Sound bites or sound reasoning – the first Presidential Debate

A battle lost or won is easily described, understood, and appreciated, but the moral growth of a great nation requires reflection, as well as observation, to appreciate it.

I ran across that quote in my files and thought about the 3000 or so reporters gathering in Oxford to cover the First Presidential Debate – the site itself a message of change.

We’re certain to see a lot of background on the violent integration of the University of Mississippi in 1962 – more than usual, of course, because of Barack Obama.  A recent editorial in the New York Times suggests race is very much in the race for President even when express references to race are not evident.

In the Old South, black men and women who were competent, confident speakers on matters of importance were termed “disrespectful,” the implication being that all good Negroes bowed, scraped, grinned and deferred to their white betters.

In what is probably a harbinger of things to come, the McCain campaign has already run a commercial that carries a similar intimation, accusing Mr. Obama of being “disrespectful” to Sarah Palin. The argument is muted, but its racial antecedents are very clear.

Clearly, the media will be listening closely to what the candidate have to say.  Everyone will.  The intended focus of the debate, foreign policy, reportedly is to McCain’s advantage.

However, that leaves questions about the debate format and whether it offers either candidate an advantage. Recent comments about McCain’s temperament could be relevant – particularly those from conservative columnist George Will of the Washington Post.

Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either…It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency…Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

A former student of Obama’s at University of Chicago Law provides comparable comment.

Obama’s years at the University of Chicago Law School show without a doubt that Obama’s careful, thoughtful approach to issues today is not a centrist political cop-out; instead, it’s a fundamental intellectual approach that Obama followed long before he ever sought political office.

Another told NYT that Obama had a way of getting you to think and talk about issues people generally don’t like to think and talk about.

Do these comments on McCain and Obama suggest who might win the debate?  In Why smart talkers lose debates and how Obama can beat McCain anyway, Joseph Romm says appearing smarter than your opponent…is a losing strategy.

Debates are typically won by the candidate who presents the most compelling and persuasive character. If I can convince you I’m an honest, straight talker, you’ll believe what else I say. If you can’t, you won’t…

Grab a bottle of wine, find a comfortable chair and watch the first Presidential Debate – broadcast live from the University of Mississippi this Friday at 8:00CST.  Sound bites or sound reasoning? Expect both.