October 01, 2004
Blogger Reactions to the Debate
To save you all the effort of looking these things up yourself, here's a roundup of reactions.
Daniel Drezner liveblogged the debate and thought Kerry's performance got much stronger as the night wore on.
Andrew Sullivan declare Kerry the winner by a small margin, saying he looked confident and calm.
Josh Marshall thinks Kerry made a good start, but must follow up well to gain any advantage.
Pejman, however, thinks it was a draw and, hence, a win for Bush.
Kevin Drum points out that the immediate reaction is a resounding win for Kerry.
RP thinks Bush did better because Kerry didn't provide enough specifics for his taste.
Downto thinks Bush looked distracted and fatigued and gives Kerry the win.
Today's War Room on Salon has a further roundup as well. I won't link each individual post, since there are quite a few, but I definitely recommend it.
There are plenty of other reactions out there, but this seems to be a pretty representative group from both sides of the aisle.
I was going to post on this myself, but I'm way late in blogger-time :).
Just about everything I would mention has been said in the links above, so I will simply reiterate a few points that struck me.
1. Kerry won the debate, I think, by making an appeal to "smart" policy. Hence he demonstrably drew a line in the sand between policies based on reasoning and expertise with one based on perseverance and faith. He successfully exploited what we all know--that excessive faith gets in the way of seeing the truth clearly--and hence exploded some of the myths the GOP has tried to build up. Kerry Socratic reasoning style (conceding the imporartance of a point, then interjecting a "but") worked well against Bush's "right vrs. wrong" image. Such Socratic reasoning can be spun in the media as lack of conviction, but Kerry showed last night that is also a sign of intelligence and patience. It's now up to Rove to tear this new image down.
That said, I agree with the critics that Kerry didn't move in for the kill or defend himself often enough (his point on Bush's nuclear ambitions wasn't hammered hard enough, nor did he effectively defend his vote against the 87 billion, nor did he agitate effectively against Bush's policy on intelligence or his conflicts with the State Department). On the other hand, perhaps Kerry's amiability played well.
2. Bush's performance was, IMO, not as bad as some say. In fact I believe he was far, far better than 4 years ago--mainly in terms of credibility, patience, and abilty to articulate himself. He came off as fundamentally decent, if intellectually outgunned, while Kerry occasionally seemed a tad arrogant. He didn't seem to indulge in any particuarly indefensible falsifications or go for any huge cheap shots, though I'm sure both Bush and Kerry streched the truth occasionally. All in all, Bush's willingness to play fair made it an excellent and informative debate.
3. But Bush did cross the line when he repeatedly argued Kerry's criticisms of Bush's foreign policy are unworthy of a commander-in-chief. This is almost Zell-like in its undemocratic implications--and I was annoyed the TV pundits didn't hit him harder for this. If our main concern is maintaining troop morale, even at the cost of an honest public debate, then we should consider fascism.
4. Obviously Rove believes Bush's ICC position will poll well. He's probably right. But I was nevertheless thrilled that Bush brought it up--because it makes the choice we are faced with perfectly clear. I have had the opportunity to travel to the Hague--a beautiful and idyllic Dutch coastal city--and be inspired by the idealism behind the institutions there. The central building is the Carnegie Peace Palace--a gift from the idealistic industrial magnate to the cause of world peace. The essence of this diplomatic haven is arbitrating conflict and providing a rule of law whereby incidents like Abu Ghraib may never happen again. Yet Bush has snubbed such sentiments, preferring to pander to fear and base nationalism. It should be clear to all willing to see how little Bush has learned from his admin's mistakes.
5. It should not be suprising that the media pronounced Kerry the winner within 5 minutes. How would a Bush victory be in the interest of the media? I'm am not suggesting an overt conspiracy, though I wouldn't rule it out. Simply the obvious interest the media has in reporting on a close race could have been enough to tip the scales to some degree. Just like I hope for a Lance victory while also hoping one of his challengers will make the Tour a great race--the media and the political junkies they pander to long for a close race to the end.
That said, I agree with the critics that Kerry didn't move in for the kill or defend himself often enough (his point on Bush's nuclear ambitions wasn't hammered hard enough, nor did he effectively defend his vote against the 87 billion, nor did he agitate effectively against Bush's policy on intelligence or his conflicts with the State Department). On the other hand, perhaps Kerry's amiability played well.
I'm inclined to think may have been purposeful. Kerry could have spent the entire debate tearing Bush down. Instead, he limited his criticisms and stuck primarily to making a factual case. That just seems like smart strategy to me. If he can steadily chip away at Bush's positions with logic and facts and throw in a few nice rhetorical jabs once in a while, I don't think he needs a single killer line.