Windrem's Take on the Debate

I saw nothing last night that I did not expect to see. Senator Kerry lamented the loss of our alliances while President Bush extolled the virtues of freedom in Iraq. Kerry took this opportunity to let the American people know that he would "hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are." Bush explained that his opponent had the same intelligence on Iraq and voted for the war and reminded the national audience that "now there's 30 nations involved, standing side by side with our American troops."

Very predictable. I agree with Joe Lockhart's alleged analysis that this debate was a draw: The Democrat sharpening his proverbial talons on defense issues and the Republican celebrating a grand coalition of international friendship. Kerry had to gain legitimacy as a Commander-in-Chief by making it clear that he is not afraid to bomb stuff and does not need a permission slip from France. Bush, on the other hand, had less to establish. Most people by now are fairly confident in his ability to use force. People are also used to his style of speech--at once scaring the crap out of the Dems and making Republicans cringe.

However, Bush could have inflicted more damage on Kerry both substantively and stylistically. Stylistically, he needed more serious, right-at-the-camera monologues and he needed to be more dismissive of the Senator's attacks. For example, after Kerry said:

"Secondly, when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better."

If Bush had looked right at the camera, straight in the eye of America, and said:

Look, it wouldn't have mattered if it was one country... or none at all. Our intelligence said Iraq was a grave threat to the United States of America. I saw it. My opponent saw it. I do not now, nor will I ever, wait for international permission before I act to defend America. National security is not a popularity contest.


If he had said something like this, with solemnity and conviction, it would have had a powerful effect. Kerry would have been fumbling with rebuttals about his also not needing France's permission, but the implication would already be out there. On the whole, Bush did talk about his resolve, but he also downplayed his semi-unilateral decision by citing the current 30 nation coalition. This seems to be heading toward Kerry's established territory, a campaign fau paux.

Although, the President's delivery fell short of the kind of power needed in a Presidential debate, he was able to keep up with the former debate champion. Fortunately for the President, the Senator is, if more polished in his speech, irreparably short on charm.