Fri, October 1, 2004
Swallowing Debate
Could he win? Could it actually happen?
Okay, this has to be a quick one because I've already stayed up past bedtime ranting about Shark Tale – do not go see it! – when I should've been recapping reality shows or telling you how great Lost is.
Tonight was the first of three televised debates between President George W. Bush and Democratic presidential nominee Senator John Kerry. It took place at the University of Miami, home of the aptly named Hurricanes. Much to my surprise, I managed to watch the entire thing, even before watching Jon Stewart's live Daily Show coverage of it. I was terrified that Bush's folksy charm would once again win out, and I was really worried that John Kerry would continue to seem long winded and off-message. Fortunately, it wasn't all that bad.
While both candidates had some good moments, and Bush seemed to hit his talking points a little more accurately, it seemed to me that Kerry scored a clear win. He was (unsurprisingly) more articulate and remained focused on providing clear explanations of Bush's missteps in the Iraq situation and the War on Terror. I'm not necessarily alone in thinking this. As of this writing, an unscientific MSNBC online poll shows over 700,000 readers responding more positively to Kerry: 69% to 31%. (Of course, Kerry voters are probably more likely to have DSL, while Bush voters use the Internet on their PC at work – do hog farms run Windows XP? – so these numbers may fluctuate by morning.)
I didn't watch much of the Bush-Gore debates, but from what I hear it was all about the sighing. Gore's exasperated sighs when Bush spun the truth, misrepresented the facts, or just plain lied, apparently damaged his standing with voters. So, it was interesting that Bush seemed to sigh and roll his eyes so often during Kerry's remarks. Between the eye rolling and the defensive posture, he didn't appear strong. Add the height problem (in order to frame both candidates side by side, cameras had to pan down to the shorter Bush, making it seem as though his lectern were stacked atop Kerry's) and the handful of stammering pauses, and it wasn't his best night.
From a procedural standpoint, I hate to say I must agree with the Kerry team: those colored lights on the front of the candidates' microphones are really distracting. When I read about the Kerry campaign trying to nix them earlier today, I thought they meant distracting for the speakers, but they're truly distracting for the audience. It wasn't a matter of Kerry not wanting to seem long winded. (He and Bush each ventured into the flashing red territory only once or twice.) The lights really made it hard to concentrate on the responses, because once they came on, I was way more captivated by whether the candidate would finish in time than by what he had to say. ("Hurry, John! It's gone yellow! Get to the end before it goes red!") Besides, seeing the same visual "wrap up" cue that the candidates see – and watching them hit their end mark so perfectly – makes the answers seem stilted and polished, politicized instead of extemporaneous.
It's also a shame the crowd had to be quiet. I think the candidates and the viewers at home would have had a better idea of how well Kerry was doing if the audience could've added their applause.
Materially, the debate contained more or less what I'd have expected from Bush. Despite my low esteem for the man, I don't mean that in a bad way. I know he has an appeal, and I know he's great with sound bites. (He's unfortunately a little too great with talking points, which made him sound like a broken record on the "mixed signals" line and the "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" quote. By the twelfth time, it started to feel desperate.) He continued to champion his confidence and steadfast resolve, and he managed to skirt around some of the tougher questions like what criteria he'd use to decide when troops should come home from Iraq and whether he and Cheney believe that a vote for Kerry is a vote for inevitable attacks by al Qaeda. While I disagree with his take on "decisiveness" and the importance of Iraq in the War on Terror, I think he did a good job of making his points.
Kerry impressed me some, but not as much as I was hoping. He did a better job of being concise, and he showed that he wasn't afraid to land a few punches, jabbing at Bush's stubbornness in the Iraq situation (while unfortunately failing to actually say "stubborn" – his greatest line on The Daily Show) and even dropping the H-bomb (Halliburton). I still wish he'd shown a little more fight. Question two was directed at Bush and asked whether he thought if Kerry were elected, it would cause another "9/11-type attack." Bush dodged the question and instead went straight to the usual Republican boilerplate fearmongering. I wish Kerry had used his rebuttal time to call out Cheney for his comments, lambaste Bush for dodging the question, then assure us that his administration would be no more terror-prone than any other. When Bush launched into his "mixed messages" spiel, doubting Kerry's ability to build a coalition of international allies for a war that he's condemned as "wrong" and called a "grand diversion," Kerry should've countered that just because he believes the war has been mishandled doesn't mean it's unwinnable. "It's not a situation I'd relish, but I believe it's necessary to work with the international community to clean up after your mess, and any president that takes office after you will be forced to clean it up," he should've said. "I know that nations around the world will realize their vested interest in making Iraq safe again and removing the chaotic conditions that are currently allowing new terror cells to thrive there."
