Debate Comments

I watched the Nevada Democratic debate tonight on MSNBC's web site. As wonderfully moderated as the ABC\Charlie Gibson debate was, this one, moderated by Tim Russert and Brian Williams, was horrible. The questions in the first 1/2 hour were unsubstantial and exclusively focused on insider politics.

At one point, one of the moderators (Williams?) told Obama that he received an email alleging that Obama was a Muslim, swore into office using a Koran, etc., and asked him to respond. Sheesh. Is this the new basement of accusations that is now worthy of a televised response?

Did anyone else watch the debate? Perception plays such a powerful role in how one perceives these debates that I don't feel comfortable declaring any universal truths about this one, like who won or who looked better. I favor Obama, and that colors my view significantly. That aside, this is what caught my eye.

* I've watched all of the debates, and whatever I think about Obama and Clinton's responses, they have been syntactically different each time. The variation in language helps their answers sound fresh, and is done in part because they are adapting their language to a consistently changing campaign, including whatever interest groups they are trying to target in the state where the debate is held.

Edwards, on the another hand, keeps repeating the same phrases with little variation. This is OK if a voter only hears it once, but for me, I found my attention drifting almost every time he talked. The intense focus on message makes him come off to me as unimaginative and somewhat lacking in depth, traits he probably doesn't have in real life. I think the lack of even superficial deviation from one's message is a poor tactic, and he risks being tuned out more than the other candidates.

Next debate, I'm making a Edwards drinking game. One sip everything time he says mill, I'll fight for your interests, corporate greed, lobbyists, or middle class. I am going to get trashed.

* Small thing, but I liked it when Obama said (paraphrasing, hopefully correctly) that one of the biggest ways to head towards energy independence was to focus on efficiency. From what I read, it's true. The biggest way to reduce energy consumption is the most boring: buying fluorescent light bulbs, more energy efficient washers and dryers, and so on.

* Just thought of this. In spite of what I said about Edwards, I wonder if Obama needs to be more on-message, in specific, explaining to people his philosophy of governance.

I'm not sure it comes through enough during the debates. Whether you support him or not, do you feel you understand how he aims to enact and garner support for policy?

My understanding is that it is based on the principles of mediation, inclusiveness, and evaluating the interests of different groups based on science and rationality rather than ideology. In short, the language and politics of cooperation, rather than combativeness (e.g building "good enough" majorities, seeing the other side as the enemy).

This may be naive of me, but I think there is a lot to be gained from acknowledging the view of someone you disagree with, and showing that you understand that person's view. Angry people don't change their minds, whether it's you or the other person who is angry. I believe there are practical benefits to encouraging a civil discussion and reducing the overall level of emotional arguments in political discourse besides the fact that it makes most people feel warm and fuzzy.

At any one time, you can either be in an emotional state or a rational state. You can't be in both. I think better decisions would be made if politicians did less to generate support through emotionally loaded words and speeches, and instead focused on appealing to people's brains.

I remember during the run-up to the Iraq war people on both sides were extremely emotionally invested in the conflict, and we were never able to have a rational, national debate on the decision to go to war. I definitely got emotionally invested at one point and became angry above all else. A good part of that reason was that our leaders were using emotions like fear and anger to fan support for the war, which inspired similar emotions in the other side, and whatever chance we had for a level-headed evaluation of the available information by the public was lost.

It would be difficult, and perhaps impossible, for a President to avoid creating or succumbing to an emotionally charged environment, especially if there were another terrorist attack. But the country would be better off if it could be done, and in my opinion Barack Obama is the best hope for creating a better political environment.