Obama's Can't-Lose Debate Strategy

Part 1 explored why debates are typically won by the candidate who presents the most compelling and persuasive character. If I can convince you I'm an honest, straight talker, you'll believe what else I say. If you can't, you won't.

The corollary, of course, is that another way to beat your opponent in a televised debate, or the equally important post-debate spin, is to find and repeat endlessly one or more sound bites from the debate that undermines your opponent's character. And such a strategy has the best chance of succeeding if that character attack fits the negative frame or extended metaphor you have created for him.

Since I doubt Obama is suddenly going to stop being a "Smart Talker" and suddenly become a blunt-talking man of the people, this counterpunching strategy is his best hope for winning the debate. Team Obama must simply make the entire post-debate spin about the various lies and out-of-touch, intemperate statements that McCain inevitably makes.

Unleash Hell On Al

That was the exact strategy used by the Bush team to trample Al Gore in the pivotal first debate during the 2000 campaign. In that campaign, a key Bush metaphor was that he wasn't the slick-talking "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" Bill Clinton.

Bush was then, much as he is now, the blunt, trip-over-his-own tongue, regular guy. And it seems hard to believe know, but his message was "restoring honor and dignity to the White House," as British journalist Martin Lewis has written. Gore also tried to distance himself from the President, refusing to let Clinton campaign; choosing for his running mate Senator Joe Lieberman, a religious and moralistic man who had publicly criticized Clinton's behavior; and famously kissing his wife Tipper at the end of his acceptance speech. All this helped put Gore into the lead going into the first presidential debate.

But the Bush team better understood how strategy and rhetoric work together, how to create a successful extended political metaphor. As Lewis explained, the Bush team came up with a plan to "take all of Gore's perceived weaknesses and find a way to characterize them as all being part of the same character flaw. And the kicker was that it would be the self-same defect that the public had detected in Clinton." Now that is extending a metaphor.

The Republicans had long mocked Gore for perceived exaggerations, tainting him effectively with twisted or out-of-context versions of various claims, such as his statements that he had taken the initiative on legislation that created the Internet (which in fact he had). For the first debate, Bush's opposition research team established a "massive database of every utterance in Gore's 26 years in public service," and waited for him to make a slight misstatement. In a BBC interview, Tim Griffin, the GOP's Deputy Head of Research explained the value of opposition research with the politics-as-war metaphor: "Research is a fundamental point. We think of ourselves as the creators of the ammunition in a war. Research digs up the ammunition.... We make the bullets."

Griffin extended the military metaphor with a sign he erected in the Bush team's War Room, the term for the rapid response headquarters James Carville set up for Clinton in 1992 that was popularized in the movie of the same name. The sign read: "On my command-unleash hell on Al." This quote, minus the "on Al," came from the blockbuster movie of that year, Gladiator. It was uttered by General Maximus (Russell Crowe) before the Roman legions launched their massive firepower on the barbarian hordes.

When Gore said, incorrectly, that he visited fire sites in Texas with FEMA Director James Lee Witt, the Bush team opened fire. As one GOP opposition researcher put the spin, "The man can't tell the truth. He uses legalisms and he parses words just like his master, Bill Clinton, to get out of trouble." Lewis writes, "The New York Post trumpets LIAR LIAR on its front page--and the post-debate spin cycle becomes about Gore's perceived chronic character flaw." This is especially impressive political spin given that Gore did visit fire sites in Texas with a different FEMA executive, and at other times he had visited Texas with Witt.

To be effective, an extended metaphor in politics doesn't have to be entirely true, especially if your opposition lacks the language intelligence to fight back. The best way to respond to this sort of attack is probably with humor, a trait Gore was unable to marshal in his public speeches.

The Bush team actually got a two-fer from the debate because Gore's sighing played into the spin that he was a condescending intellectual elitist. The result was the poetically rhetorical phrase "sighs and lies," with Gore becoming another too-clever liar. So we once again had the classic storyline in the 2000 campaign: The plain-spoken man of the people versus the fellow of infinite forked tongue.

