Replies

Kerry was much slicker than Bush, that's for sure. One thing I noticed from watching the debate on NBC was that the camera was much more focused on Bush when Kerry was talking than it was on Kerry when Bush was talking. Every facial expression of Bush's was crystal clear, which did tend to make him look a little nervous. During the moments when Bush was talking and Kerry was on the splitscreen, the camera was pulled much farther back, and I got the impression that the camera wasn't held on Kerry nearly as long.

Kerry initially came off badly I thought, not because his speech faltered but because he attacked Bush way too viciously. I think Kerry realized what he was doing about 1/3 to halfway in and softened his accusations somewhat. Bush did appear far less prepared and did look angry at times (as well he should have been with the blatant slander going on).

All in all, Kerry came off as far more self-possessed. He spoke a whole lot of nothing, but the only people who would be undecided by now are the ones who are dumb enough to fall for that kind of thing, so there may be somewhat of a bounce for Kerry, if any such people do exist.

One thing that should not be overlooked is the very same thing that has shaped the course of this campaign so far: the new media. The debate is no longer over after 90 minutes. It will be discussed, re-hashed, and analyzed thoroughly for the next week leading to the next debate, and any of Kerry's lies or inconsistencies will be displayed in great detail. In essence, there will be a national debate about the debates in all forums. The only bad thing that can be said about Bush from the debate is that he didn't look as well-composed. However, Kerry's statements, once extracted from his pompous smoke and mirrors, will be shown to be untruthful on their face.

Don't lose heart, folks.

I agree with you. The only worry I have is that those that are undecided at this moment and would choose the first debate as the deciding factor as their vote for Bush or Kerry would probably veer in the direction of kerry. I felt that Kerry "commanded" the event. (sigh). Partly due to the superficial factors of the side by side camera views of the candidates which made Bush look "smaller". Kerry suprisingly came across as more presidential. One pundit said that Bush seemed tired. I also agree with your point about the bias of the camera angles. I felt that Bush was put on the defense. Unfortunately I was suprised not how badly Bush did but by how well Kerry came across.