Ramble On 2.0

Seriously. I’ve seen awkward freshmen that barely understand the format of debate do a better job of cutting people off when their time is up. I hope that the next time my kids are in a debate that Brokaw is their judge. They could keep reading advantage after advantage.

If you haven’t guessed, this is my running commentary of the Town Hall debate. My reactions maybe a bit delayed - I’m trying to reheat chili. It’s not working out because I’m using the oven. I need a microwave. Anyway, to the debate.

I was a bit annoyed that the first question was clearly about older Americans and Obama failed to answer with anything close to the question. He even has a tax exemption for older Americans. And yet I didn’t hear anything about it. Nor did I hear anything about Social Security and Medicare.

Hey! Senator Feingold finally gets named dropped in this campaign. I’m sure Russ is really hating this. If anyone hasn’t noticed, Russ has laid pretty low in this campaign. In part it’s because his major legislative accomplishment shares the GOP’s name.

McCain is now making his typical pitch about how he combats earmarks. Cutting earmarks can’t solve anything. 18 billion dollars can’t solve anything. His other solution: an across the board spending freeze is even worse. I think most people don’t understand the enormity of what the Federal Government pays for. If there’s a spending freeze, then there’s no money to give out Pell Grants or Perkins Loans or Stafford Loans. How will any college student afford to go to college? The price of a college education is so high that without student aid, its unlikely that anyone - save the privileged few - would be able to attend college. Or how about aid to kids in foster care? Without IV-E dollars, many states would be without the ability to pay for kids in foster care. There would be no dollars being spent on the United States’ defense. No dollars spent on Social Security. No dollars spent on Medicare. That’s something that would be awful and more difficult for most Americans.

Brokaw finally forces the issue on entitlement spending that people have been asking around - without asking the question directly. Nice.

Obama seems to be off of his game. McCain had a good remark about not answering the question to Obama’s response to entitlement spending. This has been a looming issue for anyone that understands anything about public policy or has been listening to this debate. Obama said, he’d “take on social security” - this is not the best line. It’s committed to reform. However, that doesn’t play way well with anyone. He should say that he’s committed to maintaining benefits or something generally positive about the program. It’s also non committal on anything. Not the best way to take it to McCain on an issue that overwhelmingly favors democrats.

Obama’s lack of an answer here, allows McCain to get away with “putting people together” to be a plausible solution. Come on. We don’t call Social Security the “third rail” of politics for no reason. It’s extremely hard for anyone to make change. Bush in 2004 - with a republican house and a republican senate could not privatize socials security. If that doesn’t tell you that that Social Security and Medicare are major policies that are going to be difficult to change, I don’t know what will.

Obama is bringing up that McCain is old and has been the senate for the long time and doesn’t support the things that Candidate McCain has talked about. This is a pretty good comparison.

Holy crap. McCain spoke the name of the President-who-must-not-be named because he has the worst approval rating since approval ratings began to measured.

Obama gets a question about whether or not health care is a commodity. The initial response is meandering. He finally mentions the “moral” obligation. This is good, but it would have been nice to hear “health care is a right.” Talk up the talking points to your base. Alissa is loving Obama gushing about electronic medical records. She felt that McCain was naive in his response to medical records.

I’m loving Tom Brokaw right now. Forcing the candidates to answer the question of whether or not health care is a right. Obama finally figures out that this is what the question was about. Hillary Clinton thought she coached Obama better than that. I like that Brokaw has “interpreted” his role to force the candidates to answer questions.

Obama finally hits hard on health care. Democrats rejoice. Hitting McCain on S-CHIP and in general being very empathetic.

Obama turn on the phrase “I don’t understand” to things that are completely rational is so awesome. I’m loving it. Although I would have preferred him to use “without weapons of mass destruction” instead of “no connection to 9/11.”

Obama on the moral obligation line is pretty good. I think it communicates very well what Obama’s value’s are in relation to foreign policy. It also is a good base rallying cry.

McCain is talking about needed a cool hand at the tiller. I don’t know what the tiller is. I wish his language wasn’t from the 50’s.

I love looking the people in crowd. Many of them have reaction to other people’s question. This one woman was just like, “oh shit. That question on Pakistan was so smart. I hope they don’t call on me. My question was about Pandas.” The reserved reactions to candidates responses are also interesting. When people smile or nod is interesting.

I’m annoyed that McCain, who’s hero - according to McCain - is Teddy Roosevelt, can’t get the Teddy Roosevelt quotation correctly. It’s not “walk softly and carry a big stick” or even “talk softly and carry a big stick.” It’s speak softly. Come on. If the guy’s your hero - get the quotation correct.

