Overall, I think both candidates did a relatively good job in this debate:
- Kerry
- The good: Senator Kerry was a polished and fluid debater. When it comes to good form, I think he won out over the President. He also did a better job of staying objective while Bush was talking; apart from the occasional supercilious smile, I think he did an admirable job of listening to what his opponent was saying and not indulging in facial theatrics. His best performance of the evening came when he said that we can’t preach to the world about nuclear nonproliferation and then go and develop new nuclear weapons, as Bush is trying to do. I think he really scored some points there.
- The bad: Once again, Kerry indulged in some serious handwaving and gave no specifics on how he’d do “a better job” prosecuting the war in Iraq. All he said was that he’d “rapidly train” Iraqi troops so that we can bring our own troops home faster, while leaving a “minimal” force there to “maintain the peace”. This “plan” offers nothing different than what Bush is doing today; Kerry was completely unconvincing on this point. While Kerry did a good job of reminding his base about what they feel is wrong with Bush’s Iraq policy, he offered no clear alternatives, and that will not reach the swing voters he really needs to impress.
- Bush
- The good: National security is Bush’s greatest strength in this election. He did a great job of staying on message; portraying himself as a bold leader who dealt with and is dealing with the increased danger of today’s world in a decisive manner. This will energize his base, and reach out to those “security moms”. It also reminds those one issue voters why they’re voting for Bush. He also did a good job of hitting Kerry where he lives, namely his penchant for changing his position based on the political atmosphere. He could, though, have done a bit more with this. Finally, I think he did a good job, especially for the swing voters, of answering questions about his policy towards Iran and North Korea. Emphasizing his multilateral approach to the North Korea nonproliferation talks will put him in good stead with them.
- The bad: The President was not as polished as his opponent. He visibly hesitated several times, and seemed to lose his train of thought in the middle of some of his responses. He also was much less disciplined than Sen. Kerry with the facial theatrics I mentioned above, although, it has to be said, much better than either his father against Clinton in ’92 or Gore against him in 2000. He didn’t go after Kerry as much as he could have on the flip-flopping, either; he tended to repeat some of his arguments, instead of making new points. His worst point in this debate was, I think, his emotiveness. He needed to strike a fine balance here between coming off as genuine, which he is very good at, and sounding professional and competent. At some points, I think he got a little too emotional and sounded somewhat childish.
All that said, I think this debate was a draw, which means it was a loss for Kerry. He really needed to KO the President on national security issues to reach swing voters, and he just didn’t have a good enough story. As I said before, national security is the President’s greatest strength in this election, and Kerry could have realistically expected to do the worst in this first debate. Bush’s positions on domestic policy, on the other hand, are considerably weaker (they are among the many reasons I cannot in good conscience vote for him) and should be good opportunities for Kerry to go on the attack. However, that will not mean good things for Kerry unless he’s got substantive alternatives to present to voters, which, as we know, is his greatest weakness.
I’m really looking forward to next week’s vice-presidential debate; it will be interesting to see what the “attack dogs” do.