I don’t care for Monday morning quarterbacking, so to be fair, I waited for the debate dust to settle and I’m actually writing this debate critique on Saturday morning. Since the debate was held on Thursday, Friday would have been the true “Monday” but again, I waited until Saturday.

Are you still reading or did that confuse the snot out of you?   Actually, it shouldn’t have been too difficult to decipher but if it was, try this one: “After a lousy Saturday and Sunday, Al Monday, who hates Tuesdays, took Joe Friday to the Wednesday matinee on Thursday.”

Had enough?  We all have.  It’s not as if the entire phenomenon of politics wasn’t already viewed as a confusing, distasteful mess.  Now, in this unprecedented roller coaster ride of an election year, we can multiply that mess by a thousand.  Wait.  I’m sorry. I meant multiply it by 70 billion! Add in Hillary’s 18 million cracks through the ceiling, which, facing bankruptcy, were bailed out by Sarah Palin, sprinkle in a slice of  “maverick” who lately doesn’t sound like a maverick anymore because he predictably reminds us that he is a maverick about as often as John Kerry reminded us that he served in Vietnam, pour in some ground breaking history; a choice between the first female vice president or the first African-American president, heat the thick but soupy stew to a boil with charges of either racism or sexism regardless of your vote, and then, to make the recipe complete, we want to throw in a tasty meatball, but such a crucial ingredient is really more of a  ping pong ball called “change.” We can find this spinning sphere volleying back and forth between the two candidates. On one side of the table: Obama, who complains about McCain’s offer for  “real change,” insisting that the Republicans have no right to use his word.  He wants us to think he invented the term and he hopes most of you are too stupid to remember that never in the history of American elections have candidates not promised change. Indeed, if Obama could sue the McCain /Palin ticket for plagiarism he would. The only thing stopping such a lawsuit is that any discussion of plagiarism quickly reminds us of his running mate, Joe Biden.

With this backdrop, there are all kinds of chatterbox exchanges over the Internet and the broadcast media regarding who won the vice-presidential debate. Republicans are claiming Palin won. And, hold on to your seats, Democrats are claiming Biden won! Are you starting to catch on?  At least a little? One step toward finding honest truth is first deciding where not to look. Just stick with your ol’ pal Bob, the Democrat who votes Republican but doesn’t care much lately for Democrats or Republicans. Not that I always know what I’m talking about either, but I do have a back ground in debating and have participated in many public debates. Since, in this case, I am not critiquing my own performance but am, instead, watching as one who understands all the tricks and maneuvers, I may bring at least a small touch of objectivity to the chatter. I will try to unpack some of this baggage, (indeed baggage that, for once, we would not mind seeing the airlines lose.)

I’ll begin as simply and as plainly as I can. Nobody won the debate. At the risk of repeating Joe Biden’s “special emphasis” line, let me say it again: Nobody won the debate.

Nobody won the debate because we were not watching a real debate. Had it been a real debate, such as the kind college debating teams sponsor, the agenda would have been set by the two opponents, The moderator would have been there only as a referee, making sure the speakers were obeying their own rules, seeing to it that nobody went over their allotted time and forbidding one opponent from interrupting another when it was not his or her turn. In such a format, it simply would not have mattered what opinion the moderator held or who the moderator was secretly rooting for, because the moderator would not be making up the questions, deciding what to discuss, or what to conspicuously omit, the way  Ifill left out that small, non controversial topic of abortion. (See my link to yesterday’s article)

In a real debate, each opponent gets an uninterrupted opening statement at a mutually agreed upon length of time, generally 15-20 minutes. This is followed by a time for rebuttal and then, later on, a second rebuttal. Usually a time of cross-examine is included and that is often the most telling part of the debate. Each candidate must answer to the other and if they are unwilling to answer, or if they respond with double talk, hoping nobody will notice they did not answer the question, it becomes apparent. The cross examination is followed by closing statements.

I have seen variations, but a true debate format runs close to what I just described.  Sometimes questions from the audience are allowed afterwards, with questions alternating between the two candidates, and each candidate being allowed one minute or so to respond to the answer of his opponent. Maybe at this time the moderator will ask questions of his own, but that would have to be agreed upon and, generally speaking, it is not allowed because slanted questions take away from the moderator’s neutrality. Only recently, after several decades of being a debate participant, I was asked to be a debate moderator for a series of exchanges, exploring the question of whether or not Islam is really a religion of peace.  It just about killed me to hold my tongue at times, but the only emotion the largely Christian audience received from me, was when I had to ask them to quiet down and not interrupt the opponent they disagreed with. This means that at times I was defending the Muslim speaker.  It was utterly painful but I felt he had a right to be heard in context so that people could hear him speak for himself without having some pundit tell us what he said. If he was speaking in error, his opponent would point it out later.

