Campaign Theater

On Thursday in Oregon, at 7 p.m., local News Channel 8 ( or was it 2?) aired the debate between Gordon Smith, the Republican incumbent for US Senate, and his challenger Jeff Merkley. I can remember when Smith was first elected in 1996, because his election was a close one, he narrowly defeated Tom Brugerre, in fact I think that election came down to hundreds of votes. Brugerre has since then disappeared, while Smith has made somewhat of a name for himself, though this year he looks quite vulnerable, though I expect him to pull it out. Merkley just flat out does not have the appeal that it takes to unseat a fairly popular politician.
What stands out about his this particular race, as well as that of Kurt Schrader and Mike Erickson, is how nasty it has gotten, not unlike the presidential campaigns. You could really see that in the debates. Smith and Merkley went after each other, not quite as nastily as some have gone after Obama, but you could tell these two have very different ideas. Smith, and here is another parallel between this and the presidential election, belongs to the party of George W. Bush, and has to some degree quietly tried to distance himself from that, touting his reputation as an independent. His campaign signs are green and white, while the attack adds on him feature a very good photo of him and the president, Bush bearing that cocky smile that I think probably drives some Democrats wild. On a side note, seeing how he was scarcely mentioned during the Republican National Convention, has there ever been a sitting outgoing president so little regarded in the waning days of his administration? Even his press conferences seem dead, like nobody cares what he has to say anymore, and his own party is trying to campaign as if the last eight years never existed. Neither McCain or Palin seem to be seeking much support from him.
Anyway, back to the Smith/Merkley debate. One thing I really noticed was how poorly, at least in comparison to the Presidential debates, the whole thing went. I've met Smith on a couple of occasions, and he has that charisma that is undeniable, a strong confident voice, and is somewhat known for his suits. I've not met Merkley, but as the Democratic leader in Oregon, I would think he'd be well accomplished in public speaking. Neither came off as a particularly good debater, and both of them at different points looked to be uttering lines that were basically repetitive talking points. Both came off, as I mentioned to a fellow political junkie, as bad actors, using lines without really knowing how to say them, botching the delivery, which with some lines matters more than the line itself.
Watching the Vice-Presidential debates two weeks ago, as Sarah Palin's accent seemed to get thicker and all the g's at the ends of her sentences disappeared, and while Biden timed his "bridge to nowhere" reference for comedic effect, I wondered if at any point campaigns put acting coaches on the payroll. The presentations of the candidates, from their body language, to facial expressions, to pronunciation of specific words, when effective can seem like good theater. Appearances matter, how what is said is more important than what is actually said.
Obama and McCain are both at the top of their games respectively. They are comfortable with the microphones, know the range of topics and what their talking points are, and never make too many gaffes. Some might not agree with me, but then again try watching a debate with less accomplished folks, like the Smith/Merkley. Debating, at the Presidential level, really is an art form.