FOX guarding the chicken house

September 30, 2004 3:50 PM

FOX NEWS RUNNING THE CAMERA POOL at the DEBATES Tonight The press pool rotates who runs the cameras at the various events. Tonight, Fox News just happened to win the spin. Gives new meaning to "TV networks are flexing their muscles, saying they won't be bound by rules set by the Bush and Kerry campaigns that would prevent split-screen and reaction shots and require cameras to stay fixed on the candidate speaking." He who controls the perception of the populace, wins.
posted by jackspace (272 comments total)

This story of Bush's 1998 debates details how the cameras were completely controlled and the media was kept out of the room, so that no one could see Bush reacting inappropriately during the exchange.

That story, when combined with the knowledge that Fox controls the cutaways tonight. Who wants to bet you'll see dozens of scowls on Kerry's face while Bush speaks and zero from Bush while Kerry talks?
posted by mathowie at 3:54 PM on September 30, 2004

not even ParisParamus.
posted by quonsar at 3:57 PM on September 30, 2004

upon closely reading this, it does not appear that FOX will control cutaways at all. in fact, it specifically says "Fox News, which will operate the pool cameras, plans to provide feeds from several cameras, so each network can choose which shots to air. " it's a camera pool, not a production pool.
posted by quonsar at 4:01 PM on September 30, 2004

This just came over the network sound feed:

"Camera one, if I have to tell you to stop doign close-ups of the President's wet pants again, you're going to be covering Fallujah next week!

Camera three, did I not say that the President must be shot from low angles and that . . . Senator must be shot from high angles? Get with it or you're going to Fallujah too!

Camera two, get with it! You're framing him too perfectly. Whatever they taught you in school does not apply here. You got it?

Camera four, that's right. Keep on closing in on that drop of sweat on Kerry's face."
posted by jackspace at 4:56 PM on September 30, 2004

It's what we call, in the world of media, "Pre-production"
posted by jackspace at 4:57 PM on September 30, 2004

C-Span will stream it live, here. [Real]
posted by orelius at 4:58 PM on September 30, 2004

Actually, Bush will have an easy time not scowling, even without the cameras' help. He knows that all he has to do is be smarmy and jokey and "pleasant" through the whole thing, and he'll have "won."
posted by Zurishaddai at 5:12 PM on September 30, 2004

C-SPAN 1 will be airing a constant split-screen of both candidates; kudos to them.
posted by zsazsa at 5:18 PM on September 30, 2004

Thank you for the tip zsazsa!

C-SPAN to the rescue once again!
posted by EmoChild at 5:54 PM on September 30, 2004

just heard on the c-span stream that Bush won the coin toss for having the very last word at the end of the debate.
posted by Espoo2 at 5:56 PM on September 30, 2004

Pool cameras are very common at events like these. The broadcaster operating the camera simply provides raw feeds from each camera, so that other broadcasters can make their own cuts. You could argue that Fox can editorialise by being chosey with shot framing and so on, but in reality that is not really likely.

Otherwise each network would have 6 cameras in the same positions (coverage for this sort of thing is fairly formulaic) it would be a mess.
posted by sycophant at 6:14 PM on September 30, 2004

Watching right now. Ten minutes in.
Kerry's doing a great job at poking at Bush. Already some great splitscreens of Bush getting furious. A pissed off Bush is the best Bush to get. His nostril's flarin. Very fun.

This might work out. Go Kerry Go!
posted by Peter H at 6:15 PM on September 30, 2004

At every moment Kerry accuses Bush of soldiers dying or of not being properly defended, Bush very stupidly flashes two blinks and a fuck you gaze. Been going on the whole debate so far. Shouldn't he at least try to appear sympathetic? Happy to see he isn't able to even fake sympathetic emotion for dead soldiers, and interprets it as a personal attack, and gets visibly pissy, live on camera.
posted by Peter H at 6:22 PM on September 30, 2004

Ok, who's going to talk about Cat Stevens? He has my vote.
posted by adampsyche at 6:23 PM on September 30, 2004

The streaming feeds seemed pretty spotty, so listening on local NPR affiliate.

Now, if Kerry would just say "George, you ignorant slut..." (j/k)
posted by alumshubby at 6:24 PM on September 30, 2004

Thank you FOX!! All those split-screens of Bush looking pissed and impotently furious are what really decides this thing. I'm surprised, but Kerry is really kicking Bush's ass!!
posted by zwemer at 6:33 PM on September 30, 2004

I have to say, Kerry's doing really well. Good points, good sources, good reflexes. George is getting pieced away here, only 32 mins in. It's like watching a boxing match. No big shot to the face (close though) but lots of shots to the abdomen. DING DING DING.
posted by Peter H at 6:33 PM on September 30, 2004

Bush is such a fidget! Pursing his lips like a kid with gum and shuffling with his ADHD...
posted by dash_slot- at 6:35 PM on September 30, 2004

zwemer, I know! awesome prize fight here. And unlike Tyson, Bush can't freak and bite for an ear or so.

Just now "and it'll rem-re-main strong. a-as l-long as i'm presidenn (stammer out)" - CONFIDENCE! —Bush.
posted by Peter H at 6:36 PM on September 30, 2004

You're all blinded. Bush is winning by leaps and bounds. Game over.
posted by Stan Chin at 6:38 PM on September 30, 2004

Stan Chin once again displays his talent for entertaining and intelligent contrary short statements. Best joke yet! Achewood sucks indeed!
posted by Peter H at 6:41 PM on September 30, 2004

Oh no fucking way, Bush is playing out the tear jerker "I met a young lady whose son went to Iraq" complete with "we prayed and teared up" and "sacrifice" anecdote this early! It's a shame she isn't in the audience so she can point her out. You can't do the "i met an old lady and America cries" bullshit more than once in a debate and he has 45 minutes to go. What weapons does he have left in his Mario Kart?

Meanwhile, Kerry has yet to let out a sweat or a glare. Go Kerry Go!
posted by Peter H at 6:47 PM on September 30, 2004

I swear there's an echo in this debate.. I've heard grand diversion about 15 times.

I have to say though, I think Bush is appealing more to the average voter at the mo.
posted by Mossy at 6:49 PM on September 30, 2004

I can't stand either of these men, but it is clear that GWB has absolutely zero poise when speaking. Kerry, on the other hand, is "debating" too much. These men aren't here to debate. They're here to endear themselves to voters, and Bush is likely doing a better job of that.
posted by uncleozzy at 6:53 PM on September 30, 2004

I just want everyone on MetaFilter to know that I tried to love you all as much as I could.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:53 PM on September 30, 2004

I did not expect Bush to be this petulant.
posted by homunculus at 6:53 PM on September 30, 2004

stan chin ... these things aren't decided on sound bites or talking points ... they're decided on demeanor ... kerry is slick, self-confident and forceful ... bush is nervous, stumbling and sounding confused ... he might not be so in his thoughts ... although i doubt that ... but that's how he's coming off

when kerry listens to bush, he's listening attentively, nodding, acting as if he's actually interested in what the president has to say ... when bush is listening, he looks pissed and surprised

kerry's taking copious notes ... bush is giving a fair imitation of a deer caught in the headlights

kerry is coming off as presidential ... bush is coming off as a has been
posted by pyramid termite at 6:53 PM on September 30, 2004

"I have a salmon doodie to protect the American purple" — George W. Bush

wtf is a fish smelling turn to protect an American color, George?
posted by Peter H at 6:55 PM on September 30, 2004

Bush still argues as if Saddam was a terrorist mastermind.

Crikey!
posted by dash_slot- at 6:56 PM on September 30, 2004

turn=turd, oop! g.w.'s infected me with "intellijunce"
posted by Peter H at 6:56 PM on September 30, 2004

(Kudos, however, to Kerry for needling Bush on the moronic "enemy attacked us" line.)
posted by uncleozzy at 6:56 PM on September 30, 2004

These men aren't here to debate. They're here to endear themselves to voters, and Bush is likely doing a better job of that.

