The Chattering Classes Were Not Amused

The Politico asks whether last's night debate was the "worst ever."

Northwestern Journalism Professor Alan Schroeder:

The Nashville event was not the worst debate ever, but it definitely qualifies as the worst of the five general election town hall meetings that have taken place since 1992.

New York University Historian Diane Ravitch:

Both candidates spouted the same by-now stale slogans and rhetoric. Neither had anything new to say. Both pointed fingers to blame the other for everything that is wrong in the nation and the world. Neither xpressed a genuine emotion or uttered an original thought or expressed a memorable line for future generations. This "debate" was just plain boring.

And the most memorable quip from Washington lobbying powerhouse Tom Korologos:

Probably, but can’t say THE worst, since I didn’t see any of the Martin Van Buren debates.

I certainly didn't feel the same way. I thought it was a low key, fairly civil discussion where the candidates talked to real people rather than some self important journalists or a studio audience.

Instead, I agree with Harvard Business School prof Rosabeth Moss Kanter:

What’s the standard for a good debate? Memorable zingers? Blood on the floor? Instant solutions to crises, in 2-minute packages? That’s not my standard. What this debate lacked in reality TV entertainment, it made up for in showing the contrasts between how the candidates think and therefore their instincts as potential leaders in troubled times.

Debate Reminder

The Presidential candidates are back at it tonight at Belmont University. There will be plenty to talk about now that the rescue has passed.

Kick off is earlier tonight than the previous debates - (CORRECTION ( 9 pm EST / 8 pm CST)

Judging the Debates - How To

In today's papers, we get the usual smattering of nonsense about who "won" the VP debate last night.

* The Politico things Biden did ("it is hard to count any objective measures by which Biden did not clearly win the encounter").

* The Wall Steet Journal's Peggy Noonan in her own, beautifully written way disagrees - "She (Palin) killed."

* Pollsters are rushing to ask the American people their views: (CNN says Biden 51 - Palin 36).

What is this? A high school debate? A football game?

I think we can do better than that if we ask ourselves two questions. What did the candidates need to do to help their chances, and did they accomplish it?

For Senator Biden, it was fairly straight forward. His ticket leads in the polls by an average of almost 6 percent. As Gerald Seib of the Wall Street Journal put it:

those who thought Sen. Biden would wander off into the rhetorical excesses,overstatements and verbal excesses for which he is sometimes prone were...disappointed. He was, instead, disciplined and evenly modulated.

For Governor Palin, the bar was set much higher. After some (I am told) painful interviews with Katie Couric (isn't that like getting mauled by one of those cute little house dogs?), Palin had to show a strong grasp of issues and that she could stand credibly next to one of the Senator Factory's (you know, the place where you get the smile and voice put in) smoothest products.

Again, Gerald Seib's take:

Those who were eager to see Gov. Palin lapse into incoherence were disappointed; she didn't...she decided to debate as a voice of old-fashioned common sense rather than a voice of deep knowledge.

In short, when watching candidates debate, avoid making the sorts of simplistic judgments that most commentators make about who "won." Ask yourself, what did this person need to do tonight, and how well did they do it?

So now, the only question is who won the face off among analysts?

I'm calling it for Seib.

Tonight's Debate

We're still unclear as to whether we're on for a debate tonight.

(Update: 3:01 PM - we're ready to rumble)

The debate, hosted at the University of Mississippi, will focus on foreign policy. It's slated to begin at 9 EST. The four broadcast networks, NPR and C-SPAN are all planning to carry it.

While we can expect the candidates to segueway to discuss domestic politics, particularly the financial crisis, there are still some really important issues to discuss regarding foreign policy. They include:

(1) The war on terrorism - first and foremost. Terrorism is still the biggest foreign threat to the US despite everything else that has happened.

(2) Iran - the mullahs are pushing forward on nuclear power. Iran is a terrorism supporting state according to the US State Department (a designation that both Republican and Democratic administrations have made). A nuclear Iran is definitely a major concern from the standpoint of non-proliferation.

(3) Non-proliferation - it used to be that nation state cooperation was necessary to develop weapons of mass destruction. Today, that's not the case. The next administration needs a new approach for a new problem.

(4) Russia - Russia recently invaded and trashed the independent Republic of Georgia over an ostensible border dispute. The real purpose was to send the message to the US that Russia is still a world power to be reckoned with.

Hopefully, those doing the questioning will hold the candidates' feet to the fire on these issues.