It was, as I hoped, an enlightening debate. No, it didn’t include any real logical breakthrough and on the issues, I found myself agreeing more with Bush than Kerry. But from the very beginning, Kerry achieved something important. In tone and bearing, he seemed calm, authoritative, and, yes, presidential. I watched the C-SPAN version on a split screen, and in that context, it was particularly striking. In stark contrast to the Bush-Gore debates, it was Bush who was grimacing, furrowing his brow, almost rolling his eyes and at the very beginning, looking snippy and peevish. He seemed defensive throughout and because his record was front and center – and Kerry’s long record in the Senate almost unmentioned – he was actually on the defense. He seemed physically smaller and more mobile than Kerry – and more emotionally alive. Their voices were contrasts too. I can see now for the first time why Kerry has a good reputation as a debater. It wasn’t, I think, because he debated well. In fact, he debated poorly. He failed time and again to go in for obvious kills, failed to do what he really should have done, which is skewer Bush’s conduct of the war, not his decision to launch it in the first place. But his tone was strong, clear, unwavering. And in some ways, this was critical to undermining Bush’s constant assertion that Kerry is weak, vague and inconstant. In fact, Kerry didn’t have to prove logically that this was the case (which would be hard to do); he undermined it merely by his tone and manner. For many people, who have only heard of Kerry from Bush ads or sound-bites or from droning campaign speeches, it will be the first time that Kerry seems strong. In the simple, symbolic man-versus-man contrast, Kerry often seemed bigger. That strikes me as a big deal.
KERRY’S CASE…: Substantively, both men were frustratingly themselves. I winced whenever Kerry mentioned Halliburton and cringed when he went back to Vietnam. The notion that all our problems will be over in Iraq if only we have a summit is ludicrous. The pathetic isolationist strains – about spending money there that we should be spending here – were depressingly off-key. His best line was in asserting very clearly that he has had one position on Iraq all along; that Saddam was a threat and that there was a right way and a wrong way to remove him; and the president chose the wrong way. I largely think that’s hooey. (There was no way that France and Germany were ever going to support the removal of Saddam; further diplomacy in the winter before last would have been pointless; etc etc.) But it was rhetorically effective as a self-defense. I’m not sure it will persuade many people who have thought about this a lot; but it will appeal to the nervous middle – who may decide this election.
… AND KERRY’S FAILURE:But the missed opportunities were stunning. At one point Kerry even got Bush to agree that terrorists were streaming over the border. And then he failed to ask why Bush hadn’t sent enough troops to secure the border! He kept implying that the goal was to bring the troops home, and only at the very end did he assert that we were there to win, not to withdraw. Uh-oh. His assertion that WMD proliferation was the major threat to the U.S. was, on the other hand, very convincing – and by that point of the debate, the president was reduced to echoing him. In fact, Kerry was strongest, it seemed to me, at the very beginning, when his stature rose merely by being there, and at the very end, when he seemed commanding. He had the best closer.
PRESIDENT OUT-OF-IT: What to say about Bush? Let’s get the compliments out of the way. When asked to skewer Kerry’s character, he was classy and genuine. His anecdote about the war widow was heartfelt and poignant. He had a few good lines – and skewered Kerry easily on the $87 billion. He also kicked Kerry’s elegant Brahmin butt on the coalition point, reminding him that Poland exists. (Kerry was effective, however, in detailing the relatively small contribution of most of the allies. But why oh why did he not mention the obvious parallel of the vast coalition Bush’s father put together for the first Gulf War? If I were a debate judge – and I’ve had my fair share of debate experience – I would have flunked Kerry on the spot.) The few laugh-out-loud Bushisms – especially the point about the insurgents fighting “vociferously” – were worth the price of admission. On the more general point about alliances, Bush did well – espcially on the International Criminal Court, and on the need to base foreign policy fundamentally on the defense of the American people. More Americans will agree with him on this than with Kerry. Still, there were major weaknesses. If you believe, as I do, that the Iraq war is beginning to spiral downward, Bush was not reassuring. He seemed as out of it as ever. When Kerry rightly pointed out the failure of Bush to revamp the CIA or to secure Soviet nuclear material, Bush simply and sadly responded that every morning some guy comes in and briefs him on national security. Now I feel better. And you don’t want to be the president who is forced to say, “Of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us.” Moreover, his fundamental critique of Kerry – that by criticizing the war, he had made himself unworthy to be commander-in-chief – was dumb and border-line offensive. It implies that if you’ve ever criticized the president’s war conduct, you cannot succeed him in office. Huh? By that logic, the only credible alternative to Bush is someone who has agreed with him every inch of the way. Memo to Bush: we live in a democracy.
THE IMPACT? Kerry has to gain, I think. At the very least, this was a draw on the president’s most favorable turf. I saw it among a group of Dartmouth college students who were mainly pro-Kerry but who included a solid pro-Bush presence. It’s odd to hear them laughing out loud at their war-president; and groaning openly at some of Kerry’s remarks. Afterward, only the Bush supporters seemed concerned that their candidate had lost ground. They should be. Watching Bush last night, I saw a president who sometimes didn’t seem in control of his job, a man who couldn’t and didn’t defend the conduct of the war except to say that it was “hard work,” who seemed defensive, tired, and occasionally rattled. He had some strong points; and I agree with him on the basic matter of whether we should have gone to war. But the argument that we might be better changing horses in the middle of a troubled river gained traction last night. In some ways, this might turn out to be a version of the 1980 Carter-Reagan match, when Reagan was able to convince people, by his persona and presence, that he was up to the job. Yes, Bush is not as bad as Carter and Kerry is, of course, no Reagan. But the dynamic was somewhat similar. In other words, Kerry gets back in the game, reassures some doubters, buoys his supporters, and edges up a little. Oh, and one young man in the audience had just returned from serving his country in Iraq. Yes, he’d seen the war upfront. He knows what were doing over there first-hand. And he’s voting for Kerry.
The Dish 