I went to the DuPage County Democrats debate watch tonight - and it was packed at Jax Bar in the Wyndham Hotel, Lisle. We completely overwhelmed the bartenders and the waitress (yes, embarrassingly, I think there was only one) and the wait at times for a drink was about an hour (no joke). I spoke to a guy from Germany who had happened in (he was on business), while waiting to get a drink. I gave him a bumper sticker so that he could go to my website and see what some Americans think - I may have locked up the German vote despite my opponents name.
While I caught parts of the debate, it was also a time for meeting and greeting, so my take is very impressionistic. Kerry seemed to be stronger later in the debate to me (at least when I caught him) and Bush seemed throughout to do a good job staying on message - whether people believe or accept the message is another story. The crowd was pretty vocally in support of Kerry with appropriately timed clapping and cheers, and Bush did get a number of boos and other negative noises.
I think from the strict perspective of seeing who communicated more clearly and concisely that Kerry found himself explaining too much too often, when I caught him, but it could easily have been worse. Bush does have an easier (if inaccurate) story to tell, and he benefited from the easy story.
In the end I believe that the debate spin wars will be more important than the debate itself - we’ll see soon enough how the press handles things and whether it affects the polls. My guess still is that the race will be about turnout.
Comments 2
Hiram,
what debate were you watching? The debate I saw (mind you, I was at the same place you were, and doing homework to boot) had Bush spending almost 30 seconds of each of his 2 mins staring balnkly at the camera, sputtering, stuttering, mis-using words (sorry bushie, the insurgents are not fighting vociferously hon, they’re using guns and bombs, not words), evading questions, and stupidly sticking to catch phrases (wrong war, wrong place, wrong time) in places in the debate where they were past their timliness, and frankly inappropriate.
Posted 02 Oct 2004 at 2:41 pm ¶Kerry was concise (most of the time), and composed all of the time. He defined his position on Iraq srongly, and controlled the direction and tone of the debate throughout. Kerry made himself look presidential.
The papers are trying everything they can to make Bush look better than he did, but the Bush I saw could barely complete a coherent thought. That’s sad.
Hi Nicole,
It seems like the polls support your version. While we watched the same debate, I admit not seeing much of it (as I said), talking to people quite a bit, and again I only reacted to the parts I saw. That said, I fail to see how your description of Bush’s speaking is fundamentally different than his speaking “style” always has been - and yet people have at times seemed to respond to it. My judgment was based not on my preferences (in my judgment neither Clinton nor Reagan nor Dean (though he got better) were particularly good rhetoricians - something that many would disagree with me on), but rather based on what people seem to suggest they like. I am likely biased having studied the Collected Works of Lincoln and done my Masters thesis on a lecture he wrote - when you’ve read some of the best it’s hard not to see how much is wanting.
Posted 02 Oct 2004 at 9:03 pm ¶Post a Comment