Your browser is not supported.

Kerry looks like he’s doing an interpretive hula of what he says.

speaking smoothly. He’s flubbed a couple of his zingers, but he’s better when he’s serious anyway. God, these guys are bad speakers.

what bothers me so much about Kerry speaking (other than his unbearably pedantic tone): politician hand gestures. Too practiced. It seems like he’s trying to look presidential. Which makes it all the more unconvincing.

zzzzzzz.

with statistics. Too many and I’m going to tune out. If I hear one more time how Kerry voted to violate budget caps 277 times, I won’t be responsible for my actions.

On another note, Bush flagrantly misrepresented the DOMA. It did not just declare that marriage is solely between one man and one woman, it struck down the possibility of civil unions (correct me if I’m wrong). I suppose this will play well with the religious right, but I hope that piece of legislation will never become law.

in a nanosecond?

effort not to make faces while Kerry is talking. Not succeeding 100%, but trying.

• “A plan is not a litany of complaints.”
• The true cost of Kerry’s health plan is, (not sure if I remember this right) $2.2 trillion over 10 years.

I’ll keep this relatively short. I think both candidates did very well, especially compared to their performances in the last debate. Both were at ease and spoke fluidly and comfortably. Each was also notably more aggressive in attacking the other. My opinions, broken down:

• Kerry pros:
  • He had good answers on a lot of the staple democratic issues, notably abortion and stem cell research. His answer on abortion was great: I can’t legislate for all Americans based on my own belief. He also answered reasonably well on the environment, but see my concerns below.
  • Kerry again beat Bush on form. He stayed calm and collected during his rebuttals, and yet was pretty energetic.
• Kerry cons:
  • He took too long to get to the point (this is a big surprise). He had a lot of good answers, but I found myself thinking several times that he was missing an opportunity to really go after Bush on policy (especially on the environment), only to have him get to a point I wanted him to mention a minute later.
  • He didn’t go after Bush aggressively enough on anything but Iraq. He mentioned Bush’s poor record on the environment, but didn’t go into any details (another common Kerry failing). He didn’t say much at all about Bush’s profligate spending since he’s come into office, and in fact let Bush have the last word on it. In his defense, that may be because he’s proposing a lot of expensive programs (e.g. health care reform). In summary, he didn’t bat at some of the humongous softballs that were pitched to him.
  • I realize that Kerry needed to stay away from being too far to the left for the undecided voters, but what was with all that time he spent telling the people who asked about religious and moral issues that he “deeply respects” where they come from?
  • [Added 10/11/2004] Kerry kept saying “I have a plan”, but didn’t go into any details of any such plans, with the exception of his tax plan, and then only when pressured.
• Bush pros:
  • Smooth, energetic, confident. He had answers quickly, he went after every Kerry answer (I loved the “you can’t win in Iraq if you thought we shouldn’t have been there in the first place” bit), and was very much at ease. Much better than last week.
  • Missouri is a swing state that historically votes right. All he needed to do was emphasize his positions on the issues clearly and concisely (illustrating a contrast with his historically long-winded opponent). He did that.
• Bush cons:
  • Again, he came off as plaintive. Aggressive, yes, but not as collected as he could have been. That plaintiveness detracted from his presidential image.
  • While he was better, as I said above, at staying focused and coming up with answers quickly, he did falter a couple of times, confused Senator Kerry with Senator Kennedy, and otherwise flubbed a couple of his points.
  • [Added 10/11/2004] What was up with the weird jaw twitch?

Although one can expect presidential debates to be tougher on the incumbent, it really seemed that the questions were heavily biased against Bush. I mean, come on. The last question: Mr. Bush, name the three worst mistakes you’ve made. What a freebie for Kerry!

I’m not going to call for one or the other of the candidates in this one; both the left and the right had their pundits in full spin mode immediately following the debate. We’ll see how they’re polling in another day or two.

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.