A Tale of Two Debates

On the five hour drive through corn and soybean fields that separated the YearlyKos Presidential Leadership Forum for Democrats in Chicago Saturday afternoon from the ABC News Presidential Candidates Forum for Republicans in Des Moines the next morning, I had time to ponder my participation on and off "the bus" of the primary debate process. The different vantage points I had as viewer, blogger, reporter and debate "expert" (plus some good old fashioned luck) afforded me unique views of the two events.

My view at YearlyKos began as a tired blogger and convention goer in search of power for the laptop on Friday night after the panels had all ended. Knowing there were outlets in the main hall where debates were to be held the next day I went in and sat down near the back where I could also daydream of the debate and get some perspective on the venue, a large rectangular hall with black chairs on a black stage.

As luck would have it the stage was soon occupied with the panelists for the next day's debate, convention organizer, Gina Cooper, and two "producer/directors" who seemed quite excited. One of the two kept talking about "the show." I moved up to the front of the room to watch the preparations and listen in. At YearlyKos, unlike the ABC debate, there were no "all access" versus "press file" or "spin room" passes. I was just a curious participant to the folks on the stage.

But as a debate expert, debate coverage blogger, and "citizen reporter" I had struck pay dirt and was already writing articles and stories in my head. After having been worried all day that I would not be able to discover the question selection process for the debate this debate, the questioners had come to me! Plus, I was privy to talk about like the mechanics of getting folks on stage, what would be said to the audience about the format or holding applause, the time keeping devices, how candidates might signal the moderator and more.

It quickly became apparent that the process of conducting the forum the next day was somewhere midway between the invention and execution stage. While one of the directors kept talking about what would be best for "the show" (the debater in me recoiled at the use of that term), Matt Bai, the New York Times Magazine columnist moderator, and the others bounced around ideas about how they would handle follow up questions. When I heard there would be no strict enforcement of the ninety second limit on candidate answers I knew as a debater that the rules would be observed in the breach and that control of the forum would be hard to maintain. I later learned that, from the perspective of a campaign source, the pre-debate conference call seemed to be the first time the organizers had thought of time keeping devices and pre-debate green rooms.

But what the panelists lacked in expertise and experience they made up for in passion and friendliness, allowing me to interview them for my questions preview story, adding still more time and trouble to what otherwise might have been the end of their day. Something tells me George Stephanoloulos doesn't stop for a random guy who happens along and introduces himself as a debate geek and "Off the Bus" blogger.

ABC, on the other hand, had technical, financial, and expert resources in abundance. While the YearlyKos format was being decided I was already getting e-mails from ABC about different minutiae of their event. It was a slick, televised, graphics heavy, tightly controlled performance. But it was a "show", too. Any debate that introduces the candidates with a graphic of the latest poll standings signals "show" from the very start.

The primary difference in these shows was not so much the format and execution as it was their purpose - one was a celebration of the power of the progressive blogosphere (and, with singing, of Obama's birthday), the other a high stakes ritual of the primary process aimed at the general voting public. Ana Marie Cox in her usually hilarious liveblog included this during the YearlyKos debate: "Observes a colleague: 'this is the most useless forum that i've seen yet. the cheering is creepy and the format is making engagement and followup impossible.' It is kind of weirdly more like a rally..."

Exactly. Useless to the "colleague" perhaps, but hardly useless to the candidates, the blogosphere, and the live audience celebrating their power. The criticism of the utility of any of the forums is not exactly news, either. Debate expert Tim O'Donnell argued that, "Obfuscation was the winner in ABC's 'This Week' Republican primary debate from Des Moines, IA. . . . The host, George Stephanopoulos, despite his stated goal of hosting a "real debate." failed to generate anything like the 'mayhem' he was seeking."

One big difference is that we might expect improvement from the YearlyKos organizers in future years. The "amateur" process has long term potential as a feature, not a bug. Matt Bai, whose purpose was to get the candidates off their talking points, sought out my opinion about the performance. His interest was primarily in adding to public understanding (not in celebrating the netroots since that is not his role). But he uses the two-way power of the medium.

Questioners mcjoan and Jeffrey Feldman were genuinely interested in what I thought of the event and were animated in their discussion with me and others afterwards about the questioning process when I came upon them in the hallway. The many e-mails I have received from ABC News do not include a survey soliciting my feedback on the conduct of their event. George Stephanopoulos and ABC were busy with a half hour pat on their own backs session right after the debate. It is the flatness and openness of the blog network that created the conditions for a self-organized group to come from nowhere to attracting all of the major candidates of a party in just over a year's time.

When it comes right down to it, the formats, various questions with short answers directed at different times to different candidates were of the same basic type. More different was the way the two events were experienced.

