Debate Preview: Which Obama Will Show Up?

Now that we know John McCain will show up tonight, the question is: Which Barack Obama will show up tonight?

When Obama and McCain sat down with pastor Rick Warren for their first pseudo-debate, Obama was calm, thoughtful. He took care choosing his words, often peppering his sentences with "uh"s and "y'know"s (Obama pronounces "y'know" as "y'oh") while he found just the right one. Though the questions dealt with the most profound issues - life and death and families and evil - Obama showed little emotion in his voice, and even less on his face. His attitude seemed to be that he was there to give us some insight into his carefully considered thought process.

He got his butt kicked.

Last week, as the financial turmoil unfolded, as Obama spoke before large crowds in battleground states, he found his voice. He indicted McCain and the fat cats that run his party for gambling away America's financial strength. He frowned, he gestured widely and boomed out "I have a message for John McCain..." He gestured like he was sprinkling seeds to illustrate the GOP's laughable "trickle-down" philosophy. Then he smiled and chuckled and made a crack about the old boys' network being a McCain staff meeting. He was strong, he was fun, he was emotionally engaged and accessible.

He was the guy we have been waiting for.

I've spent the past few months coaching Democrats on public speaking and preparing them for debates. The biggest challenge most democrats have to overcome is their burning desire to discuss the issues in lots of intricate detail. At first glance, that might seem like a reasonable thing to do in a debate. But people do not vote for and against issue positions, they vote for and against candidates - people, not policies. The voters who are still persuadable at this stage in a campaign are not big on policy, or they'd have made up their minds by now. They are choosing between these two people based on how they feel about them. They size up each candidate's character to get a sense of which one is likely to do a better job. What sways their decisions is the emotion that each candidate shows in his words, voice and visuals. They want to know: Does this candidate understand where I am coming from? Are they strong enough to get the job done? Are they warm enough that I can relate to them, and feel confident they'll look out for me?

Fighting on that emotional terrain, attitude is everything. The most important preparation to walk out on that stage is not to memorize the briefing books, or even a few snappy lines (though having the right words at the ready definitely helps). The critical thing is to get into the right mood and the right frame of mind: relaxed and happy to be there, full of confidence to laugh off a silly attack or stand up to a serious one, looking forward to the opportunity to reach out and connect emotionally with the voters. Do that, and voters see a leader they can believe in, strong and warm, in charge and on their side. If Obama will do that, we'll win.

Think of the best moments in debates past: "You're no Jack Kennedy." "There you go again..." "I'm your girl!" Yes, smart policy is necessary for good government - as we've seen all too painfully lately - but smart policy is not what wins debates, or elections. Would that it were not so, of course, but we do ourselves no favors pretending otherwise.

As Democrats, we will probably always look forward to debates as a chance to explain our ideas to the American people and make our adversaries answer for the shortcomings of theirs. But that's usually our downfall. Because when we treat a debate as a chance to show the public how much smarter we are than the other guys, we lose. That is the common thread running through the candidacies of Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry, and, too often, Barack Obama too. For the sake of... well, of pretty much everything at this point... let's hope Obama breaks that thread tonight.

Comments

[GrainOSand]

Barack Obama is clearly a better candidate than John McCain is. He is more thoughtful and more visionary in his approach. He has a massive intellect that allows him to absorb a particular topic and expound upon it at length. Mr. Obama is ready to be president.

I have done some public speaking. I have faced the situation where I knew the topic like the back of my hand, only as I was giving the presentation I suddenly found myself thinking beyond the subject matter or even more scary thinking about how I might be perceived by the audience. Whenever this happened, I was able to recover. Each time recovery was preceded by vocal fumbling as I struggled to regain focus.

The most memorable occurrence was a large meeting where I was the only African American in the room. I was almost through the presentation and all was going well until out of nowhere I started to think about my old neighborhood. How people there were facing a different reality than mine. For the next minute or so (seemed like hours) my words took on a syrupy quality and the environment became hazy as beads of sweat formed on my forehead in panic.

Do not forget the historical nature of this contest and that this normally confident man is subject to basic human frailties of self-awareness in a historical context. Traveling in uncharted waters can make a captain appear aloof and cause rigidity where normally the person flows.

