Debates Are Not About Issues.

They are about: Who Is the Best Candidate? Who can Win?

Ever since the first televised debate between Kennedy & Nixon, voters have often judged candidates on inconsequential issues... Nixon lost the 1960 debate, and election, because of such trivia as how much did he sweat?...How much makeup did he have on?

As the story goes, voters who listened to the debate on the radio were overwhelmingly convinced that Nixon had won on the issues, but Kennedy was the clear victor among those who actually watched the debate.

Kennedy won because he looked cool and composed on stage next to the Vice President. He looked like he knew what he was doing. He looked like he belonged there.

This is what counts in debates: How does he look? Will he fight for us? How will he take the pressure? Can he be stumped? Will he make a gaffe?

When old time political bosses were picking candidates, the central question they thought the voters would ask was:

IS HE ONE OF US?.......

And it is both complicated and simple and....sometimes based on the trivial. Is he too elitist? Does she really care about us? Will he take care of us?

Voters believe they can tell this by how candidates look and act under pressure. It all counts. What kind of bowler is Obama? How well can Hill throw back a shot?

Debates are an obvious testing grounds. Voters are picking the most powerful person in the world. They want answers about personal associations, beliefs, character, and statements at private fundraisers. Personal baggage tells a lot.

Remember, the only Democrats who have been elected president since John Kennedy have been southern moderates.

Bill Clinton, for all his foibles, did pass the Is He One Of Us Test

Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry did not.

The Republicans managed to stick an elitist perception on their candidacies and the Democrats didn't stand a chance.

Come November, the Republicans are going to cram this elitist perception of the Democratic nominee down the throats of the voters. They will try to "define" the Democratic nominee...just as they defined Kerry as a windsurfing snob, instead of the war hero he was.

Obama (or Hillary) needs to be ready for this.

Obama should stick with basketball!

The "issues" are not really decisive for Democratic voters now. Obama and Hillary have virtually the same positions.

The issues are boring.

But that doesn't mean the debates have been exercises in futility.

The most important question for Democratic voters-- what the primaries are all about, now-- is who can defeat McCain. All other questions are inconsequential. And this question of electability was what the recent ABC debate was all about.

Voters know that they will be lied to. During the debate when Hillary was asked if Obama can win, she lied. And when Obama was asked the same question, he lied. Everybody knew it, because what they are saying in private is ...the other guy can't win.

It doesn't really matter who opposed the Iraq war first or whether there were snipers in Tuzla or what hate Rev. Wright spewed forth...

Of course, issues like Jeremiah Wright, flag pins, Clinton's pardons, Bittergate, William Ayers, and the Tuzla airport will play a role in the election.

Obama will probably be the Democratic nominee, and he will be a stronger candidate for having confronted trivial issues. ABC and Hillary Clinton will be remembered as gentle questioners compared to what the Republicans will throw at him.

Fortunately, in the general election candidates will have real issues to debate---the economy, the war, our position in the world--- and maybe by then the voters will have decided that Obama really Is One Of Us.

[e-mail]

Comments

[vassyuta]

Is this a joke? The issues are boring? How come they are not boring in countries with like freedom of speech? Ever thought of that? Where the entire media are not owned by 5 people? and the country is not kept in the loop of Entertainment Tonight-like narratives. your post of course is sarcastic, but it's time journalists and opinion-sters took responsibility for constantly guarding the range of issues that can be discussed, for keeping us in "flag pins and needles" over something that has to be asked because in the words of the American Moron contest winner Charles Gibson "it's all over the internet"? Because something keeps receiving hits on the internet, we are going to act as if the question "is he one of us" was not a manufactured problem? None of them is ever ONE of US. Please, you seem like an educated person, stop treating the game as the law of gravity. This is your circular logic: Oh, I am inside a circus and the circus is round and it is in every direction around me, therefore it must be everywhere. I thought I saw the exit but there is a carrot attached to my nose that is compelling me to move after it, although it seems like it is not going anywhere. Since I am nauseous from all this carrot-following but can't stop, i'm going to puke on these people that are stupidly trying to search for an exit.

[grendl]

Look you're not fooling anyone.

You don't think Barack Obama can win because he's black.

All your spinning aside thats what it boils down to. Just say it, it'll be good for you to just come out and say it. Not one of us...

Not one of us... you're soooooo close. Just go that extra step. Be brave Mr. Fleetwood.

For once be brave.

[grendl]

Another thing, is saying one candidate can't win, a reason to support a candidate who can, if that candidate has in fact become closer to the enemy in how she runs her campaign, a closet elitist who drinks shots with Pennsylvanians and tries to pass herself off as a gun supporter when her voting record shows just the opposite.

She's not to be trusted. She vacillates and changes whenever the new polls come out, trying to be the girlfriend who will be whatever the electorate wants her to be.

But once we put that ring on her finger, as is often the case, after she's gotten what she desires, whose to say she won't cut us off. How do we know this juggling for us is going to continue once she's in the White House. And does she view it merely as a juggling act, not what it should be. Serving the electorates needs.

Try to present credible evidence she should be president, instead of reasons he can't.

Justify her winning, and stop dangling the black rubber spider before our eyes trying to invoke past humiliation of democrat losses.

[zenmatters]

Obama gets it. He is unusual, visionary. He understands that our only hope is the middle class coming together, regardless of our differences. But he faces an uphill battle. The old politics of division and hate, the politics that have gotten us into this intractable situation where nothing is being done, is still admired by the vast majority of Americans; the idea that you fight for what you want and you smash your adversary.

