Comments and Analysis on the First Gubernatorial Debate - September 3, 2003, Walnut Creek, California

Usually after political debates, television and radio stations like to interview some snotty former high school or college champion debater (such as myself) and ask them for their thoughts to which they will snidely respond, "Well, this wasn't really a debate…" And indeed they aren't in the technical sense of the world. Debates are and should be a series of back and forth exchanges where individuals have a chance to put forth arguments for their position and systematically refute the arguments of their opponents. But regardless of what we call then, debates such as the first of three between the five top candidates for Governor should Gray Davis be recalled are the only opportunities that most voters have to see their candidates answering questions and responding to each other's claims and attacks. They must be taken seriously.

The debate in Walnut Creek was even less like a debate than most events that bill themselves as such but it was immensely valuable not just for the voters of California but also for anyone wishing to learn important lessons about effective public speaking. To better understand these lessons and determine which candidate "won" the debate, we'll first briefly assess the highlights of Governor Davis' appearance that kicked off the debate. Next, we'll analyze each of the candidates' performance from a rhetorical perspective and ascertain who was most effective. Finally we'll conclude with the lessons that all of us who speak in public in school, business and life can learn.

Governor Davis - Q&A

The format of the debate was unique as befitting the historic and unusual nature of the recall election itself. Self-consciously mimicking the order of the vote, the event began with a 30-minute question and answer session with the object of the recall, Governor Davis. There were three aspects of his performance that were worthy of comment:

1) "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?"

Davis was his usually calm, reserved self with one exception where he spontaneously asserted that "Republicans would rather shoot their mothers rather than raise taxes.' However, he quickly retreated adding "I say that figuratively." While the first statement might have been inflammatory, it also had the upside of being forceful and exhibiting the passion that the Governor has long been accused of lacking. His subtle backpedaling only highlighted the inflammatory nature of the original statement and made him look weak.

20/20 Hindsight: Davis' statement revealed that he does have passion, his follow up sucked it out of him and his audience. He should've stuck to it without any qualifications.

2) The Return of "Pander-Bear"

I think Paul Tsongas deserves credit for this clever phrase. It came to mind as the Governor kept telling everybody how smart they were by repeating the phrase "That's an great/good/excellent question" to almost every citizen who addressed him. This combined with his penitent sinner approach smacked of pandering. His pollsters may tell him he needs to apologize but it is more important for him to look strong. Strong does not mean "don't apologize" it means accept responsibility for your mistakes, stress what you've learned from them and move on. There is a subtle line between this and looking pathetic. To successfully pull it off, your words, that way you deliver them, your actions and image all must be perfectly balanced. Reagan mastered the art of staying on the right side of the line, when Clinton finally realized he had to, he kept falling over, Davis is skirting dangerously close to pander-bear territory.

20/20 Hindsight: Too many "I've made mistakes", "That's a great question", "I will do better." Davis should review tapes of Reagan accepting the ultimate responsibility for the 1983 bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon to see how one can apologize with strength.

3) Programming works only when it's flawless

Davis stumbled on language that should have been hardwired in him and thus revealed how scripted it really was. Towards the end, he was listing what he was "for" in a series of comparisons that were beautifully written and would have been enormously effective if Davis had carried it off. Everyone expects the remarks of the candidates to be scripted to a certain extent but there is an illusion that this forum is one in which we see the candidates off the script, what they really feel, how smart they really are. Davis' flub shattered that illusion. Moreover, he broke the number one rule among speakers: "It's okay to make a mistake, it's not okay to be embarrassed about it." He was obviously flustered thus drawing more attention to his flub.

20/20 Hindsight: He was either not prepared enough or over prepared. If you're going to script for an ostensibly non-scripted event, you must deliver it perfectly so it does not appear scripted.

Overall, however, Davis did not perform badly. He probably didn't lose any votes, he simply squandered an opportunity to win any over.

