Who one the 1st president debate?

[Bikerman2004]

I think that view is a bit rash.

when your president is unable to even articulate the fact that it was Al Qaeda and not Iraq who attacked the USA, then the electorate will pick this up.
Bush lived down to my expectations - unfortunately.

I think its a bit rash to think Bush didn't misspeak. But then again you need to cling to any hope.

 

[lokstah]

Voters are less interested in details than in what the person stands for. In that regard Bush did well. I thought Kerry did well, but I don't think he changed many minds. I'd hoped that Kerry would tell us what he's planning on doing, but nothing really materialized.

This is the interesting heart of the matter. As we've heard time and time again in the lead up, the crux of the modern debate is a contest of presentational style -- an ability to engage your opponent, engage the moderator, and most of all, engage the audience. It's not about facts or plans, so much as it's about inspiring confidence in the electorate that you've got plans under your belt, and you've got accurate facts well-filed in your skull. That's presentational.

I'd watched the 2000 debates, and I've seen clips of Bush's debates with Ann Richards. The general consensus regarding those contests is that Bush entered each heavily branded as an inarticulate, intellecutal underdog, and was able to turn the tables in dramatic fashion. He'd combine a joke and a smile with an easily digested, predetermined soundbite, and though never appearing brilliant, he'd always appear more in control than his stiffer, wordier opponent.

Yes, bias abounds, but the read I got from last evening's debate was of an attempt at the same strategy, but with fewer gains than expected. Perhaps that's due to Kerry's positioning as a double-reverse-underdog; so many expected Bush to run circles around him. The president's reliance on soundbites was more significant than usual; nearly every other question saw him erect a word bridge (sometimes smoothly, sometimes wobbly) to get back to an accusation of "inconsitent position," "mixed messages," or claims that the war was "hard." The repetition crossed an elegance threshold into sounding a bit dim. The Bush team seems to have found the limits of that technique; I suspect he'll repeat himself less often next week.

On top of that, Bush seemed far less comfortable than usual, and certainly less comfortable than he did against Gore or Governor Richards. He leaned forward, stuttered and paused frequently, seemed to lose his temper at points, and sighed loudly at least twice. These aren't cardinal offenses, but for a man whose key strength is his easy, everyman cool, they made a difference. Kerry kept his composure quite well, and the abrupt time limits prevented him from getting too... well, boring.

If debate victories are about strength of presentation, I don't think the poll numbers we're seeing regarding last night are a mystery.

 

[lokstah]

I think its a bit rash to think Bush didn't misspeak. But then again you need to cling to any hope.

Are we still talking about Moolas? No, I don't think that's too significant, but to be clear, I counted him pronouncing "Mullahs" as "MOO-lahs" at least twice; he wasn't misspeaking.

 

[Lonnie Utah]

I posted this in another forum....

According to communication experts we humans communicate as follows:
- 7 percent is verbal (the actual words used),
- 38 percent is voice (or tone of voice).
- 55 percent is nonverbal (or body language),

So let's take the words out of it. We all know the Kerry and Bush sound bites anyway. I challenge you to watch the following clips, with the sound off and comment on the strengths and weakness of Bush/Kerry. Who has the stronger persona non-verbaly. I've watched them a few times and it's really interesting. I tried to find more of the split screen stuff, but couldn't.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6145009

 

[Bikerman2004]

Are we still talking about Moolas? No, I don't think that's too significant, but to be clear, I counted him pronouncing "Mullahs" as "MOO-lahs" at least twice; he wasn't misspeaking.

I think he misspoke about Al-Qaeda and Iraq. Mis-pronouncing and mis-speaking are separate.

 

[lokstah]

I think he misspoke about Al-Qaeda and Iraq. Mis-pronouncing and mis-speaking are separate.

Got it.

For the record, one truly clear blunder I recall Kerry making was a pretty massive one; he's probably kicking himself over the "global test" remark regarding preemptive strikes. He made a solid argument, but blew his credibility on that matter to bits with that word choice.

He will pay for that one.

 

[Lonnie Utah]

Got it.

For the record, one truly clear blunder I recall Kerry making was a pretty massive one; he's probably kicking himself over the "global test" remark regarding preemptive strikes. He made a solid argument, but blew his credibility on that matter to bits with that word choice.

He will pay for that one.