Very important: Although the opponents of professional debates agree on the topic, they do not know the questions ahead of time. This is not The Hollywood Squares, where stars are briefed in advance. Years ago, before participating in a debate on the existence of God at Willamette University in Salem, Oregon, my opponent called me on the phone. I should tell you that he sounded like a very nice guy and turned out to be a very nice guy when I finally met him in person. Still, this nice guy said to me over the phone, “You know Bob, in a courtroom trial, each attorney has to share their evidence ahead of time with the rival attorney. It’s called disclosure.”

“Indeed it is, “I said. “But this is not going to be a courtroom. I do have a website with many articles. They are free and open to the public. You can read them anytime you want and when you do, you will get a fairly good idea of what I believe. But the exact structure of my arguments or the questions I plan to ask you will not be shared ahead of time. And there’s a reason I will not share them ahead of time. I want the audience to see an honest reaction. I do not want to give you a chance to rehearse some canned answer.”

One more thing: Although audiences are often polled for their opinions, the winner is usually determined by professionals who draw their conclusions, based upon who actually answered the questions and who responded to each and every point their opponent made.

As you can see, it’s a tall order. Seldom do we see a “debate” with such criteria, but that is what a real debate entails because that’s the only real way to truly hear and test both sides. Most of the debates I participated in did resemble that format but there were variations because they were often co-sponsored and I had to deal with my opponent’s ideas of what a debate meant. Sometimes they didn’t want a cross-examination segment. Other times, they wanted more audience participation. I would generally agree because I’d rather do a form of a debate than no debate at all, but I did want to take this opportunity to remind everyone that they did not see a real debate last Thursday.  Indeed, it can be argued that few, if any, of our presidential debates were real debates.

In a real debate, the victor wins on points alone. It does not matter who had the most charisma. Charisma can be a factor, since one must not only make his point, but make it persuasively. Unfortunately, audiences can be sheep and charisma takes on a far too dominant role.

But it’s not just about charisma. When I prepare for a debate, I am very aware that although the facts should be everything, in the mind of the audience, they are often nothing.  I need to watch my demeanor and smile a lot (a special struggle since I have a natural frown.) I need to sound friendly. If I can be humorous in places and get the audience to warm up to me, it goes a long way. Now, I do a lot of public speaking and I have a drama background, so I do not mind connecting with the audience. As a matter of fact, I love it.  Still, it is troubling when I think of how careful I must be and how the penalty for a bad demeanor is that people will pay no attention to the actual points being made.  Here’s another irony: In almost every case, the consensus has been that I won the debate. The only exceptions were when people thought it was a draw. Watching the sparring matches these last few weeks I feel that on some of those topics I could argue very persuasively. But I have to tell you. I’m a lousy administrator and even if I desired the office or had a chance of getting elected, I would make a horrible president. There is much more to running a country (or running any organization for that matter) than arguing persuasively in front of an audience.

In Bush’s first debate with Kerry, Bush won on points. Kerry contradicted himself again and again, not only with statements from his past, but statements within the debate itself. The conventional wisdom still gave the nod to Kerry. Why?  Because throughout the debate, Bush had a scowl look on his face.

And everyone remembers the classic Kennedy/Nixon debate, the first time such a forum was televised (although that might be news to Biden.) Those who heard the debate on the radio were mostly responding to the arguments alone because there was no facial expression to watch. Yet, even on radio, Nixon’s voice had the unfair advantage of sounding more authoritative and experienced than Kennedy’s. Those who heard the debate on the radio thought Nixon won. On TV, however, people noticed Nixon sweating while Kennedy looked happy, calm and collected. They also noticed that Kennedy was just plain better looking than Nixon. (But winning for good looks is a discussion for another day.)

