'Town Hall' misses and stumbles

I've never cared for the "town hall" debate format, and last night's entertainment did not change my opinion. The format emphasizes personality and an ability to connect with strangers rather than examining important public issues.

Regardless of my opinion, the format seems firmly planted in the American political landscape.  President Obama pretty clearly won last night's debate, but it was not so much because of his performance as it was Mitt Romney's weak showing and stumbles. The two candidates exchanged some sharp challenges and displayed more than a little irritation. Obama, however, seemed more comfortable while Romney got flustered and irritated by some of the comments by the president, who clearly enjoyed needling the challenger.

Neither candidate addressed the big issues they've been avoiding throughout most of the campaign. Neither has produced a coherent, passable deficit reduction and debt elimination plan. Despite his adamant insistence that his tax-cut proposal will reduce the deficit, Romney's plan doesn't seem plausible to most economists or to me. He failed, however, to point out that Obama doesn't have a workable plan either. If they were honest with the public and with themselves, they would admit that cutting the deficit will be painful. We've been spending wildly and will have to pay the piper. We will also face painful changes to Social Security and Medicare, which are headed toward insolvency.

Romney seems determined to cut taxes, even though tax cuts during wartime has helped get us into this mess. And Obama's claim that he would use money not spent on wars to rebuild American infrastructure ignores the fact that the wars were financed by borrowed money, so his spending plan would require more borrowing and more debt.

Both candidates flubbed the question on equal pay. Obama referred to the Lily Ledbetter Act, which Congress passed overwhelmingly and is the law of the land, as is the Equal Pay Act. And then he went off on a tangent about health care and contraception. Mr. President, the question was about equal pay!

But leave it to Romney to create the latest social media sensation with his story about getting "binders of women" when he was governor of Massachusetts. The question was about equal pay, not about job opportunities. What both men should have said was something like this: "It's true that women earn less than men, despite federal laws that prohibit discrimination on account of gender. But the gap between men's and women's pay is narrowing and will continue to narrow. More women than men are earning college degrees, and the recent recession resulted in more men than women being laid off, so that gender pay gap is likely going to disappear. At least some of the pay difference is the result of career or lifestyle choices. Many women interrupt their careers to care for young children, and this results in a loss of potential earnings. This, too, is changing as more and more men are staying home while their wives work. Some women have been reluctant to pursue some highly compensated vocations, but that, too, is changing. Pay discrimination is illegal, and it is being enforced, and as society changes and society's expectations of women change, the pay gap will continue to narrow and will probably disappear completely."

30-minute political ad entertaining, perhaps effective

Last night, my wife and I sat down and watched a 30-minute political campaign commercial. We did it voluntarily, and we found it interesting and entertaining.

Democrat Barack Obama, his campaign flush with money, bought the half hour of air time on broadcast and cable networks to present his case to voters. Regardless of how you feel about Obama and his policies, you have to admit that the video production was professional, well-written and -edited, persuasive and positive. As informercials go, it could hardly have been more effective. There were no attacks on opponents — not even a mention or veiled allusion to John McCain and Sarah Palin — just point-by-point explanations of Obama's key issues and his responses to those issues. The prerecorded video segued perfectly to the closing remarks at a live Obama campaign rally in Florida. That took some impressive timing.

As I watched the video, I kept thinking that this is how presidential candidates should present themselves to voters. Instead of all those snarly 30-second campaign commercials attacking their opponents, presidential candidates should take blocks of time to make their cases to American voters. No personal attacks, not even references to opponents, just simple, straightforward explanations of their views of the issues and their proposals to address them.

The Obama video, well written and entertainingly edited, was far more interesting (and perhaps more revealing) than the highly touted but disappointing presidential debates. Thirty minutes and some professional videography gave Obama a chance to make his case without the repetitions, smarmy moderators and carefully rehearsed catch phrases of the debates. Whether the Obama informercial moved voters or convinced doubtful independents, I don't know, and political analysts might never know for sure. But in a campaign that has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on all manner of promotions, this $5 million or so looks like a good investment.

Don't expect 30-minute videos to replace debates or 30-second commercials, but the public and the candidates would be better off if they did.

