Last night was a classic example of American Democracy: Two very powerful men going head-to-head in a battle of wits, answering directly to voters and inconsistently tweaked by the 4th Estate http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/10/16/video-recap-moderator-candy-crowleys-many-attempts-to-rein-in-candidates-during-hofstra-debate/.

THE FORMAT WORKS

Brit Hume and others suggested the Commission on Presidential Debates may want to re-think this format http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/16/dear-debate-commission-if-wont-kill-off-this-silly-town-hall-format/ but I think it worked. We got a good view of each man – what facts and logic they think make a good argument for something, how they communicate their proposed policies, and how they multi-task ( swinging from a face-to-face argument with a competitor to a caring engagement with a citizen on a new topic). Neither candidate seemed to fall apart, and there were not a lot of “gotchas” and “zingers” (despite my earlier claim that the debates had been reduced to producing sound bites).

NEED BALANCED QUESTIONS AND MODERATOR

There are adjustments that will probably help. I like the idea of going to a swing state (or at least a swing county) in an attempt to get more balance in the questions – this might be addressed by including more balance in the process of question selection in addition to submission. It seems there was a misstep by the moderator as well, stepping into the argument on Libya to act as a fact checker. That shouldn’t happen, and to tell the truth that seemed a little “pre-arranged” to me. It was a likely question so I would expect the candidate’s to be prepared, but I think it was odd that the moderator seemed to have the exact right quote available to support the President’s claim  Look, we all know the President’s campaign staff sends material to reporters, including the moderator, to support their claims, but she seemed just a little too ready to support the President’s statement – I wonder how much specific contact on that item there was before the debate (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/candy-crowley-libya-fact-check-backtrack_n_1973431.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics). In the end the President’s claim reminds me a bit of a story about Mark Twain. Once, after attending a church service, he told the minister how much he liked the sermon. He said, “I enjoyed it as an old friend. I have a book at home containing every word of it.” The minister was offended and said, “I am sure you have not.” And Twain said, “Indeed I have.” The minister asked him to send the book over. And the next day Twain sent him a dictionary. President Obama did indeed says the word “terror” in the same speech where referred to the attack in Benghazi – but the relationship between the two is not clear.

STILL A HORSE RACE

The clear winner in this debate is the voter. We got to see our potential future Presidents at work in a situation we can reasonable expect them to be in – arguing for their policy with Congress, their staff, and other world leaders. Pundits and polls claim success for both candidates – Obama certainly didn’t lose like he did the first debate, but it isn’t clear who influenced the key voting groups (undecided voters in swing states, a good portion of which are women) the most, but there is some evidence Romney won on the economy (http://nation.foxnews.com/2012-presidential-debates/2012/10/17/cbs-post-debate-poll-romney-wallops-obama-economy) a key issue with those voters.