Un-moderated Obama/McCain debates — good idea or bad?

Perhaps Obama has more to lose, but only because the MSM is going to “catapult the propaganda” no matter what mclame says and does.

It would be worse to have the type of “moderated” debate that we saw on ABC – the msm and pundits have already proven that they won’t talk about real issues that Americans care about.

Perhaps he has more to lose, but mclame is an idiot, he is sure to say something stupid and unmoderated debates may allow Obama to pin him down on some important issues.

It is a sure-thing that team Obama would end up with some great footage of mclame saying something unpopular, idiotic, an out-right lie, or a flip-flop.

Honestly, after the post this morning about how the media is McCain’s base, I feel confident that, if held in the right locations, such forums could be extremely beneficial for Obama.

McCain is a pathological panderer, and a Lincoln-Douglas style debate (or even a discussion forum with the two candidates), could really serve to emphasize the stark differences between Obama and McCain.

Obama: Senator McCain, back in ’01 and ’03, you opposed the President’s tax cuts because they were unfavorably skewed to the wealthy. Now you support them. Why?
McCain: Dude, I never said that.
Obama: Uh, dude, you did…. on multiple occasions (citations follow)
McCain: f*** you

Would it be possbile to have these events populated with progressives that would ask questions intended to trip-up McCain and set off his legendary temper? Perhaps frequent questions about his ties to lobbyists, how he wouldn’t back his own campaign finance reform bill any longer, flip-flops on immigration/abortion/earmarks, role in KEATING 5, Cindy’s tax returns, etc.

If the MSM won’t do it’s job, then we have to figure out ways to have the message reach those that aren’t reading these blogs!

I agree with the oft-stated argument that, to the extent the campaign focuses on the issues, Obama has the upper hand simply because a majority of Americans agree with his views. It’s the ability of Republicans to change the focus to so-called character issues, that has hurt Democratic candidates in the past.

I think this upside of issue-centric dialogues far outweighs the potential downside of McCain possibly gaining additional free press coverage.

Problem is McCain would turn it into an “aw-shucks let’s all go get a beer” debate rather than really talk about the issues, because McCain, like GWB is a vacuous donut these days.

what does McCain pack on vacation? The answer is obvious.

I believe this to my core: when a campaign is about issues, Democrats have the advantage. All the talk about not giving McCain access to free airwaves smacks of cynicism. I say, put the competing visions out there and let the best one win.

Because we all know which one is the best.

I don’t see the upside for Obama.

The upside is exposure is actually McCain’s nemesis. Currently, he enjoys the image of being a moderate, party-independent maverick. We know that’s not true, and the more people get to know him, the more they’ll realize it’s naught but lies.

If McCain is willing to remove one of his built-in advantages in debates, I’d take that offer.

McCain has several big disadvantages vis-a-vis Obama. He faces a massive enthusiasm gap and will have trouble attracting large crowds. He’s in all likelihood going to be massively outraised and outspent, making it hard to get his message out. And, possibly as a result of the previous problem, he’ll be cast as a right-winger determined to continue George Bush’s policies. (Noam Scheiber

The more I think about it, the more I believe this campaign will have very little to do with what the McCain and Obama have to say. Instead we’re going to see six months of Republican 527 groups throwing outrageous lies at Obama, the corporate-controlled media uncritically reporting the charges from the Right, and Obama trying to respond to them. Nothing of substance is going to be discussed. Instead, what we’ll hear is:

It’s already known that Barack Hussein Obama, while he was living in Indonesia, attended a Muslim Madrassa, a school that teaches nothing but the Koran and hatred towards America. What hasn’t been reported is that Barack Hussein Obama is secretly a member of an Islamic sect that includes molesting young boys as one of it’s pillars of faith. Americans don’t want a member of MAMBLA — the Muslim-American Man-Boy Love Association — in the White House.

This message was sponsored by Patriotic Americans Promoting American Values for America.

