Unspoiled Debate Thoughts
I watched the debate, but haven't yet read any of the post-debate spin or horserace-handicapping, so here are my untrammelled-by-Spin-Alley reflections on the event:
I thought it was a narrow Kerry win. Bush was awful in the beginning, stumbling over his words, giving painfully evasive answers (Kerry's answers were evasive too, but less obviously). But he did better as the debate went on, pulling even with the Senator and at times even surpassing him. I thought his best moment was his response to the question of whether the thousand-plus lives lost in Iraq were "worth it". He used the question as an opportunity to tell a story about meeting with the widow of an Iraq War casualty, about how they prayed together and he told her that her husband gave his life for a noble cause, and how she said she believed it, and that her husband believed it. It was a very Bush moment, and very effective. (Incidentally, it was also a very Clinton moment. Bush really is the Republican Clinton. In moments like this we're reminded.)
My favorite moment of the debate was when, in his response to a question about the genocide in Darfur, Bush declared that the rainy season in the region is almost over, making it easier to send in forces to stabilize the area. What a wonderful piece of random meteorological trivia! I have no idea if it's true, but it was a strange and subtle way to suggest that Bush really is well versed on the issues (whether or not that's true). Kudos to Karl Rove and the debate prep team.
The most peculiar thing was Bush's decision to turn Kerry's statement that Iraq was "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time" as a mantra against him. He repeated the phrase "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time" what seemed like two or three dozen times during the debate. Did this line test well? I can't imagine it did. Verbally, it's a clunker. And it contains within it a subconscious message - that maybe this was the wrong war, etc - that Bush probably doesn't want to be putting in people's heads.
In retrospect, the lights designed to indicate when a candidate has gone over his allotted time were a huge tactical mistake for the Bush team. Bush went over the time limit more often, and more egregiously, than his famously long-winded opponent, who almost always ended right as the red light flashed. Kerry seemed to be using the lights to his advantage, using them to time himself so he kept his answers succinct. Bush, on the other hand, was lured buy the lights on several occasions to stretch his answers to fill the entire two minutes. There were several occasions in which Bush had given one-minute responses that said everything he needed to say, but when he saw that the lights hadn't gone on he moved into mantra-recital mode, diluting the original response. Bush's reputation (deserved or no) is as a plain-talker. Plain-talkers can give one-minute responses to questions. Don't fear brevity, Dubya.
As for Kerry, I thought he did a good job, but never hit anything out of the park. He's a very good debater though. It's interesting how much better a speaker he is when he's speaking extemporaneously than when he's giving prepared remarks. It's the curse of his eloquence; when he has time to prepare, he can't resist the temptation to get all New Frontier-ish, and winds up sounding like a cut-rate Kennedy. When he's speaking off the cuff, he just sounds like an intelligent, well-informed, eloquent, somewhat pompous guy, which is a huge step up.
The debate itself was extraordinarily lame. I remembered almost immediately why I didn't watch any of the debates in 2000. Ninety minutes of substance free platitudes and accusations. Well, not entirely. There were debates on issues of substance, briefly, on North Korea (will bilateral negotiations resolve the crisis, or do they just play into Kim Jong Il's plans?) and Darfur (how best to persuade the African Union to send in troops so we don't have to). It's ironic (or perhaps not) that it was only on those issues, sideshows compared to the main foreign policy issues of the campaign (Iraq and the War on Terror), that we can get our leaders to have a substantive debate. Iraq is too important to be left to the facts! Let the invective-hurling begin!
I myself wasn't persuaded to change my vote, but I'm probably not in the "persuadables" category. We'll just have to see how things pan out. My guess is a small move in Kerry's favor, maybe two points. Not enough to close the gap, but enough to make it a real race again, at least for a little while. But who knows? Lets see what the experts say.
I thought it was a narrow Kerry win. Bush was awful in the beginning, stumbling over his words, giving painfully evasive answers (Kerry's answers were evasive too, but less obviously). But he did better as the debate went on, pulling even with the Senator and at times even surpassing him. I thought his best moment was his response to the question of whether the thousand-plus lives lost in Iraq were "worth it". He used the question as an opportunity to tell a story about meeting with the widow of an Iraq War casualty, about how they prayed together and he told her that her husband gave his life for a noble cause, and how she said she believed it, and that her husband believed it. It was a very Bush moment, and very effective. (Incidentally, it was also a very Clinton moment. Bush really is the Republican Clinton. In moments like this we're reminded.)
My favorite moment of the debate was when, in his response to a question about the genocide in Darfur, Bush declared that the rainy season in the region is almost over, making it easier to send in forces to stabilize the area. What a wonderful piece of random meteorological trivia! I have no idea if it's true, but it was a strange and subtle way to suggest that Bush really is well versed on the issues (whether or not that's true). Kudos to Karl Rove and the debate prep team.
The most peculiar thing was Bush's decision to turn Kerry's statement that Iraq was "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time" as a mantra against him. He repeated the phrase "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time" what seemed like two or three dozen times during the debate. Did this line test well? I can't imagine it did. Verbally, it's a clunker. And it contains within it a subconscious message - that maybe this was the wrong war, etc - that Bush probably doesn't want to be putting in people's heads.
In retrospect, the lights designed to indicate when a candidate has gone over his allotted time were a huge tactical mistake for the Bush team. Bush went over the time limit more often, and more egregiously, than his famously long-winded opponent, who almost always ended right as the red light flashed. Kerry seemed to be using the lights to his advantage, using them to time himself so he kept his answers succinct. Bush, on the other hand, was lured buy the lights on several occasions to stretch his answers to fill the entire two minutes. There were several occasions in which Bush had given one-minute responses that said everything he needed to say, but when he saw that the lights hadn't gone on he moved into mantra-recital mode, diluting the original response. Bush's reputation (deserved or no) is as a plain-talker. Plain-talkers can give one-minute responses to questions. Don't fear brevity, Dubya.
As for Kerry, I thought he did a good job, but never hit anything out of the park. He's a very good debater though. It's interesting how much better a speaker he is when he's speaking extemporaneously than when he's giving prepared remarks. It's the curse of his eloquence; when he has time to prepare, he can't resist the temptation to get all New Frontier-ish, and winds up sounding like a cut-rate Kennedy. When he's speaking off the cuff, he just sounds like an intelligent, well-informed, eloquent, somewhat pompous guy, which is a huge step up.
The debate itself was extraordinarily lame. I remembered almost immediately why I didn't watch any of the debates in 2000. Ninety minutes of substance free platitudes and accusations. Well, not entirely. There were debates on issues of substance, briefly, on North Korea (will bilateral negotiations resolve the crisis, or do they just play into Kim Jong Il's plans?) and Darfur (how best to persuade the African Union to send in troops so we don't have to). It's ironic (or perhaps not) that it was only on those issues, sideshows compared to the main foreign policy issues of the campaign (Iraq and the War on Terror), that we can get our leaders to have a substantive debate. Iraq is too important to be left to the facts! Let the invective-hurling begin!
I myself wasn't persuaded to change my vote, but I'm probably not in the "persuadables" category. We'll just have to see how things pan out. My guess is a small move in Kerry's favor, maybe two points. Not enough to close the gap, but enough to make it a real race again, at least for a little while. But who knows? Lets see what the experts say.
<< Home