The match race
By trevino Posted in Elections — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The debates are curious rituals: frequently vapid, frequently useless, and frequently dull. This debate was none of these things. For the first time since 1984, the American public was treated to a debate that mattered on a subject -- American foreign policy -- that is central to the direction of this nation and our world, If you didn't walk away from this seeing a clear difference between the candidates and their visions, you weren't paying attention.
But there was more to this beyond policy specifics. Debates are as much about the personal connection that the candidate forges with the viewing audience as they are about those candidates' command of the facts. It was pretty clear in the 2000 debates that Al Gore was the more knowledgeable and wonkish of the contenders. He also lost every single debate, because Bush exuded more of the empathetic, common-man aura to those watching. That's the critical X factor that no fact-checking web feed or rapid response organization is going to replace, negate, or enhance.
So did Bush do it again this time? At first glance, I thought so. Good lines, and some solid critiques of Kerry. Plus, he displayed and articulated the same irritation with Kerry's vapid statements that I felt. You're always inclined to credit the man with the good sense to agree with you. But looking back with the benefit of two hours' hindsight, I'm not so sure that my initial take was the lasting one. The image that sticks in my memory is the President looking hunched and pinched, and Kerry looking like Seabiscuit. Which is hardly a compliment, except that Seabiscuit won.
Meanwhile, it looks like the major media talking heads -- plus Gallup -- are calling the event for Kerry. (Still looking for a primary source on that.) If this is the public consensus, it's bad news: this was the debate subject that played to the President's strengths. If he couldn't pull away in the public eye on the very centerpiece of his Administration -- then there's trouble ahead.
« Question and answer time: the Wes Clark thing. — Comments (50) | The First Debate — Comments (28) »
The match race 7 Comments (0 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I too must call it for Kerry, solely on style. Bush was grimacing and looking annoyed with Kerry while he was on the split screen and Kerry was talking. Bush's performance suggests, as CeCe Connelly observed on Fox News, that he ran out of material in the last half-hour.
So I'm bummed. Bush had Kerry on the ropes and now he's off life support (not that I'd ever mix a metaphor). Bush seemed poorly prepared. I hope that only diehard partisans like me watch these debates.
In general, a substantive and therefore boring debate. Multi-lateral vs. bilateral discussions with North Korea? ZZZZZZZZZZ
The hate Bush crowd is full-throated right now (I live in the San Francisco area and have been listening to talk radio).
As I said, I'm bummed.
Big.
In my opinion it was close to a tie. Bush started off stronger than Kerry in the first 30 minutes, then Kerry caught up to make it even in the 2nd third. In style maybe Kerry did slightly better, but probably only because he was the underdog, and with low expectations for him all he had to do was survive in order to appear to do well.
Based on the substance of what was said tonight, Bush maintained the lead he had going into the debate. I don't think either gained or lost support.
I thought Bush was effective in pivoting issues back unto Kerry: he made several references to Kerry's misleading the public when he voted for the war then against. He was saying Kerry is the one who misled the public, not himself. He used this pivot technique several other times.
The FNC commentators say Kerry won the debate, but I didn't see that - to me it was more of a tie. And, besides, when people say a candidate 'wins' a debate the criteria used to determine the 'winner' are typically what's least important - superficial things like how they look or whether they're nervous. What matters hasn't changed - the reasons why Bush should continue as President haven't changed.
I still don't understand what Kerry's position is regarding Iraq. And, superficially, I wonder how he fixed his sunburn because his face wasn't orange anymore.
CNN. Would be nice to see the internals but it looks like a mixed bag. Kerry won the debate but no one cared.
There were no critically good lines. There was little debate. There was nothing memorably good or bad. This was like a joint campaign appearance.
From my perspective, that's worse for Kerry than Bush. When you're trying to come from behind, you need better zingers than the recycled stuff you used in Boston.
As Macallan noted, Kerry wouldn't even contemplate using some of the weapons in our arsenal. You don't send that message to the enemy. Second, Kerry wouldn't ask for a permission slip but he would make us pass a global test.
Imagine two people who both drop their final g's, who both talk with a twang, who both wear cowboy hats, etc. etc. Except, one of them stares blankly at the camera grasping for his talking points and vaguely trying to recall his platitudes about liberty and the other one knows what he's talking about and can defend it. Just because you're a common man doesn't mean you can't be smart as a whip at the same time.