Photo: Jim Young Reuters
Practically every blogger with a keyboard now has weighed in on last night’s debate. In keeping with this blog’s different approach to issues, I watched the debate without sound and what I found is most intriguing. BTW, just for your information I also watched with sound. That part can be summed up quite quickly–Obama pretty much put McCain in a corner.
It looks more and more like the candidate my fellow blogger Field calls the O Man, may be on his way to the White House. The x-factor will be whether what is known as the Bradley Factor plays a role. Named after former LA mayor Tom Bradley it refers to white voters who are closet racists and say they will vote for a person of color but when they get in the voting booth their racism kicks in. The phenomenon is named after Tom Bradley because he had a wide lead in the polls, but lost the election. The conventional wisdom is that white voters who said they would vote for him were only shielding their own prejudice. Let us hope America has moved beyond that.
As for the silent debate, I wanted to watch it without sound because the town hall forum used for last night’s debate allowed both candidates to move around, sometimes even when their opponent was speaking. I could also interject that after two of these the lines have become so scripted that watching the debate is like viewing one of those movies you have seen so many times you can repeat the dialogue. When will McCain evoke Obama’s earmarks? How many times will Obama tell us McCain voted for George W. Bush’s tax cuts?
The Audience
For those few who did not watch let me set the scene. For some bizarre reason the networks chose to allow only 80 people to actually attend as part of the audience. These 80 were supposedly carefully screened to be sure they were truly independent voters. How the networks did this is a mystery for which I would love to have the answer since I thought mind-reading was not yet possible. As my wife said, if NBC called me up and asked if I wanted to be in the audience for the debate and then said I had to prove I had yet to choose a candidate, what would you say?
On top of this things became even more bizarre. Usually town hall forums allow the audience to ask whatever question they want, but the networks had the “unbiased” audience write down their questions ahead of time. These were then put in envelopes that had the name of the questioner and–get this–where they were seated. Brokaw and the debate conveners then chose which questions they would actually ask. Reminded me of the Academy Awards–pass the envelope please.
It also becomes clear if you watch without sound who was picked to ask questions because several of them awkwardly fidget with their question cards during the debate, I suppose wondering if they would be next.
Audience members were instructed not to react to the answers in any way. In short, they hired a bunch of robots. When watching with the sound off, this forces you to look more at the audience, which in this debate took on certain zombie-like qualities as if the people were afraid to betray any hint of emotion or reaction. So while McCain and Obama gesture and change their body language and facial expressions, the audience sits as if they had been put through that machine in the Star Wars movie that cryogenically freezes someone.
I have to give these people some sort of medal because they played their parts to perfection. There is one guy in a white shirt in the front row who I swear never moves during the entire debate. He sits as still as a statue. Another woman in the back row has her head cocked to the left for the entire debate, which at times makes her appear to be either nodding off or dismissing some remark. I don’t think there are many people I know who could sit as still as these people for ninety minutes.
This is leads to some interesting reactions on the part of the candidates, who seem to be searching for a sympathetic face. It also suggests something that would not have occurred had I left the sound on–any public speaker knows you look people in the eyes, not at their faces. McCain seems to engage in a lot more of this searching than Obama, which causes you to wonder if he does look people in the eyes.
You also notice the audience appeared to be carefully screened not only for supposed lack of bias but also for being photogenic. If the people in that audience represented average Americans, then the neighborhood I live in is not average. These people represented what I term TV land reality, which brings us to the silent debate.
The Retro Mikes
As for the candidates, each was issued an ancient hand held mike like the kind lounge singers used to use half a century ago. This makes for some awkward moments, as neither candidate appears to know what to do with the thing. Both have an annoying habit of clutching it tightly to their chests which is lounge singer 101 in that by doing so you insure better control of the sound.
For Obama, who loves to talk with his hands, this inhibits his freedom a bit because he has to remember to keep the mike in one place. This leads to his shifting the mike back and forth from hand to hand as he gestures. McCain, on the other hand, does not have such a problem. What hand gestures he uses seem contrived, rehearsed, so even constrained by the hand-held mike, Obama comes off as the more open, more human candidate.
It may well be that when they look back on this debate they will find that the decision to use hand-held mikes proved as momentous as Nixon’s famous decision to use a concoction that gave him the appearance of having a five o’clock shadow, which in turn helped to reinforce his “Tricky Dick” image. The mike decision not only makes McCain seem less human but reinforces the stereotype that he is an old geezer uncomfortable with modern technology–even though in this case the technology is obsolete.