Back to charisma: Palin and Biden both have charisma and they each displayed it well. That’s why people are arguing over who won. If one of them had charisma and the other did not, people would assume that the person with charisma won the debate. Indeed, Obama’s campaign took off like wildfire largely because of his own charisma.  But it is dangerous to throw our lot toward charisma alone. I know he gets talked about far too much these days, but Adolph Hitler is considered one of the greatest orators who ever lived.  He is said to have held an almost hypnotic effect upon people. This same skilled orator told his fellow Nazi strategists, “If you’re going to tell a lie, tell a big one.”  This is because; the more audacious the lie, and the more emphatic your delivery, the less chance there is that people would think you had the unmitigated gall to be so dishonest.

Palin’s charisma was in her demeanor, her likeability, and her ability to connect with the audience. She made them feel she was one of them. She was cute. She was friendly. There was a feeling of authenticity about her. But she was no Valley Girl twit (as Bill Maher tries to portray her.)  She’s an extremely intelligent woman who knows how to seize an opportunity and think fast on her feet. Armed with these virtues, she cleverly, subtly took Biden apart, grinded him up and tore the rest to shreds. The poor putz never knew what hit him. But this was only part of the evening. There were other parts that did not go so well for Palin because, Biden too, showed charisma, a more conventional kind. He was loud. He was authoritative. He spoke with emotion. He articulated his thoughts with great expression. He knew exactly where to emphasize each phrase. His job was to sound like the experienced one, especially at foreign affairs. And he did sound experienced. He sounded so experienced, that even people who loved Palin had to admit that Biden was the man who knew what he was talking about.

Only one problem: Nothing Biden said was true! Let me take some of that back. When he said his name was Joe Biden, that was true. (See? I just did it myself. I made a clever comment that would have gone a long way in a debate. Oh come on. It was at least a little bit clever.)  Seriously, when Joe Biden got teary eyed about his son going off to Iraq, he was genuine. I believe it was his only genuine moment. The man lied some 14 times. He lied almost every time he wanted to respond to Palin. He started by saying, “Let’s just get the record straight once and for all.”  See how authoritative that sounds?  You’d think we were about to be corrected by an expert. And, just in case we want to write off his bold face inaccuracies as a mere slip of the tongue, I remind you that Biden prefaced his comments with the authoritative exclamation: “Let me say it again!” You did say it again, Joe. This means that with many of these subjects, you lied, not once, but twice! Honestly, if a truth detector were in the room this guy’s nose would have grown so long, by comparison, Pinocchio could pitch himself as a disciple of Mother Teresa.

Actually, all fairy tales put aside, there are real truth watchers.  (Although I’d hate to see poor Joe hooked up to a lie detector.  For him, it would be quite painful and speaking against torture is his platform.) These days, lies do not last long over the scrutiny of the Internet and some of our older politicians are used to the good old days when information could not be disseminated with such lightening speed. One who wants to find the truth can do so easily if they are willing to do even a minimum amount of research, at least enough studying to bi-pass the many agenda driven sites. I will not repeat all of Biden’s lies in this article, as that information is available to you if you really want to see it. If you prefer something more objective than the official McCain website, go to Fact Check, which found many of them (although not all of them.) But you can also read The Washington Times or The Boston Globe. It’s being talked about everywhere. The only genuine arguments are over how many times he lied or the motive of the lies: Sinister deceit or plain stupidity? In Biden’s case it was a little bit of both. When he talked about how we drove Hezbollah out of Lebanon with France’s help, (something which never EVER happened) he was undoubtedly thinking of some other Middle East battle and he goofed along the lines of claiming Roosevelt (rather than Hoover) gave a speech right after the stock market crashed on television (rather than radio.)

If a slip up can be given a pass, deliberate falsehood cannot. One of the most glaring lies was his retort to Palin that Obama never said he would sit down and talk with dictators without pre-conditions. Obama did say that. He said exactly that. He said it during a primary debate. He said it on TV. You can still watch him give that statement  because it’s been recorded. He said it in front of Joe Biden. Biden even scolded him for it later; this same Biden who, throughout the primary, insisted that Obama did not have what it took to be a commander-in-chief but said otherwise in Thursday’s debate for two reasons:

1) He wanted to win the debate.

2) He figured he could get away with lying if he prefaced the lie with “Let’s just set the record straight.”

Incidentally, if this sounds like a foolhardy strategy, let’s give Joe some credit. It worked. It says many sad things about our country, but it worked. And it has worked for him in other debates. If Sarah had been caught making some of these outrageous statements, her political career would be over. But Joe? Ah…It’s just Joe. Good ol’ Joe. Yeah, he lies, but he’s a liar we know.

