Nothing But Words

Greetings from Rhode Island, the 2nd most Democratic state in the union (or 3rd depending on how you want to count DC). I watched the debate last night with my step-father John and my brother John. They’re both at least as left-leaning as I am, so it certainly was not a balanced crowd. I have to say I was astonished at how the debate unfolded. Both men focused on the goals I expected them to (as described in my previous entry), but I did not expect Kerry to do so well, and I did not expect Bush to do so poorly. While I expected Kerry to give well-informed and thoughtful answers, I didn’t anticipate such a tight and crisp presentation of them. And while I expected Bush to burnish his “resolute leader” image and stay focused on the “flip-flopper” attacks, I thought he would have some new material. Instead he just kept making the same old sound-bite attacks against Kerry, over and over again. Despite the consistent attacks, Bush’s overall demeanor was defensive, even petulant at times. As I mentioned in an earlier post, all those town hall campaign events he’s been holding – where the audience and the questions are pre-screened – did not serve him well in preparing for this debate.

I’m cut off from cable news here, and I have minimal Internet access, so I’m not up on all the post-debate buzz. But I can imagine what most of it is like, so I’ll limit myself to a few observations that others may not have made.

1. Those darn timing lights: the Kerry campaign fought against the lights, but the Bush folks insisted on them, and the Kerry team ultimately acceded to them as part of their debate rules negotiation. The concern was that Kerry would ramble and run over time, and the blinking lights would embarrass him. I think this utterly backfired. Kerry was dead-on almost every time – wrapping up his points completely and often nailing his conclusion precisely when the red light switched on. Rather than hurting him, the lights ended up emphasizing his ability to marshal facts and arguments into a tightly framed presentation. By contrast with Bush, on several occasions we saw him struggling to fill the time. To me it was maddening to see the President barely able to muster 90 seconds worth of words to share his thoughts and feelings on some of the most vital questions facing our nation.
2. The post debate analysis: I watched the follow-up on PBS, and was amazed to see their panel of historians conclude it was a draw. Granted I’m obviously biased, but it was beyond me how anyone could draw such a conclusion. I turned to my step-father for an explanation, since he’s a psychologist. He reminded me that a big part of Bush’s appeal is his home-spun, likeable style and his aura of being like the guy next door. That he’s the kind of like you’d like to BBQ with. That makes some sense to me, but it isn’t a sufficient explanation. I though his petulant and sometimes angry appearance in the split-screen when Kerry was talking certainly didn’t fit with such an image. And I wonder if people really do want the guy next door to be President: I don’t want an average Joe as President, I want the best and the brightest, and I’m at a loss to explain why anyone would choose differently.
3. The USA Today post-debate poll shows that Kerry was perceived as the victor by a 16-point margin, and that he got a big boost in his “favorability” rating as well. But the numbers on his suitability for the commander-in-chief job and his ability to handle the Iraq situation vis-a-vis Bush moved only a few percentage points. This indicates to me that Kerry may have succeeded in boosting the perception of his own credentials and capabilities, but not by enough to overcome Bush’s perceived strengths on these two questions. That isn’t necessarily a problem for Kerry however: what I think he succeeded in doing was presenting himself as a credible alternative for leading the military and running our foreign affairs. Even if there is still some preference for Bush in those areas, Kerry can overbalance Bush in the next two debates by coming out at as the preferred candidate on questions concerning the economy, health care, etc., and win the election.