A New Kind of Campaign?

From the New York Times today:

In a sign of what could be an extremely unusual fall campaign, the two sides said Saturday that they would be open to holding joint forums or unmoderated debates across the country in front of voters through the summer. Mr. Obama, campaigning in Oregon, said that the proposal, floated by Mr. McCain’s advisers, was “a great idea.”...

The rivals are openly discussing staging forums across the country to speak directly to voters, an idea that is by any measure unconventional for a general election campaign.

Asked about the idea on Saturday, Mr. Obama told reporters in Oregon, “If I have the opportunity to debate substantive issues before the voters with John McCain, that’s something that I’m going to welcome.”

Noam Scheiber says "Obama should nix the unmoderated debate idea. Fast" arguing that there's no upside to it for Obama. Noam argues that the Democratic candidate is going to have an enormous financial adantage, he's going to generate more enthusiasm than McCain and he's going to try and tie McCain to a failed Bush presidency. Unmoderated debates would help McCain "overcome all three problems".

This seems right to me. Which is also why it's such a clever idea for McCain to propose. In the first place it flatters Obama's already well-developed sense of himself as a statesman cut from a higher grade of cloth than that worn by other politicians these days. It appeals to his idea of "elevating" politics too. Thirdly, and relatedly, it's easy to suspect that Obama could be weary of having to play the "gotcha" game favoured by the likes of Tim Russert, Chris Matthews and the rest of the blowhards who moderate "traditional" debates and, consequently, that he'd be open to anything that stymied their desire to referee the contest.

But the excellence of the notion - from the McCain point of view - is that McCain wins even if Obama rejects the idea. The McCain campaign would then be able to claim, not altogether unreasonably, that "Barack Obama preaches the idea of a 'new politics' moving away from and beyond the 'tired old conventions of the past' but when he's given the opportunity to prove the seriousness of his intentions he ducks and runs and hides. He's just another politician more interested in playing the same old games. You might consider him a hypocrite; we couldn't possibly comment. John McCain, by contrast, will speak before any audience, anytime, anywhere. The American people can contrast his record of Straight Talking candour with Barack Obama's rhetoric of reform that, curiously, always seems to founder upon the rocks of political expediency..." Well, you get the idea.

Since much of Obama's appeal rests upon his rhetoric and the sense to which he's offering something better, more noble than anything the voters have seen in years, the McCain campaign has to do something to counter this. "Where's the beef?" may be one part of it, but portraying Obama as a self-serving hypocrite might be even better. (With the added advantage that McCain, who suffers from no shortage of moral vanity himself, may also believe its true).

Equally, if Obama accepts the idea then McCain also benefits for all the reasons Noam lays out.

(Of course, it's also true that Obama could win these debates. But they would seem to carry more risk for him than for an underdog McCain.)

UPDATE: As commenters point out, the debates would also, of course, offer a contrast between a youthful, vigorous Obama and a shrunken, ancient McCain. True enough and it may also be true, as I say, that Obama would win the debates but all this merely makes it more likely that the media will give McCain the benefit of the doubt in terms of meeting, or exceeding, expectations even if he only has a mildly above-average performance. Maybe it shouldn't work that way, but all this is why it may be a riskier proposition for Obama than for McCain. He has more to lose. Which, I suspect, is one reason why McCain's people came up with the idea.

Comments

[Dave]

I think Noam is getting this wrong. The only way McCain can win is if enough voters buy into the notion that Obama is an unknown quantity with questionable ties/sympathies with radical anti-Americans, be they Jeremiah Wright or Hamas.

Going on a nationwide tour with Obama and discussing issue-based ideas (no way does McCain bring up the lower-belly stuff to Obama's face) weeds out the character campaign and puts the election on an issue-based playing field where McCain is just too often on the wrong side of public opinion.

I suspect the McCain camp was thinking Obama would just say no, at which point they'd trot out the arguments you cite above. From their perspective, the worst thing Obama can do is actually say yes.

Is there any constituency whose vote Obama still needs to win, that will see him as more "legit" by virtue of regular debates with McCain? There might be.

[Kirk]

I completely agree with Dave's comment: gives Obama the chance to eliminate the wild liberal/scary black persona the GOP will try to stick on him.