Unleash Hell On John

Again, I seriously doubt Obama is suddenly going to become plain spoken -- it will probably take all of his effort during the debate merely to avoid appearing like Carter Dukakis Gore Kerry an over-educated smart talker. Indeed, you really don't want to try to be something you're not in debate. It simply takes too much mental energy and distracts you from the far more important task of focusing on good, concise answers and listening to your opponent's words for anything to pounce on.

But Obama does have an obvious counterpunching strategy for winning the debate once it is over. The supposed straight-talker John McCain has jumped all-too-willing into the serial liar frame, which has finally been well-reinforced by team Obama and has even been picked up by many in the media. The fact that the uber-deceiver of the GOP, Karl Rove, criticized McCain for going too far with his lies is evidence that he understands the serious jeopardy McCain has placed himself in, assuming the Obama campaign puts as much planning into this as Bush did in 2000.

McCain is clearly one of the worst candidates at maintaining message discipline while speaking off-the-cuff in modern GOP history. He blurts the most absurd things in the world in debates and town halls and even prepared speeches (see, for instance, The real, Luddite McCain: "The truly clean technologies don't work"). Moreover, in the last few weeks, he has been telling so many lies on so many different subjects that he appears to actually believe them.

So it is completely inevitable that he will make multiple statements that are all far closer to outright "lies" than anything Gore said in 2000. The Obama war room must make make identifying and documenting those statements the almost exclusive focus of their real-time debate work. And all of the surrogates must repeat the message post-debate. As an aside, I hope they use John Kerry, since he is certainly one of their best on foreign policy matters. I suppose there is no escaping using foreign-policy maven Joe Biden, who has in recent days vindicated everyone's fears he would be a unstoppable gaffe machine, a messaging Terminator.

But I digress. If team Obama is any good, they should whip together an ad immediately built around McCain's lies. And they should also get Claire McCaskill out there repeating her terrific message:

This is a good example of what I'm talking about. You know, honor is talked about a lot in this campaign. Honor comes with honesty. And you've got to be honest about the facts.

If they do this right, the Obama campaign should get a two-fer. In addition to "liar," McCain's performance in the debate is sure to reinforce either that he is out-of-touch or that he lacks the temperament to be President.

The beauty of this strategy is that it can't lose. It doesn't matter how bad or well Obama performs if people come to see McCain as the out-of-touch temperamental (or intemperate) serial liar that he is. If Obama performs poorly, then the debate would be a draw, which is a win for Obama given that he is currently ahead in the polls and foreign policy is supposedly McCain's strong suit. And if Obama performs well, then he would get an outright win and just about put the election away.

Part 3 will focus on how Obama can use McCain's character flaws to incite the hot-headed Arizonan to make the maximum number of mistakes and tell the maximum number of lies.

Comments

[tyrdofwaitin]

Joseph: If you mean by "plain speaking" that Obama should blurt out the first thing that comes to his mind, that's not plain speaking, that's dumb ---as in --- John McCain. Plain speaking is speaking truth to power; plain speaking is not hiding behing a wall of lies; plain speaking is knowing what you are talking about; plain speaking is about chosing your words carefully when talking about complex issues; plain speaking is utilizing nuance, not sound bites.

Obama has passed the "plain speaking" test for me; McCain-Palin have not. If Americans are so saturated and so dumbed-down with 8 years of the Bush-destruction-of-the-English-language, let them eat cake and go back to grammar school. I for one appreaciate an intelligent and prudent Commander-in-Chief.

[tyrdofwaitin]

P.S. Palin-speaking is not plain-speaking.

[QuietAmerican]

I wonder if Mr. Romm has actually ever watched an Obama speech.

Obama incapable of being a "plain talker"?

