Debate Wrapup
The first debate. Let me give both candidates an unqualified “eh” on their performances. They really didn’t pull any great surprises out of their hats. Here are my overall observations.
- Kerry supporters are going to say he won big and be very happy with his performance. Bush supporters are going to say he won “on points” but they’re going to be generally dissapointed with many things he didn’t bring up or points he didn’t hit harder.
- A note for Jim Lehrer: What was with all the questions on Bush’s record in the last four years? Was there nothing about John Kerry’s last twenty years in the Senate that Lehrer could use as a question? His Iraq votes? His quicksilver position shifts? Anything?
- Kerry’s a great public speaker – polished and erudite. Bush is not. But, Bush is going to get points because he talks like we talk. He’s not a college debater and folks really do appreciate a President who can talk to them in their own language instead of like they were at a yale Debating Club.
- Bush was direct, simple, authoritative, and determined. Kerry was not. The overall impression I had of him was that he’s stumping for the job by trying to convince us that he’s a leader whereas the President demonstrated that he is a leader. It’s not something he has to say repeatedly. That is, in the end, what going to be the thing that determines this election.
- Both candidates really whiffed on the issue of Darfur. Kerry could have hammered the President on not acting quickly enough to recognize the genocide and not taking it to the UN before now. Bush could have completely obliterated Kerry’s entire “international cooperation” argument by pointing out that we have done everything Kerry could have wanted with the UN to this point and still the murders continue. Talk aside, either man should have said far more than they did. I’m surprised that Jim Lehrer moved past it as quickly as he did. I think it was worth at least a follow-up question.
- Kerry really reaffirmed the “he’ll take every position about everything” when he responded to the “do you favor bilateral or nultilateral talks with North Korea” question by saying “both”. His explanation afterwards, I guarantee you, wasn’t heard by anyone at all. He missed a golden opportunity to look magnanimous by praising the President for getting us into the negotiating game in both places while criticizing him for not being more active. But the praise would kill his “Bush is a cowboy” campaign strategy.
- Someone needs to tell the President that his repetitions are starting to work against him. I understand the power of repeating the same phrase but many of them are now becoming hackneyed. They’re starting to sound formulaic and not resolved. He needs to find a new set of phrases tomorrow.
Those are my impressions of tonight’s debate.
My own score? I’m really not sure. I’d have to call this one a dead draw.
No related posts.
Category: President George Bush
Blogosphere Debate Roundup
My opinion remains: draw. Blogosphere consensus seems to be: draw.
I agree with you on the content of the debate. Bush zinged Kerry on some points, and Kerry *finally* had a message (at least for this week). But …
In one of my previous posts, I talked about presentation. Non-verbal communications are as important as the message. Last night, Kerry looked more Presidential than Bush did. His body language was more confident than Bush's. (Kerry stood erect; Bush slumped over onto the podium. Kerry seemed comfortable; Bush seemed irritated.) This may seem like a minor thing, but non-verbals do play a subconscious role in people's decisions.
Adding the non-verbals to the debate, I think Kerry barely edged out Bush. But that's just my objective opinion.
On those non-verbals. I think at several points, especially late in the debate, that Bush looked plainly irritated. My bet is that today you're going to hear the pundits, especially the ones stumping for Kerry say that Bush's irritated looks are because he was bored and disengaged and didn't want to debate the scary-talented Kerry.
But just perhaps the average voter is going to take many of those irritated looks another way. They may well think – like I did at points – that the President looked just like I felt during many of Kerry's answers. The look on his face matched that same "How can he come in front of me and ply this absolute BS with a straight face" thing. Earlier in the campaign, it' was cute. Now, it's simply irritating that someone as patently unserious a candidate as John Kerry gets to stand on an even footing with someone who is trying with his whole heart to keep us from getting killed.
My guess is that the voters are going to give Bush as pass on the irritation thing because…well…John Kerry is irritating!
I'm just pointing out that on the visual medium non-verbals are as important as the spoken word. You may be irritated with your opponent but, for Pete's sake, don't show it.
(… seeing echoes of Gore …)
Yep, I agree. Now if he had backed up the non-verbal cues with actual verbal ones…
*LOL*
I ain't arguin' that!