It would be interesting to know whether the candidates or the networks chose the mikes. If it was the candidates, they made a poor choice, especially McCain. If the networks, you have to ask why since there have been non-hand-held mikes available for years. The use of the mikes along with the zombie audience lend the entire affair a certain retro look as if we had beamed back in time. But symbolically it also unconsciously serves to reinforce the notion of politicians as entertainers and lend yet another piece of evidence to the theory that politics and entertainment are merging. With our candidates roaming the floor mikes in hand, watching the debate with the sound off has the quality of a Las Vegas act.
McCain’s Contempt
From the beginning with the sound off, you really notice the obvious contempt McCain appears to hold for Obama. When the two walk on stage it is Obama who walks across the stage to great McCain, who all but brushes him off. Throughout the debate the expression on McCain’s face is one of disdain, even hatred. for Obama. John McCain clearly believes Barack Obama does not belong on the same stage with him.
This is apparent in the careful, almost purposeful distance he strives to maintain between the two of them. He does not want to get to close to his opponent, as if it might give him some dread disease. The distance he strives to maintain actually backfires, for watching without sound, you can see McCain comes off with a superior, know-it-all attitude. Many times during the debate he can be seen in the background standing and leaning against his podium with one foot cocked behind the other and leaning on one arm in a way that 1930s Hollywood tough guys dominated street corners staring at the rest of us with an expression that said everyone else was a wimp and if you want to argue about it I would be glad to oblige you.
Given that it appears McCain is behind in the race, this hardly appears to be the way to win over independents and Democrats. In his nonverbal demeanor, McCain is the anti-Reagan, which causes his message to clash with his body language. As evidence people are responding to this, the little meter CNN had at the bottom of the screen would head South every time McCain went negative, mentioned his superior experience or launched into one of his “history” stories.
McCain’s handlers have apparently never watched their candidate with the sound off, for if they did, they would see that there is a huge disconnect between their candidate’s message and his body language. Where the McCain campaign trumpets their candidate’s superior experience, the body language communicates contempt. Curiously, this was something Hillary Clinton fell into, although not to the extent McCain has. Much as Clinton sometimes gave the impression the Presidency was hers by default, McCain conveys an image of a know-it-all old man who thinks the kids should stay in their place.
The contempt is especially evident with the sound off because you focus on what the two are doing and not what they are saying. In Obama’s case, when McCain is speaking he sits respectfully with one hand over the other and at least gives the appearance of genuinely listening to what his opponent has to say. In McCain’s case there are times when he seems to deliberately avoid looking at Obama as if what he is saying is not worth his listening.
The Smile Ratio
We all gravitate toward someone who smiles at us. Television personalities–and politicians–sometimes appear to have their mouths frozen in a perpetual smile. Watching Obama and McCain, Obama is clearly way ahead in the smile ratio. Plus his smiles appear genuine. The interesting dimension of the smile ratio is that McCain appears more likable when he smiles, which he does infrequently. Some of McCain’s smiles are also not smiles, but smirks that yet again demonstrate his contempt for his opponent.
Obama will smile at a McCain remark he considers especially wrong or silly, but his smile is not so much one of contempt as one of incredulity or even amusement. A couple of times during the debate McCain catches him doing this and his reaction looks like that of someone ready to explode. It’s as if his body language says, “How dare you smile at me.”
The Imperial McCain
If McCain loses this election, I believe the reasons for it can be found in the silent debate. In it McCain has the appearance of someone who thinks he is better than not merely his opponent, but the rest of us as well. His attitude toward the Presidency seems an imperious one which reminds me of Richard Nixon. There was a point in Nixon’s imperial Presidency when the White House staff dressed in aristocratic uniforms and the band seemed to play “Hail to the Chief” all too frequently.
Imperial Presidents have not fared well in American history, which does not bode well for a McCain term in the White House. Their major failing stems from their imperiousness which leads them to disregard the advice of others and to turn the Oval Office into a fortress which only the privileged few can enter.
The people meter at the debate captured this well, for every time McCain went imperious, the meter registered the viewer’s distaste for it. When you combine imperiousness with contempt you have a recipe for defeat at the polls, especially in troubled times.