Obama using “muddling through” to talk about policy. Seriously, is he courting the policy student vote? No one else sees that particular phrase as strategic unless you’re pursuing a degree in political science or public policy.

Obama’s answer on “what don’t you know and how will you know it” isn’t as good as it could be. It’s pretty good, but not the best. He should use this to talk about his values and that his values are the middle class. Obama sort of makes that point, but not quite.

There’s not a lot of consistency here. These are mainly my thoughts as I react to the debate as it unfolds for me. I’m watching it a bit behind on Tivo. I’m not watching the Cubbies (but gameday is up on my computer), because I’m convinced they’re going to lose the series in three games. I’m trying to be as neutral as possible - focusing on my experience in debate and rhetorical studies, instead of my political opinions or public policy training.

At the beginning of the debate I was so frustrated with Biden and his failure to look in the camera. Gov. Palin does a good job at always making sure that she does this. In that sense, she’s a natural at the television medium. Biden seemed to start sensing that he wasn’t in the camera and started doing so about fifteen minutes into the debate. Perhaps there are multiple sets of cameras - I’m not really sure how these things are setup, but it would be interesting to see. This format all seems to favor Palin too; being rapid fire its really easy to be vague and sound good.

I loved Biden’s dig on the “that’s the bridge to nowhere.” This may be a one liner that gets replayed over and over on CNN.

Biden seems to confuse this format with Meet the Press. He’s consistently defending his record and giving us something to think about, but he’s not convincing anyone. He’s not making the case that McCain-Palin is worse for America. Paul Begala on CNN had this great piece earlier this week about how to do well in American political debates. His most important point: don’t lose sight about the greater argument. Biden seems focused on the details, rather than the big picture.

A good example of this is on the issue of energy. Palin says she’s not focused on the causes of Global Warming, she’s focused on the solution. Biden responds saying that you need to understand the causes to find the right solution. While this is absolutely the truth about crafting good policy - you need to know what’s wrong to fix it - I don’t think this makes for a good sound bite and I don’t think that most people understand how important that is. It’s probably good that Biden did indict her on this, but I would have hit back much harder. Talk about how the house Republicans, now lead by McCain (although that’s a questionable claim), just voted against a measure that was all of the above solutions because it didn’t have enough tax breaks for the oil companies. It’s highly unlikely that Palin is going to be able to answer that. Biden should link the important issues, not just respond with a list.

Similarly, I was mad that Biden didn’t attack Palin on health care from a policy side. Instead Biden chose to attack from a coverage stand point. Which is fine and good. But a tax rebate for health care is a silly policy. How does this help people get health care? In order to get the benefit, you have to have a tax liability. This doesn’t help low income people who can’t afford health care coverage right now. On top, you have to wait until after you have submitted your taxes. How does that help you fix your immediate needs? It doesn’t. The McCain plan is coverage delayed and coverage denied. That’s a policy that fails doomed to fail and barely pays lip service to the problem.

Biden now is doing a good job of comparing McCain to Bush. Repetition and litany of issues reinforces the Obama camp’s claim that McCain is the same Bush.

Palin insistent that “words hurt our cause” to anything that is critical of any military efforts is down right disgusting. This is the same unless you are with us or you are against us, mentality that Bush administration has used for years. It’s as if the words perform some perlocutionary function that attacks our troops. It’s as annoying as a team that’s getting crushed returning to the 1AC advocacy in the 2AR. (Debate reference).

Did I just hear a sigh? I couldn’t tell who it was from, but in general Biden has held himself well. Smiling often.

Oh Christ. Did Biden just walk into the Kerry line of “I was for it before I was against it?” Yup. Palin doing a good job capitalizing on that now. This is where Biden should hit back on strait talk. All Biden has to do is to show, like Kerry did at the convention, how McCain has flipped positions for political purposes. Not to mention this gets us away from the typical Obama sound bite about needing the right judgment on the war in Iraq.

What? Did Palin just ask the Constitution if it could give the Veep more power over the senate? This conjurs a funny image. (Yes, I know its a reference to Cheney having a lot of power - but apparently she wants more.) I wish the constitution were a person to tell her no. And for all the reasons why that would be stupid.

I guess we don’t have to have a constitution to tell her. Biden just did. I hope this gets picked up as news. Who in the world thinks the executive branch should have more power? Especially power

Wow. Biden taking the Maverick lines to school. That was a really good response.

“I’ve worked together, but I’ve never had to compromise.” That sounds like a contradiction in terms.

