September 6, 2004
THE KNACK AND HOW TO GET IT:
In debates, expect the unexpected: Bush may not deal with nuance the way Kerry does, but he has a knack for getting to the heart of an issue. (Godfrey Sperling, 9/07/04, CS Monitor)
I don't know if George W. Bush actually "beat" Al Gore in the debates four years ago. My view was that the debating points were about even. But it was Vice President Gore's overaggressive, know-it-all attitude (particularly that sighing when then-Governor Bush said something Gore thought to be outrageous) that turned him into a "loser" in those debates. A bad appearance cost Gore the debates and, arguably, the election. [...]One could argue that John Kerry, known to be an outstanding debater, will make Bush look bad. Indeed, Senator Kerry's supporters are convinced that their man possesses the better intellect and the better command of logic, and they are demanding as many debates as they can get.
But lest we forget: While Gore was making a less-than-good appearance in those debates, Bush, the underdog, remained cool as he defended himself or presented his case. He may not understand or deal with nuance the way Kerry does; but he has a knack for getting to the heart of an issue.
Bush also has a good sense of humor - which, when used right, can be a tremendous asset in these debates. Kerry hasn't struck me yet as being much on humor, although he just might fool us all by being the funnyman in these debates.
There's no reason the debates should be disastrous for Senator Kerry if he just remains calm and answers questions in a straightforward manner. But if he tries to be funny or to put on any kind of act in front of an audience that's already confused about who he is it will be a disaster. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 6, 2004 8:00 PM
The debates must be disastrous for Kerry. He is constitutionally incapable of giving a straight answer to a question.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at September 6, 2004 8:44 PMI was going to comment the same thing-- his biggest danger is in his not giving a straight answer to questions that call for straight answers.
So far, no matter how low the expectations, the man has managed to not live up to them, so why should he start just for a two hour TV appearance? And could he sustain that act for a second appearance?
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 6, 2004 9:19 PMThe problem for Kerry is he has treated everything he's done between 1970 and 2002 like the plague, which means unless he can rig the questions to avoid that particular third of a century he's going to have to reveal himself in areas he has tried to keep hidden during the campaign. Gore had a problem of having to run away from the Clinton scandals, but at least he didn't try and hide 80 percent of his adult life. He lost because he couldn't hide 80 percent of his personality (something Kerry also has to worry about keeping under wraps).
Posted by: John at September 6, 2004 9:56 PMThe debates could be the first time he faces a question since August 1.
Posted by: pj at September 6, 2004 10:19 PMKerry had better not sweat the way he did in Boston: that will be even more devastating than Gore's 'orange' over-made-up look.
Posted by: jim hamlen at September 6, 2004 10:43 PMYou can teach a myna bird to do 90 second canned responses to external stimuli. I want to see what Kerry can do if he is required to be spontaneous. That should be worth a few laughs.
Posted by: Bart at September 6, 2004 11:12 PM