And of course, the “journalists” in the corporate-controlled media will play the commercial over and over as they report about “damaging new charges against Barack Obama”.

“Okay, fair enough! Mr. Democrat, with all the baggage Barack Obama carries, was it a good idea for your party to choose him as the candidate to run against a recognized war hero?”

If Obama has any thoughts about accepting public financing for his campaign and accepting limits on how much he can spend, he should forget them. He’ll be running against both John McCain’s campaign and a seemingly infinite number of 527 groups controlled by corporate interests. And expect bogus indictments against Obama supporters coming from the loyal Bushee’s in the Justice Department.

Obama will win this campaign only by delivering his message of change and hope directly to the “low information” voters — the millions of people who vote based on images rather than substance. The only way Obama can do that is by bypassing the filter of the corporate-controlled media. Debates alongside McCain will be nothing but a sideshow in the real campaign.

Say they do three events, un-moderated and un-scripted, with the ability to question each other. Grampy can’t do that without looking like the idiot he is. Remember this is Five-From-The-Bottom McCain.

I voted for and support Obama, but my one complaint is that he doesn’t seem to prepare for debates. He seems to trust his intincts and assume that he’ll do fine. Maybe he believes too much preparation will cause him to come across as not being authentic. I don’t know, but there’s no reason why he shouldn’t kick ass in any debate since he’s right on most issues. But, to the extent possible, he needs to anticipate questions and attacks from any moderators, audience members and opponents so he’s not caught struggling to find the right words–as often seems to be the case in such forums.

A debate has and can swing an election in one direction or another, and it really frustrates me that Obama doesn’t seem to spend any quality time preparing for them.

First of all: “…I’d also add that McCain is almost certainly a better debater than Obama…”

Uh, what? McCain has a long and documented tendency to say really stupid things in unmoderated settings. Have you forgotten his “100 years in Iraq” comment that we’ve been going over ad nauseum since he made it? For that matter, even in moderated settings he has problems. His Shia-vs-Sunni confusion points to that. Obama has always come across as wittier and more articulate than McCain, perhaps because of his time as a Constitutional Law professor. Give voters an opportunity to see the both of them up close at the same time, and I think Obama could only benefit.

Second, I am in complete agreement with JRD @ #7. This kind of thing would be exactly what American politics needs. Of course the media would be covering it and would still be able to spin it after the fact, but at least they wouldn’t be controlling it when it happens. Media control of the debates has been one of the main problems. This would mitigate that significantly.

I’d want to see more information before deciding. Are the candidates going to ask each other questions? Or will questions come from voters? Or the media?

I attended Obama’s Town Hall meeting here in Bend on Saturday and the questions the audience asked were 1000 times better than the likes of Russert, Steph, etc. Real questions about real problems: student loan debt, energy, security issues and the UN, job outsourcing. The only one that was kind of silly was asking about Hillary’s “new math” in re Florida and Michigan. But Obama answered it, and the rest, very well. I was impressed by that and the introduction section where he thanked everyone, including the students at the high school where the event was held, since they had their prom that night in the very gym where the town hall was held. He bantered a bit with some of the kids about the prom, etc. Very comfortable and natural.

I did a short write up and Jed has it posted on his site (at the end of his article) if you want to read it:
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/05/eastern-oregon.html

axt113: You’re missing the point, I think. It certainly will not be a situation where they allow random people to ask questions. Someone will want to make sure that there is some kind of balance either between candidates or issues. They are not going to want to take a chance that some jerk will simply yell, “Fuck you Obama” or asks McCain if he hates black people. Instead they’ll choose the young girl who wanted Kerry to promise he will outlaw abortion, or the woman who asked Hillary “pearls or diamonds.” My point is that these audience questions are completely staged – maybe not in a town hall meeting with one candidate, but in a debate style venue it would.