Thank you NBC news. For a night at least, can't we pretend that it's about the issues? Can't we even get that? Won't somebody think of the children.
posted by psmealey at 6:57 PM on September 30, 2004

This is hard work.

This is hard work.

This is hard work.

(how the fuck would you know?)
posted by adampsyche at 6:57 PM on September 30, 2004

"Of course I know Saddam Hussein attacked us" GWB

hahahahahahaha!!!!
posted by zwemer at 6:58 PM on September 30, 2004

Why doesn't Kerry ask Bush which weapons Saddam needed to disarm?
posted by dash_slot- at 6:58 PM on September 30, 2004

Kerry is shining. Impressive.
posted by frenetic at 6:59 PM on September 30, 2004

"Saddam didn't attack us. "

You go bitch!
posted by adampsyche at 7:00 PM on September 30, 2004

Kerry is shining. Impressive.

To us, anyhow.
posted by adampsyche at 7:00 PM on September 30, 2004

I like how Kerry called Bush on something "factually incorrect".
posted by Hlewagast at 7:03 PM on September 30, 2004

"We went to war to protect the American people..." - W.

Gee, thanks.
Can I have quick word with you, Mr Blair...
posted by dash_slot- at 7:03 PM on September 30, 2004

Some Bush supporter reactions.
posted by frenetic at 7:04 PM on September 30, 2004

Where is Ali G when you need him?
posted by adampsyche at 7:04 PM on September 30, 2004

For a night at least, can't we pretend that it's about the issues?

Let's pretend, for a moment, it is. This entire spectacle so far has been about "security" and "terrah" and "a freer rack," whatever that means. There has been zero -- absolutely zero -- discussion of anything else. It's apalling. I don't give a flying damn about national security, because I absolutely don't believe in the federal government's ability to protect me from anything at all. How about money? How about "a free America?"

Can these guys please talk about the US for one minute? Christ.
posted by uncleozzy at 7:05 PM on September 30, 2004

Man, I really hate it whenever I have to watch Bush on TV. Takes me 20 minutes to wipe the butt-prints off the screen afterwards.
posted by RavinDave at 7:05 PM on September 30, 2004

Can these guys please talk about the US for one minute? Christ.

I believe today's debate is only about foreign policy.
posted by gyc at 7:06 PM on September 30, 2004

Can these guys please talk about the US for one minute? Christ.

Umm.... this debate is exclusively about foreign policy, with the third to be exclusively domestic.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:08 PM on September 30, 2004

thanks frenetic!
posted by Peter H at 7:08 PM on September 30, 2004

Bush always seems to want to jump in at the end, wagging his fingers anxiously like he won't get his turn. Does he not trust the moderator?
posted by dash_slot- at 7:08 PM on September 30, 2004

I believe today's debate is only about foreign policy.

Can I please pay better attention for just one minute? Christ.

precious little "foreign policy" and far too much "national security," though.
posted by uncleozzy at 7:09 PM on September 30, 2004

(heh, I wrecked that comment, too; what I'd meant to say was "oops, mea culpa, but still too much from column a, too little from column b")
posted by uncleozzy at 7:10 PM on September 30, 2004

I swear the BBC flashed up "Bush accuses Kerry of being inconsistent" before he actually said it just now :o
posted by Mossy at 7:13 PM on September 30, 2004

Twenty minutes to go, Bush throws in the towel with an attempt to build a bridge with admiring Kerry as a father, and that his daughters have been nice to Bush's daughters.

Off-camera, his handlers curse loud obscenities, pissed that he was supposed to do that 10 minutes past the beginning, not twelve minutes after an hour!

(shit, Bush just joked about trying to put a leash on his daughters — bornagain, recovering alcoholic and closet BSDM goes public?)
posted by Peter H at 7:14 PM on September 30, 2004

i love C-SPAN so much right now.
posted by girlinblack at 7:16 PM on September 30, 2004

It would be relevant for Kerry to mention his action against BCCI & the drugs/arms/money trade, whilst a new senator...
posted by dash_slot- at 7:17 PM on September 30, 2004

Leash the twins!
posted by adampsyche at 7:18 PM on September 30, 2004

Just to clarify, I've always believed Bush had a strange power of hillbilly inspiration. Kerry may be polished, but as we all know, the american voting populace is largely stupid. All Bush really has to do is maintain that he has old fashioned leadership values and be at least 10% inspiring, which will beat well-reasoned polish every time.

Anyway, back to my normal response:

I'm so expecting Howard Dean to suddenly run up behind John Kerry and smack him in the back with a folding chair, with Jim going "OOOOOH NOOOOOOOOO!!!"
posted by Stan Chin at 7:18 PM on September 30, 2004

Kerry is shining. Impressive.

To us, anyhow.

Yup, like Mossy said above, Bush is coming off as far more normal, natural, and compassionate. Whenever Bush says something disagreeable, they show a camera shot of Kerry smirking and jerking his head up. That's extremely arrogant and haughty. And please don't blame Fox for that. Kerry knows he's on TV; he's been a Senator for 2 decades; he knows better.

Both are coming off extremely well; Bush is just more casual, which is important for swing voters. Those who have already made up their minds don't give a shit about these intangibles. Those who haven't yet figured it all out may take these seemingly insignificant cues to heart. If my decision was based solely upon "national security" and only knew this debate and nothing else, Bush is winning because he's been able to alienate "the enemy" better than Kerry.
posted by BlueTrain at 7:18 PM on September 30, 2004

transshipment?
posted by Hlewagast at 7:19 PM on September 30, 2004

Kerry brings up the issue of nuclear proliferation and Bush stammers like he's in Florida talking through a saliva-spitted hurricane.
posted by Peter H at 7:19 PM on September 30, 2004

This has been much more spontaneous than I expected. And I have to admit, Bush has been much more nimble in a fast paced verbal exchange than I thought he would. I think he and Kerry are about even in terms of flubs.
posted by MetalDog at 7:20 PM on September 30, 2004

Bush is recycling the "mixed messages" card. I think he's run out of catchphrases with 20 minutes and a closing statement left to go. Unless Kerry suddenly develops Tourette's Syndrome, I have no idea how conservative pundits are going to say that Bush won this debate.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:22 PM on September 30, 2004

Is anyone gonna defend Kerry's wish for bi-lateral talks with Korea. Frankly, I'm think Bush scored a point by bringing up the potential pressure from China.
posted by RavinDave at 7:23 PM on September 30, 2004

Last response from Bush: "ah ah I've godd a goodlationshurpt w'ith Vladimirr"
posted by Peter H at 7:23 PM on September 30, 2004

Both are coming off extremely well; Bush is just more casual, which is important for swing voters.

I honestly do not understand how you could believe that. Would you hire for a job someone with the mannerisms and stumbling of speech Bush has been doing while searching for each answer? He's answering everything as if he needs to load data off a Playstation CD.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:24 PM on September 30, 2004

Ravindave - Kerry just brought it up. In response, Bush totally fumbled.
posted by Peter H at 7:25 PM on September 30, 2004

I wish I could contribute, but I have to wait for some post-debate spin before I know what I think. Thanks.
posted by Oddly at 7:25 PM on September 30, 2004

Yay! Mission not Accomplished!
posted by dash_slot- at 7:25 PM on September 30, 2004

Well, you guys already know from other threads that I have little use for Kerry -- but (for what it's worth) I'll say that he acquited himself quite well and threw Bush off his script several times.

