Blog For Arizona

Mixing it up in Michigan

I just finished watching the Michigan debate on Tivo. It seemed rather uneventful to me. I think Dean was the clear winner. As the front runner, he needs simply to keep the other contenders from laying a glove on him; and he did that well.

It is almost as if these debates have become a deposition for Dean; the less he says, the better off he is. His message is detailed on the internet, as are those of the other candidates - except Clark, who simply doesn't have one. The result is that debates generate sound-bytes and attack spins, not much policy. The less a candidate says, especially a front-runner, the less prior testimony his or her opponents will have to impeach the candidate with. As time goes on it has been increasing common for Dean to use snippets of his time and media tested stump speech in debate.

There has emerged three lobes of debate participants of late; those who use devasting rhetoric to make the most of the debate coverage (Sharpton leads this group, which includes Braun, Kucinich and Edwards); those who attack to try to improve their position (Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman are in this faction); and those who bob, weave, duck, saying enough to defend themselves, but little that is new or unexpected (Dean, as the front runner leads this small group, which includes Gen. Clark, the front-runner wanna-be with a lot of history to attack).

The result is that, in the traditional sense of victory in debate (rhetorical filicity, crowd reaction, telling points of logic and insight), Sharpton almost always wins big. The other candidates, by their genuine chagrin at having to follow the Reverend, acknowledge that he rules the debates. "Amen Brother," means "I acknowledge your skills. Please don't set your sights on me."

But that doesn't matter all that much; though it has won Sharpton a following greater than Kucinich, Braun, and Edwards combined. What does matter is the high drama of the front runners and near front runners, running through the mine-field of their envious peers have laid for them. It is this dangerous dance which is the main business of the debates. What makes news is a well research oppo attack on someone's past voting history or statements. A well spun twist on a leading candidate's signature program. These barbs, so effective because they are personal and immediate, with little time to reflect or respond, are worth millions in ad placement. They can propel a meme into media awareness that can bounce along the news cycles for many days, even weeks.

The debates are an echo chamber in which the media allows the candidates to shape the coverage to an advantageous exent which they are seldom given. But as much as it is tool to jockey for political position, it is also a test for front-running candidates. Those who claim the debates are irrelevant are dead wrong; they measure the front-runner's ability to manage the media coverage he recieves. If a candidate fails that test, even the best debate preformance cannot save him.

posted by Michael Bryan @ 10/27/2003 04:31:00 AM