And that works, and it has worked for the last seven years . . . but it hasn't worked. What happens is that you eventually destroy each other, and this is happening as we slowly destroy our country. It began simply enough with a few pundits using conflict, dissention and division in order to get TV and radio ratings, but now the hate is everywhere, even on our highways where we are becoming a country of road rage haters, not much different from the terrorists that we are supposedly fighting.

Obama understands all of this. And if we are middle class Americans, and we don't understand who we are, then we may vote the way we did last time. When all we have left is our ideology; no home, no job, no food, then the reality of who we really are, which is a middle class American, will become evident. It is almost evident now, enough for middle class Americans to find their identity, and see who the culprits really are " who really runs congress.

[SamThornton]

Good satire. Could use some punching up, though. Think Henny Youngman one-liners.

[msmotherjones]

I get your gist, but "Obama should stick with basketball," really?

None of this excuses the behavoir of ABC. It's not about "being tough on the candidate" it's about a news organization losing its grip on "the news."

Yes, the republicans will play the game of politics of distraction and Clinton has proven herself a good player, though she hasn't any moral composure and it has backfired on her. Obama does have moral composure. He can withstand this petty crap. The question is: can we?

[Henry]

These debates are nonphysical professional wrestling staged by corporate ghoom-bahs who know what sells. Cheerios anyone?

[Lon]

The winner of debates is often determined by things other than substance. It does not follow that the goal of moderators should be to try to influence elections by pushing non-substantive matters. That is a good way to get bad presidencts, but not a good way to get an informed electorate. Not everything that happens should therefore be encouraged.

It is also true that debates are often not won during the debate itself. In this case Obama seems to feel that he does better setting himself against the muck of a debate on lapel pins rather than wallowing in it. I hope he is right. So far he has been, and that is why he is winning.

It would have been more satisfying for him to have beaten back the moderators in their presence, or of shown the joy in hurling guilt by association accusations that Clinton did. But I suspect it is better for his campaign that he did not.

[RobinVZB]

Clinton and Obama are very similar on the issues. Clinton has more experience in the Senate than Obama. If Obama is going to convince us to vote for him, he is going to have to convince us that his character and judgment are superior to Clinton's. Character and judgment are everything at this point in the primary. SO why is Obama objecting to people looking at his character? He should take advantage of the questions to make his case.

[BeeOplentee]

Don't bet on it. He comes across as a younger Kerry pontificator.

[danceswithyids]

The debate proved once and for all that Obama though I wish he would, will not be elected in the general.
Obama wants to be a different type of politician but he isn't willing to play the game in order to change the game.
He is basically a salesman and is forgetting rule number one, the customer is always right.
If all it takes to get enough of the independents and repubs to sway to Obama, is for him to wear a flag pin, then wear the damn pin.
I get what you are doing, but others don't and isn't getting elected what we're trying to do here?

If Obama was selling a car, and the customer said I like bose stereo, shouldn't he give them the bose stereo rather than try to convince the customer that the bose isn't important to them. It obviously is important to them and they are the one doing the buying. He can't sell the car without them.
Close the deal

[frustratedinohio]

You are so right. This is what Hillary supporters have been trying to get you all to see. He cannot WIN. So what is the point? One politician, even if he is president can't change the system. We would have gridlock at best. At worst he'd cave to everybody. Not only that, but he's not qualified and the debate proved it. He can't think on his feet. He will be eaten alive and it's too bad because at some point in the future, he would make a good president. If he had any wisdom, he would have waited.

[hbw3]

"You are so right. This is what Hillary supporters have been trying to get you all to see. He cannot WIN."

You appear to be a bit of step with your candidate:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: But the question is, do you think Senator Obama can do that? Can he win?

SENATOR CLINTON: Yes. Yes. Yes.

"Just words I guess," huh?

[Javalation]

Actually, if the press ever decides to be as tough on McCain, he'll sink fast and deep. However, if they choose to ignore his past combative behavior, treatment of native Americans in Arizona, difficulty in remembering facts, involvement in ancient scandals, and treatment of his first wife and family then it will be an paved highway. Someone needs to stand up the the lying right if we are to be able to get the better choice for president, and it'll be hard if the MSM continues to give the right a free pass.

[danceswithyids]

I think there is some truth to what you are saying, but McCain doesn't have as many of these stuck on silly issues.

[vassyuta]

compelling as the car salesman metaphor might be (psych!) politicians aren't car salesmen. not even are they performers (as journalists who talk of them 'coming into their voice' think they are) people vote on the promise or ideology, not concrete benefits. otherwise a woman with an invalid husband who can't pay his hospital bills wouldn't have cared about the pin in the first place. he speaks to a notion of 'patriotism' that is defined differently than the acts of flag worship. although many people tend to think that flag worship is an indispensable part of daily routine for middle americans, it is not impossible to imagine that this year enough people will see such behavior as sooo 2002 and look forward to refreshing new trends, like talking about waterboarding and civillian death toll in iraq and the blatant disrespect america has shown to the planet and how reversing that would constitute the newly re-branded notion of patriotism.
just talking to you in your own language, since salesmanship is your metaphor of choice. except this isn't on the sales level, it's on the level of brand concept marketing .

[MPeter]

Hillary discusses her foreign policy experience and 8 years as First Lady. Take a listen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VfjJi2qjR8