Would that he had started playing offense a few weeks earlier.
posted by RavinDave at 7:28 PM on September 30, 2004

Bush's basic position tonight has been "if you don't vote for me, you are probably going to die in a terrissa tack." Well then, I suppose the choice is obviousl
posted by uncleozzy at 7:29 PM on September 30, 2004

+ 20 points for kerry's grooming - such pretty, shiny fingernails.
posted by naxosaxur at 7:30 PM on September 30, 2004

Bush just ruled out the draft: "an all-volunteer army...".
posted by dash_slot- at 7:30 PM on September 30, 2004

Bush promising an "all-volunteer army" in his closing statement? Where did that come from?
posted by Oddly at 7:30 PM on September 30, 2004

And he asked for your vote - a relevant closing request, I'd say.
posted by dash_slot- at 7:33 PM on September 30, 2004

I was surprised when Kerry mentioned the 14 permanent bases being built in Iraq. The topic had seemed to be off-limits until now.
posted by homunculus at 7:35 PM on September 30, 2004

Closing thought:
Could Bush blink more when he talks/bullshit lies? I don't think I believe him when he lies enough yet.

CNN JUST BROUGHT UP THE BLOG LINKED BY FRENETIC IN THIS THREAD!

God that was fun.
posted by Peter H at 7:35 PM on September 30, 2004

I find it funny how different people see such conflicting things when we're all watching the same feed. Some say Bush is "winning", some say Kerry. For me, being a canadian citizen, this just makes for some good Daily Show material.
posted by mrgavins at 7:35 PM on September 30, 2004

Just to clarify, I've always believed Bush had a strange power of hillbilly inspiration.

Bang on. Listening to audio only at work, Bush was using all the right emotive (and occasionally cheesy) language for small-town America (or Canada, which is all I have to compare).

That said, Bush fumbled pretty horribly a few times, but then again Kerry's use of language was pretty uninspiring, and he didn't swing at more than a few very easy lobs. Based on audio only, a bit of a dead heat.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:35 PM on September 30, 2004

That was hard work.

(although I now see that adampsyche already noted that phrase, I wanted to as well).

stav, it looked to me like Kerry was clearly more in charge and control, and didn't need to be any more inspiring, but then again, I'm not one of the ones he needed to convince.
posted by yhbc at 7:38 PM on September 30, 2004

Oddly: Where did that come from?

In recent days, people have been doing the math and realizing that he cannot realistically sustain this pace much longer without bringing back the draft. Can extend current duties and redeploy from Europe so many times before the well runs dry. This (of course) has been seized upon by the Roveans as a Democratic scare tactic. Kerry is (wisely) avoiding the issue. Bush is attempting to blunt it.
posted by RavinDave at 7:38 PM on September 30, 2004

XQUZYPHYR, you would never, never vote for Bush no matter what. Therefore, I wouldn't expect you to understand a swing voter's mentality.

And yes, if I had confidence in a candidate and their passion, intelligence, and conviction, I would hire them despite their inability to communicate effectively. Honestly, it's easier to train someone to become comfortable with public speaking than it is to teach someone integrity and conviction. (I'm not saying that Bush is any of these qualities; but I believe he came across that way)
posted by BlueTrain at 7:38 PM on September 30, 2004

Fucking Rudi Guliani did anyone just listen to the shit he was spewing on NBC. Making shit up and everything. How many dicks does he have to suck to be president in 2008?
posted by jmgorman at 7:41 PM on September 30, 2004

I'm guessing Kerry must have bright red stripes across his back where his handlers beat into him the importance of not droning on through 8 paratheticals. Looks like it worked. It was actually refreshing to hear a Kerry that was concise and on message.

He would have made a good VP for Dean. ;)
posted by RavinDave at 7:42 PM on September 30, 2004

Now watch as Karl Rove and Fox News spin the 'global test' statement into the 'wash' so that no one focuses on what Kerry actually said.
posted by Espoo2 at 7:44 PM on September 30, 2004

BlueTrain, a few days ago you were arguing how Kerry wasn't inspiring you to vote for him. Were you really more inspired by Bush tonight than Kerry? I simply don't believe it. You may not agree with Kerry, but did he seem phony? Did he seem agitated? Strained? Confused? Bush looked like all of these, and Kerry was a better candidate. He was a better applicant. He better proved his qualifications.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:45 PM on September 30, 2004

Sorry 'bout the troll. I'm just so frustrated with the spin. just because W says Kerry is inconsistent doesn't mean that he is. Dammit those are strong nuances.
posted by jmgorman at 7:46 PM on September 30, 2004

Now watch as Karl Rove and Fox News spin the 'global test' statement into the 'wash' so that no one focuses on what Kerry actually said.

Also, I get to cocKpunch the first blogger who brings up this:

"Kerry had a fancy water glass, Bush had a simple one. What was that about?"
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:49 PM on September 30, 2004

I was pleased with what Kerry said, but I'm a cat, and Bush was speaking to dogs. Woof.
posted by stonerose at 7:49 PM on September 30, 2004

The only time Bush seemed charming, even hillbilly charming, was when he was talking about Kerry's character, and his kids, etc. The rest of the time he was stammering and repeating his "I know you are but what am I" level arguments constantly. That said, he could've eaten a live kitten right then and there and it wouldn't change most of his followers' minds.
posted by picea at 7:50 PM on September 30, 2004

John Kerry did a great job - better than I expected. George W Bush did a poor job - actually *worse* than I expected.

God, I hope the US makes the right decision on election day...
posted by Stuart_R at 7:54 PM on September 30, 2004

What I saw was an incompetent liar getting his ass handed to him. Bush stumbled his way through repetitive generalities and had absolutely nothing to offer in response to specific plans, arguments and accusations. What a pitiful performance by the sitting president. This is the first time I'm actually excited by John Kerry.
posted by muckster at 7:55 PM on September 30, 2004

Thanks, RavinDave. I just hadn't heard the draft addressed at all in the debate, and including it in the closing statement seemed a bit forced and out of left field. sortof like: "Well, this is the way I rehearsed it. Gotta stay the course."
posted by Oddly at 7:56 PM on September 30, 2004

Anybody watching CNN 'mysteriously' screw up Mike McCurry's audio *twice*, while Karen Hughes was pristine in her defense of der Bush?

Why do I feel like hoder, all of a sudden?
posted by stonerose at 7:59 PM on September 30, 2004

I've never heard Kerry speak before this "debate" and must say he was considerably better than I'd been led to believe based on MeFi PoliThreads. As an outsider who can't vote for either one, I say Kerry kicked Bush's ass.

I'm curious if Kerry has ever said, "Watch how many times Bush is asked something and steers the conversation to terrorism"? I doubt it, but that seemed to be all he did tonight. (I know the talk was about foreign policy but even when asked about non-Iraq stuff he brought it up.)

I missed the first 10 minutes of the program so don't know what happened there.
posted by dobbs at 8:01 PM on September 30, 2004

They talked about terrorism.
posted by yhbc at 8:05 PM on September 30, 2004

Where the hell were Kerry's kids at the end?
posted by dig_duggler at 8:06 PM on September 30, 2004

Add me to the list of those who thought Kerry did better than expected, and Bush worse. There were numerous occasions (primarily near the end) where Bush seemed genuinely befuddled -- taking far longer than comfortable to gather his thoughts. That's different from being direct and plain-spoken (which can be positive qualities).
posted by pardonyou? at 8:08 PM on September 30, 2004

The poll at CNN.com on who people think won the debate is currently reporting:

John Kerry   90% 9368 vote

George W. Bush  9% 891 votes
posted by Stuart_R at 8:09 PM on September 30, 2004

Kerry was very effective in his reference to "the rush to war" & Bush deciding to divert troops from Afghanistan to Iraq, even before the official decision was made.

However, it's being spun as a Bush victory on BBC News24 by David Frum, echoing the charge of flip-flopping and 'vacillation' by Kerry.
posted by dash_slot- at 8:10 PM on September 30, 2004

Did you doublepost?

