My task tonight is to assess the debaters from the perspective of a debate coach and professional academic debate judge. But most of the focus is on the questions tonight, the "YouTubification" of the candidate debate process. Count me in the camp that argues that tonight's biggest winner will prove, in the long run, to be the public in our democracy. My proof is before my eyes as I sit in a room with 80 teen-aged students from across the United States and Europe, gathered to watch the debate and assess the quality of the questions. Some of them have submitted their own questions and all have been learning about debate and the art of asking good questions.
Tonight's questions were actually tougher than many of the softballs and generalities in the earlier debates: slavery reparations, gay marriage and religion, and whether troops are "dying in vain" are tough. The comparative questions, requiring candidates to address a distinction between themselves and an opponent are also tough tests. Good questions make the job of the critic easier since they demand more of the debaters.
Caveat Emptor:
However, my job has been far from easy. Usually I would be joining my students and fellow coaches in the DebateScoop liveblog and then taking my sweet time to write up a judgment piece for posting much later in the night or the next day. So, consider this a reaction piece, as opposed to a final judgment. Please engage me in the comments and debate about the debate with me. It's what I love and the best way for us to learn together to do our jobs as citizen debate judges in a democracy.
Criteria:
To judge the answers as a debate coach means two very different things and I'll try to do both here. First, coaches teach debaters to artfully employ certain techniques. So, we can rate the candidates in technical categories. The second, more important and challenging, lesson is to focus on the "big picture." In rhetoric and argumentation, the metaphor more useful than the visual of the "big picture or the "forest and the trees" is actually the narrative, the story. A winning debater must recognize what the story is, where it is, and where they want to take it.
Summary judgment:
Before diving into the details (and because many may already be so impatient to know who I thought "won") I will summarize, without evidence, my judgment. The best technical performances was by Richardson. Next I would group Hillary and Kucinich. Obama and Edwards were next. Then Dodd, then Biden. I confess I paid little attention to Gravel as an answerer. His role was more that of one more YouTube questioner.
In terms of the narrative, Richardson and Edwards were the biggest winners. Kucinich actually helped himself by moving away from his role as part iconoclast, part class clown, and sounding more moderate and serious. Hillary did not let the narrative move against her. Obama may have reinforced both the positive part of his role in the story as well as the negatives. Dodd had to change the story that casts him as an earnest and genial Senator. He did not. Biden needed to add "leader" and "mature" to his "straight talker" role, but went overboard by essentially calling a citizen insane. Topping it off with a sexually charged reference to Kucinich's wife just brings the story of Biden the bombastic guy who talks before he thinks roaring back. He turned a potential win into a loss. In competitive debate we teach students that the last rebuttals are key, and that a debate is never over until the last opportunity to lose it is gone. The debate needed to end sooner for Biden.
Technical categories:
1) Debate coaches call it "front loading." Get to the meat of your answer early in your response. Start with what you must fit into the short time alloted then add as many supporting details as you have time for. Journalists might say, "Don't bury the lead." Richardson reversed his earlier performances 180 degrees. He went straight to the answer and then added detail, support, and links to other issues. Obama had a little difficulty as he often does in this category . He started at "Tuskegee Airmen" to get to national service, for instance. But he was good on the question of talking to enemy leaders, starting with "Yes . . ." before talking about JFK. Edwards should have answered first and then linked to other subjects instead of frequently seeming to dodge questions.
2) Seize opportunities. Capitalize on your chances when the ball is in your court and grab the momentum when you can. The flip side is to avoid making arguments that favor your opponents. Kucinich grabbed the chance he had on reparations. He also squeezed in his text message ad. Biden did well with Darfur -- he too had been there and he knew the stakes.
3) Be responsive. "Actually answer" as the introductory video asked. Here Kucinich never dodged nor did Biden. Dodd and Edwards were most conspicuously caught seeming to dodge. Hillary was an artful dodger, as was Obama.
4) Control the ground and terms of the debate. Campaigns try to "stay on message" and debate advisers tell candidates to link issues in a way that brings the debate to issues on which you are strongest. This is the tactic I pay very close attention to.
One cannot make absurd links as Biden almost did linking "In God We Trust" to the Violence Against Women Act or Kucinich with "Warming" to "Warring" but in general, links are almost always good. Richardson made good use of links, for instance, when he gave a frontloaded answer on health care coverage and then moved to research, cancer, and other health issues. He straightforwardly said he was for background checks on guns and then linked to poverty and other issues associated with crime. In previous debates Richardson just linked to his New Mexico governor experience. In this one his links were much more powerful and showed a command of the issues.
There is a fine line between good links and repetition of talking points. I am sure Obama, Edwards, and Hillary, the three who have been heard and reported about most often will be criticized for just repeating parts of stump speeches. But that's their ground, that's their narrative, and they do well when they can tell their story. Obama repeatedly tied his answers to a politics that rejects cynicism and unites people behind major change. Hillary repeatedly linked her answers to a record of fighting for causes (of every interest related to a question). Edwards tied every argument he could to the plight of people who represent the populist emotion.
5) Emphasize solutions. Here is where Dodd continues to have trouble. He focuses on problems of No Child Left Behind and of Katrina, and energy, with very little in the way of solutions until he gets to the carbon tax. Hillary lists many past policies but is relatively thin on actual plans that match up to the size of the problems. Unfortunately the eight candidate quick answer format is not a good test of this very important criterion so there is little more to be said than that dwelling on how bad a problem is wastes our time and Dodd remains the biggest offender.
The narrative:
Richardson moved the story about his resume to a story about his strong answers. He should also be able to benefit from having answered so quickly and completely when in previous debates he was often slow to get to the point. He also challenged the others on certain issues and created a story line that can persevere and that might accompany horse race poll tracking that shows him rising.
Edwards did as good a job as anyone could refuting the story that he is shallow or hypocritical on his key issue, poverty. He really was convincing when he said he was "outraged by these stories" and the presence of the young woman in the audience with his wife was living proof that his connection with people is real.
Hillary and Obama are continuing to extend the narratives that currently favor them, but I think Hillary's wonderful humor in answer to the question about having two families occupy the White House for twenty years was just the sort of of thing that's needed to change the storyline that casts her and her campaign as a humorless political machine.
Obama needs to show he is "experienced". The debate did little to allow him to do so. But he did advance the connection between traditional values and progressive politics in a way he had not in previous debates, especially as when spoke on religion.
Dodd needs a story. Any story. His story is historical in all of its references, especially to his ability as a Senator (not a President), but this is a change election.
Biden, as I noted above, moved the story back to the one he periodically tries to put behind him: a man whose mouth is a liability.
And Gravel? People who argue for his inclusion in the debates say he is useful for "keeping the others honest." He should submit his questions via YouTube.
You (Time Person of the Year) can submit your questions for me in the comments below.