8 Ways to Sunday

Last Thursday, after the end of the first presidential debate of 2004, I hammered out my first impressions of how the contest had played out. Wanting to keep my partisan viewpoint out of it as much as possible, I decided to sit on it for a few days before posting it. Here, then, is a slightly revised version of those hastily-written first impressions:

I think Bush got his clock cleaned. He came across as uninformed and inarticulate, often repeating things he’d said several times before in an apparent effort to buy himself time to form a real answer. There was a lot of pausing before saying a word longer than three syllables. We also got a classic Bushism right off the bat with the description of how the Iraqi insurgents are fighting, “so vociferously.” Toward the end he consistently failed to use his allotted time to fully explain his positions.

While Bush often looked nervous or agitated, sometimes seeming to fumble for answers, Kerry was ready with an answer to nearly every question and used his time well. He was rarely stirring, but he did manage to be statesmanlike without being boring or wordy. Kerry should stop doing burger-flipping photo ops and focus on developing this, his strongest quality. It’s more natural for him, and people respond to someone who comes across as an educated and principled statesman at least as well as they respond to Bush’s “regular guy” shtick.

Speaking of Bush’s shtick, he was at his best when he was tugging on heartstrings and echoing the feelings of many American people about the loss of war and the dangers of terrorism. The guy can’t talk policy worth a damn, but when it comes to really relating to people he has it all over Kerry. He also scored major civility points by, when offered the opportunity to skewer Kerry on character issues, he decided instead to respond to the question in a complimentary fashion that came across as genuine and respectful of his opponent. Unfortunately, he spent most of the night looking uncomfortable and a little sweaty.

Kerry didn’t sweat buckets for once! Amazing!

I disagree with the opinion of some bloggers that there weren’t any really strong moments for either candidate. As I said above, Bush scored big time with his description of comforting the war widow.

Meanwhile, Kerry’s strongest moment came when he responded to Bush’s accusation that he was denigrating the troops by speaking against the war. Kerry — coming across with more heart and conviction than he often manages to muster — said, “It is vital for us not to confuse the war, ever, with the warriors. That happened before.” Vietnam veterans were terribly treated when they returned from that unpopular. They were spat on in the street, berated by protesters, called imperialist baby-killers. My uncle, a Vietnam veteran himself, has told me the stories. Kerry spoke powerfully, eloquently, and from the heart here, and it served him well. When he combines his statesmanlike qualities with this level of conviction and fortitude he is very effective. Too bad it doesn’t happen that often.

Kerry fell on his face a couple of times, as with the statement that preemptive strikes would be warranted if they passed the “global test.” He also consistently frustrated by going in for obvious kills, such as when the President asserted that “Osama bin Laden isn’t going to determine how we defend ourselves. Osama bin Laden doesn’t get to decide.” Maybe not, Mr. President, but he does get to decide what we have to defend ourselves against.

Overall, this debate goes to Kerry. This represents a major victory for his campaign, since defense and foreign policy were considered to be Bush’s strongest areas and are where he polls the best. Kerry has longer experience in this arena, however, and has finally begun distilling his positions into digestible explanations without the convoluted detours he was once prone to.

I predict that the next two debates will be more of a challenge for Kerry than for Bush. The town hall format will favor Bush, who has a greater ability to connect to people quickly and on their own level. Kerry will have to work hard to overcome his tendency to come off as detached, intellectual, and aloof; hell have to formulate answers in ways that satisfy the questioners rather than the policy wonks on the cable news networks. Bush, meanwhile, will need to be more on his toes in a town hall format since the questions will be less predictable. Its one thing to come across as an idiot when responding to a talking news head, another thing entirely to do it while trying to relate to Bob and Judy Voter.

Everyone seems to expect Kerry to clean in the domestic policy debate, but hes going to face two big stumbling blocks. The first is his glut of Big Promises, combined with a lack of any clearly-defined strategy for pulling them off. The second, related problem is how he expects to pay for universal health care, school reform, more money to “first responders,” and a stronger military while still putting the government back in the black within four years. I’m not convinced that just rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and closing some corporate loopholes can provide enough revenue to pay for these programs. He’s got my vote anyway, but there are a lot of undecided people out there who need clearer answers before throwing in their lot him and Edwards.

Andrew Sullivan has his own excellent analysis of the debate over on his weblog. You can watch a full-length video of the debate (you’ll need Real Player) or read a transcript at C-SPAN’s debate coverage site.