(kidding! FREE HODER!)
posted by mwhybark at 8:10 PM on September 30, 2004

Wow, StuartR, thats amazing - before the LGFers get there (or did the Atrios crowd get off the mark first?)
posted by dash_slot- at 8:12 PM on September 30, 2004

Bush was on the defensive at least 75% of the time and his petulant facial expressions while Kerry was speaking only hurt Bush. Kerry took the high road most of the time and mentioned issues which the SCLM (so called liberal media) keeps marginalized like Gen Shineski's assesment of the war and his early "retirement." Kerry also did an excellent job pushing the "Bush has failed us line," but within various narratives, while Bush kept repeating the exact same talking points, which may "stick" but makes him seem dim and thoughtless. When Bush had points to make, he made them effectively, which was his big win this debate, but most of these points were when he was on the ropes and were at least a defensive measure. I think Kerry delivered the goods, attacked, and penetrated many of Bush's defenses. Bush could only appeal to "the new world," "post 9/11 world," etc and couldn't admit any mistakes or failures in Iraq even as Iraq keeps getting worse.

Also, Bush ignoring Kerry's statment on Stem cell research and global warming was extremely weak. Kerry's lack of a rebuttal to the Hague was weak also, but he did raise his hand to speak, only to get cut-off. Bush just sailed passed what could be a diabetes cure in the next decade and climate change which is very real. Bush avoided revealing how indebted he is to the Christian fundamentalists, which should be a very open narrative as the next president will get to pick an absurd number of judges including two (more?) justices. The religious hot button issues like abortion, gay marriage/union, stem cells, etc should not be swept under the carpet this cycle. Kerry knows he has the moderates and liberals, but he needs to tell the real conservatives out there that Bush courts too closely with theocrats.
posted by skallas at 8:13 PM on September 30, 2004

In his closing statement, Bush said "We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below and it is a valley of peace." Where did that come from? Is that Bible talk, or did he just have a moment of lyrical inspiration?
posted by muckster at 8:15 PM on September 30, 2004

Atrios @ 10.23pm
posted by dash_slot- at 8:16 PM on September 30, 2004

Yeah, you won't hear many news outlets saying Kerry won, I bet.


Pussies.
posted by Espoo2 at 8:16 PM on September 30, 2004

Bush gained a key advantage when he got to go last in the closing statements. This way, Bush got to restate his Vision for America after Kerry's bland, rational recitation. If Kerry got to go last, he would have been knocking down Bush's star-eyed pedantry and ending the debates on a rational note instead. I think that, if there was one, that was the most pivotal moment of the debate. Still, Kerry won.
posted by abcde at 8:19 PM on September 30, 2004

XQUZYPHYR, like you, I vote issues. My decision to "not vote Bush" was made long ago, during the aftermath of 9/11, though not for reasons regarding the tragedy. But too many friends and family of mine don't have a detailed, long-term idea of many issues. Swing voters are those people who don't have a long term plan; they simply vote "their gut" at each election.

As I said before, both candidates appeared extremely calm, collected, and intelligent. There was a link here a couple of months ago that showed how Bush was winning through his anti-intellectualism. I don't believe that nonsense, per se, but his demeanor is more natural. His ums and long pauses are terrible for those who enjoy a well-articulated speech; however, they show thoughtfulness and everydayness to those who just want a gut motivation.

Look, I'm not a political analyst, nor would I want to be. I hate the superficiality of elections. When someone tells me "Kerry is boring", I say, who gives a shit. Vote the issues. But elections seem to be decided on BS; so while I won't join in the BS, I can at least understand it and use it to my advantage if necessary. Bush used the us vs. them perfectly. He turned Kerry's "we need intl. coalition" into "I'm not going to consult foreign leaders to defend America". That's good debating.
posted by BlueTrain at 8:19 PM on September 30, 2004

I watched C-SPAN with the split screen, one camera coverage.

Bush blew it.
posted by four panels at 8:21 PM on September 30, 2004

BlueTrain, I don't know you, but I love you. I couldn't agree more.
posted by uncleozzy at 8:24 PM on September 30, 2004

abcde has a point; Bush was his regular self again, suddenly, during the closing statement.

But there was something very curious about it: Did anyone else notice how much he kept blinking? As though he were forcing himself to say something he didn't really believe?
posted by lodurr at 8:26 PM on September 30, 2004

I have to agree that Kerry came out swinging and stayed nicely on message. From reading some of the right wing commentary on-line, though, its clear that Bush's true believers didn't see the same debate I did. Oh well. I had fun and I will totter off to bed a happier man.

I'm glad I didn't play the drinking game where you do a shot every time GWB says "new-cue-ler" for "nuclear." I'd be falling down drunk choking on a pretzel by now.

Uh oh. Rudi is on The Daily Show! Gotta run....
posted by mmahaffie at 8:26 PM on September 30, 2004

I just wanna ask if anyone else thought, especially at the start of the debate, that Bush kept trying to hold back a grin. I couldn't escape the thought that he was trying to keep from laughing, at least early on.

That impression seemed to go away as the debate went on.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 8:35 PM on September 30, 2004

From MSNBC:

283,109 responses

Pres. Bush 31%
Sen. Kerry 69%
posted by Stuart_R at 8:36 PM on September 30, 2004

Did anyone notice how much Bush was pounding the podium with his hand? I have to wonder if he realized the mike was picking it up.

"When both the facts and the law are against you..."
posted by Johnny Assay at 8:38 PM on September 30, 2004

Bush seemed like he was on the verge of falling asleep during the last 20 minutes. Mumbling names and half sentences. At the end he was given a chance to rebut Kerry on negotiations with North Korea and he suddenly and inexplicably started talking about Iraq..."We looked at the same intelligence" etc. I think his talking points CD player was broken.
posted by Otis at 8:38 PM on September 30, 2004

Bush kept trying to hold back a grin

That's pretty much how he always looks. I usually read it as self-satisfaction, smugness, or whatever, but it's nearly always there.
posted by uncleozzy at 8:40 PM on September 30, 2004

Wow. CNN actually has paid for ads on it's front page. Now that's sneaky.
posted by Mossy at 8:40 PM on September 30, 2004

I was totally undecided at the start of this debate, but after watching it very closely I have decided that Kerry is the right choice. Bush is in way over his head and if he stays in office something even worse than Iraq or 9/11 is going to happen.

Kerry seems to have a much better understanding of what is actually happening in the world, and how to fix it. I am voting for him.
posted by alball at 8:41 PM on September 30, 2004

"If President Bush's current lead is built not upon confidence in him or his policies but in a simple belief that Kerry isn't solid enough to be president, then I think this performance could help Kerry a good deal." --Josh Micah Marshall
posted by muckster at 8:43 PM on September 30, 2004

His ums and long pauses are terrible for those who enjoy a well-articulated speech; however, they show thoughtfulness and everydayness to those who just want a gut motivation.


so bush's supporters see him as decisive and resolute and as a take-charge, go-getter...but at the same time, you theorize, they like his long pauses and "ummms" because they show thoughtfulness and "everydayness"? i don't understand.

long pauses and umms are not hallmarks of someone who is decisive and in command. i can't imagine any effective ceo or commander of troops who would tell you that they think they can strengthen their image in the eyes of their subordinates by using long pauses and ummms when speaking before them.
posted by lord_wolf at 8:45 PM on September 30, 2004

Kerry wins this one.
posted by eatitlive at 8:45 PM on September 30, 2004

I thought Bush seemed downright nervous at times. There was one question where he started his answer by staring at the camera with a blank expression for close to ten seconds. His responses jumped all over the place. I can't think of any aspect of that debate where Bush performed better than Kerry. Perhaps he expected the more verbose, convoluted Kerry, the Kerry that barrages with facts but lets his message slip through the cracks. I didn't see much of that Kerry tonight. Bush appeared completely outclassed. The Dems must be ecstatic.
posted by Succa at 8:47 PM on September 30, 2004

CNN has 88% of respondents saying Kerry won, and 10% saying bush won.

CBS has 91.96% saying kerry won, and 7.29% saying bush won.

Fox news has no poll because they know their guy did not win.
posted by alball at 8:52 PM on September 30, 2004

What was interesting was on NBC's follow up interview with six voters in Ohio. I think that one of the female, mother voters put it the best: (summarized) "I felt better with John Kerry - he seemed like a strong leader with a good command of the subject. Bush seems more interested in making us afraid and in leading by fear."