Presidential debate, one last time

Tonight's presidential debate will be voters' last look at the two candidates on one stage, but I doubt that it will have a profound impact on voter opinions. The first two debates were fundamentally a draw — neither candidate struck a decisive blow or swallowed his entire foot. Each represented himself well and did little to turn away supporters or attract new fans.

Chances are, tonight's debate will have the same results. Before the second debate, I feared that the event at Belmont University could turn nasty. John McCain had been urged to "take the gloves off." But he remained civil while still getting in a few digs at his opponent. That angered some of his supporters who thought he was too easy on Barack Obama. This attitude was exemplified twice in the past week, when McCain corrected a supporter at a town-hall-style meeting when she called Obama "an Arab" and again when a supporter condemned Obama. To his credit, McCain told his supporters that Obama is a good person with whom he disagrees on policy matters. The supporters didn't care for that level of maturity and perspective, and boos were heard in the arena.

The polls have Obama surging ahead, largely as a result of the sour economy. No matter what the cause of an economic downturn, the party in the White House gets the blame. McCain is suffering from his connection to the Grand Old Party and President Bush while Obama benefits by representing the other side. With three weeks to go before election day, things can change dramatically. A whole new issue, as unexpected as the economic meltdown of the past month, could steal the headlines and alter the electoral dynamics. But without such a dramatic change, Obama has the advantage, through circumstances not of his own making.

Ironically, if this election were being decided on the issue both candidates thought a year ago would be paramount, McCain might be surging ahead. Obama built his campaign and his early victories on his opposition to the Iraq War. He backed Hillary Clinton into a corner over her initial support of a war resolution. He said we never should have started the war. He promised to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq. He opposed last year's troop surge.

But something unexpected happened: U.S. fortunes in Iraq turned around. Death tolls declined. Whole neighborhoods and whole cities in Iraq became safe again. U.S. troops and the Iraqi government gained popularity. A new counter-insurgency strategy and the insertion of 30,000 new troops turned the corner in Iraq. War news fell out of the headlines.

Recent polls show the Iraq War is having little impact on voters' decisions. If the war were paramount, McCain could be saying "I told you so" and riding a wave of military success. Obama would be forced to justify his intentions to pull out of Iraq without achieving the success that has now been found.

But the Iraq War, the overriding issue of the early primaries, is an afterthought today, three weeks before the election. All voters really care about now is the economy.

A civil but uninspiring debate

Last night's presidential debate was more civil than I had expected, more civil than we had been led to believe it might be. McCain, who had hinted the "gloves" would "come off," didn't throw any roundhouse punches, just a few jabs at "that one," the opponent whose name he couldn't bear to say.

For voters, there was little new. Some of the statements were nearly verbatim repetitions of what they had said in the first debate. McCain offered a new proposal to have the Treasury buy up troubled mortgages and then renegotiate the mortgages at the new, reduced value of the property. But the Obama camp is saying today that the McCain proposal is not really new; it's a part of the $700 billion bailout ... er, rescue ... that Congress has already passed.

What has to be disappointing for voters is that neither candidate seems capable or willing to acknowledge just how much the economy has changed since they developed their official economic platforms months ago. The Dow was down 508 points Tuesday and is down nearly a third this year. But when asked in this debate and in the previous one what they would be willing to give up in their ambitious spending plans, both candidates seemed flummoxed. Oh, they'll cut earmarks and pork barrel spending, but they won't postpone health care or tax cuts or entitlement reform.

When asked what they would ask Americans to sacrifice, McCain didn't seem to understand the question and went off on his riff about earmarks. Obama had one of his better moments, criticizing George W. Bush for failing to ask for sacrifices after 9/11, telling Americans instead to "go shopping." But he gave no real specifics about what sacrifices he would expect now.

Overall, Obama seemed to come out ahead in this debate, partly because of the so-called "town hall" format that had the candidates leaning on stools and strolling around the stage. This is the format that was supposed to favor McCain's more casual, "my friends" style. McCain rarely sat during the debate, standing stiffly or walking around as Obama spoke. He seemed to be trying to prove he was just as young and fit as Obama. But he's not. He's 72 and has numerous infirmities owing to his war injuries and torture in a Vietnamese prison. He walks with a slight limp, and he can't raise his arms above his shoulders. That combination makes him look old and stiff, especially in a debate format that has him limping about the stage and waving his arms in shortened arcs.