other direct questions.

As in all the debates, the contenders cannot bring in notes, though they can take them once at the lectern.

Why would Tom Brokaw agree to this? He apparently has no role other than to call on audience members and, perhaps, play referee. Any yutz could do it. I would think he’d be offended that the debate organizers and the campaings are using his gravitas as a form of legitimation rather than using his talent as means to serve the public.

No follow-up questions. So what we will hear will be the same ol’ same ol’ from their stump speeches, unless… Might there be a tough question among those chosen– one that springs from the real concerns of a voter who wants a straight answer? That would be good.

I’ll be paying particular attention to the rhetoric of fear.

Technorati Tags: Journalism, Politics, Rhetoric

Allow me to make a prediction that requires no smarts at all, i.e. it is, IMO, painfully obvious to anyone paying even slight attention to the presidential campaign: We’re going to get a case study in the rhetoric of fear between now and election day. What will be interesting is to see how the the Democrats and Republicans use fear differently.

I’ll be paying close attention to the rhetoric of fear for the next four weeks.

In Constructing the Political Spectacle, Murray Edelman demonstrates how leadership is constructed with “discontents” between political enemies that encourage citizens to understand some leaders as heroes and others as villains or worse. The clashes that create the spectacle have little to do with actual policy (and outcomes of same, which often can’t be known) and much to do with images of past successes and failures compared and contrasted with images of future successes or impending disasters. None of it is presented in the kind of detail necessary to form a learned opinion. And the press willingly focuses on the drama of the discontents because these narratives provide an easy shorthand for making (a kind of shallow) sense of ambiguous events.

That’s a fancy-pants way of saying that politicians are going to try to scare you, and the press promotes, supports, and legitimizes exactly this approach. Imagine what would happen if a candidate actually talked policy is specific, contextual, complicated, backgrounded, fact-supported terms.

Yawn.

Then the press would look for (create) the discontents because the candidate can’t possibly be trying to make things better. He or she must, first of all, be trying to play a political game against a political opponent.

After a while this becomes the truth.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Technorati Tags: Journalism, Politics, Rhetoric

Since neither candidate strayed from their respective spin and neither made any campaign-altering mistakes, it’s almost not worth spending much time with the substance of their comments. If you want to know what they said, read a stump speech. In terms of style, Palin made her party proud doing her heartland, Joe-six-pack thing. Biden played his bulldog role, but he was a bulldog just waking up from a good nap. He took a few bites but no savage mauling.

Please can we get a moderator willing to live up to the important task of making these debates work for voters who seek substance. We have style covered; we’re pointing TV cameras at them. Now we need someone willing to ask pointed, tough and (as much as possible) unpredictable questions. To learn something we need a moderator willing to knock these candidates out of their safe zones.

Is anyone up to the task?

I made this assertion in my media ethics classes today for my students to kick around: Debate moderators who fail to challenge candidates are failing the primary purpose of journalism and, therefore, are acting unethically. That primary purpose, you may recall, is to give people the information they need to be free and self-governing. Nothing about normal candidate talking points fills that need.

Technorati Tags: Journalism, Politics, Rhetoric

Consequently, I will not be live blogging this one.

If anyone has a line on a webcast, please let me know.

UPDATE: There appear to be many webcast options.

UPDATE: I’ve changed my mind. I will attend the meeting, but I’ll leave in time to watch the debate at home.

Technorati Tags: Politics, Rhetoric

The student asked me what I expected to happen in the rest of the debates. Oh, goody– a chance to prognosticate. Or, rather, a chance for me to play the expectations game.

It’s no secret that the formats and moderators are agreed to ahead of time by the campaigns. The last thing any of them want is a real debate. That word is simply the noun/verb used to identify the act of presidential candidates standing on the same stage spinning like crazy with as little interference as possible and as much advantage as possible (e.g. McCain preferring the town-hall style because it suits his perceived strengths).

So I expect more of the same.

But… What if… Really, it all boils down to the moderator. What is this person willing to do to get the candidates off message with tough, pointed questions about policy (not talking about tough, pointed questions about stuff like pregnant teens or troublesome preachers)?

If a real journalist shows up armed with good questions, then we may really learn something. The beautiful thing is this works for viewers seeking substance and viewers seeking image. It’s win-win-lose.

Long-time Rhetorica reader Tim S. suggested in the comments to my earlier debate post: “Maybe Bill O’Reilly should moderate the next debate?” He was needling me a bit. But, yes– Not Bill but someone who, like Bill, isn’t afraid to put these guys on the hot seat.

Maybe Stepehen Colbert

Technorati Tags: Journalism, Politics, Rhetoric

Any clue what this means?

And why is the picture of Adolph Hitler associated with the same paragraphs as Rhetorica?

If anyone has an idea, please let me know.

Technorati Tags: Journalism, Politics, Rhetoric

Technorati Tags: Politics, Rhetoric

I suppose a debate also requires a moderator ready and willing to ask tough, pointed questions that challenge candidates to think on their feet. No one like that showed up last night. The moderator asked mostly open-ended, predictable questions and then encouraged the candidates to do his job, i.e. challenge each other.

Winner? You have to have a contest–a debate in this case–to have a winner. Inviting two guys to do their usual routine on a common stage is not a debate. So the winner will obviously be which ever one you liked best before the waste of time began.

This “debate” wasn’t even good entertainment.

UPDATE: If you just can’t get enough of this scintillating debate, take a look at the Debate Decoder hosted by the Washington Post.

Technorati Tags: Politics, Rhetoric