I disagree. To me all he meant by that was that military actions outside of self defense would have to pass the U.N. That's all. It's what every other president before this one has done.

 

[lokstah]

I disagree. To me all he meant by that was that military actions outside of self defense would have to pass the U.N. That's all. It's what every other president before this one has done.

I'm suggesting the "global test" remark was a blunder in terms of this debate, not necessarily in philosophical, academic, or even factual terms. Personally, I'm an internationalist, and Kerry's got shades of internationalism in his policy as well.

But the claim that Kerry would outsource American national security issues to foreign authorities has been an effective campaign talk-point for Bush. I sincerely doubt Kerry and his strategists ever felt it would be helpful to say anything which could be construed as a surrender of crucial national defense matters to the global community -- it would be juicy campaign fodder for the Bush team. It would be a soft spot in Kerry's debate strategy, and would require him to spend more time explaining himself. It would walk right into Bush's more nationalist rhetoric.

I suspect the president will quote Kerry on that issue in several upcoming speeches.

 

[Bikerman2004]

Got it.

For the record, one truly clear blunder I recall Kerry making was a pretty massive one; he's probably kicking himself over the "global test" remark regarding preemptive strikes. He made a solid argument, but blew his credibility on that matter to bits with that word choice.

He will pay for that one.

I think he could have chosen better words. Americans don't like the idea of having to pass a global test. I know what he meant but he just used the wrong words.

 

[lokstah]

The VEEP debate this Tuesday should be interesting. Both Cheney and Edwards are intelligent, well-spoken individuals, and I suspect they'll have a strong exchange. They also contrast each other quite well -- one's an older and highly experienced Washington veteran with a reputation for being tight-lipped and grouchy; the other's young and charismatic but a relative political newbie.

I think it could be more revealing than anyone's anticipating. I imagine each will have a good deal to say. Thoughts?

 

[limerickman]

This is the interesting heart of the matter. As we've heard time and time again in the lead up, the crux of the modern debate is a contest of presentational style -- an ability to engage your opponent, engage the moderator, and most of all, engage the audience. It's not about facts or plans, so much as it's about inspiring confidence in the electorate that you've got plans under your belt, and you've got accurate facts well-filed in your skull. That's presentational.

I'd watched the 2000 debates, and I've seen clips of Bush's debates with Ann Richards. The general consensus regarding those contests is that Bush entered each heavily branded as an inarticulate, intellecutal underdog, and was able to turn the tables in dramatic fashion. He'd combine a joke and a smile with an easily digested, predetermined soundbite, and though never appearing brilliant, he'd always appear more in control than his stiffer, wordier opponent.

Yes, bias abounds, but the read I got from last evening's debate was of an attempt at the same strategy, but with fewer gains than expected. Perhaps that's due to Kerry's positioning as a double-reverse-underdog; so many expected Bush to run circles around him. The president's reliance on soundbites was more significant than usual; nearly every other question saw him erect a word bridge (sometimes smoothly, sometimes wobbly) to get back to an accusation of "inconsitent position," "mixed messages," or claims that the war was "hard." The repetition crossed an elegance threshold into sounding a bit dim. The Bush team seems to have found the limits of that technique; I suspect he'll repeat himself less often next week.

On top of that, Bush seemed far less comfortable than usual, and certainly less comfortable than he did against Gore or Governor Richards. He leaned forward, stuttered and paused frequently, seemed to lose his temper at points, and sighed loudly at least twice. These aren't cardinal offenses, but for a man whose key strength is his easy, everyman cool, they made a difference. Kerry kept his composure quite well, and the abrupt time limits prevented him from getting too... well, boring.

If debate victories are about strength of presentation, I don't think the poll numbers we're seeing regarding last night are a mystery.

I agree with this view that you have expressed.
I think Kerry put in a very solid performance on a subject that, given his voting record, was his Achilles heel.
Bush failed to articulate - he seemed to repeat the same points over and over again.
The first time he made a point - it had an effect.
But to constantly repeat the same point endlessly - made him look like he had nothing new to offer (which he hasn't) and further more it created the perception that, even if he did have any new ideas, he was completely incapable of articulata new message.
I don't know about anyone else - but Bush does sometimes appear to have this glazed expression.
You can almost see him trying to construct a sentance before he opens his mouth.
It gives the appearance of someone who cannot engage in a formal situation :
maybe he is better working a crowd in a less formal situation ?

