...or I would have been watching on C-Span. Instead, we caught the debate on PBS, which was fine enough, and offered enough "reaction shots" to display Bush's preferred expression of petulance and irritation with the fact that Kerry kept making him have to think about what he was going to say.
I was hoping that the postgame comments on PBS would be a little less vapid than that which I've been suffering through from the other "news" outfits this year -- the inability to actually discuss or analyze what happened, as opposed to the move immediately to designated partisans and their insta-marketing of whatever headline they'd like to see emerge.
But PBS, while eschewing immediate spin-tennis from the likes of a Carville/Matalin duo, trod a respectable-looking version of the same road, that wound up meandering in the same pointless direction -- and, as has generally been the case, served the Bush campaign quite well. David Brooks, in his current role as liberally-credentialed apologist for the Rovians, dug right in, insisting that Bush had brought a lot of facts to the table, and instantly applying the obvious Republican strategy should the President look, as he did, like a poorly programmed robot, spitting out an array of garbled catchphrases and looking peevish when challenged.
That is, Brooks immediately argued for a Draw. Since any attempt to call it an out and out win for the President -- whose ability to hold it together waned as Kerry's confidence and point-scoring waxed -- would have been a hard sell, he made the sell for a genial "both did well" approach. Considering the lowered expectations already attached to every Bush performance (he merely has to do better than awful to earn plaudits from an astonishingly compliant press), a tie for Bush is a win. This is the line being handed out on CNN as well. And as with the Gore debate, the Rove team will work feverishly to bully the press into reporting more Bush "positives" (his folksy inability to speak nearly as well as his patrician opponent, for example) as if they were significant realities, in the hopes of eroding whatever gains in stature Kerry's fairly obvious victory tonight might give him.
Oh, and the "liberal" side of the PBS commentary? Handled by Mark Shields, of course, who slumped before Brooks' sunny conservative beaming like a bowl of tapioca pudding left out on the porch. Yes, the left really does well in this new media world of ours, where everything is just as fair and balanced as can be, and there's really no point to asking questions.
Posted by BT at October 01, 2004 12:47 AMI also thought it was basically a draw (both guys made their points reasonably effectively and avoided major gaffes), but with the opposite consequences--a draw is actually a win for Kerry, since he badly needs to convince wafflers that he's a viable alternative, and he succeeded in that mission.
I'm delighted to see that all the instant polls find that viewers think Kerry whupped the squinty little prick, though.
Posted by: Gavin on October 1, 2004 01:31 AMOn this side of the world, they are reporting that Kerry won the debate--but also suggesting that the importance of such a win is limited and that Kerry still trails Bush.
I read through a bit of the transcript (published on The Age's website) but stopped when my stomach started turning too much at Bush's rhetoric.
Here in Oz, we've got our own election on October 9th and we are facing similar circumstances with right wing John Howard challenged by newcomer left wing Mark Latham. It's close but most of us are cynical enough to believe the incumbent will win (3 years ago he beat the odds by using fear of illegal immigration/terrorism to scare the electorate). Wish us luck--the implications are might (especially for those of us in education).
Cheers,
Art
P.S. I've got my absentee ballot coming from NH, so I'll do my best to help you (and the world) out!
Posted by: art on October 1, 2004 04:48 AMI think I meant "the implications are MIGHTY" but who can be sure?
Posted by: art on October 1, 2004 04:49 AMIn the sense that neither side delivered a crushing blow, it could be called a draw. But judged as a debate -- in other words, on how both candidates did at answering the questions and offering reasons for their positions -- it was in my eyes not hard to see who had the better command of the situation. Bush was much less articulate, more repetitive, didn't substantively rebut the most powerful charge laid at his door (that he continues to confuse Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden), and couldn't think as well on his feet as Kerry.
How much that will benefit Kerry remains to be seen. What you do in the debate is one thing -- what you can do politically with the results is quite another. For all I know, the sputtering message-machine performance will do more to galvanize Bush's base (or even reach shallow-thinking undecideds) than Kerry's superior debating chops will do to convince people of his fitness and Bush's unfitness.
But I hope (and suspect) that you're right, Gavin -- "win" or "draw", the result was that Kerry looked and sounded like someone you could imagine running the show.
Posted by: BT on October 1, 2004 08:07 AM>judged as a debate
I would agree with you, but I'm afraid that voters don't judge these events on quality of rhetoric and argument--and the effect on them is really what counts.
Posted by: Gavin on October 1, 2004 11:09 AM>I would agree with you, but I'm afraid that voters don't judge these events on quality of rhetoric and argument--and the effect on them is really what counts.
How depressingly realistic!
**retreats to fantasy world in which thoughtful voters painstakingly consider all aspects of a candidate's fitness for office**
**locks door to magical leprechaun castle**
**drinks sparkling glass of gumdrop champagne**
Posted by: BT on October 1, 2004 05:10 PM(Note to self: gumdrop champagne wretched stuff...must pick up some beer tomorrow.)
Posted by: BT on October 1, 2004 05:12 PM