That, folks, is a definition of the differences in leadership styles.
posted by tgrundke at 8:54 PM on September 30, 2004

I am with Alball (and probably many more of those who were once on the fence) on this one. Kerry now has my vote.
posted by Rattmouth at 8:57 PM on September 30, 2004

You remember that whole-world online poll? Heavily Kerry. I'm sure that those CNN and CBS polls are getting many, many votes from outside the US. And we don't like your president very much.

Anyway, I wouldn't put any stock in them as a guide to your electorate's feelings.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 8:58 PM on September 30, 2004

Some Bush supporter reactions.
posted by frenetic

Now THAT is scary. I don't want to live in their vision of America anymore.
posted by somethingotherthan at 8:59 PM on September 30, 2004

What I saw was an incompetent liar getting his ass handed to him. Bush stumbled his way through repetitive generalities and had absolutely nothing to offer in response to specific plans, arguments and accusations. What a pitiful performance by the sitting president. This is the first time I'm actually excited by John Kerry.

ditto every word, muckster. double ditto.
posted by quonsar at 9:01 PM on September 30, 2004

jackspace, your "reason" and FPP for this thread was total bullshit. Just saying.

And if I had to score the debate, I'd go 60/40 for the President. No "knockouts" and no major fouls by either one, and they both pretty much articulated their broad vision for national security, and they were both civil to each other.

But for cryin' out loud, why on earth does Kerry seem to be so hellbent on falling to his knees in front of the U.N. or other nations?

somethingotherthan:Now THAT is scary. I don't want to live in their vision of America anymore. Nobody's holding a gun to your head, buddy. I'm not saying "love it or leave it," but if you feel that strongly about it, then...?
posted by davidmsc at 9:05 PM on September 30, 2004

Didn't watch the debate. I'm funny about those things. Issues matter most to me, but I'm very aware of the horse race. I just normally watch the reaction and other sources. I'm not that interested in seeing the candidates work through their scripts.

Anyway, the reaction here seems pretty positive. Given MeFi's bias, I'd say that Kerry got Bush at least to a draw, and probably won by a little bit.

That's no surprise to me. Bush is incredibly weak, he's been running on inertia for a long time. Anything that actually draws attention to him is bad for his campaign. Looking at the various signs, I now think that Kerry will win the popular vote as well as the electoral college by a wider margin than most are expecting. Turnout is going to be unsually high in this election, indications are that dems are doing as well or better than the repubs at getting out the vote. But dems have higher turnout at the polls, the weird Gallup stuff notwithstanding. Combine that with the fact with what the numbers look like with the independents in the swing states. Well, I've said this all before.

The thing about Bush is that he's like the Wizard of Oz. There's this huge edifice and a bunch of loud noises and flashes to keep us from noticing the little man behind the curtain that, really, is a disapointment. It doesn't take much to peek behind the curtain—what's been happening for a long time is that the smoke occasionally clears and a few more voters become disenchanted. All the pomp and circumstance are still there, however, and for those that are still true-believers, they don't see how anything's changed. But, cumulatively, a lot has changed.

Part of the smoke and mirrors was creating a false impression about Kerry that was built around a few nuggets of truth. But what that has done has been to create expectations in many people's minds for Kerry to stumble badly "as soon as voters get a good look at him". What the Bush campaign had failed to anticipate, is that their ploy might backfire on them. They've lowered expectations of Kerry so much, that he was bound to actually be pretty reasonable and normal and straightforward compared to how they've spun him. That he came off better than many expected in tonight's debate is no suprise to me at all.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:06 PM on September 30, 2004

On Bush's rapid eye-blinking during tonight's debate
posted by Peter H at 9:09 PM on September 30, 2004

Anyone have a link to the whole debate? I'd like to watch it again, just to get a better feel. I just saw a replay of Kerry praising Bush's wife on Nightline and I saw a hint of sincerity that I've never seen before.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:09 PM on September 30, 2004

Nobody's holding a gun to your head, buddy. I'm not saying "love it or leave it," but if you feel that strongly about it, then...?

...vote out the representatives that also support that vision?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:11 PM on September 30, 2004

I'm sure the GOP machine is churning out lame victory speeches but Bush got pretty soundly trounced tonight.

I've got it all nicely Tivo'ed now and can watch Bush stutter, sputter and mutter.

So nice!
posted by fenriq at 9:19 PM on September 30, 2004

Kerry seems to have a much better understanding of what is actually happening in the world, and how to fix it. I am voting for him.

Another vote for alball. Kerry's challenge was to reassure people that he's up to the task of defending the country. People got to make two separate comparisons. The first is Kerry vs Bush, and in that comparison he comes out as a statesman in command of the issues. The second is between Kerry and the Bush campaign's caricature of Kerry. And there is where he really shined.
posted by euphorb at 9:20 PM on September 30, 2004

Etherial, I have no objectivity but I thought Al Gore lost in 2000 and Kerry won tonight.

But as far as your metaphor about the Wizard of Oz, I thought of that myself and it's a perfect metaphor.
posted by mikojava at 9:27 PM on September 30, 2004

Anyone have a link to the whole debate?

cspan.org has a link to video on their front page, but I'm not sure it's the full 90 minutes.

In terms of the debate, I'm hearing it was a tie from right wing guys and slight win from kerry supporters, so it's likely in the 60/40 area (slight nod to kerry). What really shocks me is that if it was a draw, on paper, Bush really hammered Kerry over and over for being a flip-flopper and not fit to be a leader. I would have thought after Bush said Kerry changed his mind on Iraq for the eighth or ninth time that it would finally gain some traction, but everyone's saying it was a good even duel.

Maybe that whole repeating phrases thing didn't work out for Bush as well as he hoped? I certainly hope so, because it seemed petty, unfair, and patronizing to repeat a phrase about an opponent over and over. I didn't see Kerry saying the same thing 8 or 9 times over and over. Maybe Bush took it too far, because people seem to be responding poorly to it, even on right wing blogs.
posted by mathowie at 9:29 PM on September 30, 2004

bush was like a broken record with the talking points. seemed like he had the same answer for every question:

... mixed messages ... mixed messages ... mixed messages ... you are getting veeeeeerrryyyy slllleeeeeeeeeppppyyyyyyy ...
posted by whatnot at 9:38 PM on September 30, 2004

Yeah, the repeated talking points work well with the press and with stump speeches but not during a debate. In a debate you're supposed to use your own narrative, respond to what the other guy says, etc not just reply with the same canned answers all the time. Kerry debunked Bush once and that was all it took. Something along the lines of "Yes I voted for this, but I trusted you to follow through on the process." I think this jibes with a lot of people I know, especially when we were all saying, "Did he just pull out the inspectors? While Blix was making progress and destroyed these missiles that broke the 91 mile limit?" Next thing you know CNN et al are all doing war porn.

So Kerry very much put himself in the shoes or you or me. I dont care what politics you like, the war was a shock and after all this talk of mushroom clouds, drones, mustard gas, etc the WMD-less followup was even worse. Kerry is capitalizing on this and Bush has no defense. Well, his real defense is being neocon-lite. I say he should just come out and talk about oil, israel, regional dominance and a small american empire and be done with it. Let America decide if they want to follow the Neocon agenda.
posted by skallas at 9:38 PM on September 30, 2004

Last I checked foxnews.com has the whole debate on video in 6 parts.
posted by abcde at 9:41 PM on September 30, 2004

And if I had to score the debate, I'd go 60/40 for the President.

Of course you would, davidmsc.