I really liked the de Gaulle/Cuban Missile Crisis story. I'd heard it before (I read it in the text of Kerry's recent NYU speech – really good reading if you're interested), but it's nice and it paints a clear picture and makes an excellent point. From the NYU text:
In the dark days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Europe to build support. Acheson explained the situation to French President de Gaulle. Then he offered to show him highly classified satellite photos, as proof. De Gaulle waved the photos away, saying: “The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me.”
How many world leaders have that same trust in America’s president, today?
Gosh, Kerry did such a good job, I'd almost vote for the guy! Seriously, though, while I'm about as far from "undecided" as you can get, it was valuable to watch the debates. If the chance of a Kerry victory becomes a little less remote, I'd really like to donate some cash to the cause. If Bush continues to lead, though, the investment won't feel worthwhile.
And God bless Jim Lehrer! He's such an adorable puppy dog, but he had good questions and wasn't afraid to lob in a few follow-ups. He reminds me so much of watching MacNeil/Lehrer with mom as a kid.
It's usually very rare for me to watch any post-debate analysis by TV "journalists" but NBC's coverage had a quickie interview with a half dozen undecided voters, and I was very pleased to hear one of them (Julie Farley, a dental technician) say, "President Bush puts fear in us, and I think that John Kerry is a leader and just basically is just gonna handle it." Good for her!
Also, in his interview with Wesley Clark, I was proud of Jon Stewart for this priceless moment:
Clark: The president [was] fumbling, unsure of himself, annoyed, and a little bit arrogant.
Stewart: That's what won for him in 2000.
Indeed it did. Indeed it did.
Later, Jon interviewed Rudy Giuliani, and he was quite a bit tougher. I read that as partly more partisan than he says he normally tries to be on the show and partly irritated with Giuliani for trying to spin what was clearly a disappointing showing by his candidate. For example: "President Bush talked to the audience, John Kerry lectured." This is so obviously something drafted well before the debate; it has absolutely no relevance in the context of what actually happened, Kerry's cadence and language were far more approachable than usual. And I found it particularly brazen for Giuliani to say that Kerry "wants to cut and run" in Iraq when just moments before, Kerry had said, "I'm not talking about leaving – I'm talking about winning."
© onebee · all rights reserved
"michwagn" — Fri, 10/1/04 2:22pm
I generally agree with your take on the debates. I thought it was a fairly serious debate where we got to see some policy differences between the two candidates. I think that Kerry appeared a little stronger and more comfortable and I was surprised Bush didn't go more forcefully on the attack.
Here is what I think the most significant story of the night is, and I think it is really subtle and so I am patting myself on the back for seeing it (or at least thinking I've seen it): Washington has got to Bush.
He is still the more folksy and plain-spoken candidate, but it doesn't resonate as clear or as often as it did in 2000.
What the hell am I talking about? When Bush was on the offensive, or on the strong counterpunching after a Kerry attack, his responses seemed to assume a lot of knowledge on the part of the American people. Yes, more people are paying attention to the race earlier than ever, but it still isn't all that many people. The last 3-4 weeks are really the time people start paying attention. Thus, they haven't thought tons about the "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it" and so on.
So, when Bush says stuff about how Kerry voted on "the supplemental," lists a few names of people captured (including one who is still a free man even though Bush inexplicably claims he has been "brought to justice") and adds "vociferously" to his vocabulary he is edging away from what it is that many people like about him most. This may only impact one-half of one-percent of the vote, but it is where we are at in this election.
Bush used to be better at making those barbs at his opponents more relevant and able to be understood in context. Mind you, he still can score those points, as he tried to over and over with the 'wrong war, wrong place, wrong time,' but he isn't as good at it as he was before. Incumbency brings with it a different understanding of issues and a different vocabulary for dealing with them.
Kerry is edging the other way, good closer that he is with stuff like "which is worse?" and so on. That was really good. The same for the "pointing out" of that fact that it was bin Laden who attacked and not Hussein. While the merits of that comment can be reasonably debated (about whether Bush was confused about who attacked, I mean - he's not confused about that, but he has taken the war on terror away from Al Qaeda and even slipped up a few times saying Hussein for bin Laden and catching himself), that was a nice little score for Kerry on the plain-spoken meter. I think people were surprised Kerry could do that, which given the low expectations his campaign gave him in the eyes of the media before the debate really helped.
Go John, Go!
Brandon — Sun, 10/3/04 2:22pm
He's unfortunately a little too great with talking points, which made him sound like a broken record on the "mixed signals" line and the "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" quote. By the twelfth time, it started to feel desperate.
I had the same thought, and actually shouted "Will you give it up and answer the damn question already?!?" at my TV at one point.
I was surprised and pleased by Kerry's performance. I've been frustrated with him - and on a larger scale, the Democratic Party - for much of the last 3-4 months, so it was nice to finally feel good about things for a change.
Very interesting point, Mike. I also feel like Bush has been spending too much time around Cheney - Bush was hunched over his lectern and scowly several times during the debate, and hunched over 'n' scowly seems to be Cheney's patented move. ("You stole my move!")