Undebatable

Well, I watched the debates last night, and as most people are saying today, Kerry clearly commanded. If the roles had been switched (Kerry the incumbent and Bush the challenger), I think Bush would've been laughed off the stage. He seemed so meandering, cranky, unable to put together a sentence... not very presidential at all. I watched on C-SPAN, which not only (like the networks) showed the occasional shot of the other person while one was talking, but showed them both for the entire debate. Bush was out of sorts the whole time -- how do you have a president who's uncomfortable not only in the limelight but out of it?

I heard a little bit about Bush's smirking problem prior to the debate, and I'd even heard somewhere (desperately seraching for the link, but maybe it was on TV) that he had been instructed -- trained -- not to smirk so much. The result: Bush looked like Charlie Brown making that "Snoopy just made me look bad" face. I didn't think humans really could contort their mouths into the shape of a triangle waveform, but there he was.

Also, they went out of their way to put all these stipulations about playing down the height differences between the candidates. The result? In a side by side comparison (again, I think only C-SPAN viewers really got this view), Bush looked like a troll. His podium took up more of the bottom portion of the screen and he appeared as though he was squished up top. Maybe he was just practiced at hiding under the bridge and so he clung close to the podium last night as protection, lurking for a shadow.

What's that you say? Cheap shot? Mark analyzing style over substance? Bite me. I'm not going to vote for Bush and it's not because he looks like he's a troll, it's because his policies blow and he's terrible at communicating his ideas. I can't imagine working in the White House with a boss like him.

More on this point: amidst some ensuing punditry this morning, a caller to Washington Journal this morning (click here, scroll to 10/01 episode) said that he saw Kerry handle the pressure really well, whereas Bush seemed to melt. He said Kerry seems more like a guy he would be comfortable with making tough decisions, and the he can't fathom that Bush "has his finger on the button." Max Boot, clearly a smart, somewhat off-message (and thus, respectable) token conservative, responded that Bush has handled crises before -- just look at 9/11. Anyone who has seen the famous 7-minute clip from Fahrenheit 9/11, where Bush is stewing in that Florida classroom, saw the same Bush-in-the-headlights last night.

You could tell which answers he really practiced at home because they were the few that sounded coherent, but they were few and far between. Kerry, on the other hand, looked totally comfortable in that venue the whole time. He made his points, and perhaps more importantly stole the Republican "on-message" trick without beating people over the head with it. Bush sounded like he was up there with a wing, a prayer, and a sheet of talking points. For example, he made the flip-flopper charge, in almost exactly the same language, something like a dozen times.

After the debate, I saw a Joe Biden invterview, and then a John Edwards one this morning, with both staying right on message. It seems like the Democrats are finally finding the appropriate pander level for American voters. Part of me is glad that Democrats are connecting with a somewhat liberal message; Kerry didn't seem ashamed to talk about rejoining international treaties to deescalate nu-cle-ar proliferation, and that's to his credit. And Kerry's right when he says that Bush is not the guy who should be leading the world for the next four years. The rest of me, however, recognizes that by saying "Bush screwed up" and not offering a clearly contrasting strategy in foreign policy, Kerry isn't taking enough advantage of Bush's weaknesses.