October 09, 2004
Lateblogging the Debate
Yes, that's right, lateblogging - it's the new thing, haven't you heard? Anyway, I don't have much to add to what seems to be a confusion of varying opinions clustered tightly around "it was a draw." Bush was scary to me, yelling a lot, but to many people I'm sure that comes across as strength. Kerry, once again, looked mad presidential.
But the most entertaining part to me was the array of high-quality Bush slip-ups and malapropisms, some of which seem to have slipped through the blogosphere's usually hair-fine net. I'm not sure whether it's a good thing or a bad thing that Bush called Kerry "Kennedy" when talking about his liberalism - it might remind a few people about what liberalism once meant in this country, but for most I'm sure it was just confusing. I also loved that Bush referred to terrorists and extremists as "haters" - shake 'em off, Georgie, just shake dem haterz off!
But the real doozy came close to the end, and I'm so shocked at its relative absence from the blogosphere that I'm tempted to think I imagined it. I may not be exactly right on the wording, but I swear to god essentially these words came out of Bush's mouth:
"If John Kerry had been President, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and the world would be a better place."
Yeah, I think that just about sums it up. Please tell me that I'm not just making this up, and that someone, somewhere, is making (cheap, petty) political hay out of it.
I was also appreciative when Bush made a reference to the "internets".
"Will the highways on the Internet become more few?"
-George W. Bush
I'm in basic agreement with Sleep's take on the debate--Kerry definitely won according to me and the people I watched it with (all biased). But Bush did step up the rhetoric and showed his more preachy side, which probably helps him with the pundits and the proles.
The Bush we saw this time was more the Karen Hughes Bush than the Karl Rove Bush. Certainly, it was a less likable Bush than in the first debate. The moralistic, preachy, "with us or against us", "for it or not for it" tone is a tactic aimied at breaking down real communications and discussion of issues on a point by point basis. On PBS, after the debate, a couple of academics tried to explain why this debate was so much less substantive than the first--communictation seems to have broken down. It probably has something to do with the "real-people" audience that the candidates have to appeal to emotionally.
In any case, Bush's new tone was a bold gambit, but I was very impressed by Kerry's ability to step up his game and not let himself be pushed around.