These Aren't Your Dad's Debates

Political Debates, especially those for the presidency are simply not what they used to be. In fact the only real debates according to many scholars were the Lincoln-Douglas debates that took place in the 1850's. These debates paired two equally qualified candidates, addressed issues important to each campaign and each candidate was given an equal amount of time. However with the introduction of several forms of technology such as radios and televisions it seems as if the paramaters for these types of debates has drastically changed. This was evident in the Kennedy-Nixon debates as radio listeners believed Nixon won the debate, while the majority of tv viewers believed Kennedy won the debate. It is almost as if technology and the media has disrupted the true nature of debates.

In a recent press release democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said he believes he and Senator Clinton's 21 debates have covered enough issues and he would no longer like to participate in anymore debates against the Senator. This is most likely due to the muckraking and mudslinging observed in the last Pennsylvania that led Obama to state that it took them 45 minutes before either candidate started actually talking about issues important to the American public. Another criticism of Obama is that each candidate can probably predict the other's answers and responses to questions becuase they have become used to the same old routine.

In a world obsessed with gossip, rumors and embarassing information it is no surprise that these types of things have seeped into political debates. If the media held candidates responsible for the issues and promises outlined in each candidate's platforms, perhaps debates would address issues that the American public would like to hear and base their decisions on.

Shaping National Identity

Once again Hillary Clinton has attempted to shape her own national identity as well as the indentity of the other candidates in the presidential election. In a speech given today, she stated that she is the only candidate that the American public can trust to bring the U.S. troops out of Iraq and ending the war in Iraq. Clinton attacked McCain on McCain's previous assumption that the war could last for up to 100 years. As for Obama, Clinton stated that Obama's plan was just "simply words" referring to an Obama adviser, who said that Obama might not exactly follow the Iraq plan he has discussed. Clinton's commitment to an Iraq withdrawal did not end there, she also told Gen. Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker that further American military involvement in Iraq would be irresponsible.

I believe it is pretty safe to say that the overall American public's opinion on Iraq is for the U.S. to withdraw its troops in a timely fashion. In this latest speech Hillary is positioning herself as someone that Americans can trust and agree with. She also frames the other candidates as untrustworthy and outsiders of what the overwhelming American majority wants to see happen in Iraq. Similar to many of the negative attack ads we have seen, in one speech she attempts to discredit her competition as well as affirm her own position. Furthermore it seems as if she wants to position herself as one of "us," meaning she wants what the American public wants, and that is a timely withdrawal of U.S. forces. She also again positions herself as a leader, someone who the public can trust and depend on to deliver on her promises. Her disagreement with Gen. Petraeus, someone who is supposed to be a so called expert on the situation in Iraq, illustrates that she appears to be quite serious about the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

What I find particularly interesting are the response given by the other candidates to Clinton's comments. Obama and his camp pointed to the fact that Hillary has largely protested the war sicne the beginning of her campaign unlike Obama who was against the war from the very beginning. Obama also again mentioned that the invasion of Iraq was a huge "blunder," that Hillary helped authorize. McCain reiterated his stance that success in Iraq is within reach but simply pulling out regardless of the consequences would show poor leadership. Thus as Hillary has positioned herself as a leader, her opponents have turned the argument back on her and insinuated that she would make a poor leader. I think the best leader will be the person who can devise a plan for how to rebuild Iraq without costing American lives and adapt to the current situation in Iraq.

Agenda Setting

The recent hoopla over the Barack Obama’s minister’s comments provides another great example of how the media can set the agenda for the public and shape the image of a figure for the American public. Obama’s minister, Jeremiah Wright has come under fire for being racist and a Black Supremacist. When Obama has been questioned about his minister it has been under the premise that his minister is assumed to be racist and how does Obama feel about following this minister. Rather than allowing the public to make the decision for themselves the media shapes the argument into what they deem is the best story.

I decided to investigate the controversy for myself and watched the video that has been aired on several networks. After watching the video I have not only dismissed the media’s assertions of the minister but also grown to appreciate the message he preaches to his congregation. This is a congregation of largely African-Americans that have a different background and view of America than many of the people in the media. What is interesting is the distinction that the minister makes between Obama and Clinton. I cannot find one line in this speech that I disagree with or find untruthful.

However because of the hoopla that the media has ignited, Obama’s minister has resigned from his campaign. Obama is also slated to give a speech tomorrow, in which he will address the context of Wright’s messages to his congregation and also the issue of race in politics. Through this speech Obama can clarify the cloud of smoke caused by this controversy and also once again use his rhetorical skills to reach his audience on an interpersonal level.

By The People for the People

As I have been closely following the Democratic primary like most people it suddenly dawned on me, why do we need super delegates? Or even delegates at all. If the democratic process is really supposed to be about the people and what they really want, why not let the citizens and members of a particular party decide who would be the best candidate for a particular party. What I find particularly disturbing is the presence of super delegates who are not bound to support a particular candidate. This does not sound very democratic. The unfortunate consequence about the presence of delegates and super delegates is that candidates start to court delegates rather than focusing on everyday voters, and privileging certain states over other states because those states have more delegates. All the recent stories about Obama and Clinton focuses on their race to get enough delegates, rather than the issues central to their particular platforms.