I think McCain would suffer badly if he ever had to do a standup in front of people who aren’t sycophants. He’s backing the worst president ever, and anyone with a brain could wrap Bush around McCain’s neck with each answer, and/or piss off the Republican base with examples of McCain’s flipflops.

Obama may not be the greatest debater, but debating Bush III should be about as hard as shooting a dead fish in an otherwise empty barrel.

Damn, it almost sounds like Democracy at work. Sure there are risks, but the public would love it. Structure would take some serious deliberation. I’m thinking 5 minute openers, then alternating order for 5 mins on a series of agreed upon topics, then 10 min closers in opposite order from the openers. Both candidates should vow to do at least 2 of them if they do any. Switch orders in alternate debates. Do ANY modern candidates have the balls for this type of substantive combat? I’ll believe it when I see it.

Obama has very little to fear from McCain getting his message out. He’s been doing better in the polls lately precisely because the Democrats have been taking all of the airtime and keeping his message out of play.

If you want Obama to win in a landslide, getting McCain’s message out there is the surest way to do it.

It would be good for American democracy, so Obama should do it.

This is another good point.

My feeling is that they should do them and they should do them sooner rather than later. It’s inevitable that things will get more contentious as we get closer to election day. The window of opportunity is sooner rather than later and some civil issue focused public discussions between the candidates would be a very good way to set the tone for the upcoming season.

For any number of reasons I entirely disagree with you, Steve, and agree with the commenters here. This would be a wonderful idea, and would push Obama’s margin of victory into astounding levels. (There is a — very bad — commercial I hear during Mets game that talks of a ‘win-win-win’ situation. This has a few extra wins, and no losses for Obama.) Ever since the Super Tuesday speeches — that came one after another — I’ve known the more the two of them are on screen together, the better it is for Obama.)

Just a few points:
JRD is right that this would be a wonderful thing for politics in general.

The physical contrast between the two continues to favor Obama, greatly,

McCain is, on many issues, stuck repeating vague platitudes — because if he is specific on many general areas, he either loses votes from independents or from his base. The comparison between the two would heighten this.

McCain’s temper is a weakness for him.

The Republicans, for years — going back to Nixon, at least, have claimed to be speaking for (and to) the ‘silent majority’ when in fact they are speaking to ‘noisy minorities.’ The American people as a whole — when the position is laid out for them — support abortion rights, LGBT rights, an end to the war, a sane health care policy, and almost everything else that Obama supports.

(Sorry to p*ss off the more paranoid people here but) McCain is NOT the Bush/Rove/Cheney hydra. He is wrong on many things, and yes, he has pandered to get the nomination, but there is a level of sincerity — and honor — in him. (A problem with many of us is that when a person takes an obviously wrong position, we talk as if he really “knows better.” Folks, people can be honestly wrong on an issue, can believe in their position — against the facts — as strongly as we do.) Therefore, I think these debates would actually blunt the effect of the 527s. There have been several cases where McCain has actually defended Obama against Clintonian attacks, and I think, in debates like these, he’d actually repudiate the attacks of the 527s — and mean it.

Historically the best counter to prejudice has always been familiarity. The more people see blacks or gays or any other ‘despised minority’ the less despised and more accepted they become. These debates would get big audiences and the more they see Obama, the less the racial aspect would matter. (Remember, by the time their careers ended, both George Wallace and Orval Faubus were desegregationists — Faubus even supported Jessie Jackson in 1988.)

While I’ve never supported the “MSM is McCain’s base” argument — I still think the first wave of McCain support came from people who — rightly — supported him against the horror of Bush — whatever importance you do give to this factor would be blunted by debates like this. (And fergawdsakes, a lot of people, including Reid and especially Kerry, were pro-McCain as late as 2004. In fact the only powerful argument McCain has against his unfitness is “if I’m so bad, why did Kerry want me as VP.”)

And the absolutely most important argument:
I am — and, supposedly, most of us are — democrats first and Democrats second. We believe in the ideas of democracy — which means that we believe the people might ‘get it wrong’ at first but that they will eventually make the right choices.

