I’m too biased to be able to judge well who won or lost in the second debate; G.W. Bush makes my skin crawl. What did strike me was the different strategies that the two candidates employed. Kerry seemed to be trying to do two things, quite deliberately, in his answers. First, he was very obviously trying to combat the Republican talking-point that he’s a pessimist. He referred to himself explicitly as an optimist at one point, and several of his answers were all about his hopes for the future. Second, he seemed to be reaching out to Republican-leaning undecided voters who were disenchanted with Bush - at every possible opportunity, he mentioned Republicans like Hagel, Lugar and McCain who have criticized the administration in one way or another. Bush, in contrast, seemed to me to be more interested in shoring up his core vote among conservatives. As I say, I came into this with a bias - still, these are the things that jumped out at me while I was watching the debate (apart from Kerry’s fluffing the response to Bush’s answer about mistakes, which many others in the blogosphere have written about already).
I thought Kerry also did well on “Can this man be your next President?”
Too much aggression might have hindered that, and I think we saw a specific campaign tactic.
The one thing I took away from the debate is how many times Bush used the word “decision” or its derivatives (“decide”, …). I thought it was pretty clever, so probably an idea from Rove or whoever. Not only does it reinforce the idea that he is a leader, it emphasizes his main (only?) argument against Kerry, as someone who changes his mind.
I really do think that Kerry did not give the best performance - better than Bush’s, but that’s a pretty low bar. He needs to explain his ideas more simply and start to use repetition of two or three key ideas. He did try to say, “I’m fighting for you” a few times, but really if that’s the theme (and it seems like a good one), he should be saying it at the end of every answer (like “Carthage must be destoryed!”): “Bush has fought for the rich, I’ll fight for the rest of you.” Why didn’t he reinject “certain and wrong” a few times when talking about Bush? That seems a fairly important point to get across and then get across again.
Anyway, just my two cents…
Kerry is almost certain he is going to win, has so much confidence in his base and swing voters that he going after Bush’s base in order to increase the margin of victory.
I’m basically with Andrew on this. Did anyone count how often he said ‘I have a plan to’ instead of the much more natural ‘I shall’.
But Bush was embarrassing. He doesn’t make my skin crawl, in fact he is the only Republican capable of engaging my sympathy —I watch in horror, wondering all the time whether he is just going to run out of steam and start crying, poor guy.
How many people who have been credited by history as being great leaders have had to remind people so often that they are leaders by expressly stating it over and over and over again? Me thinks Mr. Bush doth….
Kerry’s goal is to look “presidential”. Not a weak wet noodle who can’t make up his mind, in other words. He succeeded. This emotional stuff is much more important that any thing these guys actually say.
Bush is still trying to shore up his base, which is a very bad sign for him. Kerry is working on the undecideds and soft republicans while Bush is still trying to get his side excited.
I too can’t watch Bush but my reason is the same as harry’s. I feel sorry for the guy. He’s in way over his head.
A bit late to comment, but I agree with Brian: this election is about image and gut reaction rather than the issues - if the issues were important, Bush would have been impeached long since.
In the battle of image, Kerry came over as Lincolnesque; he looks like him, he’s imposing physically, he has a deep voice and a soothing and calm demeanour. Bush, by contrast, was short, simian, high-pitched and whiny.
On that one count alone, image, John Kerry won by a mile. You could see that from the audience’s body language. They smiled when Kerry spoke, whereas as George Bush spoke you could see faces close up in dissapproval and arms fold.
I would like to have felt sorry for GWB, watching him have a mental meltdown on live tv, but I didn’t. All I had to do was remember Abu Ghraib and Patriot Act II for any sympathy I might have had to completely dry up. He wants to be on that podium so what comes with it is his own damed fault. No sympathy at all.
Bush was a rooster strutting, crowing and bobbing his head. Kerry was the big cat reclining in the grass but oozing danger.
I felt that every time the cat roused itself, the rooster quickly flew back to his desk, mocking the cat from a very safe spot.
I wonder if this will seep into the watcher’s psyche at some point…
Hmmm, and after posting that I may have gleaned some understanding about why, after two debates where Bush performed worse than even I could have reasonably wished for, Kerry didn’t deliver the kill.
Well, he’s a Democrat, and therefore is surrounded by legions of hand-wringing poll-worshiping political advisors shell-shocked by the last 12 years.
So the cat is convinced that the censure of the entire household will be brought down upon him if he just up and dispatches the rooster. He needs the rooster to visibly cross the line, to where the farmer says “hey, if I was the cat I would’ve done the same thing.”
Kerry’s biggest wish was that Dubya would come after him like he did with the hapless moderator, and he clearly tried to provoke the Dauphin several times after that. Watch the debate again if you don’t believe me.
Alas, our President is truly a great coward, and like all successful cowards has a finely attuned sense of danger, one that doesn’t fail him even when he has visibly lost all control of himself otherwise.
“In the battle of image, Kerry came over as Lincolnesque; he looks like him, he’s imposing physically, he has a deep voice and a soothing and calm demeanour.” Interestingly, I thought Bush came over as Trumanesque. Whatever, I’m sure we can all hope the result is more like that of 1948 than 1860.
“In the battle of image, Kerry came over as Lincolnesque; he looks like him, he’s imposing physically, he has a deep voice and a soothing and calm demeanour.” I do wonder how far that was tongue in cheek - as it happens I thought Bush came over as Trumanesque (which would be good news for him). Whatever, I’m sure we can all hope the result and its consequences are more like 1948 than 1860.
The body language screamed.
Kerry is an alpha and Bush is a beta. Remember the mockery inspired by Naomi Wolf’s alpha lessons for Gore? Gore needed them, because Bush was the more convincing pseudo-alpha. But now the real McCoy was on the stage and Bush’s submission instinct kicked in.
I was very pleased that Kerry invoked Republican critics of Bush. They are his best surrogates now. In the final debate I hope Kerry invokes early and often his best surrogate of all: George H.W. Bush. It drives Junior nuts.
I find it hard to listen and watch Bush speak. He appears like he hardly believes what he struggles to say… His command of the language is amazingly poor for someone who has risen as his as he has. This all makes me think what is it that people would like in his “performance”. As a front man for the unseen cabal… he is a poor one. I wonder how intelligent people on his side can “defend” this man.
Kerry on the other hand seems intelligent and poised and “presidential”… but he could have been more clever in his performance, less repetitive. He should be more specific in contrasting a particular failure of Bush with what he intends to do. The “I have a plan” is wearing thin… He should drop that line… and simply say what he would be doing.
He also needs to crush all the false hypotheticals he is often forced to deal with… such as if you know what you know now would you have done what you did then? I think the answer is simple. It doesnt matter… but if I know now what I didn’t know then… erverything would be different and most likely I would have pressed for a different course of action. And so what? All this proves is that.. if there reasons given for attacking Iraq were not present at the time… would you have voted to authorize the USA to attack Iraq? The answer is NO.
Kerry tries to justify his “vote” by claiming that a president needs bargaining power to acheive some objective. All he needs to know is that congress will support the president when he needs to protect the country… end of story.
In the end it hard to pitch to please all the people all the time… and if one only pleases the people he needs to… he has succeeded. Public debates are pretty low brow stuff… I don’t expect more than signs of intelligence… honesty… dignity and demeasor.
Now with those criteria… who wins?
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review