Political Communication
9-25 – 10-2

On the Debate

Foreign Affairs issues were avoided because of financial events coming to the forefront.
Little focus was put on the question/issue of Obama as Commander in Chief in comparison to McCain.

For what there was, both listed names and places as proof of their understanding of international affairs. Therefore Obama wins for not loosing.

McCain often seemed demeaning to Obama…and angry. Obama always seemed to be in control

The group with whom I watched the debate did not see any of the run-up (we viewed a documentary about the history of debates produced by Jim Trengrove (of the News Hour), and then turned off the television immediately to talk among ourselves.

So we watched the debate absent of any spin (of course through the eyes of a mostly liberal audience however) but their impression too, was that Obama won for not loosing.

When McCain talked about Obama’s reaction to the Russian invasion of Georgia, he attacked him for being too slow to act, his statement was that Obama’s “first reaction was to tell both sides to cease hostilities”. His implication was that Obama was unsure of what to do and not decisive. The audience take on this was that that was the first thing that should be done… and that McCain seemed to think that everything should be answered militarily… even before you know what’s really going on. They thought that this was a dangerous approach.

Audience saw McCain as ‘shooting from the hip’… Obama as more ‘statesman like’

All thought that Obama looked like a President… and (since there wasn’t much talk about military issues) had passed the ‘Commander in Chief’ bar.

On the Financial Crises

McCain acted quickly (and often erratically) in an attempt to take control of the dialogue and the leadership role (have Obama respond to him, instead of vice versa). This of course backfired with his announcement of suspending his campaign and threatening to not participate in the debate.

It was a Presidential ploy… something a President would do in a national emergency. There was only one problem… McCain is NOT president.

Obama waited (he does this all the time) and acted in a slower and more considered manner (consistent with his trying to project the image as a reasoned, statesmanlike leader)

Both are on the wrong side of the public on the rescue plan, but neither wants to take a position in opposition to the other… even though both probably think the plan is bad.
Politically better to both be on the same side (looking at the polls as to who’s on each side in the public, and it’s mixed… potentially negative for both candidates… so they are not going to polarize the voters they need by taking one side or the other). This is all very politically safe… but also cowardly.

It’s also VERY complicated, and due to the way in which it was first presented to the public (by Paulson) not easily explainable.

Obama campaign has taken back the argument (by luck) with the attention shifting to Domestic issues and the Economy.

I do not think however, that Obama is moving ahead only because of the domestic issues coming to the forefront, but rather because McCain seems the more risky choice due to his temperament and daily (sometimes erratic) change in positions, while Obama remains steadfast and calm.

Vice President

The Obama campaign has raised expectations for Palin… not letting the McCain side convince the media that if she doesn’t fall down, she wins. The have consistently shown her as an experienced debater (using Alaska clips, etc.) so that the media … and the public… might start to expect more from her performance.

Media has hyped this debate, predicting larger audience for debate. This is self serving. I don’t think the country (other than out of curiosity) really cares much about Palin anymore.

I predict a smaller audience

To “win”, Biden needs only to “answer the questions”

Which audience counts? People or Press