Favorite Gestures
McCain almost incessantly chops his hand down either in a fist when he is particularly excited about a point or karate-chop-style as if to emphasize each word. When you watch this for an hour and a half it become not just a tic, but irritating.
As for Obama, his favorite gesture is a sweep of the hand or his “list’ gesture when he puts a finger out as if he were pointing to a series of bullet points on a PowerPoint. Obama’s “sweep” is a much more expansive, less aggressive gesture than McCain’s karate chop, which may be why some voters see Obama as not as feisty as they want him to be.
Yet what we may want from a candidate in a debate is not necessarily something we want in a President. The “sweeping” gesture suggests inclusiveness and the PowerPoint “listing” suggests command of the issues while the karate chop and the fist suggest a more authoritarian style. People who karate chop appear to be trying to physically win the debate.
You wonder, for example, how the karate chop might play with some foreign leaders or in other cultures. You wonder how it will play with members of Congress.
The Great Flag Pin Non-Issue
For all you wingnuts out there who thought wearing a flag pin was the way the decide who occupies the White House, John McCain did not wear one. Barack Obama did. Tom Brokaw did not. I saw no flag pins in the audience (maybe they were screened out).
Those Colored Lights
On the floor was a box that looks like nothing so much as a traffic light turned on its side, complete with green, yellow and red lights. These were meant to govern the candidates’ speaking time, but rarely did I see them look at the lights. They were going to say what they were going to say and the lights be damned. Brokaw mentioned this, but appeared reluctant to enforce it.
I hate to say this but if you are going to moderate a debate, one of your jobs is to enforce the time limit. Like a basketball game where it is clear the refs will not be calling many fouls, both candidates took full advantage of this lack of enforcement once Brokaw had signaled the lights were meaningless. Brokaw should be docked 50% of his pay.
The Prowler
At what the clock records as the fifty-ninth minute of the debate, John McCain starts to prowl. By that I mean he no longer is able to sit in his seat and at first starts by just strolling around his podium, but as the debate progresses he begins prowling the stage, actually walking around. If I were a real nasty liberal I would say this was intended to deliberately distract Obama, but instead it appears to be more than that.
McCain is restless and angry. He reminds me of someone who is about to explode and so walks it off. He stalks the debate area like a tiger in a cage, pacing back and forth.
Brokaw does nothing to enforce the rules on McCain. For this he should be docked the other 50% of his pay and forced to pace back and forth in an empty cage at some local zoo.
The End
The camera work at the end is pretty shoddy. When John McCain finishes the last remarks of the debate he raps the microphone into his hand and walks back across the stage in front of Obama as if he weren’t even sitting there. At this point the camera focuses on Brokaw and you see McCain’s back as he walks in front of the camera blocking the view of the moderator. Then you see the backs of both candidates. I assume this is when they shook hands, but the camera work is so bad you don’t really know what is going on. Then we see shots of both candidates shaking hands with the audience.
No Sound–Try It
If you have a recording system, for the next debate I urge you to just turn off the sound for a minute a two and watch the candidates. You might be surprised at what you learn.
The press reports say there was no “knockout,” as if a debate were a sporting event. The majority of the polls give Obama the victory. But the silent debate shows a different story. In a write-up of the last debate I referred to McCain as a “loose cannon” for proposing a budget freeze off the top of his head. In the silent debate what came through loud and clear was that John McCain has no manners.
This will no doubt bring a flood of comments, but when you purposely ignore your opponent even to the point of walking around while he is speaking, I don’t know what else to call it. I honestly have never seen a debate where one candidate has been so disrespectful of the other. Ronald Reagan clearly did not like Jimmy Carter, but he did not treat him the way McCain treats Obama. Back even further, John Kennedy and Richard Nixon were bitter enemies, but conducted themselves like gentlemen.
This raises a serious question about McCain’s ability to govern. If he treats a fellow Presidential candidate for whom he clearly has no liking this way, how we will treat a world leader like Putin who has “K,G,B” in his eyes? How will he treat opposition leaders in Congress?
The other issue raised by the no sound debate is McCain’s imperial manner. It recalls none other than Richard Nixon. In fact as this campaign heads towards its conclusion McCain’s resemblance to Nixon seems to become more evident by the day.
This is curious because early write-ups on this race compared the generational differences between the two to 1960. Now the campaign is starting to resemble that hard-fought, bitter battle.
Print Posted by: liberalamerican
