Many interesting comments in this thread, one of which I want to highlight. From Dario:
Wife test. The nonpartisan, I don’t pay attention to politics spouse. She watched a grand total of 10 to 15 minutes and started to complain that Survivor was delayed. She went upstairs to watch a Tivo’d ER.
Her impressions are: Bush isn’t a very good debater. Kerry seemed prepared. Ten minutes later after she was focused on other things her comments were again that Bush wasn’t very good in that setting but she doesn’t necessarily find Kerry’s positions to be stronger. When I asked her what she thought of Kerry’s position she admitted she didn’t know what it really was. She did know what Bush’s was.
I simply don’t believe the debate was that memorable and as such won’t really matter. Furthermore, Kerry’s opportunity to define his position on foreign policy was nebulous at best and rather thin.
I think politically interested conservatives see the debate as a bit of a let down for GW because if you were like me you were formulating your own rebuttals in your mind that Bush didn’t address. We didn’t get to hear about Kerry’s 20 year voting record on military support. We didn’t hear Bush immediately voice the irony of Kerry’s body armor blovations. We didn’t get to hear about Kerry’s attendance record to intelligence committee meetings and his expense cut proposal. I watched, wishing that GW had the oratory capabilities of Tony Blair. You can blame Lehrer for focusing on Bush’s policy and never addressing Kerry’s own history but Bush had plenty of opportunities to bring them up himself.
Even so, the casual observer test—at least in this one instance—seems to reinforce one of the major points of Bush’s campaign: “at least you know where I stand.”
I thought Kerry came out on top, because the target audience (undecided folks who didn’t come pre-equipped with their play-at-home game)would come away with a favorable impression of Kerry’s superficial assertions, since they were better expressed.
But if they were all switching to the she-house movie after ten minutes or so, then my theory collapses.
“she-house movie”? If I knew she was watching one of those I would have been upstairs in a heartbeat.
Just like the attack on Bush’s guard service backfired–I was pleasantly surprised to learn that Bush does know how to fly jets–Kerry’s nuances blew up in his face–Bush fired back with facts! The man knows his shit!!!!
The problem, Jeff, is that by concealing his positions, Kerry allows the undecided voters to imprint him w/ their views.
In a sense, Kerry is like Chance the Gardener in “Being There.” His flip-flops, coupled w/ his obfuscatory method of speaking, means that the listener can project any position they want onto him. The ultimate tabula rasa candidate, so to speak.
In this case, he could be considered the reverse of Bill Clinton. Clinton gave you the impression that he agreed with you, whatever your position. (And he was charming enough to get away with it.)
Kerry, by contrast, doesn’t give you any impression at all—so you form your own, and if you’re undecided, you could conclude that his position must be yours.
The question is: Does this work for more than just the moment?
I agree…my mom (not very political) “Didn’t like Bush’s tie”…end of discussion. Sad really…
I still think Bush was holding back on purpose. Call me crazy, but W has played this game before and rather skillfully. Kerry, being Kerry, shot his wad in this first debate.
Yes, if I’m correct, this is a gamble on Dubya’s part because people may not tune into the next two debates. But the press will and Bush has some firepower left, I’m guessing.
What little they’ve shown them on TV, I have truly enjoyed watching Pres. Bush’s stump speeches – the man is on fire! So, I was disappointed with his debate performance.
I want to see more aggressiveness from Pres. Bush, more direct challenges to Kerry’s lies and evasions. Maybe the strategy was for Bush to be ‘presidential’, but I’d rather see him be Bush. That’d be more than good enough for me!