Obama Was Smart to Skip Last Night’s Debate
By Chase on Sep 21, 2007 in Barack Obama, Iowa Caucuses
I wrote this as part of last night’s analysis of the AARP/IPTV “Divided We Fail” Democratic presidential debate, but then I realized that it was really a separate argument that might warrant its own discussion. So here it is, reproduced:
Conventional wisdom (because David Yepsen already blogged it) is that Sen. Barack Obama was the big loser of the night, because he didn’t show up. But conventional wisdom is wrong. Had Obama been at the forum, there would have been a first tier candidate with a health care plan different from all the others on the stage, and the whole thing would have devolved into a ‘mandatory coverage’ versus ‘non-mandatory coverage’ debate. Without Obama there, Edwards just tried to go after Clinton.
In general, the Obama campaign’s choice to skip non-sanctioned debates is smart because of the campaign they are trying to run. The non-sanctioned debates are often sponsored by interest groups who are looking for specific, “red meat” policy proposals, and the Illinois Senator is not the kind of candidate who dishes those out.
At least so far, the Obama campaign’s policy proposals have been less than ideal in the eyes of the Democratic base (think: tax cuts, residual forces, cap and trade, and non-mandatory health care). Obama is a strong candidate when his speeches can remain fairly academic, and when he can explain his policy proposals and the reasons for them fully. In a duel of soundbites, Obama seldom outperforms expectations.
None of the candidates at the debate came away looking bad. But if Obama had shown up, the dynamic would have been completely different.
Sure, he disappointed some people by not attending the debate. But, seriously, he’s Barack Obama. He will reach those voters some other way between now and January.
Chase Martyn observes and analyzes politics from Des Moines, IA, capital of 2008's first caucus state. He is also Managing Editor of the 
Wow, I disagree 100 percent with you on this.
As many as two-thirds of Iowa caucus-goers will be over 50.
A whole debate was scheduled to address key issues of interest to that voting bloc. The debate was shown on public tv, which many seniors watch.
Obama was a no-show. It looks bad. It looks like he doesn’t want people to compare him directly with other candidates and just wants to attend campaign events where he has the stage to himself.
I understand the idea behind skipping some of these forums. But of all the ones to skip, why the AARP forum that was in Iowa and was broadcast on public television? Several of the other debates Obama did participate in have been broadcast only on cable networks that get low ratings.
If I were a volunteer for Obama, I would be very frustrated right now. Sure, he still has plenty of money to run tv ads and field a strong organization, but why skip an opportunity to directly address the largest voting bloc in the Iowa caucuses?
desmoinesdem | Sep 23, 2007 | Reply
I’m not saying that I think skipping the debate won Obama any new support. It made him look bad to an important constituency, sure.
But the constituency we’re talking about is generally discerning and fairy conscientious about their votes. They aren’t going to base their decision in the race for president on who showed up to a debate; and, at the end of the day, many of them could still support Obama.
And I still think that if you picture what the debate would have been like had Obama shown up, it’s clear that the debate wasn’t going to go well for him. Obama’s health care plan just wouldn’t have been popular in front of that crowd if it had been contrasted constantly for 90 minutes with more universal plans from Edwards and Clinton. It’s a question of whether you want to lose a couple of points with caucus goers by skipping or you want to risk losing significantly more points by showing up.
Chase | Sep 24, 2007 | Reply