[SpencerCat]

Well, now we know. He was the pedantic professor.
Damn! I was shouting out better retorts in my living room.

"Maverick? You've voted with Bush 93% of the time. You, sir, are no Maverick."

Oh how I wish he'd said that. Or anything even slightly fiery or amusing.

[DofG]

This is the "s.o.s."! Writers like Mr. Neffinger seems to be stuck in a two dimesional universe, where either/or thinking represents the final plateau of human conceptualizing. He, like many others, have this dogmatic idea that being convinced by a position, be it political, religious etc., is an extrinsic process. I shall not even waste time by addressing his misrepresentations by omission.

The point is that we live in a universe of perceived phenomena called reality. However, all concepts and judgements are intrinsic, so any notion of truth is limited to our internal world! Therefore, we cannot truly make determinations about politicians based merely on what they say, or how they say it. Having a drunk vs. a clear-head­ed-profess­or tell us that a building is on fire carries no weight to the issue of whether, or not, the information is true. But it may carry weight to the issue of judgement on the part of those who must act on the information.

So now, we have all these people who want to scutinize OBAMA-the man who literally predicted the current fiasco. Yet, despite all of this "neo-scrui­tinization­", we elected Ron Reagan, an ex CIA director(Bush I) and the hegemonist/voodoo economist Bush II.

We Americans have liberty, but a lot more growing up to do!

[indypenelope]

Get fired up for tonight
www.myamericanprayer.com/video
Inspiring! It will make you proud to be a Democrat!

[juchee]

Oh yes..this "fires me up" Anything with Whoppi Goldberg in it is truly art at its finest. She's so classy and patriotic I get chills! At least you'll have these videos to watch after the election when the mantra has changed to "NO WE COULDN'T!!! "

[demninja]

This is more than mildly racist. Flagged.

[steeler5]

This debate will be a joke. The softballs are already stacked up and the media is willing to let McCain hit them too just to help Obama. He ducked Hillary and McCain and now he has his team in place. If Obama does not crush McCain it will a huge blow to his scripted campaign.

[Bruce Tenenbaum - Huffpost Blogger]

A lot of what you say makes sense, though I do think details are necessary, just not too many of them.

One question - if you have been helping Democrats to debate and, I assume, others like you have been helping Obama, and helped Kerry and Gore before, why are they still blowing it?

In the end, I believe, it's the candidate. Either he has it in him to rise to the occasion, or he doesn't. And if he doesn't have it, he won't get to be President. You may be able to learn public speaking skills but you either have charisma, timing, a quick mind and wit or you don't. Let's hope Obama has it. I think he just might. If he doesn't, instead of teaching debating skills perhaps someone should teach the Democrats how to pick candidates.

[GrainOSand]

I agree. But I am going to post a new comment that takes a different angle on this analysis of debate performance because I think it is relevant and important to consider. Mr. Obama is in a position that no one in the history of this country has ever been in. I believe there is a psychological impact when it comes to debates because as we have seen he does not lack the ability to be eloquent, inspiring, and clear when it comes to speeches.

I am of the opinion he needs less debate prep and more meditation that will help him to focus during debates.

[azakayaks]

RE: "Let's hope Obama has it."
I trust tonight's debate answered THAT question.

[Boadicea]

While I agree with your premise, ie that

"[undecided voters] are choosing between these two people based on how they feel about them "

your title is a perfect example of why Democrats lose national elections. You have brutally attacked your own candidate at a time when he needs your support, when he is going into a situation were he has struggled in the past. How stupid can you people be???

Back when I was a Republican, I used to delight in this kind of self-defeating behavior. Now I just want ot shake you.

Obama doesn't need you to be going on about him being two different people right now. (He absolutely is NOT two different people; the situations you describe are completely different.­)

He doesn't need you reminding him and his supporters of his previous mistakes. He needs your support. He doesn't need you giving Republicans new attacking points, he needs your support.

Democrats are absolutely dense when it comes to the psychology of electoral politics. It's extremely demoralizing to be on the side of Democrats in this election, and realize that the election will come and go, and Democrats will still not get it that Republicans don't win elections, Democrats lose them.

