I viewed Thursday night's presidential debate in fine quarters: Dartmouth's Filene Auditorium. Stewarding the evening was Professor Andrew Samwick, director of the Rockefeller Center, and in attendance was noted blogger Andrew Sullivan. Also present was a cranky old woman who posited that Al Sharpton would do a better job as president than George Bush. Go figure. Not-so-sweet old ladies aside, it was an enjoyable debate.
I'll jump right to my conclusion: It was a draw. I can't imagine anyone switching sides after seeing this "debate." Though more substantive than the usual politicking, this debate suffered from a deficit of probing Kerry questions and from a general over-reliance on tired aphorisms. For example, George Bush's refrain was, "Look, this is hard work." John Kerry's was, "I'd do a better job." Both used their monikers at least a dozen times. It seemed to me too low-brow for general consumption.
The ratings may very well reflect that the 45-minute mark was the tune-out point for many viewers. I found myself starting to pay more attention at 9:45, however. Not to either candidate, but to Lehrer. After the "Kerry wins!" news frenzy subsides, I suspect rumblings of his limpid bias will surface. Lehrer's questions to Kerry included, "Could you do a better job in preventing another 9/11?"; "What 'colossal misjudgments' [Kerry's words] have President Bush made?"; "Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?"; Give us some examples of what you consider to be [Bush's] not telling the truth"; "If you are elected. . . what will you [think] is the single most serious threat [to the U.S.]?" Softballs, all. Some even invited Kerry directly to his rote talking points. In a format so meticulously constructed for the express purpose of avoiding debate, Lehrer accomplished the difficult task of distancing the presentation even more from that forum in which we all long to see our leaders, or potential leaders.
There were some clear strategies at play. Bush had obviously been told to tone down his sleeve-worn faith. He mentioned God only at the very end, and in the safe arena of blessing America. Kerry, for his part, avoided pomposity to the very best of his ability. The astute observer would have seen more than an acceptable amount of smarm on the left podium, with smirks and the occasional obnoxious head-nod. The senator was also sporting a new (and decidedly artificial) tan. The more convivial bloggers promised to chug Jack Daniels if Bush would say, "Nice tan." He did not.
The make-up efforts, in sum, were to brighten Bush and humanize Kerry.
Evident, too, were shimmers of wit. Bush distilled a classic Kerry flip-flop in the witticism, "What are you going to tell [those new allies of yours]? Come join us in Iraq for a grand diversion?" Kerry, for his part, took up the grand old art of sarcasm in responding to Bush's assertion that "the President is under enormous pressure, and he cannot wilt under that pressure." Kerry said, "I have no intention of wilting. I've never wilted in my life. And I've never wavered in my life."
But those were stand out moments that broke up Kerry's monotone and Bush's word-searching. Most of the debate was a dance around Iraq, with the President insisting that no better could be done than the status quo and John Kerry insisting that he'd do better, but offering no real reasons how -- the quintessence of a presidential election, really.
One moment caused uproarious laughter among the mostly-student crowd. I will address it here merely as a reprimand for those sophomoric folks who found unchaste humor in Bush's innocuous comment. The topic was character, and Kerry admitted that, in relation to the president's daughters, "I've chuckled a few times at some of their comments." The live audience in Florida laughed. "I'm trying to put a leash on them," Bush explained in a light-hearted, fatherly way. The live audience laughed. Filene Auditorium, however, erupted in debauched guffaws, most students conjuring some lurid image in their heads. Later, Andrew Sullivan told us that the leash comment was reminiscent of the Abu Ghraib media frenzy. Now, I think his free-association is silly as well. But at that moment during the debate, it was all sex for the Dartmouth students in attendance, all sex and no respect for the President or his daughters. I wasn't very proud to be sitting there, then.
All in all though, it was a good debate. I'm looking forward to the vice-presidential debate, wherein I fully expect John Edwards' uppance will come. This one was a draw, and I am sure it changed no minds. Kerry's rhetoric can win the next two if Bush doesn't get better coaching. But the human factor and the gravitas still, and solidly, belong to Bush.