It also struck me that Bush was bristling as Kerry publicly said that he (Bush) was misleading the public.
My reading was that Bush never hears this - no one tells him he's wrong, in a personal exchange and it seemed to rock him.
He was definitely bristling as Kerry uttered his (Kerry's) words.

And I'll say it again, Kerry looks Presidential when standing beside Bush.
He's more telegenic than Bush.
They're both born with silver spoons : just that Kerry looks more Patrician than Bush.

 

[Lonnie Utah]

I don't know about anyone else - but Bush does sometimes appear to have this glazed expression.

In the states we call it the "frozen like a deer in the headlights" look. And yes, we notice it.

 

[lokstah]

It gives the appearance of someone who cannot engage in a formal situation: maybe he is better working a crowd in a less formal situation?

That's what's been observed, previously. He's not a person with a terrible amount of classic composure, but in the past, he's been quite good at connecting dots while on his toes, engaging folks in a less-formal settings. I suspect the Bush team is looking forward to next Friday's townhall-style debate for that reason.

It's a setting which demands less discipline, and will likely operate more like a conversation; that should play to his strengths.

Much has been written in the media this morning about how agitated, uncomfortable, and even frustrated the president looked in Miami. Among other things, he rolled his eyes more than once -- unexpected in an era when glancing at a watch, or sighing, have both been cited as partial culprits in presidential debate losses.

Looking back over the replays and transcripts, I wonder if part of the problem for Bush was that he'd expected to carry the attack-strategy he'd used throughout July and August into the debate, only to be promptly forced into a defensive position from which he never really emerged. That early upper-hand of Kerry's was crucial, in my view. It seemed to put Bush off-balance.

 

[Lonnie Utah]

Found this at MSNBC. Pretty damning.

Republicans thought they had the race wrapped up. All their candidate had to do was repeat his road-tested slogans. But 90 minutes of Bush is a long time. There's a reason why he has held fewer press conferences than any other modern president. He is incapable of conceptual thinking, and he came across as agitated and annoyed that more was expected of him now that he's the self-styled "war president." He repeatedly said he is "working hard" and it's hard work," as though that alone should silence his critics.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6152186/site/newsweek/

 

[Mr_Kingkillaha]

The point of my post is that a Kerry supporter will think Kerry won. A Bush supporter will think Bush won. Of course now that Kerry's losing in the polls, his supporters will cling to any hope they can find at all.
Nobody really cares if Bush mispronounces a name. Other than Bush haters. Besides he has a Texas accent. He will pronouce words differently from me or someone from another part of the country or world. Yeah Kerry threw out a lot of facts, but Gore did that as well. Voters are less interested in details than in what the person stands for. In that regard Bush did well. I thought Kerry did well, but I don't think he changed many minds.
I'd hoped that Kerry would tell us what he's planning on doing, but nothing really materialized.

where are the Bush supporters in this forum? I didn't notice anything from them in here yet.
sadly i missed the debate so i have no opinion, but i plan to see the next one.

 

[Jakebrake]

where are the Bush supporters in this forum? I didn't notice anything from them in here yet.
sadly i missed the debate so i have no opinion, but i plan to see the next one.

I did not watch the debate, so I can offer no opinion of their performance.

 

[lokstah]

I did not watch the debate, so I can offer no opinion of their performance.

I'll lend you my tape.

 

[Jakebrake]

I'll lend you my tape.

Recorded it for posterity eh? Cool beans, swing that on by, bring your bike along so we can go riding, and then watch the debate as we knock down a few cold shiner bocks.

 

[lokstah]

Recorded it for posterity eh? Cool beans, swing that on by, bring your bike along so we can go riding, and then watch the debate as we knock down a few cold shiner bocks.

You buy me a Shiner Bock, and I'll bring you a couple Anchor Steams. Regional beer exchange.

 

[Jakebrake]

You buy me a Shiner Bock, and I'll bring you a couple Anchor Steams. Regional beer exchange.

Damn!!! That looks like some tasty brew...Hmmm, Anchor Porter, that would be my choice if I was there, looks to be a loaf of bread in every bottle.

http://www.shiner.com/home.html

http://www.anchorbrewing.com/index.htm