As I listen to the first debate between John Kerry and George Bush, I sense that my preconceptions color my assessment of the two men's performance and must acknowledge that it is in fact possible that John Kerry has not wiped the floor with the President of the United States. I then check out some admittedly unscientific polls at CNN's site and MSNBC, both showing Kerry winning with more than 70% of respondents giving him the nod, and feel more confident than in a few days the polls will show Kerry has won hands down.
Let's take a look at some impressions I got tonight.
Framing the debate: the solution to the height problem was an interesting one. In 18 of the last 21 elections, voters have chosen the taller candidate, possibly due to perceptions of tall men as strong and authoritative, and some observers worry that television debates magnify what is basically a problem of perception. Kerry is significantly taller than Bush, so it needed to be addressed. Tonight the candidates, though at podiums of equal height on flat floor, were displayed on split screen with their heads at equal heights. Good choice, in my opinion.
The rules of the debate allowed the moderator to extend discussion on a given question by giving each man another 30 seconds to address something particular; Kerry and Bush both asked for these extensions several times. Interestingly, Bush got his requests more often than Kerry. Bias? Far from it. Kerry would genteelly raise a finger and nod in a polite "May I?" gesture. Bush would just rush in with a loud "Let me address that...". Much easier to notice; a bit annoying personally. But people who consider Bush an uneducated boor probably aren't undecided still.
On to the debate itself. Fascinating start. Kerry started by responding to the moderator's question with "Yes," followed up with a short opening thanking the organizers and expressing sympathy for victims of the recent hurricane in Florida (where the debate was set), and proceeding to answer the moderator's question more fully. Bush began his response with similar thanks and sympathies, and the next words out of his mouth -- the first ones of any content related to the debate -- were "September the 11th." Am I surprised? No. A bit saddened that it was so blatant. There wasn't even really any political skill to appreciate.
Challenged to explain what he would truly do differently on Iraq, Kerry did so, pointing out not only what he would have done differently to date but also laying out goals for the future. Interesting response from the President; rather than saying it wouldn't work, he alluded to tax hikes saying of these goals that "we know how he's going to pay for it." (The "we" is intended to mean him and the audience, which was not permitted to respond tonight; this line is from his stump speech.) I have to wonder how strong this rebuttal is... isn't the President running on his security platform more than his domestic policy? Aren't the swing voters this year supposed to be the "security moms," who want to remain safe? Isn't the President yet willing to ask Americans to sacrifice something other than fundamental civil liberties, to the tune of taxes meant to pay for defense, and wouldn't the voters both parties want be willing to do that? That's a lot of rhetorical questions, I know... I just think the President missed a call there.
Personal style was interesting here. Analysts have pointed out before that President Bush uses a focused, direct speaking style, leaning forward and emphasizing main points vigorously (he certainly pounded the podium a lot tonight) in a way that bodily conveys engagement. I didn't get that sense tonight. When the two men were not speaking, President Bush often seemed uncomfortable and possibly irritated. He didn't respond much to anything Kerry said, except on occasion; Kerry would much more often smile, nod, welcome a question, even agree with a point or two made by his opponent. (Much as we'd like to think so, our political opposition is usually not an incarnation of evil on Earth.) Kerry, on the whole, seemed much more animated and engaged tonight.
An experience I kept having as I listened tonight was that of thinking, "Kerry should respond by saying this and such; he hasn't been so clear on that before," and then hearing him say that, in one case in the exact words I thought it. There would be a question about the effects of our strategies on terrorism, and I would think, "Kerry should say that we need to stop giving terrorists easy propaganda; we need to deny them recruits," and he said exactly that, that we need to deny them recruits. Bush would hit what he called flip-flops, and I firmly believe that complexity and adaptability are essential to a modern American president; that monolithic stubbornness is not strength. Kerry's been trying to come up with a good response to this for a long time, and he did it tonight: "It's one thing to be certain. But you can be certain and be wrong."
In other words, this was the night Kerry got in the game. It can be frustrating for an intellectual to contest ideas with someone of dimmer intelligence; the intellectual must make a deep point or a subtle argument("Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him," says Proverbs), and his opponent by his sheer weakness fails to realize he has been hit, and his followers think because of this that he has not been hit. Tonight, he showed great debating skill: he not only made his points, he made them in the pithy, sharp style necessary for not only a debate but a campaign. ("Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit", also says Proverbs.)
My brother, bless his soul, is a loyal Republican. He seems to think the debate was a tie. This is the verdict from the Bush camp as well: status quo, no gain for either candidate. I find it interesting that Kerry's camp claims victory, and Bush's doesn't, except in the sense that status quo would be a win for someone leading in the polls. If it really were a draw, I think both sides would be claiming victory. The best test will be in the polls in the days to come (give it three to seven days to filter through the polling process, for the most part), but based on what I've seen tonight and what I'm hearing from the pros, the clear winner was John Kerry.
Posted by William at September 30, 2004 09:00 PM