80,000+ people packed into a stadium, riveted on his every word, beaming with smiles, tears of joy streaming down their faces, beg to differ. As do his massive rally crowds.

If by plain talk, Mr. Romm means Obama is incapable of appearing to suffer from mild retardation, in the way that Bush seems to every time he opens his mouth, that I could understand.

[darker]

Imagine.
McCain NEEDS A TIME OUT!

A TIME OUT is for toddlers with TANTRUMS!
McCain's having a tantrum he cannot control.
It's about HIS INCOMPETENCE.

McCain's Repub. handlers definitely do not want a McCain debate with Obama on the economy Friday. Imagine some of the questions that cut & run McCain would have to answer.

McCain and his VP pick are constantly shielded from saying anything much to media for fear they'll screw up. That's not leadership! That's abominable.
I've had it with that circus sideshow.

My vote will be for
common sense & competence: Obama-Biden.

[Willow712]

All Obama would have to intimate is that McBush is lying, by hinting about "maybe you should get out factcheck.org, John.." or something like that. Because that will really enrage McBush, ergo, the end of the debate. LOL.

[Aurin]

What about a strategy that can rebuff McCain's lies DURING the debate.
Maybe Obama can refer Americans to his website in a section called "McCain Lies"
This is because candidates never really get enough time to fully explain their points and everything becomes a sound bite. Maybe Obama can say "America, if you'd like to know more go to www.Obama.com/McCainLies

[Ponzipuppet]

I think that McCain's temper is as great a liability as his lying.

A slogan:

McCain: A Nuclear Temper

[PenFighter]

Isn't that nucular?

[UNCLEJOE]

If McCain needs more time to prepare to debate Obama on our foreign policies after serving 28 yerars in the Senate, it tells us how meaningless, inconsequential his, McCains 28 years experience is when it comes to being unprepared as the leader of the most powerful nation in history.

And there is No Way that Obama should place himself in a session convened by Bush to listen to Bush pontificate his plans for correcting this financial crisis with Obama appearng as a student under Bush.

How clever these Bush/ McCain strategists are. If Obama refuses, he is uncooperative; if Obama falls for the the suggestion to plce himself in a situation where he appears subservient to the idiot Bush, then it elevates McCain and diminishes Obama's political prestiege in the eyes of undecided Americans voters

[jsarets]

The goal for this debate -- if it goes forward as planned -- is to get the moderator to ask Obama if he's calling McCain a liar, and then respond with a simple "yes, he lied".

He can't just come out and make an unprovoked allegation like that, because it's one of those taboos. He needs to first use language soft enough to be presidential but suggestive enough to demand a follow-up. Then he has to answer the follow-up directly and without much hesitation (or eagerness).

Then let the post-debate spin room extrapolate the message from a lie to a pattern of lies.

[cskoog]

Yes, a way to take the ball and run, reinforcing an emerging anti-McCain metaphor, vis post-debate strategy is a lesson that must be applied hard and fast. Good post.

[Rog49Thomas]

In a time of trouble, the people long for a savior.

A man of rock solid convictions who knows his mind and isn't afraid to act. A man who sees the world in black and white and can be relied on not to hesitate in the moment of crisis.

Honest John is good at that a la Saddlebrook where he answered three of Pastor Rick's questions quite simply and decisively "No, no, and no".

It doesn't matter if the answers are right or thought out. It's the image, stupid.

If Barack is still channeling his inner Adlai, with sentences over 7 words (not counting any "yups"), he can damage his cause.

[stubbornbelle]

And isn't that just idiotic, too!

After all the evidence of what "go with the gut" reaps, still OUR gut tells us short and sweet
equals safety.

And people, despite having brains between our ears, don't make near enough use of 'em.

Still, McCain is just barely standing right now, and Barack is a sharp debater. I think Barack will knock him down.

But, I predict that Palin comes in and gives a surprise performance in hers and rescues him again.

