Zing! went the strings of my heart

By Mustang Bobby

Debate prep is going ahead at both campaigns:

Mr. Romney's team has concluded that debates are about creating moments and has equipped him with a series of zingers that he has memorized and has been practicing on aides since August. His strategy includes luring the president into appearing smug or evasive about his responsibility for the economy.

Mr. Obama is not particularly fluid in sound bites, so his team is aiming for a workmanlike performance like his speech at the Democratic convention. He is looking to show that Mr. Romney would drive the country in an extreme ideological direction at odds with the interests of the middle class.

If a presidential candidate is spending time memorizing witty ripostes as opposed to coming up with cogent but brief descriptions of policy ideas and plans, then there's something wrong.

In the first place, a rehearsed zinger is an oxymoron; in order to really work and not sound like something planned out, it has to be spontaneous. Otherwise, it sounds like it was rehearsed thereby loses its punch.

It also leaves the candidate vulnerable to not being ready just in case his opponent comes back with a spontaneous zinger of their own. The most famous of those in real life was the debate between Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen in 1988 when Sen. Bentsen floored Mr. Quayle with the "you're no Jack Kennedy" line that has entered popular culture.


If these debates are going to mean anything — and that itself is debatable — they have to do more than give us rehearsed zingers and massaged messages that are watered down to nothing more than talking points written by staffers aimed at focus groups, the only difference being that they're delivered by the candidates themselves instead of via Twitter.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Barack Obama is no Michael Dukakis or Jimmy Carter

By Richard K. Barry 

I have been thinking about the "bump" that President Obama received in his popularity numbers after it was reported that Osama bin Laden had been killed. I know some people don't think that we should even talk about the impact of such things on political popularity. They are wrong. Politics is, in great part, about how the public judges the actions of its leaders. We determine our support for them based on the things they do or even choose not to do and we consider every nuance of their behaviour in these decision making processes as we make our judgements. I'm not sure I see how it can be any other way.

I did think, in perhaps what is a somewhat roundabout way, that one of the reasons Obama benefited from the decision to order the mission is that it helped to address the concern that some people have that Obama is a bit too cool, a bit too emotionally detached from events around him. We have heard the "no drama Obama" thing and may have thought it was mostly a good thing that our president was in such control of his emotions. Some, however, might have been thinking that a bit more drama would be okay too, that it would be alright if our president showed that he was emotionally engaged and, let's call it what it is, pretty cold-blooded if the need arose, tough enough to get the job done.

Then I thought of Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential debate with George H.W. Bush when Dukakis was asked if he would support the death penalty for someone who, hypothetically speaking, had raped and murdered his wife. His answer, which even he later regretted, helped to ensure that he would not win the presidency (his polling numbers actually dipped significantly after the debate). Rather than say that he would be out of his mind with anger and at least at first wish revenge, he immediately struck a professorial pose. Rather than react in any real way at all he launched immediately into his set speech about opposing capital punishment. No show of emotion. No proof that a human being resided therein. The question was obviously completely unfair. It was a set up, but it may have ended his campaign.

As for Obama, having the courage to send those Navy SEALS into that compound knowing that a failed mission would have been disastrous not just for the country but perhaps also for his own political career took some balls. In a political sense, a failed mission would have paired him with Jimmy Carter forever as a "failed president," not that we are supposed to think of things in such terms.

Anyway, something about the whole constellation of events that ended in the death of bin Laden showed Obama in an emotionally accessible way that had not previously been evident to a lot of people and it has perhaps made some of those people trust him a bit more. People can be funny that way. Ask Michael Dukakis.

For the sake of history, here is the clip of Dukakis dropping the ball:

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)