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.

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.
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.