Bring on the Debates!

Having expressed my serious reservations about the validity of a series of debates with rules agreed upon behind closed doors by the two major political parties, I still have to admit that I'm looking forward to watching the candidates square off against each other. Supporters of both sides have been boasting about the verbal abilities of their respective candidates. Will John McCain lose his temper, or appear to be hopelessly out-of-touch in his dotage? Will Barack Obama be too long-winded, and will he be able to dispel Republican accusations branding him as an "elitist"? It's clear that there are some clearly defined tasks for each politician. Some observers suggest that these debates could have a decisive effect on a close election.

One interesting dimension that has already been examined concerns the agreements that the sides made regarding the structure of these "contests". The McCain campaign had two notable desires for the debates. They wanted to have a tightly-structured format for the entire series, in order to compensate for their candidates' perceived disadvantages in loose and flowing exchanges. Both McCain and Palin rely quite heavily on previously-scripted jabs and "folksy" witticisms. They excel in their combined ability to deliver sound-byte worthy declarative statements on the issues. Obama on the other hand is commonly considered to be an excellent improvisational speaker. He also tends to include more nuance and complexity in his answers.

Obviously there is some give-and-take involved in the secret negotiations of the Commission on Presidential Debates. Apparently the compromise that the Republicans and Democrat reached was that the presidential debates would allow for more free-flowing interaction, while the VP debates would be tightly controlled. This reflects the special concern that Palin's handlers have about her debating abilities. The New York Times reports that "McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive." At first glance this decsion seems to favor the GOP. Palin will have less opportunity to make another potentially "fatal" gaffe.

However, a case could be made that Biden will be assisted by the extra structure as well. He is well-known for his penchant for delivering provocative statements and using more words than necessary to make his point. In addition, there will be less possibility that Biden will appear brutal in his aggressive attacks on Palin's "qualifications". One thing the Biden people worry about is the "damsel-in-distress" sympathy factor. On the other hand, the trade-off is that Obama will be free to exploit John McCain's weaknesses. The 72-year old has often looked confused and unfocused in recent television interviews. If Obama can avoid looking condescending, this should be a major advantage.


On the second issue, the McCain campaign has definitely received its preference. The first presidential debate was initially supposed to be focused on the economy. This has been the source of tremendous difficulty for the McCain/Palin ticket over the last couple of weeks. McCain has been a consistent deregulator throughout his political career, and he needs more than a few days to rehabilitate that image. Despite his baffling comments about the Spanish Prime Minister, many consider foreign policy a strength for McCain. Obama meanwhile needs to appear authoritative on an issue that has led many critics to bring up his relative "lack of experience". If he can convey that he understands what is at stake, he could enter the following debates (in which he is clearly stronger) unscathed.

The 2008 Presidential Debates, Brought to You By the CPD (?)

As most readers must surely be aware of by now, we are entering the debate period of the 2008 Presidential General Election. The first event will be held on Friday evening at Ole Miss, September 26th, moderated by Jim Lehrer, and broadcast on PBS affiliates. The remaining presidential debates are on October 7th (Tom Brokaw, Nashville, NBC), and October 15th (Bob Schieffer, Hofstra, CBS). The VP showdown, which could possibly garner a larger viewership due to the immense hype surrounding Sarah Palin, will be on October 2 at Washington University in St. Louis, and hosted by PBS' Gwen Ifill. For a short time (at least) the candidates will hunker down and bone up on the issues.

Given the contentious nature of these campaigns so far, it comes as no surprise that the terms and conditions of the debates are controversial. It's notable (of course) that only the nominees from the two major political parties have been invited to participate in these events. There will be no spoiler candidate in 2008. I find this particularly disconcerting because the two-party system makes our political dialog simplistic, and adds to the impression that every position must be framed in black-and-white terms. This type of "you are either with us or against us"-style of politics is more appropriate for an audience of 13-year olds than a purportedly "sophisticated" electorate. Pehaps one day we will see the rise of a viable third party.

Anyway, it is fascinating to study the arguments and negotiations that occur before the major players even take to the stage. Did you know that a "bipartisan" organization called the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) ultimately makes the important decisions regarding the debates? The CPD is apparently a non-profit, 501(c)(3) entity as defined by Federal US tax laws, funded entirely by corporate contributions. The organization is headed by Frank Fahrenkopf and Paul Kirk, former heads of the Republican and Democratic National Commitees, respectively. It was founded in 1987, and has only regulated debates since the 1988 presidential race between George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis.

Right from its inception, the CPD generated criticism. In 1988, the League of Women Voters was the first to voice its objections. That association notably charged that "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter." It may not be surprising that the League of Women Voters was offended by what they saw as a power-grab by the Republican and Democratic parties. Indeed the LWV had served the crucial moderating role in the presidential debates of 1976, 1980, and 1984. They were usurped by the major parties, who colluded to involve corporate contributions (soft money) in the sponsorship of the event. After the CPD takeover, corporations realized they could curry favor with both parties by donating funds.

Indeed the CPD is heavily influenced by the private sector today. According to the Open Debates website, "many board members of the CPD have close ties to multinational corporations; Frank Fahrenkopf is the nation's leading gambling industry lobbyist, and Paul Kirk lobbies for pharmaceutical companies." In the meantime, the two major parties resolve any issues involving the participation of third-party candidates behind closed doors. The CPD has no hard-and-fast rules either. In 2000, Ralph Nadar sued the CPD for arbitrarily requiring any participant to show at least 15% support across five national polls. If this is a concern for you (as it is for me) please support the initiatives of ReclaimDemocracy.org, a site working to replace the CPD with the Citizen's Debate Commission.