Grueling Prep Work Precedes Critical Clash

In a mock debate to set up cameras and lighting, Tyler Craft, left, and Mario Hilliard play the parts of the presidential candidates, whom they match in height. (By Linda Davidson -- The Washington Post)
Buy Photo

"Debates suck up so much time," said former senator Bill Bradley, who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2000, "and they create an unreal universe -- in which you are supposed to be 'real.' " As Bradley's remark suggests, these are theatrical performances. Television conveys images and impressions even better than it conveys positions on issues. Viewers will see, for example, that Obama towers over McCain by nearly half a foot, perhaps an unexpected visual for many voters. They will see how a quarter-century age difference looks in this combative context. Judging by the comments made in the past in polls and focus groups, some voters will draw conclusions about which candidate appears more presidential, more commanding or more comfortable with himself.

And inevitably, viewers will be looking for points scored -- the zingers that stick in the memory. Perhaps the most famous of these was Sen. Lloyd Bentsen's jab at Sen. Dan Quayle in the 1988 vice presidential debate. As he had on the campaign trail, the boyish-looking Quayle compared his experience in Congress to that of John F. Kennedy when Kennedy ran for president in 1960.

According to Shrum, who helped prepare Bentsen for the debate, he mentioned Quayle's earlier use of the JFK comparison in a practice session. Would Bentsen be comfortable telling Quayle he was no John F. Kennedy? Sure, the senator replied. "The moment was worded, practiced and polished in the mock debates," Shrum wrote in his memoir, "No Excuses," published last year. So Bentsen was ready: "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy."

Perhaps the most impactful zinger ever came from Reagan in 1980. His one debate that year with the incumbent president, Carter, took place just a week before Election Day. Polls showed the race dead even at that moment, but Reagan's performance in the Oct. 28 debate began an erosion of Carter's support. A week later, Reagan won in a landslide.

Reagan's best moment came after Carter accused him of beginning his political career by campaigning against the proposed Medicare program, an accurate accusation. Carter was trying to depict Reagan as a dangerous right-winger. Reagan responded with a smile: "There you go again." He said he had supported a rival plan for providing health care to seniors -- true, but it did not compare to Medicare. But voters apparently heard "there you go again" as a deflation of Carter's attempts to make Reagan look dangerous -- which, on television, he never did. As Reagan biographer Lou Cannon has written, the line was probably the high point of his campaign. And it was not spontaneous, either, according to Cannon. Reagan had used the line in a practice session, liked it and told his colleagues, "I may save it for the debate."

Shrum is a believer in such "moments," and he believes in rehearsing them. Preparing those moments was part of Kerry's extensive rehearsals in 2004, supported by the same people helping Obama this year: Craig and two other Washington lawyers, Ron Klain and Tom Donilon. One line that Kerry liked was his response to the predictable jab from Bush about Kerry's awkward explanation that he "actually did vote for" an $87 billion appropriation for the Iraq war "before I voted against it."

When Bush mentioned this verbal flub in their first debate, Kerry was ready with his riposte: "I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?" It was a line that elicited a good response when he had used on the campaign trail, Kerry explained -- "a keeper" -- and he had planned to use it in the debate. It provided one of many good moments for Kerry that night, when Bush stumbled in "the sorriest performance ever given by a presidential candidate in a general-election debate," in the words of Alan Schroeder of Northeastern University, a specialist on debates.

The format has been altered this year in a way that could allow for more zingers, though neither camp will predict them. Under the new rules, the first and last of three presidential debates will be divided into nine-minute segments. The moderators will begin each segment with a question and give the candidates two minutes each to respond. That will be followed by a five-minute "discussion" period. The moderator can ask supplementary questions, or the candidates could question each other. According to Paul G. Kirk Jr., the Democratic member of the independent Commission on Presidential Debates (which produces these encounters), the new format "allows for a much more robust discussion -- I don't say guarantees, but allows for." In tonight's debate there will be no opening or closing statements from the candidates.

Kerry said he would have loved this format: "It will make for a much better debate." But veterans of debate preparations predicted that the candidates would be cautious in exploiting the format for fear of looking too aggressive.

The campaigns agreed to this format -- as well as a town-hall-style second debate -- in August, when they negotiated a 31-page "memorandum of understanding" that has not been made public. Knowledgeable sources describe it as similar to the 2004 version that was published this year in a book, "Inside the Presidential Debates." This document makes for curious reading: "The candidates may take notes during the debate on the size, color and type of paper each prefers, and using the type of pen or pencil that each prefers."

This year both camps are relying on outside coaches to prepare their man. Obama has Michael Sheehan, who makes a living advising corporate officials on how to talk to television cameras. Sheehan has helped numerous Democrats learn appropriate body language and mannerisms for television. McCain has hired Brett O'Donnell, formerly the debate coach at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University.

"These debates can make a huge difference," said David Lanoue, a University of Alabama political scientist who has written about the role of campaign debates. "This is the first debate series ever when neither candidate is an incumbent [president or vice president], and that could change the dynamics in ways we can't anticipate. Both candidates making a case against the incumbent administration is also a first. And the conditions that make debates matter are all in play here" -- significant numbers of undecided and independent voters, two candidates about whom voters still seem to have questions and two candidates eager to respond to their opponents' criticisms.

Staff writer Lisa de Moraes and research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.