Saturday, October 02, 2004
The First Debate
I awaited the first debate with a turbulent mix of anticipation and dread, seeing it as an opportunity for Kerry to turn things around, but fearing that he would flounder around on stage and make incomprehensible statements. I think I bought the CW that Bush is an invincible debater.
In other words, Team Bush lost the pre-debate round of expectation setting in which they attempted to paint John Kerry as the reincarnation of Daniel Webster.
Kerry's first response was not deeply assuring - it seemed to have some fairly standard lines in it, but his delibery seemed notable. But it did work as a summation, because Kerry steadfastly went after each bullet point he listed.
I was not pleased when Kerry passed up an opportunity to hammer Bush on negative campaigning when the president dodged Jim Lehrer's question: "Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?" The softballs don't get any better than that.
But, over the course of the first fifteen minutes of the debate a basic pattern was set - Kerry was crisp and clear in his responses. Dubya's responses had a rambling quality to them and a certain defensiveness. And, of camera, he was clearly squirming. The suggestion has been made that he is now ill-conditioned for debating, having curtailed his press conferences. It showed.
Amidst this pattern of exchanges, the Bush campaign's efforts to paint Kerry as an indecisive flip-flopper collapsed utterly. This guy had a plan, had confidence and was making common sense arguments about keeping one's mind open. The debate was utterly captured by Bush's efforts to claim that Kerry was not projecting certainty and Kerry's calm rejoinder that while it's important to be certain, it's also important to know that one can be certain and wrong at the same time.
Kerry won on line items. He had a clear command of facts and was able to state them concisely in the service of a larger argument. As such, he was able to deliver a number of deft jabs to Dubya, while the president struggled to deliver the same haymaker several times. Kerry's delivery let him parry Dubya's attacks to a much greater degree, while he landed damning charges - notably about how underequipped our troops are.
Kerry was particularly impressive on homeland security, listing problems with securing our ports, bridges, intersections, chemical plant - in the last case mentioning how the chemical lobby successfully argued against improving protections. Dubya's response to that was pretty ill-considered: "I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises." Dubya proceeded to mention that there are another 1000 policeman on our Mexican border. Wow. All in one place?
To Kerry's followup, which noted the FBI's failure to translate thousands of hours of Al Qaeda tapes, Dubya got indignant: "Of course we're doing everything we can to protect America!" Really?
This sort of vexed denial seemed more premised on Dubya's irritation with being there than any conviction. Kerry played it to his advantage when debating North Korea later, telling the world that just because Dubya says bilateral talks are impossible doesn't really make them so.
Dubya came off as someone who responds to criticism with irritation. He repeated things that sounded like stump lines. And he had trouble filling the time.
Kerry, by comparsion was polished and generally in a good mood. He delivered his best lines in short sentences. The time limits worked to his advantage and kept him focused. He was patient - if he didn't make his point on one exchange he looked for future opportunities to deliver it.
This is the debate that Dubya should have won. If he was half as presidential here as he was at his convention, he'd have at least won a draw. National security issues were supposed to belong to him, but he came off as less presidential than a liberal senator from Massachusetts. And he may have known it. Future debates will not suit him as well - the next one is the "random crowd of voters format." The third one favors Kerry - domestic issues are where Democrats are generally at home. If John Kerry approaches the next two with the calm focus and command of detail he used here, the debates will be the turning point in this campaign. Perhaps the impact is already being felt.
Post-debate polling by Survey USA found that 45% of Floridians gave the debate to Kerry, compared to 31% for Bush. Kerry won among Pennsylvanians 47-25, among Arkansans 46-34, among Oregonians 50-31. Dubya did win in Texas, by the unconvincing margin of 41-39. The outcome of this debate, as reflected in presidential preference polls, may take some time to materialize, but should be detectable at the state level. One of the pillars supporting Bush's campaign strategy has crumbled; this cannot fail to affect the race.
I awaited the first debate with a turbulent mix of anticipation and dread, seeing it as an opportunity for Kerry to turn things around, but fearing that he would flounder around on stage and make incomprehensible statements. I think I bought the CW that Bush is an invincible debater.
In other words, Team Bush lost the pre-debate round of expectation setting in which they attempted to paint John Kerry as the reincarnation of Daniel Webster.
Kerry's first response was not deeply assuring - it seemed to have some fairly standard lines in it, but his delibery seemed notable. But it did work as a summation, because Kerry steadfastly went after each bullet point he listed.
I was not pleased when Kerry passed up an opportunity to hammer Bush on negative campaigning when the president dodged Jim Lehrer's question: "Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack?" The softballs don't get any better than that.
But, over the course of the first fifteen minutes of the debate a basic pattern was set - Kerry was crisp and clear in his responses. Dubya's responses had a rambling quality to them and a certain defensiveness. And, of camera, he was clearly squirming. The suggestion has been made that he is now ill-conditioned for debating, having curtailed his press conferences. It showed.
Amidst this pattern of exchanges, the Bush campaign's efforts to paint Kerry as an indecisive flip-flopper collapsed utterly. This guy had a plan, had confidence and was making common sense arguments about keeping one's mind open. The debate was utterly captured by Bush's efforts to claim that Kerry was not projecting certainty and Kerry's calm rejoinder that while it's important to be certain, it's also important to know that one can be certain and wrong at the same time.
Kerry won on line items. He had a clear command of facts and was able to state them concisely in the service of a larger argument. As such, he was able to deliver a number of deft jabs to Dubya, while the president struggled to deliver the same haymaker several times. Kerry's delivery let him parry Dubya's attacks to a much greater degree, while he landed damning charges - notably about how underequipped our troops are.
Kerry was particularly impressive on homeland security, listing problems with securing our ports, bridges, intersections, chemical plant - in the last case mentioning how the chemical lobby successfully argued against improving protections. Dubya's response to that was pretty ill-considered: "I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises." Dubya proceeded to mention that there are another 1000 policeman on our Mexican border. Wow. All in one place?
To Kerry's followup, which noted the FBI's failure to translate thousands of hours of Al Qaeda tapes, Dubya got indignant: "Of course we're doing everything we can to protect America!" Really?
This sort of vexed denial seemed more premised on Dubya's irritation with being there than any conviction. Kerry played it to his advantage when debating North Korea later, telling the world that just because Dubya says bilateral talks are impossible doesn't really make them so.
Dubya came off as someone who responds to criticism with irritation. He repeated things that sounded like stump lines. And he had trouble filling the time.
Kerry, by comparsion was polished and generally in a good mood. He delivered his best lines in short sentences. The time limits worked to his advantage and kept him focused. He was patient - if he didn't make his point on one exchange he looked for future opportunities to deliver it.
This is the debate that Dubya should have won. If he was half as presidential here as he was at his convention, he'd have at least won a draw. National security issues were supposed to belong to him, but he came off as less presidential than a liberal senator from Massachusetts. And he may have known it. Future debates will not suit him as well - the next one is the "random crowd of voters format." The third one favors Kerry - domestic issues are where Democrats are generally at home. If John Kerry approaches the next two with the calm focus and command of detail he used here, the debates will be the turning point in this campaign. Perhaps the impact is already being felt.
Post-debate polling by Survey USA found that 45% of Floridians gave the debate to Kerry, compared to 31% for Bush. Kerry won among Pennsylvanians 47-25, among Arkansans 46-34, among Oregonians 50-31. Dubya did win in Texas, by the unconvincing margin of 41-39. The outcome of this debate, as reflected in presidential preference polls, may take some time to materialize, but should be detectable at the state level. One of the pillars supporting Bush's campaign strategy has crumbled; this cannot fail to affect the race.
