CNN Democratic Debate: Create A Common Enemy

Given the especially hostile nature of the last democratic debate (the one where John Edwards was the "grown up candidate"; more here), it is no surprise that Obama and Clinton toned things down. One of the oldest ways to make peace amongst rivals is to find a common enemy. That was the overwhelming strategy in play tonight and it worked. The debate was rather calm and subdued, with both candidates acting very professional and respectful.

Below is a list of numerous quotations where the candidates created unity by attacking a common enemy.

(Note: Quotes below from the official CNN transcript, which is available here.)

"[OBAMA:] And I think that, as we move forward in this debate, understand we are both Democrats and we understand the issues at stake. We want change from George Bush."

"[CLINTON:] But the differences between Barack and I pale in comparison to the differences that we have with Republicans, and I want to say that first and foremost, because it's really..."

...

"[CLINTON:] So we have differences both at home and around the world, but, again, I would emphasize that what really is important here, because the Republicans were in California debating yesterday, they are more of the same. Neither of us, just by looking at us, you can tell, we are not more of the same. We will change our country."

...

"[OBAMA:] Now, keep in mind, the one thing I suspect that Senator Clinton and I agree on. Part of the reason we are in this mortgage mess is because there's been complete lack of oversight on the part of the Bush administration."

...

"[OBAMA:] Many of the solutions that Senator Clinton just talked about are solutions that I agree with, that I've been working on for many years, and my suspicion is whatever our differences, we're going to have big differences with the Republicans, but I think a practical, common sense solution to the problem is what the American people are looking for."

CNN Democratic Debate: Shameless Free Advertising

With Senator Obama's campaign announcing it raised over $30 million in January alone and the all-important super Tuesday primaries looming, Senator Obama is well positioned to make a substantial media buy. It is essential that Senator Clinton counter and get her message out as much as possible for as little as possible.

I have always wondered why presidential candidates do not plug their websites more or advertise their events subtly and creatively during national debates. A website is a free and effective way of disseminating incredible amounts of information quickly (ok...so a website is not entirely free, but you get the point). It is another touch-point between the candidate and the voter. I was happy to see Senator Clinton take advantage of a large national audience tonight and offer a plug of her website and an upcoming campaign event. With millions of individuals watching, I can only imagine what making this announcement via paid-ads would have cost?

We congratulate Senator Clinton on taking this opportunity to expand her persuasive influence by drawing in target voters. Only one piece of advice: be a little more professional about shamelessly promoting your website on a nationally televised debate. Wolf Blitzer rightly chastised Senator Clinton.

(Note: Quotes below from the official CNN transcript, which is available here.)

"[CLINTON:] We will go into the November election prepared to win. And -- and I want to just add that, you know, on Monday night, I'm going to have a national town hall, an interactive town hall. It will be carried on the Hallmark Channel and on my Web site, HillaryClinton.com, because I know you had tens of thousands of questions."

Realizing what had just happened, Obama quickly added:

"OBAMA: What about my Web site?"

However, Obama never mentioned his website, which he should have. Clinton, determined the publicize this event even more, chimed in one more time.

"CLINTON: And it's going to be across the country. Monday night at 9:00 Eastern, 6:00 here on the West Coast."

After pushing her shameless promotion far over the line, moderator Wolf Blitzer stopped things:

"BLITZER: All right. answered, please, log on, turn on, and continue to be part of this really, really exciting election for both of us. Here is the bottom line -- we do the plugs here. You guys can do the plugs out on the campaign trail."

CNN Republican Debate: Non Sequitors 101

The recently concluded CNN Republican debate is a lesson in the use of non sequitors. Unspining the candidates' responses to questions from moderator Anderson Cooper and attacks from fellow candidates, it is clear that all three major Republican candidates (Romney, McCain, and Huckabee) used one of the oldest political plays in the persuasive playbook: non sequitors.

In some of the posts that follow, we'll unspin each candidate's use of the non sequitor.

Mit Romney Non Sequitors

John McCain Non Sequitors

Mike Huckabee Non Sequitors

CNN Republican Debate: Non Sequitors 101 With Professor Mike Huckabee

Let's unspin former Governor Mike Huckabbee 's political rhetoric and examine his use of the non sequitor.
(Note: All quotes taken from the official CNN transcript).