Another lie told repeatedly by Biden and Obama both: Four years of McCain will be four more years of George Bush. They know that is not true. They know McCain bucked Bush to the point where he alienated his own Republican base during this very election.  Heck, McCain had to pick a more die-hard Conservative as his running mate just to please the Conservatives. The Independents and even a significant amount of Democrats have always liked McCain. He opposed Bush on a tax cut that did not cut spending. He opposed Bush on water boarding. He opposed Bush on Guantanamo Bay and he opposed Bush on Iraq, at least as far as strategy goes. He also has a record for reaching across the isle and disagreeing with his fellow Republican senators, (something Obama has never done with his fellow Democrats on any major bill). That gang of 14 was instigated by McCain, where 7 Republican and 7 Democratic Senators came together and virtually forced congress to put forth Bush’s Supreme Court nominee by compromising and blocking a bill that would have stopped Democratic filibusters. As a Conservative, I hate it when McCain reaches across the isle. I’m one of those people who actually prefers partisanship, provided one side is doing the right thing. However, even when I disagreed with McCain, he seemed (on most, but not all, occasions) to be doing what he thought was right. But love him or hate him, one thing is abundantly clear: John McCain is no George Bush. Personally, I like Bush. I think history will paint him as a man with integrity, because history doesn’t have to answer to polls and focus groups and history won’t say anything it needs to say to get elected.  Neither does history check with Oliver Stone. I get bugged that McCain tries to win so many points by proclaiming his differences with Bush but at least he isn’t lying when he makes the proclamation. Obama and Biden are lying. Biden had nothing but praise for McCain’s independent streak and a considerable amount of disdain for Obama. That all changed when he was selected as a running mate. When he says there is no difference between McCain and Bush he is simply lying through his teeth and he is hoping you will be too dumb to notice. In that same vein, Biden insisted that our economic mess is a result of Bush’s 8 years in the White House. Listen, there is plenty of blame to go around with both parties, but let’s shoot straight: This financial disaster began with the Democratic, Politically Correct philosophy (rooted in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae but spreading beyond), where banks were literally bullied by our government into giving out loans to people who were obviously unqualified to pay them back. This was done in the name of fairness and civil rights. Anyone who wanted to oppose the idea was called a racist or called uncompassionate.  Ironically, in one example, where Bush and McCain did come together and warn about the dangers of these sub-prime loans, people like Barney Frank practically laughed in their faces. Now, the bubble has burst and it’s all the fault of George Bush, and his sidekick, McCain, the Boy Wonder. It couldn’t possibly be the fault of the Democrats because everyone knows that if the economy is doing poorly, you must blame the present administration alone even when we have had a Democratic congress for the last two years.

The list of Biden lies go on: He lied when he said he had always supported clean coal, he lied about the US spending more money on three weeks of combat in Iraq than the expense of the entire Afghanistan War, he lied when he insisted he never voted with Bush to wage war on Iraq, he lied when he said John McCain voted against funding the troops, …Well, you get the idea.

Palin did nail him for some of those verbal embarrassments and we might wonder how anybody could have kept up with all of them, but any objective observer (even a fan, like myself) must admit that she did not challenge him enough. Yes, his trunk full of tricks were exposed but they were exposed after the debate and they were exposed by the fact checkers. To Sarah’s credit, she did remind the audience that Biden would be fact checked. Still, in a real debate, Sarah would have lost on points because it was her job to expose him. I am sympathetic to her plight. After all, one can only prepare for a debate by studying the issues truthfully.  Who can peer into the future and figure out how many facts are going to be distorted by a professional liar? That would take an imagination like…well, like Joe’s.  He said things that smelled untrue. He said things that sounded outrageous. But Palin had been under fire for several weeks due to some poor interviews. She could have challenged him but she would not have been absolutely sure. This showed some honest character. After all, she could have said, “Joe, you’re lying.” And that might have sounded as authoritative as the lie itself if she said it with that folksy smile. She might have refrained for the sake of intellectual integrity. Or she might have refrained because (as she said) the fact checkers were on their way, riding into town, like the Cartwrights, to either rescue her or make a fool out of her if she accidentally lied by correcting Biden. Without knowing every detail ahead of time, this was all she could do. And who else would have known how to respond to such blunders, since some of them, like that Lebanon/Hezbullah comment, were so outrageous, that even people steeped in Middle East history are still trying to figure out what Biden was talking about.