Complete debate transcript.
posted by pmurray63 at 9:42 PM on September 30, 2004

And in fairness, lets see what the Freepers (freerepublic.com) were saying:

Posted on 09/30/2004 7:21:10 PM PDT by dictatorMA

this is not good folks..
before you react like some freepers do and tear me apart.. please think this through from the following perspective:
The people we need to win over here are the stupid "undecided" folks... and tonight THEY saw the liar Kerry tell them all kinds of wonderful sounding things (they were of course all lies but they will never know this), Kerry sounded strong, he used the word "kill" the terrorist while our guy said "bring to justice"..
bush allowed Kerry to get away with one lie after another..W even let him get away with accusing him of being guilty of not properly arming our troops!!!... I mean come on!!!
yes all us here in freerepublic land know better and we know the truth.. but the morons that will decide the election do not.. and I am sad to report that the president lost this debate because he did not appeal to those folks.. the media will go wild now with the resurrection of the near death kerry campaign... Tonight was not a good night for us...
I am just being honest"

Ah, "the morons who decide the election." The irony, it kills.
posted by skallas at 9:42 PM on September 30, 2004

Is that Bible talk, or did he just have a moment of lyrical inspiration?

Deuteronomy 34
posted by muckster at 9:45 PM on September 30, 2004

I thought that Bush was surprisingly good in the first hour, much better than I'd seen in 2000, but visibly tired in the last half hour when he started spacing out. Kerry was strong in continually to attack Bush. He also tailed off a little in the end, but not as much as Bush. So I'd say a slight advantage for Kerry, but then I thought Gore won the first debate in 2000, so I'm not exactly in tune with the popular opinion.
posted by gyc at 9:45 PM on September 30, 2004

Didn't watch the debate... I'm not that interested in seeing the candidates work through their scripts.

Sticking to the script turned out to be Bush's major weaknesses in this debate. He offered more of the same message that he's been giving all summer. Kerry, on the other hand, launched several strong counterattacks -- control of nuclear materials, initiation of an Iraq summit, and reestablishing US control over negotiations with N. Korea. And he did this with a freshness that truly caught Bush off-guard. What the hell happened to the Republican attack machine? Bush didn't even come up with any new spin on the foragainst bs. Looks like Rove's counsel for Bush to stay on message and maintain consistency at all costs just might could backfire.

My prediction for the next debate is that Bush will try to regain the mantle of Innovator of Foreign Policy. I forsee a four-part plan that involves faith-based hydrogen-powered armored humvees, advancing the cause of freedom in North Korean nuclear rape rooms through truly responsible stem cell research. There is power in the blood.
posted by eatitlive at 9:46 PM on September 30, 2004

pmurray63, why did you feel it necessary to "mock" me with your statement? The vast majority of the posters here are stating how they think that Kerry won, hands-down, but you don't see me saying, "Well, of course YOU would feel that way." *shrug* Just seems pretty pointless of you, and rather petty.

And if anyone wants a transcript, here you go.
posted by davidmsc at 9:46 PM on September 30, 2004

The President’s missile-defense fixation.
posted by homunculus at 9:46 PM on September 30, 2004

Moo-lahs
posted by euphorb at 9:52 PM on September 30, 2004

I guess there is a winner and a loser of the debate. Does that reflect who will gain or lose potential votes?
posted by tomplus2 at 9:53 PM on September 30, 2004

yeah, I was really surprised that Kerry let Bush skate on the missle defense thing at the end. Bush even called it a "21st century way to fight terror" even though Reagan pushed for it 20 years ago, back in the 20th century. And there's the whole "it doesn't work, has never been shown to work, costs billions, and terrorists just use box cutters these days."

Kerry should have jumped on that goofy missle defense shield comment and I felt he left a really obvious blunder go by.
posted by mathowie at 9:56 PM on September 30, 2004

BUSH: "Of course we're after Saddam Hussein -- I mean bin Laden.

Hehhee-he ... I guess it's easy to forget when you haven't said the name in months.
posted by RavinDave at 9:56 PM on September 30, 2004

Wow, I feel like what it must have been like in 1960 when radio listeners felt Nixon won, and TV viewers felt JFK won. I listened to the debates with my hair stylist (hey, she does awesome color! I wasn't going to postpone getting my highlights done for this!) and so we weren't able to actually see the G. W. Bush Talking Chimp Smirk & Glower Medicine Show.

As a result, we both came away from it feeling (horrifyingly) like Bush won it by a slight margin. Without visuals, Kerry sounded a little awkward and over-oratorical at moments ("Jim, I'm glad you asked me that question, and I'm going to answer that question by telling you exactly what my position is," etc.), while at the same time Bush seemed to be hitting the mark with the whole flip-flopper bullshit combined with the "we're so much safer now" meme. ("It's like Kerry's hitting a few singles and doubles, but where the fuck are the home runs?" my stylist fumed whilst snipping my bangs. "But whatever happens in November, honey, they can't take away the fact that this lighter strawberry blond color really brings out your eyes!") Anyway, it's interesting to hear how the perception was different for you viewers out there in TV Land.
posted by scody at 9:57 PM on September 30, 2004

But for cryin' out loud, why on earth does Kerry seem to be so hellbent on falling to his knees in front of the U.N. or other nations?

Bush: We must have China's leverage on Kim Jong Il, besides ourselves.
posted by y2karl at 9:57 PM on September 30, 2004

Anyone that wants to watch the debate again can catch the rerun at 1:30 Eastern on C-SPAN.
posted by MegoSteve at 9:59 PM on September 30, 2004

Bringing up the missile defense system alone should sink that fool little man. But I think he did it to appeal to some nostalgic vein in those folks missing old Ron Reagan and his SDI.

Oh the good old days when your enemy would stand still.

Scody, interesting that you have Bush taking it by a nose. Watch it, see him speak, see him squirm, see him wince as Kerry metaphorically kicks him in the nuts.

It was nice to watch. Really, really nice to watch.
posted by fenriq at 10:00 PM on September 30, 2004

davidmsc:

1. I honestly don't see how you can conclude that Bush did better than Kerry. Not even a tie. I loathe Bush, but I was trying my best to judge it fairly, and it didn't seem close.
2. The early vibe I'm picking up from the networks' instant polls, etc. (NOT online polls) is a definite Kerry win in this round. Not a knockout, as you say, probably not enough in the long run, but a definite advantage to Kerry.
3. You're right about how the others feel; the fact that you're outnumbered here is precisely what got my attention. I was reading comments and got to yours and went huh? until I saw who wrote it, at which point I thought, oh, that explains it. Perhaps I was a bit too quick to post, but that was my honest reaction. No insult was intended.

At this point I'd still bet that Bush will win, if it makes you feel any better.
posted by pmurray63 at 10:01 PM on September 30, 2004

Oh, and my favorite WTF??? moment of the entire evening:

BUSH: My opponent just said something amazing. He said Osama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq as an excuse to spread hatred for America. Osama bin Laden isn't going to determine how we defend ourselves.


I thought Bush was gonna do an Elmo Wright dance after spitting that out, which made the non-sequitur all the more funny.
posted by RavinDave at 10:01 PM on September 30, 2004

Here's my two takeaways: first, if you just looked at the split screens without any sound and asked someone which of the two was the president, most people would say Kerry. Bush looked whiny. (Especially when he kept asking Lehrer if he could rebut--by the way, he was allowed to answer a lot more often than Kerry was, but he didn't come off well when he did.)

Second, the money quote is when Kerry said he made a mistake when he phrased his answer to the question about the $87 billion, Bush made a mistake when he led us into war, which was worse? Kerry won the debate on points, and I don't think there were any knockout punches, but that's one of the obvious soundbites and Kerry nailed it.

Moo-lahs

What the fuck was that about? Even if he's never heard it pronounced, it's fucking spelled mullahs.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:06 PM on September 30, 2004

pmurray63: Cool -- thank you for the explanation, and I'm sorry to have lunged so quickly.
posted by davidmsc at 10:10 PM on September 30, 2004

re-broadcast right now on CNN.

blink -sneer- blink blink ...
posted by Peter H at 10:10 PM on September 30, 2004

Kerry shredded Bush tonight on both substance and appearance. Kerry was calm, resolute, and direct, turning every question into a challenge on Bush's conduct in Iraq and the war on terror -- his supposed strengths.