Also, it will show a young, tall, energetic man juxtaposed to an old, hunched frail man...not to mention a strong baritone next to a soft tenor.

If I were Obama, I couldn't sign up fast enough.

[Ben]

There are some very good reasons for Obama to accept. 1) The consequences of not accepting, 2) It will focus the campaign on ISSUES, and not on Reverend Wright, William Ayers, et al.--that is where Obama can win, and 3) It is not impossible that Obama, the star law professor, law review, Harvard/Chicago/Columbia debater is very on top of domestic issues plus Iraq and can come off as very impressive. But most of all, it puts the FOCUS ON THE ISSUES, which is really where Obama wants the focus to be. Very shrewd on Obama's part--McCain must be real nervous now because he didn't plan on an acceptance. And there's another upside for Obama--it solidifies his position of the nominee and bumps Hillary Clinton out of the picture.

[Sam]

I'm going to go out on a limb here... what if Obama actually does care about the level of political dialog and is interested in moving it forward?

Part of Obama's appeal is his attempt to bring the conversation up a notch. I (an Obama man) tend to think that this is a genuine desire and is a large reason I support him.

As to strategy... one thing worth thinking about: Obama draws large crowds of supporters, McCain doesn't. If the debates have large, pro-Obama crowds he's going to come out looking pretty good.

Tough for McCain to come out on top when the crowd boos him down.

[Doug]

This is a great idea for Obama because you can almost guarantee that the audience for such debates would be packed with Obama supporters. His base is the most passionate in this campaign. You can imagine instances where McCain could get a cold response from the audience, while Obama would get loud and wild cheers when he speaks. That will have an impact on the TV audience that's watching. They will see Obama as being more popular.

[SocraticGadfly]

Yeah, the media would give Schmuck Talk the bend-over-backwards benefit of the doubt.

Remember the "soft bigotry of low expectations" eight years ago?

[John]

The critique, as Scheiber lays it out, is essentially that Obama would be giving McCain a threefold piggyback to legitimacy, enthusiasm and publicity.

1) McCain is a right-winger, and he'll come off like one in an unmoderated debate where he's forced to think and defend on his feet. He'll paint himself as Bush II v.2.0 for Obama. Can you imagine McCain having to discuss policy instead of what a great guy/maverick/reformer he is while some hack journalist gushes about what a great guy/war hero/maverick/statesman/reformer/substantive genius he is? Make him *try to* prove it. Laughs will ensue...

2) As for enthusiam - it's not as if the American public is unaware that John McCain exists - he's been a media darling for eight years now. The enthisiastic Obama crowds that show up are not likely to switch sides. Especially given that Obama is not likely to lose to stutterin', stumblin' Johnny Mac and his velvet-gloved iron-fisted grip on the issues. Let's not forget that economics have never really interested this guy. Nuance is not his forte...

3) Finally as far as publicity goes - this was the one that initially made sense and concerned me. However, upon review it just doesn't stand up. McCain doesn't need money to get his message out - there's a network of hacks who will do it for him and the press love him, so they will rehash his and his surrogates claims without any eye critical evaluation. Letting McCain's free ride continue is exactly what Obama cannot afford to do.
So even with the built in advatages this cycle, Obama can't starve McCain out. So rather than let the press give him a pass, Obama should make him stand up and be counted. This also gives Obama the opportunity to keep McCain on the record regarding the slimy gutter proxy attacks which we all know are coming. McCain will have to deny involvement and denounce the ads in real terms, thus blunting their effect, even if only marginally. More importantly, once he does so, if he can be tied to them in any way it becomes another albatross weighing down his already hunching shoulders.

These debates would advantage Obama across the board. Massie is right though, if he rejects them, McCain can paint him as another politician who's principles are contingent upon expediency (sort of like McCain's - ie. who opposes torture, anyone?)

[Nathan]

McCain's got plenty of energy for his age, but he can't match Obama week after week, head to head. Given that Obama probably can't refuse the debates without looking bad, he should use McCain's suggestion against him by proposing so many that it wears McCain out.

[Armando]

Ah, how I love to read these comments: ill-informed opinions from unqualified people.

[John]

Armando,

Brevetiy may be the soul of wit, but it does not constitute wit in and of itself.