[This next is really going to get people hating me but I have needed to say it for months — and in advance I am talking about commenters here, not Steve, who has never said anything like this.]

I have seen any number of comments here that show a contempt for the American people — and people in general — that belong somewhere between Mencken’s ‘booboisie’ (and Mencken was a great writer, but he was also a bigoted, anti-Semitic, anti-black elitist) and Goebbels’ ‘people will always prefer lies to the truth.’ Yes, I know — and share — the frustration these come from. Yes, I know these — for the most part — are ‘spasms’ and not reflective of the way people really feel. But they are not merely wrong, the implications are pretty hideous — and what scares me is that the type of comments I see here are painfully familiar. (One of my historical ‘specialties’ — if a pure amateur can be said to have ‘specialties’ — is the ‘time between the Wars.’)

I made the following point in an e-mail to Steve — which might be why he stopped responding to me. I’ll make it publicly, and might get myself banned for saying it.

Go back to some of the threads about the ‘awful’ media, the corporate control of the country, the ‘sinister machinations of the cabal really running things’. Read them again, but, mentally, insert one adjective — and no, I am not saying that people mentally do add this adjective, just that the sort of thinking is so similar.

Add the adjective “Jewish” to each of these sentences.

This is the sort of argument that got a fair number of German progressives supporting Hitler. Without the adjective, it is also the same sort of thinking that got other progressives supporting the Stalinists and Leninists (after all, the people are ‘really’ so dumb they need a ‘vanguard party’ to tell them what to think). This is precisely why so many people, so many intelligent, caring people in the Thirties argued that ‘Democracy is a failure, too weak to survive, and the only question was which movement will be successful, fascism or communism.’ (No, you aren’t there yet, even the most paranoid among you. But I can list hundreds of people, including Tom Watson and even George “I ain’t gonna let anyone out-nigger me again’ Wallace, who started out as true progressives and became the most ugly of bigots — Wallace eventually changed back.)

To bring this back on topic, I don’t see a SINGLE drawback to the idea of these debates. Y’see, I don’t just believe Obama is right, I believe the more people see of him, the more they will see the wisdom of his positions. Not everybody, sure. There are plenty of people who ARE that dumb — more importantly there are people who are ignorant — but the Internet is the greatest ignorance fighter in the history of communication.

Democracy DOES work — sloppily, messily, and with plenty of temporary wrong turnings. But it gets there in the end, and the McCarthys, the Nixons, the Gingriches, the Bushes wind up as nothing but footnotes in the history books of those wrong turnings. And the greatest proof of this is going to be Obama’s election.

It would definitely work to Obama’s advantage. The difference between he and McCain would be staggering.

As for the format, I would like to see it follow the lead that NPR took with their debates: one topic only for each debate. An in depth debate centering on one topic (the mortgage crisis, Iraq, renewable energy, trade, etc) would benefit the American voter and both candidates. That would leave no room for the silly tabloid issues that normally manopolize these debates.

Just heard that the format may be taking questions from those in the audience. This would negate my interest in the debates: both candidates taking full responsibility for the questions and answers.

One problem with questions from the audience is that the question gets mixed in with the perceived sex, race and personal characteristics of the person asking the question.

This could be a poor format for Obama, since he seems to pander less than McCain (but both are better than Hillary).

It is also somewhat easier to hear hard advice from an old guy to a single individual.

Hmmm, more to think about, but I would rather candidates questioning each other.