Bush was hunched over and defensive to Nixonian levels. Even when Bush made a successful retort, he weakened it by using the same retort over and over.

I expected the president to do better and Kerry to do worse. Considering polls that give Kerry a 20-point lead among independents on the who-won question, I think this pushes the race back to a tie, at the very least. I'm pleasantly surprised.
posted by rcade at 10:11 PM on September 30, 2004

Check out the stance. Bush is hunched over and resting his forearms on the podium, Kerry is standing up straight.

The leash comment was priceless too. A soft lob over the net for Kerry to smash right back at him. Doh!

I bet Bush is still getting reprimanded by Cheney and Rove and the other adults.
posted by fenriq at 10:13 PM on September 30, 2004

Bush / Cheney 2004
posted by eatitlive at 10:13 PM on September 30, 2004

I won't tell you my analysis until 35 people e-mail me and ask "Please, PP, please offer your analysis."
posted by ParisParamus at 10:14 PM on September 30, 2004

PP, I have been waiting!
posted by eatitlive at 10:15 PM on September 30, 2004

But for cryin' out loud, why on earth does Kerry seem to be so hellbent on falling to his knees in front of the U.N. or other nations?

Perhaps he feels that we're all in this together. You know, here on Earth.
posted by ulotrichous at 10:17 PM on September 30, 2004

I was astounded at how bad Bush looked during the debate. From the very beginning, Bush looked *much* smaller than Kerry, even though he was on the right or "good" side of the screen. This was compounded by strange facial expressions, including virtually non-stop blinking. That "tell" is associated with lying, in my experience questioning witnesses, and indicated to me that Bush was acting like he knew he was talking rot.

It seems likely that those who saw the debate would leave with the impression that Kerry looked more "Presidential" tonight.
posted by rdone at 10:17 PM on September 30, 2004

Daily Show on comedy central too

"a retarded man held his own against a senator, you've gotta reelect him!"
posted by Peter H at 10:17 PM on September 30, 2004

Conspiracy Theory:
Because Bush the puppet clearly embarrassed himself and the republican party, Cheney and all his rich cohorts (the ones who are really in charge), decide he will be eliminated. How? Well, a few weeks back there was a story of a guy from New York who was supposedly out to kill Bush with a shotgun, remember? The story has since died away but still fresh enough in the collective unconscious that when Cheney's cronies do the deed they can scoop up this lone-gunman looney and pin it on him. 5 weeks before the election? The American public will be in such disarray that they will all patriotically back the newly commissioned vice-president who could sweet-talk his way out of any prior scandal while loudly demanding "strength in time of trouble", same shit W was saying all along....but now it really hits home, eh? NO CHANCE FOR KERRY!!!!!!!
posted by protocool at 10:25 PM on September 30, 2004

Devastating Critique from DRUDGE:

Kerry also misspoke when he referred to looking at KGB records in "Treblinka Square" in a visit to Russia. Treblinka was a Nazi death camp. He meant Lubyanka Square...

That's the best they got, folks.
posted by RavinDave at 10:34 PM on September 30, 2004

It's all been said. I'll just note that I had to "translate" the video impression I got to my dad and his e-mail friends who heard it on radio (though they didn't think he won, not the least because of all the stammering). The body language was astonishing -- Bush was leaning into the lectern for dear life at times. (They insisted on the particular lectern height, too.) This one definitely goes into the history books as a replay of 1960 (and the GOP was hoping it would be Kerry who'd sweat).

In one respect I think Bush was successful at Lakoff-style moments -- the "worth it" question, when he did an extended riff on talking with a soldier's mother, let him get very emotive in the Clintonian way that voters respond to, and he was surely more successful at articulating the "vision thing" that plagued his dad and isn't Kerry's strong suit either. Those moments merely mean he held ground with his base, though, I'm sure. My initial impresion was one of a rough draw, but after seeing all the loyalist bloggers out there crying in their soup, I'm astonished to think that Bush got creamed.

The spin (one that was set up in advance, natch) is that Lehrer was "unfair" or "partisan" to throw so many questions about Iraq or Bush's record out for both candidates, instead of those critical questions about Kerry's voting record from 10 years ago. Expect a blitz on PBS affiliates -- I wouldn't be surprised if they try to get Gwen Ifill booted next week or some such nonsense. They think they've got Rather on the ropes with just a few blog posts, after all.

I was astonished that the GOP allowed the business about the camera angles to reach the level of a "flap", in that both the Commission (it's the parties' lapdog!) and FOX (it's the GOP's lapdog!) felt the need to defend their integrity and their right to show what they wanted. (No kidding. It's about the only choice they had left in any part of this.) My initial thinking was that they must not want Bush's reactions shown; then I got too Machiavellian for my own good and decided it was part of the expectations game.

Well, Rove must have been having sleepless nights over Bush's performance in practice debates. It's clear W can't fucking control his face. Anybody for poker?

On preview: protocol, don't be daft. The GOP knows damn well that Cheney isn't electable. His chances would be worse. So don't be spewing these silly conspiracy theories -- they'll off him after the election.
posted by dhartung at 10:36 PM on September 30, 2004

Conspiracy Theory: Bush wins the election.
posted by stbalbach at 10:39 PM on September 30, 2004

I won't tell you my analysis until 35 people e-mail me and ask "Please, PP, please offer your analysis."

What if 35 of us email asking you not to offer your analysis?

I'm a little (pleasantly) surprised that the consensus (even among the more enthusiastic of BushCo's supporters) is that Kerry was more presidential and came out on top, having listened to the audio only. In fact, after it finished, I went out into the garden and thought 'well, that's it, we're screwed', because I thought it was too close to call.

Visuals mean a lot, as we've known since 1960 of course (as dhartung mentions), but it's fascinating to me that it worked for the FrankenKerry this time.

I was also pleasantly surprised (and chagrined when Kerry yelped about 'the rules', the fool) that it resembled more closely a real debate than the utterly stage-managed travesty I'd been led to expect. Maybe there's hope yet!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:46 PM on September 30, 2004

And though his performance wasn't all that great, kudos to Lurch for his deflection as unworthy the only truly idiotic question from Lehrer, about 'character'. And, to be fair, half-kudos to Bush for holding off on going for the talking-points throat on that question long enough to be gracious.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:50 PM on September 30, 2004

stalbach, of course, refers to the events of year 2000.
posted by Peter H at 10:50 PM on September 30, 2004

Collecting spot for blog comments on the debate: AllahPundit, yeah, who knew?

Found via A Small Victory so I'm imagining that its leans a little to the right.
posted by fenriq at 11:15 PM on September 30, 2004

posted by quonsar at 11:27 PM on September 30, 2004

After watching the camera bobble on the C-SPAN split screen, all I could think was:

<homer>Kerry goes up, Kerry goes down, Kerry goes up, Kerry goes down</homer>

All the while, the camera on the President didn't move. Subtle hints from Fox? Or too many mai tais before work? We report, you decide.
posted by RakDaddy at 11:29 PM on September 30, 2004

I won't tell you my analysis until 35 people e-mail me and ask "Please, PP, please offer your analysis."

Well, we could send emails... but isn't it largely something all of us can foresee anyway?
posted by clevershark at 11:32 PM on September 30, 2004

The spin (one that was set up in advance, natch) is that Lehrer was "unfair" or "partisan" to throw so many questions about Iraq or Bush's record out for both candidates

Personally, I thought most of the questions were phrased like "Bush did foo, Kerry, what would you do different?" or "Bush, you did foo, how do you intend to complete foo?" Didn't seem too unfair to either.

But the gist of the spin cuts both ways. There was a question to both guys about Cheney's comments a few weeks ago that was something like "If Kerry is elected, will we have another 9/11?" It was early on, but I still think it's an insane question and can't believe it was seriously asked.

The other question that seemed a tad unfair was asking Kerry how "Bush lied" even though Lehrer did say "some in your camp say..." instead of flat out accusing Kerry of saying it, but forced Kerry to defend it.

