Debates 101: Class Comes to Order

Campaign: Students offer their reviews of candidates’ performances and the format for the second presidential debate.

He smiled benignly. “I’m really excited about getting it done,” President Bush said about his national health plan.

The response was immediate: Loud groans filled the classroom, reflecting a general skepticism about the President’s sincerity.

On Thursday night, I watched the second presidential debate with a media class that I teach at Cal State Northridge. I wanted the students’ reactions to televised presidential forums and to this latest format, under which Bush, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot were asked questions in Richmond, Va., by members of a studio audience consisting of uncommitted voters selected at random by the Gallup polling organization.

In Sunday’s first presidential debate, candidates were quizzed by a panel of journalists, a much more rigid format favored by Bush. If Bush lit no fires then, Thursday was even more clearly not his night.

And just as clearly, my class was no Bush crowd.

Although they range from twentysomething to middle-aged, these graduate students do not represent a broad cross-section politically. Even before Thursday, 10 of 12 students (including an Iranian and Chilean who cannot vote because they are not U.S. citizens) favored Clinton. Of the remaining students who attended Thursday, one is a Perot backer, another undecided.

Following the debate, 11 class members felt Clinton had won. “Bush started to lose momentum,” Akbar said. “Clinton was the most dynamic. He was the most specific.”

It was Judy, the undecided voter, who thought Perot topped the others (“He seemed more like a real person”), although not sufficiently to win her vote--yet.

“He was too long-winded,” Lee, the Perot supporter, observed about his man.

Earlier, there was snickering in the classroom when Bush brought up the trust issue. And there were noisy hoots when, following a question about the nation’s sliding education levels, moderator Carole Simpson of ABC News asked the candidates: “Who would like to begin, the education President?”

There was applause after a woman in the audience pressed Bush to be more responsive to her question about whether these bad economic times were affecting the candidates personally.

There was laughter when:

* Perot chided both Republicans and Democrats for not accepting responsibility for increasing the nation’s deficit. “Somewhere out there, there’s an extraterrestrial who’s doin’ it.”

* Perot blatantly advertised his political commercials.

* Bush told a story about his father. “He said, ‘Tell the truth.’ And I’ve tried to do that in public life.”

* Bush asked the 209 members of the audience if they recalled the recent Los Angeles riots.

* When Clinton cracked a tired “read my lips” joke.

Afterward, the class discussed the intimate format, which bunched the candidates close together on tall stools but gave them the flexibility to stand when they had something to say and approach the studio audience as if pressing flesh on the campaign trail.

“You see better the person behind the real candidate this way,” Enrique said.

“I don’t agree,” Michael said. “These people--although not so much Perot--are masters of camouflage.”

“But that became obvious,” Sandra argued.

What about Simpson, who roamed the audience a la Oprah Winfrey and attempted to keep the candidates on the track?

Marc felt she allowed the candidates to ramble. “They need to define what a moderator is and what he is supposed to do,” Lee said. As Sandra noted, Simpson at times assumed the role of teacher, gently scolding the candidates for being excessive and sometimes speaking to audience members as if they were kindergartners (“Who wants to say . . . ?”)

What about the audience, whose questioners were better inquisitors than were the journalists on Sunday’s panel? Michael thought they reflected too little diversity. Dan that their range of questions was too narrow. Jim felt the audience was largely anti-Bush.

Only the audience? “I think the director was a Democrat,” Sydney said. “The camera angles always favored Clinton.” Of course, Clinton himself proved to be not only a master of this format but also adept at utilizing the camera for his benefit while appearing not to be aware of it.

For example, Sydney noted the effectiveness of Clinton’s reactions while Bush was speaking. “You can almost steal the scene if your reaction is right,” she said. “While he seemed to be listening, he was actually pulling the attention back to himself.”

How would the students change presidential debates? “There should be one on the West Coast,” Brett said. “I would have the people ask the questions and not have a moderator,” Lee said. “There should be follow-up questions,” Michael said.

True, but don’t count on that happening at Monday’s third presidential debate, in which a moderator will question the candidates for the first half of the 90-minute telecast and a panel of journalists for the second half.

What matters most, however, is not the format or the consensus winner, but whether these televised forums merely reward telegenic skills or actually give voters a glimpse of how candidates would perform in the White House.

“To some people, this is probably the only contact with the candidates they’ll have,” Darlene said. Michael was fatalistic, noting that although these affairs indeed may be “totally invalid” as true indicators of candidates’ merits, they’re here to stay.

Class dismissed.