Presidential race wide open as Kentucky Derby

by David Grand
May 9, 2007

Trying to pick a winner in either based on their past performance and preparation for the race is potluck. And there's nearly as many wannabe president as those that were in the "run for the roses," just two shy at this point in time of matching the number that were in the starting gate last Saturday--10 Republicans and 8 Democrats.

To carry that comparison further, there were three pre-race favorites in the Derby, like there are on both sides of the race for the White House. And if the first debates held by both parties are an indication of what we can expect to hear in the next eight months before the delegates to the 2008 national conventions are selected, the list of front runners should remain unchanged, assuming that none of 'em become embroiled in scandals eliminating them from contention.

After watching both debates, I wished I hadn't. For I heard nothing new come out of their collective mouths, with much of what they had to say on the pressing issues of the times sounding like a broken record and devoid of humor.

Of course times have changed since the most famous presidential debates--the seven encounters between Sen. Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln in 1848. Unlimited in time, Douglas spoke first in the opening debate. He talked for an hour and a half without barely stopping to catch his breath. Then he turned to Lincoln and said: "I'm told my time is up, so Mr. Lincoln will now address you for an hour and a half, and I will then occupy a half hour in replying to him."

Such free and open debates are not  to be found in this era of sound bites and carefully scripted answers to anticipated questions, and are now planned for only positive candidate exposure, essentially free television time. In short, they are designed to limit discourse and make certain voters won't learn more.

The debate rules are even written by the two presidential campaigns; for example, a memorandum in the 1996 contest reading: "no follow-up questions by the moderator will be permitted." As an editorial in the Seattle Post said: "Free the debates from party tyranny."

Moreover, an analysis of presidential debates by "your Dictionary.com (YDC) showed that the "to grade level of famous political debates, from the legendary Lincoln-Douglas debates to current series of presidential debates, has declined from a 12th-grade level to a high 7th-grade level." (The YDC applied the well-regarded Flesch-Kincaid Reading Scale to examine the number of words and sentences, the number of paragraphs and other language parameters in order gauge the complexity of the debater's speech.)

Not surprisingly, in the three Bush-Gore debates of 2000, Gore's readability score on that scale in the first one was 8.4, dropping to 7.7 in the second round and to 7.6 in the last debate. Bush's scores were more dismal yet: a 7.1 followed by a 6.5 and ending with a 6.3.

By contrast, both Douglas and Lincoln were scored by the YDC at the 12th grade level in their debates. And for an added comparison, both Washington's Farewell Address and FDR's Declaration of War also came in at that level, albeit that FDR's stirring, opening sentence... "a day that shall live in infamy..." is actually grammatically incorrect. But no grammar expert would dare tell him.

As of now, I think I'll skip all the debates until the two survivors of the drawn out selection process for the presidency come face to face and exchange barbs for all the world to see, fortifying myself with an ample supply of antacid pills and a pot full of coffee.