Overall, I thought the debate was refreshing because Bush is so infrequently challenged on Iraq. Maybe it came off as unfair because he's been on one campaign stop or another for the past year, in between scripted appearances on friendly news shows. How many press conferences has Bush had all term? 1? 2?

For many of us, it seems like it was the first time Bush ever had to answer for any part of Iraq, and as for helping me be an informed voter, I think the questions did a service.
posted by mathowie at 11:35 PM on September 30, 2004

It's interesting to watch the blog reactions on AllahPundit. I think the "Scored on Points, but needed a Knockout" meme is one that we will be seeing repeatedly throughout the week.

I was surprised at how badly Bush came across. He was hunched over the podium so badly that it made his shoulders narrow and gave an impression of looking like a young boy. His speech was slow and the fact that it took him ten seconds worth of blinking to get started answering a question didn't really help his vague answers.

The sheer repetition of his talking points was incredibly annoying. Do Bush fans actually enjoy it? Every time he mentioned Iraq as "hard work" or how terrorists "hate freedom" I couldn't help but to groan.

The missile defense shield bit was a huge clunker. I wonder if he ad-libbed that.
posted by rks404 at 11:48 PM on September 30, 2004

And yes, if I had confidence in a candidate and their passion, intelligence, and conviction, I would hire them despite their inability to communicate effectively.

That would be extremely foolish if their primary responsibility in the job was to be as communicator.
posted by rushmc at 11:51 PM on September 30, 2004

Just got done watching the CSPAN rebroadcast. At the end, it's great - modest clapping. Bush leaves the stage and then with Kerry alone with his wife he puts his hand up in a still wave and the crowd swells into a louder burst of applause with a little WEEEOOOOO! howl, belonging all alone to him with Bush gone from view. Deserved, too. Good job, John.
posted by Peter H at 12:00 AM on October 1, 2004

One could say, matt, that the another 9/11 question was deliberate bait laid out, like Bernard Shaw's if Kitty were raped question. At the time, it was considered appalling, but people have come to appreciate it as an opportunity of revealed character.

Definitely it was one of the few times Bush has put himself out for open-ended questions on his Iraq policy, and he was really unprepared -- and I mean tactically and emotionally, not in terms of material. His most recent press conference -- his 15th, and an informal one at Crawford -- lasted 13 minutes. It's one thing to avoid them because the answers are bad and you know it, but then he didn't get the practice steeling himself through the tough questions. He looked like he hated answering for his policies, and it showed.
posted by dhartung at 12:02 AM on October 1, 2004

I wonder how the "town hall" format of the upcoming St. Louis debate will compare with tonight's performances. Assuming it has that dressed-down kitch, can Kerry amble about the stage in a plaid shirt without looking like a lumberjack? And would a lumberjack make a good president? Can King George walk, talk, and gesture at the same time?

mathowie, you bring up a really interesting point about Bush's evident lack of polish. The press has repeatedly called his the most secretive presidency ever, and not having to openly and personally defend his actions much may be coming back to bite Bush in a big way.

Mullah -- a Muslim educated and trained in the law and teachings of Islam
Moolah -- why we went to Iraq in the first place
posted by Bixby23 at 12:05 AM on October 1, 2004

Peter H, its on Fox News, man, I wish I had my Tivo in the office.

I like the split screen where Bush's podium is like five inches higher than Kerry's to keep their heads on the same level.

Bixby23, Oh He's a Lumberjack and He's Okay, He Sleeps all Night and He Works All Day!
posted by fenriq at 12:08 AM on October 1, 2004

Looks like the Global Test line is going to be the one that the Republicans seize on.

Damn, Brit Hume looks like he died five or six years ago and no one told him. Eeeek!
posted by fenriq at 12:37 AM on October 1, 2004

"From the very beginning, Bush looked *much* smaller than Kerry, even though he was on the right or "good" side of the screen. This was compounded by strange facial expressions, including virtually non-stop blinking. That "tell" is associated with lying, in my experience questioning witnesses, and indicated to me that Bush was acting like he knew he was talking rot...."

There are a lot of angles to consider in assessing this debate, but a couple stood out in my mind.

I wouldn't misunderestimate the extent to which Bush may have felt, as a child of exceptional privilege who has never had to answer for anything in his life, suddenly on the defensive as another man of privilege and a fellow Bonesman, John Kerry, took Bush to task in what amounted to a public shaming.

Bush's position's on Iraq, foreign policy, and national defense just don't add up but for once, he met a format and an adversary which brought this fundamental shakiness to the fore.

But that's about logic. Look elsewhere for Bush's failure - remembering Ronald Reagan, the master of illogic who could defuse incredulity with an "aw shucks" shrug which proved nearly irresistible :

Bush looked ridiculous for a simple technical reason which - in and of itself might determine the election : camera work which attempted to present Bush to be as tall as Kerry backfired and made Bush look like a child or a midget.......or Alfred E Neumann. Bush's head was WAY too big for his body, and the podium came WAY too high up on his chest :

George W. Bush, the incredible shrinking president.

Kerry is taller than Bush, but the podiums seemed to be the same size, - so Bush's podium came almost up to his chest! - and the camera people attempted to compensate for this with a closer focus, but this had the unanticipated effect of making Bush look like a munchkin, a dwarf or a hobbit.

I think the Nixon/1960 moment comparison is very apt for this reason : an unanticipated technical issue made Bush look silly and that, combined with other flaws in his delivery, had the net effect of undermining his usually successful approach of ceaselessly repeating pre-scripted talking points which are often irrelevant or wildly at odds with reality.

I thought that - in terms of pure acting - Bush beat Kerry on several points of presentation, but that didn't really matter in terms of the overall effect, especially for the fact that Kerry wasn't playing the same game - Kerry wasn't acting at all but, instead shining a klieg light on Bush's illogic while wee George squirmed, stammered and blinked : Bush looked ridiculous and acted like a trapped animal blinking in the headlights of Kerry's insistent logic that cut through Mr. Bush's buzzwords of "Freedom for the Iraqi people" and "Saddam was a bad man" and revealed them for the hollow and bizarre Orwellian constructions of misdirection that they are. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with September 11, and invading Iraq was a massive distraction from the "war on terror" which gobbled up military resources, left Afghanistan to fester, and got the US mired in a horrible morass. Iraq will go down in history books as one of the great fiascoes of the century, and Bush can't squirm or obfuscate his way out of the fact that responsibility that stops at the oval office desk.

He looked ridiculous and sounded not much better - His acting wasn't bad, but this time George W. Bush was in the wrong costume, at the wrong play, in the wrong school - where the teacher wasn't buying the "my dog ate my homework" excuse anymore and, meanwhile, the other kids were sticking bits of gum on his back while George pleaded against a detention.
posted by troutfishing at 12:48 AM on October 1, 2004

Brit Hume looks like he died five or six years ago and no one told him. Eeeek!

OK, that's really funny fenriq.

Also, via Mofi, a debate's Blog. (I don't watch TV, I'm just guessing that this was funnier than TV.) It also features a damning mp3.
posted by NewBornHippy at 12:50 AM on October 1, 2004

Ouch. That mp3 is the stuff of any public speaker's nightmares. I can understand rooting for the home team, but it's hard for me to fathom how some conservative commentators have gone beyond merely glossing over such an awkward delivery to actually being effusive about this performance by Bush. There's some serious cognitive dissonance going on there.
posted by DaShiv at 1:34 AM on October 1, 2004

Does anyone remember the book where people would vote only for the person that looked better physically? Something about a wife talking about the polls on TV where a man on stage who had poor people skills and extra thick glasses was the opposition to a man standing on a podium 1 foot taller? It was a mainstream book.
posted by Keyser Soze at 1:49 AM on October 1, 2004

Wasn't that Fahrenheit 351, Keyser?
posted by toby\flat2 at 2:55 AM on October 1, 2004