[kramskoi]

good point...an even better one is demonstrated by the hysterics of progressives and the hard left over FISA...the­re are no perfect candidates­...the difference between Democrats and Republicans is decisiveness and realism...­the same decisiveness displayed by Bush and now McCain...a­ction speaks to people even if the motive is suspect...­conservati­ves understand this about the electorate­...they pick their horse and ride it to the finish, hooves or harness be damned...d­ifferences can be ironed out AFTER the fact...any perceived tainting of the Democratic candidate shakes the constitution of their supporters­...you saw this last week with Obama's lackluster polling...­surrogates and supporters began to fear that Obama was letting the election slip away from him....

this psychic warfare of conservatives may be subconsiou­s...they want Obama to expound upon what he will do for the American people in detail...y­ou read it and hear it time and time again...bu­t when he offers a nuanced and informative opinion, he's seen as an elitist who can't identify with the lowest common denominators in the citizenry.­..maybe it's simply a mr. congeniality contest after all, with choices made more on a whim than on actual proficiency or conduct...

[politigirl]

I am so sick of hearing how McCain has bucked his own party again and again. If it comes up in the debate, I hope Obama says, "I would too John, if I were a Republican­."

[juchee]

None of this stuff will matter come election day. McCain certainly has his warts, but most Americans will end up voting for him simply because they are not comfortable with Obama.

[CaptainStormfield]

http://www.bartcop.com/mccain_chicken_little.jpg

[elycee]

I watched in dread during the last campaign, as Kerry thoughtfully answered each question with calm rationalit­y...and Bush, no matter the question, said, Ya'll need to be worried about the terists, a'm going to pertect u.

He used a lot of "homey" talk. I got a cold feeling in the pit of my stomach as the audience obviously warmed to his comfortable jargon use.

Obama is a man of the people, but unfortunately, intelligence often is sensed as talking down to by less thoughtful individuals, and I have noticed since he is taller than most, when he speaks to them,, he is literally looking down on them...and appears petulant. Most people don't get the tall guy looking at, vs looking down. I have had friends comment at him looking down his nose, when I point out his height, they're sort of surprised at the logic.

That said, Obama is hitting his stride, and I am confident, he will hit it out of the park tonight.

[CitizenE]

Float like a butterfly; sting like a bee. And if you catch him, a la Sonny Liston, leading with his jaw, wallop him fast.

[BottomLine2008]

And who was watching the Saddleback thing? Obama was just back from vacation, it was the middle of the summer, during the Olympics, on a Saturday night. I don;t think anybody cared besides junkies and religious fundamentalists.

[juchee]

I wouldn't dis fundamentalists- seems they have managed to get a candidate elected a time or two.

Everything that happens between now and election will not matter once people step into the booth to vote. Obama is an untested, inexperienced and arrogant politician that many among the American electorate are not that familiar with. The soaring rhetoric is all they have seen, but they have a lot of questions about who this man is. I heard John McCain described as a "comfortable old shoe" compared with Obama, who has many "experiences" during his lifetime, however, the media just can't seem to delve into any of these, so people are skeptical- with good reason. When it comes down to pulling that lever, I think you will all be surprised how many will defer to McCain.

[Passenger57]

I'm tired of hearing about how Obama "lost" the Saddleback "debate". Obama answered with long,thought out answers - because THAT'S WHAT THE FORMAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE. It was McCain who blew in,NOT "sequester­ed",seemin­g to know the questions, and answered questions with stump speech answers - exactly what each candidate was NOT supposed to do.McCain also had a built-in audience,in my opinion,and it was Obama that had the uphill battle.I think he did a fantastic job.

[ProudLiberalDan]

These aren't "debates".

These are more accurately named "deuling sound bites". Keeping that in mind will help. Modern day America doesn't even have a 1/10 of the attention span necessary to listen to something substantive like the old Lincoln-Douglas debate.

[hrayovac]

I've written this in blogs a lot lately, so forgive me, here goes again: The word is Pride. Pride in our country, our jobs, our kids, our communitie­s..that's the emotional word that will win for Obama.

[SaintAlphonso]

I think he should start off by holding a newspaper-sized photo of the "McCain wins Debate!" ad, a la Harry Truman, and then humorously ridiculing McSame's behavior this week re: the bailout. At some point, he'll also hopefully say something that pisses off McSame so much that we'll see that temper explode.