The debate
I was able to catch the first 40 minutes of the debate before I went out for drinks with friends.
Here are two impressions I had:
First, in debates of this sort, to explain is to lose. To be forced to defend a decision or policy gives the impression to the audience that one has done something wrong. Thus, Kerry's consistent ability to put the ball in Bush's court and force him to defend himself and his decisions was very effective.
This is why Kerry's response to the $87 billion vote issue, though frustrating, was practically effective. He could have explained the clear, simple rationale for his vote, but that would be to lose. Instead, he admitted a mistake and then threw the issue back at Bush: who made the bigger mistake?
Second, while Gore groaned throughout the first 2000 debate, I knew it would come across poorly to most viewers. In a similar fashion, the split screen format showing Bush grimace, frown and twitch while Kerry criticized him was a big negative for Bush (See "Faces of Frustration"). He seemed to get flustered, as if he wasn't used to and couldn't handle someone criticizing him in his presence. Not a very presidential trait.
The ground of this debate was supposed to favor Bush. I can't imagine how Bush will defend his domestic policies against such stunning attacks.
Like his lookalike, USC Football coach Pete Carroll, Kerry knows to blitz when he gets behind. He hits the important points aggressively and he puts his opponent on the defensive. That's why he's been so successful in his campaigns. That's why, God willing, he'll be our next president.
12:02:29 PM 
|