Sarah acquitted herself well. She accomplished her purpose, to show people that she was not the idiot Katie Couric made her out to be. She held her own with a Washington insider by admitting that she was not a Washington insider and she brilliantly turned that to her advantage. Those who thought Biden won on the facts could not deny that Sarah did a better job of connecting with the audience and an extremely good job of showing an ability to think quickly, even in the face of less experience. It is not hard to believe that one with such capabilities can also be a fast learner and we saw little reason to doubt that Sarah had the makings of a remarkable leader (as if her track record in Alaska and her 80 percent approval rating haven’t already proven this.)

Sarah also took control of the situation. She made it clear to Ifill, that she was not going to answer questions in the expected way. It was a slap in the face to a deserving liberal media, deserved even by Ifill, who, although coming across more objective than some feared, nevertheless made serious (but not obvious) mistakes as a moderator. How many times did Biden “correct” Sarah only for Ifill to immediately change the subject, without giving Sarah a chance to respond? I watched the debate several times and read the transcript. It was not always evenly divided according to whose turn it was. Once, when Ifill was ready to move on, Biden jumped in saying, “Can I respond to that?” His response was another entire monologue and Ifill let him get away with it. Then she jumped to the next question and Palin never had a chance to react. That may have been deliberate. Or it may just be that she just lost control of the event. And truth be told, Palin may not have wanted to respond because she may not have known what to say. Again, that could have been because the arrogant brass of an outrageous lie threw her for a loop. Nevertheless, be it the fault of a bad moderator or the fault of Palin for not responding to Biden, the audience was left with the impression of an opponent who let her rival get away with volumes. And when she refused to answer a question, that may have sounded like the way we want a future president to handle the press, but in a real debate, she automatically loses. But that takes us full circle, because, once again, we aren’t talking about a real debate. It was a forum, or a meeting of the minds, or an embryonic press conference, possibly even a contest, but it was not a debate.

In summary: Nobody won the debate. There was no debate. Who won whatever it was?

Palin won on personality and charm. She also won on many facts but she lost on facts ultimately because Biden challenged almost every one of her facts and she did little to refute him. But then, the next morning, after the fact checkers awakened to the scene, Sarah was redeemed. Biden was shown to be a liar and Palin was shown to have the smart instincts to predict a good fact check without taking his bait and going into an area where sooner or later she was bound to slip up.

Unfortunately most people are unaware of the fact checks. So to them, they saw two really smart people, but Biden looked a bit smarter for his experience. This perception is a grave mistake. For all the man’s experience with foreign policy, he has been dead wrong about foreign policy almost every single time.

What looked like a draw, Sarah on personality Biden on facts, should have been an exposure of the biggest spinner of tales since Hans Christian Anderson.

Even if this had been a real debate, a debate only tells us so much. Bush has done the worst job in the world of making his philosophies and policies understandable. He has not sold himself well. That does not make him wrong. Sometimes those with the correct and righteous ideas give lame arguments. If you asked me to prove that Julius Caesar once ruled Rome and I responded by saying, “In the 1500’s William Shakespeare wrote a play, entitled Julius Caesar, that would be a pretty nutty argument.” But that doesn’t mean Julius Caesar didn’t rule Rome.

Right now, Obama and Biden are selling this soft soap about the problems of our country being the fault of George Bush. They are also convincing many people that McCain and Palin will be four more years of the same. The strategy is a simple one: Repeat that mindless mantra as bumpkin for the masses. They are wrong about Bush. But even if they were right about Bush, they would be wrong about McCain being four more years of Bush.  It doesn’t matter. 

“If you’re going to tell a lie, tell a big one.”

Adolph Hitler

Can McCain and Palin still win? Yes, but it’s an uphill battle.  If there were a major terrorist threat, it might shove things McCain’s way just like the economy fiasco pulled the tide toward Obama. But who wants to hope for a terrorist attack unless it was something like The Day the Earth Stood Still, harmless but scary? Short of prayer, what can McCain himself do? Win the next two debates and hope that people can somehow see him win. Better yet. Challenge Obama to a real debate. Then the people will know he won.

This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.

Also by Bob Siegel:

Why Was Abortion Not Mentioned at the Debate?