The Candidates (in alphabetical order, the real alphabet…)

Cruz Bustamante - He came in the top half of the pack. He was calm, (perhaps a bit blah) and his responses were focused. He didn't get flustered or overreact when Arianna Huffington attacked him. In fact, in a few of the exchanges, he got the better of her as well as a few laugh points with the audience. Somewhat surprisingly, he performed better in his "rebuttals" to the questions posed to the other candidates than in his response to the questions posed directly to him. Granted it was a hard ball concerning his contributions from Indian gaming interests but he should have been prepared for it. That he accepted the donation "to level the playing field" was a weak reply especially after Huffington rebutted him so forcefully (if inappropriately). Still, he came across as competent, rational, thoughtful and focused. He even handled a misspoken phrase well ("People in Nevada pay more than California for gas") so that it didn't detract too much from his overall performance. Some may criticize his lack of charisma but perhaps in a race that is constantly being called a circus, his somberness can be an advantage.

Peter Camejo - Finally a candidate with passion! Unfortunately, he's the wrong one. Camejo is the unfortunate victim of a prejudice against "green, green lima beans" as George W. Bush once called them. The image of the over the top, hysterical tree hugger haunts the Green Party and makes it difficult for them to appear credible. Camejo's passion, which in any other candidate from any other party would be an asset, instead strikes one as strident. His positions are extreme and he should soften their impact by modulating his delivery of them, although all speakers should learn from his well-thought out and argued responses to the questions directed at him. His performance placed in the middle to bottom tier.

Arianna Huffington - She's good at this and knows it. Her performance was chock full of language precut for the ten-second sound bytes in the post debate coverage. However, taken as a whole, her answers sounded too practiced, too pat and "too sound bytey." To someone listening to her for the first time, she probably sounded good. If you've heard her speak even once before, you were struck by how she repeated the same sentences word for word. Furthermore, I was reminded of Shakespeare, "All sound and fury signifying nothing." Her attacks against Bustamante were risky especially considering all the other participants were well behaved. This was especially evident when she was implicitly reprimanded by the moderator to keep her comments to the issue at hand. I would place Ms. Huffington in the middle.

Bill McClintock - The clear winner. As one reporter pointed out on KPCC's AirTalk, he is a trained debater and has been thinking about these issues for the past 20 years. His responses and rebuttals were clear, concise and focused. He should win over a lot of voters. If I had to offer any suggestions for improvement, they would be to tone down the patronizing tone that creeps into his voice every once and while and soften up in general. His positions on many issues are very stark, some might say harsh. He needs to use a softer style of delivery to de-fang them.

Peter Ueberroth - And we thought Gray Davis was boring! Ueberroth may be trying to cast his lack of presence as an asset but that can't make up for the fact that he is singularly uninspiring. Furthermore, his platform is uni-dimensional "job, job, jobs". He is obviously a novice at this. His answers were unfocused and unclear. It must be said however, that his plain-spoken style can grow on one. If he can acquire a bit more polish, strength of language and passion without losing his simplicity, he could be an enormously effective speaker. But without this, he was a clear loser.

Lessons Learned

Regardless of how the format limited true, in-depth understanding of the candidates' positions, anyone wishing to learn something about public speaking learned some very clear and valuable lessons:

Governor Davis's performance teaches us that "apologia" is a very complex and difficult balancing act. Only a few politicians have been successful at it. If you must apologize for something publicly, study them. Reagan's Iran Contra speeches, Nixon's "Checkers" speech strike the proper balance between strength and self-defense. Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman" and Nixon's "I am not a crook" did not.
Lt. Governor Bustamante's performance demonstrated the value of remaining focused and calm under fire. He also taught the value of humor in defusing problematic situations.
Peter Camejo's performance vividly illustrated the power of the audience's prejudices and pre-conceived notions and the need to avoid playing into them. This is a difficult lesson to learn because passion should never be self-censored, there's too little of it in the world. But in certain cases, working against type is a powerful persuasive technique. Falling into type, if the "type" is viewed negatively, can overwhelm even a good message.
Arianna Huffington is a test case. If she comes out of this debate as a "winner" then those of us who are committed to the importance of substance over style must concede defeat. However, I still feel that in these settings, sound byte after sound byte reveals the speaker as superficial. We'll also see if her frontal assault had the desired effect, whether Americans respond to in your face argumentation.
Bill McClintock is a the sterling example of what a lifetime of practice and preparation can create, a very good speaker. Regardless of what you think of his positions, his focus, organization and passion should serve as a model to us all.
Peter Uberroth teaches us (especially those of us who have been fighting the substance over style battle) that delivery IS important. As much as we might want to only consider what the person is saying, we are tremendously affected by how he or she says it. Aristotle called delivery the "vulgar element" but it is essential.

Click here for analysis of other important political speeches.