I heard and saw the YearlyKos event "live and in person" in a room with fourteen hundred or so high information partisans. They booed, laughed, and cheered so loud at times that they drowned out even the well amplified words of the candidates. I watched with empathy for the questioners, nervous for them, realizing that their goal of getting the candidates into a real discussion and off their talking points was unlikely to be met. I liveblogged my reactions and kept pace on the keyboard (at great cost to my spelling) while occasionally joining in the laughter, boos, and cheers uninhibited by a role as journalist. I had decided I would focus on the execution of the format and the quality of the questions. I was to play the role of an expert critic of the process, not the campaign product.

That did not keep me from taking note of the one place a debate broke out on lobbyist contributions. Barack Obama's reply to Hillary's attempt to minimize the argument about lobbyists' power had resonance. I also noticed that Hillary tried to connect on keeping the internet open but the words did not roll off her tongue like they often do on more common issues.

Watching the Republican debate from the friendly confines of the press filing room was far different. Electrical connections were plentiful as was the coffee and pastry. We were all working, watching on a TV screen in a law school lecture room.

Instead of interviewing the panelists before the debate I interviewed a few of the working press to ask what they would be looking for. "Second tier" performance in light of the Ames straw poll was the answer. They also agreed that the early morning debate allowed them to write a better story because they were not facing as close a deadline as evening debates impose.

I barely liveblogged, instead posting an occasional update about my thought processes and the overall experience. When I was not too distracted by watching Ana Marie Cox do her brilliant liveblog directly in front of me in the tier below (I did blurt out a better line than her on democracy and Rudy when I said, "Making New York safe for democracy," but she did not steal it), I kept a pad with a page for each candidate and noted one or two follow up questions I would have asked had I been the moderator. These would be my spin room questions. The peace and sense of earnest shared purpose in the press room allowed me to watch the debate without typing much and to think more about how to assess the debate and how to share what I was learning. The staid and traditional format and performance of the Republicans and quiet of the spin room also served as a much better foil that produced a much funnier Ana Marie Cox liveblog than did YearlyKos's more raucous environment.

It was clear that as at YearlyKos, most portions were talking points and show while a few debates did break out. The Republicans bashed liberals, political correctness (seemingly at random), and taxes like the Democrats did the policies of the Bush administration. Mitt and Rudy were immovable objects. No one was an irresistible force. Brownback had clear stances and provided contrast, as did Huckabee. They might benefit if people did watch.

The final difference of note was getting the rapid reaction e-mails as the debate unfolded. Very early on I received fact check from Brownback to "prove" Romney wrong. Obama's campaign sent a reply to the segment on him in near real time. The ABC transcripts reminded me I had no reason to try typing what people said. By 10:20 for a debate that ended at 9:30 Romney's campaign had a round up of quotes from prominent media pundits claiming Romney had won.

The post debate experience was the best part of the press access in a traditional debate. The YearlyKos event had separate break out rooms where large numbers of people gathered to hear more from the candidate they chose to watch. The bloggers in attendance would raise their hands and ask questions. I watched Obama field two tough questions, one on trade and another on coal and renewable portfolio standards. But I knew my chances of getting called on were slim and went to the Richardson room to talk to his debate coach.

The spin room at Drake was a different story. Although Giuiliani, Romney and McCain were not there, other candidates were. And I could ask direct questions with follow ups. Here I was in my element. As a debater and debate coach, cross examination is right in the wheel house of my expertise. I felt at home, especially after discovering that one of the Huckabee sign holders was a student in my debate class the year before.

I'll be writing separately about the results of some of my interrogations, but one of my quick impressions were that Lindsay Graham, a McCain surrogate was either tired or half despondent. There was no availability problem for me. I asked him if he could explain how McCain links abortion policy to national security. He gave it his best shot, inserting an internal link between abortion and human rights but left out the link between human rights and national security. He did perk up when I told him I was a debate coach.

The Huckabee campaign surrogate's answers to the same questions I asked of Huckabee later did not do the candidate justice. The surrogates cannot really do follow ups. The Romney folks said that yes, Mitt really does believe Chavez is one of "the world's worst tyrants." When I mentioned that he had been democratically elected I was reminded that Hitler had been, too. They said Chavez had turned the government into a political machine. I did not ask about Rove.

More later here and at DebateScoop, but I will tease you with the report that Tommy Thompson was by far the best - eloquent, passionate, substantive -- on Iraq policy. His spin room answers to me were better than any there or anything said in the debate itself. The batteries that Ana Marie Cox keeps referring to might not be the problem. He might just work a lot better one on one.

For me, the spin room was like my office. But I call it the cross-ex room. I can report factually that certain follow up questions were not answered or were answered in a way that only gives rise to more questions. In the cross-ex room I have found a way to report factually and without bias on the arguments the candidates are making but without just being a stenographer. The other comfort zone was in the behind the scenes prep for an event.

This weekend the best two places to be just happened to be separated by three hundred miles, the Mississippi, and crops. With or without a bus, the trip was worth making.