Someone I know sent me a video; part of the title is “Barack Hussein Obama”, so you can guess how it went. The whole thing was stupid or scare tactics. Oooh, his NAME, can you imagine someone named Obama/rhymes with Osama and Hussein could be president. Ooooh, he doesn’t wear a flag pin, he doesn’t put his hand over his heart during the national anthem (at least they got this right rather than saying is was during the pledge of allegiance). Then they went on to Jeremiah Wright, Black Liberation Theology, Michelle Obama’s I’m proud of my country for the first time, etc. etc. It was wretched. And it made me sick to my stomach that someone I know (and who is minority in this country!) must have believed it enough to send it to me. (My mom used to forward these trash emails to me but hasn’t yet this year because she knows I’ll shoot them down; instead I have sent her and my family “pre-emptive” emails debunking this stuff).

Anyway, after hearing Obama in person this past Saturday, I would hope anyone with an open mind and heart who hears him in person would realize that the right wing noise machine is just spewing cr*p. That’s not going to happen for most folks, so TV is the next best. Obama and McCain are going to have debates anyway. We’ve got to compare them. Why not moderator-less? Unless the moderator is a respected journalist such as Bill Moyers (and I’m sure others here can think of more), then I’d rather there not be one. It’s just a matter of the rules and what questions will be asked.

Count me in the “it’s a good idea” bandwagon. Obama should wipe the floor with him.

I find I don’t care to look at this strategically, but to consider only whether it would be good to take the media out of control of what the next president says.

I think it would be good. They have been no trustworthy fourth estate. Let’s see a real debate.

yes, but it should be 20 questions to be asked by one candidate of the other.
questions to be memorized (not written down, no notes)

Great thread for a good question. Without citing anyone above, (too many good ones) I say “heck yeah.” Strategically speaking, McCain’s best argument for the presidency is that he’s a pretty decent person. I won’t say he’s not. Then the 2 of them on stage together ought to be a clear compare/contrast– Mcain=toast. imho
Didn’t the Democrats, when they were more numerous, do a forum on Iraq with NPR? That was useful information. Dodd and Biden were excellent. Maybe John and Barack could agree to a series of say, four issue focused stool sitting, taking turns type televised events. We’ve seen those before and they’re not terrible.
What is terrible is what we’ve seen recently with ABC, etc with BHO and HRC. 2004 Bush/Kerry debates were bad. Expect more of the same or worse from those sh*wits? Yeah, me too. I’d trust John McCain to behave civilly in a debate before I’d trust Russert or (…) So have at it. Barack has impressed me as being rather fearless, in addition to being wicked smart and honest and generous.
he wins. /fanboy 🙂

Lots of people in this country (not just older voters) still distrust a black person who is confrontational. Republicans know this and are probably looking to draw him out in ways that could appear disrespectful to McCain. Obama is more articulate than McCain and, when paired side-by-side, he has a more dominant and commanding presence. But that won’t be a good thing to many people who won’t like seeing a black man try to intimidate and speak ‘innappropriately’ to a white patriarch-type who could be their grandpa.

It’s the Repubs’ schtick over and over – use an opponent’s strengths against him and play up the infantile emotional subtext that’s out there for people who are too mentally lazy to pay closer attention.

Obama is too smart to take the bait. But it’s coming in the general election.

BAC, @55,

What Clinton had proposed was same old, same old; the two of them had been locked in that dance so many times, it began to resemble some of the grimmer scenes of “They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?” There was little to be learnt from going yet one round of raking up BS.

The idea of going face to face with McCain’t, as a kind of — less-structured and less media-driven — preview of the Fall debates is *new*. And it might be interesting as well as illuminating, depending on the logistics.

Obama has been crying about how McCain should focus on the issues … but, again Obama refuses to meet McCain in town hall meetings, where they could debate the issues, and allow the American people to hear their positions on the issues, as well as their responses to each other’s issues. Obama knows that if he actually debates McCain on the issues, Americans would quickly see how inexperienced and unqualified Obama actually is. Obama wants Lincoln / Douglas format, because it would enable him to present his usual pre written speech, where he could once again preach a bunch of lofty platitudes. Quite frankly, we only need to listen to McCain, since Obama keeps coming around to McCain’s positions anyway … like on off shore drilling.