Governor Huckabee is asked the following question by Brian from Wisconsin:
"In order to curb illegal immigration, do you support making changes in the law that would give citizenship only to children who are born to parents who are legally in this country at the time the child is born?"

"HUCKABEE: I think the Supreme Court has already ruled on that...."

Wait a minute...Brian did not ask whether the courts have issued an opinion on this issue. I think it is safe to assume that Brian wanted a clear answer to whether Governor Huckabee would "support making changes in the law that would give citizenship only to children who are born to parents who are legally in this country at the time the child is born."

Governor Huckabbe completes his non sequitor:

"HUCKABEE: [continuing] The real issue is, that doesn't fix the problem. What we've got to do is to have a secure border fence, something I have proposed that we do within 18 months of taking office."

CNN Republican Debate: Non Sequitors 101 With Professor John McCain

Let's unspin Senator McCain's political rhetoric and examine his use of the non sequitor.
(Note: All quotes taken from the official CNN transcript).

The first direct question to Senator McCain came around 20 minutes into the debate. Janet Hook of the L.A. Times posed a difficult wedge question and Senator McCain responded with a variety of rhetorical strategies, including the non sequitor:

"HOOK: ...Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed that California be allowed to implement much tougher environmental regulations on emission requirements than apply to the rest of the country. This is an initiative that conservatives generally oppose, and the Bush administration rejected California's request. Do you side with the governor or with the Bush administration?"

"MCCAIN: Well, there's some physical danger. I have to agree...(LAUGHTER)... with the governor [who is sitting on the front row]."

Senator McCain, knowing that a direct and immediate "yes/no" response to the question will turn off Bush-conservatives or moderate California conservatives begins with a joke to lighten the mood.

After the audience has finished laughing, McCain turns to the non sequitor:

"Look, I'm a federalist. And I believe the states should decide to enormous degrees what happens within those states, including off their coasts. The people of California have decided they don't want oil drilling off their coasts. The people of Louisiana have decided that they do. I applaud the governor's efforts and that of other states in this region and other states across America to try to eliminate the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change."

Wait a minute...the question was not "are you a federalist?" Even more, the question is not about oil drilling and whether a state can drill off its coast.

McCain continues with a lengthy discussion about global warming and fails to even mention whether he supports the Bush policy or decision to reject California's standards.

In contrast, former Governor Romney answered the question plain and and straight forward way:

"COOPER: Governor Romney, what did you think of Senator McCain's response? And just to remind you, the original question is do you side with Governor Schwarzenegger or with the Bush administration on this issue?"

"ROMNEY: Well, I side with states to be able to make their own regulations with regards to emissions within their own states."

Later in the debate, John McCain employed an even more blatant refusal to answer the question posed to him. Janet Hook of the L.A. Times asked Senator McCain "if your original proposal [for immigration reform that you put forth in late June 2007] came to a vote on the Senate floor [again], would you vote for it?"

"MCCAIN: It won't [come to the floor for a vote]. It won't. That's why we went through the debate..."

Although Senator McCain has not entirely changed the subject, he has patently refused to answer the question by trying to render the issue irrelevant. Hook followed up.

"HOOK: But if it did?"

"MCCAIN: No, it would not [reach the floor], because we know what the situation is today. The people want the border secured first. And so to say that that would come to the floor of the Senate -- it won't. We went through various amendments which prevented that ever -- that proposal...."

After a lengthy digression to discuss border security, Senator McCain is again pressed to answer the question, this time by Anderson Cooper:

"COOPER: So I just want to confirm that you would not vote for your bill as it originally was?"

"MCCAIN: My bill will not be voted on; it will not be voted on. I will sit and work with Democrats and Republicans and with all people. And we will have the principals securing the borders first."

At this point, McCain's rhetorical strategy is one of straight out refusal to answer the question posed to him.

CNN Republican Debate: Non Sequitors 101 With Professor Mitt Romney

From the first question of the debate, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney showed no hesitation in using the rhetorical strategy of avoidance and answering difficult questions with non sequitors.

