timberlandko wrote:About all that happened is Kerry managed to stay in the race. That won't be enough.
Excellent post.
Frankly, I'm amazed that the pundits saw the debate as a draw, and those that have given him the nod, have done so, somewhat dismissively, on "style points."
I thought that Bush was at his oratorical worse and that he missed numerous opportunities to score on Kerry. Kerry, on the other hand, looked (for the most part) relaxed and confident, and clearly managed to avoid the sort of gobbledy gook statements he trotted out in his interview with Dianne Sawyer the night before.
From the standpoint of content, I think Kerry was terrible (and not simply because I disagree with most of what he had to say), but a very large measure of the impact of these debates (I've always thought) was the manner in which the debaters come across to the viewers. At least to me, Kerry came across much better than Bush.
Admittedly, I have never been a fan of Bush's "just folks" speaking style and I tend to wince when he drifts off into one of his seemingly interminable pauses, but last night, his performance was probably the worst I've seen. It's one thing to appear to speak from the heart and without skilled rhetorical flourishes, but it's another to simply look tired and at wit's end.
I found myself screaming at the TV for him to shoot back at Kerry on some inane comment he had (artfully) made.
While he did jump on Kerry's bi-lateral solution to North Korea, it was a weak retort consisting of "That's what they want. It won't work." He missed the fantastic opportunity to point out that this was simply another example of Kerry taking an inconsistent position for perceived political gain.
How Kerry who brays about multi-lateralism when the subject is Iraq, can dismiss it in favor of unilateralism (which is what his "bi-lateral" approach actually is) as respects North Korea, is beyond my ken. And, I heard no substantive explanation for why unilateralism with North Korea would work.
Instead it was simply a matter of: "You are for multi-lateral talks and therefore I am for bi-lateral talks."
The one true gaffe I heard Kerry make (The bit about a Global Test for pre-emptive action) was immediately jumped on by Bush, but again in an ineffective manner.
Having said all this, I take heart in three points:
1) There are a lot of Americans who actually prefer Bush's rhetorical style to Kerry's. What some of us see as clumsy, many others see as straight talking.
2) The pundits, generally, have declared the debate an effective draw. Perhaps because they are factoring in #1 more than I have, or because they understand that in reality, all that these debates are are highwire acts where you can't win, unless your opponent falls off the wire.
3) If the press keeps reporting that it was a tie, everyone who didn't watch the debate and a fair number of people
who did, will come to believe it was a tie. I'm not thrilled about this dynamic but hope it works in favor of my political position this time around.