The Democratic race for the Presidency has been a bit confusing to me. In any other year, if I were to have told you that a rich, white, good-looking former senator from the south would lose to a current female senator from New York and a Black man from Illinois - you would have said I was crazy. But this is 2008 and the historic candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton cannot be ignored. Granted my phrasing of the issues is from the perspective of a frustrated and sarcastic Edwards supporter [I even went to Iowa (Dubuque) to help John in the caucuses], but the sheer history of the Political party that at one point supported slavery and opposed civil rights will nominate either a woman or a black Man is historic. But the historic candidates out fundraised Edwards and stole all of his good ideas. So what’s an Edwards supporter to think now?

On the day that Edwards stepped out of the race, both campaigns tried to spin his withdrawal as a boost to their campaign. The Obama people claimed that Edwards was a candidate for change and that they were likely to receive the Edwards vote. The Clinton people claimed that Edwards appealed to white and low to middle income voters - a demographic that Hillary Clinton did well in (but not as well as John Edwards) - so that she would receive the Edwards vote. The Clinton campaign missed the important point. If people in that demographic weren’t supporting Hillary before, what would make them support Hillary now that Edwards is out of the race. Past demographics can’t predict future changes in primary support (but it sure makes for good spin). Don’t misunderstand my point. The Obama campaign’s claim makes a similar argument, but at least its consistent with their message and is not overtly spin. For me this understanding was made clear with Obama’s press release on Edward’s withdrawl from the race.

John Edwards has spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn’t popular to do or covered in the news. At a time when our politics is too focused on who’s up and who’s down, he made a nation focus again on who matters – the New Orleans child without a home, the West Virginia miner without a job, the families who live in that other America that is not seen or heard or talked about by our leaders in Washington. John and Elizabeth Edwards have always believed deeply that we can change this – that two Americas can become one, and that our country can rally around this common purpose. So while his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America.

This was just awesome rhetoric compared to the Clinton Campaigns message which is half good, and half a pointless thank you:

John Edwards ended his campaign today in the same way he started it - by standing with the people who are too often left behind and nearly always left out of our national debate. John ran with compassion and conviction and lifted this campaign with his deep concern for the daily lives of the American people. That is what this election is about - it’s about our people. And John is one of the greatest champions the American people could ask for. I wish John and Elizabeth all the best. They have my great personal respect and gratitude. And I know they will continue to fight passionately for the country and the people they love so deeply.

This little battle I think captures the race for me. Clinton is all about spin. Nothing is more evidence on this than her position on the war in Iraq. Hillary says that her vote for the “Resolution Authorizing Military Force in Iraq” was to allow the inspectors to return to Iraq and do their work. This is just plain spin. Everyone knew this was a vote to go to war. I mean - for God’s sake - look at the title of the bill.

At this point in the game Hillary wants to pretend that Iraq is not the issue, but rather the slumping economy is. To a certain extent, she’s right. But what is at heart of the poor economy? As democrats, we like to put the blame on the Bush Administration. Which is fair, in so far as that you think the President has any control over the economy. I contend that a large reason for the slumping economy is the War in Iraq. You cannot spend billions of dollars and expect that expenditure to not devalue the dollar and to not increase foreign ownership of the United States economy. Much less raise the deficit and create the conditions ripe for a recession. (Thus making the deficit worse).

Rather than realizing the implicit connections between the two issues, the spin goes on. So what is Hillary’s argument? I was duped by a dope? I am one of the (hopefully not) few people who are still mad as hell about the war. There was not a single coherent argument for the war. We have yet to find Weapons of Mass destruction, there were no 9/11 terrorists in Iraq, and we don’t go to war with a country just because we don’t like who’s in charge of it (except now we do). As a rhetoric student and coach of debate the break down of deliberation and discussion, that are integral parts of our democracy, that lead to allowing a war is an inexcusable act. I cannot in good conscious vote for someone who was so cavalier with his or her responsibilities to our country. Congress is supposed to demand undeniable proof before allowing the President to go to war. Am I wrong in reading that Constitution does, in fact, give Congress the power to declare war? (Or “authorize a military action” in modern lingo.) Instead, Hillary was content to believe George Bush.

Of course, I’ll support the nominee - who ever that is. But we have an easier time winning the Iraq debate with Obama. Obama is dead correct that he can say he opposed the War from the beginning and that he can resist any negative attacks from McCain that he’s “flip-flopped” on the War. We know what the republican play book on this issue is, why not defeat it before the play is called?

Returning to where I started, John Edwards - if you remember - was also duped by a dope, a.k.a voted for the War. But at least Edwards that the intelligence to realize he made a mistake and said so, not just because he wanted to score political points, but because it was the right thing to do. Spin does not matter. Doing what is right for our country does.