Let's unspin Mitt Romney's political rhetoric and examine his use of the non sequitor.
(Note: All quotes taken from the official CNN transcript).

The first question of the debate was posed to former Governor Romney and he showed no hesitation in responding to questions with blatant non sequitors:
"COOPER: So tonight, in terms of the economy, are Americans better off than they were eight years ago?"
"ROMNEY: Well, if you're voting for George Bush, you'd be very interested in knowing the answer to that. If you're voting for Mitt Romney, you'd like to know, 'Are you better off in Massachusetts after four years of my term in office?' And the answer would be decidedly yes...."

Governor Romney has supplied and answered his own question ("So, in terms of the Massachusetts economy when you left office as Governor, are the people of Massachusetts better off than they were when you entered office?")

Anderson Cooper recognized the blatant non sequitor and challenged Mr. Romney:
"COOPER: Let me just interrupt. The question was: Are Americans better off than they were eight years ago?"
"ROMNEY:Well, again, I'm pleased with what I do while I was -- as governor and happy to talk about that record."

Once again, Governor Romney has refused to answer the question posed to him. But, Cooper gives him yet another chance:

"COOPER: Are you running for governor or are you running for president, though?"
"ROMNEY: But I'm not running on President Bush's record. President Bush can talk about his record."

For a third time, Romney employs the rhetorical strategy of avoidance. The contrast between former Governor Romney's response and former Governor Huckabee's could not be clearer:

"COOPER: ... So, Governor Huckabee, if you can, briefly: Are we better off [economically] than we were eight years ago?"
"FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. HUCKABEE: I don't think we are. "

A Victory in the Press Coverage Primary

After Hilary Clinton lost the coveted endorsement of Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy and the voters of South Carolina handed her (and her husband) a stinging rebuke, Senator Obama clearly gained the momentum in the race for the democratic nomination. Cable TV focused all day on the Kennedy endorsement and Clinton was clearly losing ground. Since media coverage is so important in forming perceptions and persuading the electorate, the Clinton campaign knew it needed to change the topic in the news. So, it reverted to an old trick: invent a story to change the topic.

The Clinton campaign did just this when Hillary announced she would hold a rally in Florida to celebrate what polls showed would be a certain victory in the state. Her campaign put out a flurry of press releases to emphasize the victory:

"By a nearly 17 point margin, Hillary won the highest turnout Democratic primary in the state’s history. More than 1.5 million Democrats voted – more than cast votes in Iowa, Nevada, South Carolina, and New Hampshire combined" (source).

In another memo entitled "A Significant Victory in Florida", Clinton's chief strategist said:
"A large, broad, and diverse group of voters came out and voted for Hillary in Florida." (source).

In Clinton's victory speech, she said, "So thank you, thank you for this tremendous victory tonight." (source).

But let's step back and unspin the political rhetoric. The democratic candidates pledged to not campaign in Florida when the state defied party rules and moved up its primary. The democratic party decided that no Florida delegates would be seated at the convention in Denver. So, the election gets Hilary no closer to procuring the delegates she needs to be nominated. In this sense, the Florida democratic primary is meaningless. Moreover, Clinton faced no opponent since the candidates agreed not to campaign in Florida. How can Mrs. Clinton declare victory without an opponent? How can Mrs. Clinton present the aura that voters believe that she is the candidate best suited to bring about change when she never aired one TV add in the state or delivered one stump speech to a Floridian? Yet these facts did not stop Clinton from creating a buzz with her actions.

In fact, the Clinton strategy worked. The cable networks all covered Clinton's remarks live and the pundits stopped talking about the Kennedy endorsement and began talking about Mrs. Clinton's pledge to "do everything I can to make sure not only are Florida’s Democratic delegates seated," a move that will no doubt evoke a bitter response from the Obama campaign (that's part of the scheme--get the Obama campaign mad and off message). Clinton compounded her media blitz by interviewing live with most of the major cable news outlets.

Although Senator Clinton did not score a meaningful victory in the Florida Democratic primary. she did score a victory in the crucial press coverage primary.