Belle

[Yermammy]

In her debate with Joe Biden, lil' Sarah will respond with knitting doilies that form words. And then harpoon a seal for good measure.

[jsarets]

For many Americans, it's more important that we know in advance what a candidate will do than to know that the candidate has the judgment to do the right thing. It's a control issue. We don't like surprises, even when it's the right call.

[Greg285]

Great article and right on point...

[Faith101]

BREAKING NEWS: John McCain has just put out a statement requesting to postpone Friday debates and suspend campaigning and he wants to go back to Wash to take part in Bailout debate. No response yet from the Obama campaign. Stay tuned. Could it have something to do with Rick Davis with his finger in the money cookie jar from FreddieMac? They want to restrategize, he ain't fooling nobody.

[robotsoul]

I also hope Obama can get Mc Cain a little riled up. He is famous for his bad temper and if Obama can bring it out it will help further the storyline of that Mc Cain is not only a liar but a hot-head.

[stubbornbelle]

That I agree with wholeheartedly!

Belle

[rkimball]

when asked a few week ago about how to fix the economy,mc cain didn't have a clue. he still don't have a clue,nor does palin.

obama's economic plan may not be the best,but it's a plan. where's mc cain's?

[francis456]

There is an easy solution. Get five of your friends to vote on November. Just tell then that McCain= the stupid, ignorant Bush and repeat that idea over and over.

VOTE. Half of Americans don't vote. Get everyone you know between 18-35 in age to vote.

[MedinaM]

I have two friends right now (they're both 20 years old) and they don't know if they want to vote. They hate McCain/Palin, so they won't vote for them no matter what, but the problem is convincing them to vote for Obama. They just don't see the point in voting for anybody. I'm trying my damn best to convince them, but I'm running out of ways to convince them...any ideas?

[dudervision]

Tell them that McCain has said more than once that he is open to restoring the draft. Add to this his belief in using military solutions. When they say the Democratic congress can prevent this...tell them about this scenario.

McCain has shown that he does not want to negotiate with Iran on ending their nuclear weapons program. He, or a surrogate like Israel, launch an air attack on the Iranian nuclear facility. They respond by closing the Strait of Harmuz and shutting off 30% of the worlds oil. They have promised to do this. Oil doubles in price overnight and gas hits $12 a gallon. McCain goes to congress and says we must invade Iran but he does not have enough troops. Viola! We have a draft and your 20 year old friends are suiting up to head off to a war that will make the Iraq war look like a day in the park.

Obama/Biden
Yes, we can
Yes, we MUST

[metalgirl]

As long as the deficit-spending Republicans are in charge, the "bill" to these 20 year olds will continue to increase. Obama has a plan for making college tuition more affordable -- do they have any friends who attend college? Assuming they drive, do they want to keep funding the oil-rich countries that wish to do us harm to fuel our transportation or do they want to reduce our oil-addiction, which will also increase our country's security? If they don't vote, the McCain/Palin ticket that they won't support might get elected. It's important for ALL voters who are willing to vote for Obama to do so.

[fishgirl26]

yes, I do have an idea. If they don't vote we could end up with at least 4 more years of lying, deceiving, and perhaps the instiution of the draft. Do they want to be drafted??? McCain has made it pretty clear how he feels about diplomacy....he doesn't believe in it so he'll go on hells rage and bomb Iran and anyone else he feels is a threat. We can't afford to have him as president. Look at what a financial mess we are in now. Have you heard a concrete plan come out of his mouth??? Do you want your kids to go to college??? Mr. Obama has a plan for that too. I am a single mother of a 12 year old and I fear for the future if Obama is not elected. MedinaM....tell your friends to vote because my 12 year old can't and it's his future as well as theirs that is at stake!!!! ESPECIALLY if they are women!! The Palin/McCain ticket would pretty much send us running for our rights!! (abortion, equal pay for equal work, etc!)