|
you may not like everything it says, but here it is anyway. Click the link to see it online, but I've included the text.
www.cumberlink.com/articles/2004/10/01/editorial/rich_lewis/lewis01.txt
Kerry makes sale - to Dems
By Rich Lewis, October 1, 2004
It seems pretty clear from the chatter and "insta-polls" that John Kerry won last night's debate with George Bush.
The president's team was generally muted in its assessment of how its man did, while the Kerry camp was jubilant.
As of 3:15 this morning, 78 percent of the 213,000 people who had voted in a CNN poll thought Kerry had "won" the debate.
A more professional Gallup poll showed Kerry the winner by 53-37 percent.
And it seemed pretty clear to me as well that Kerry had the better night.
The president can be an excellent speaker but is not a particularly effective debater, a point that even his closest advisers concede.
One problem is that Bush relies on applause lines to be effective. He is very good at collapsing complicated issues into simple, plainly spoken aphorisms (or platitudes, depending on your point of view) intended to stir an emotional response. These lines often consist of a prideful, gung-ho call to patriotism, or a humorously scornful put-down of his opponent.
This is a tremendously effective strategy when giving a speech to a large audience of supportive listeners - the situation that Bush typically enjoys when out campaigning.
In that kind of setting, the audience becomes Bush's partner in the making of the speech. He calls, they respond. He delivers the line, pauses, and the audience claps and cheers. The approving outburst then fuels his confidence as he moves to the next rhetorical nugget.
But in last night's debate, applause was forbidden.
Without the feedback, Bush looked lost. He would deliver the lines, and his face would take on the characteristic little smirks and grins and settings of the jaw that invite the audience to react. But the mannerisms seemed out of place when the only response was silence. He floundered just as badly during his recent speech to the U.N., where an audience of international diplomats sat stonefaced and unapplauding.
Bush needed to fill 45 minutes of time in the debate but only brought 25 minutes of material, which he repeated over and over - the familiar exhortations to "remain strong and resolute," and that "we must win, we will win"; the familiar attack that Kerry is "inconsistent."
That would have been fine had frequent applause filled the other 20 minutes. But the partner wasn't there.
Kerry wasn't great, but he was much better. He made several small mistakes, but stayed on the offensive all night. He got the president's goat at several points, causing Bush to frown and scowl. I was surprised at how many commentators criticized Bush for looking "sour" and "upset" while Kerry was speaking. Kerry, on the other hand, let no negative emotions show when Bush spoke. He stayed cool. Presidential.
Bush looked weary,hesitant. Kerry looked alert, confident.
So, yes, Kerry won.
But what exactly did he win?
David Gergen, the moderate Republican adviser to Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, said the debate "put Kerry back in the race."
That's true, but not because many Bush supporters changed their minds. That was never going to happen no matter what went on in the debate.
And not because the debate pulled the famed "undecided" voters over to Kerry's side. He'll get some, but there just aren't that many left, and Bush will get his share.
No, what Kerry won last night was the support of his own supporters. And that could make a huge difference.
Democrats have been in a deep funk since the Republican convention, as the polls began to slide steadily in Bush's direction, especially in the "battleground" states.
Democrats were openly criticizing the campaign - calling it unfocused, off-message. The candidate wasn't throwing hard and sharp punches. Things got so bad that Kerry was forced to shake up his organization.
True, Kerry had become more effective in recent weeks, and the bleeding in the polls had slowed a bit.
But Kerry had never generated any real enthusiasm among the rank and file. He wasn't their hero, their champion, their idol - the way Bush is to his supportes. He was just their candidate.
That lack of passion was dangerous because it suggested that many Democrats weren't working hard for Kerry - making the calls, putting up the signs, talking him up. The greatest fear was that large numbers of Democrats wouldn't be sufficiently motivated to even bother to vote on Election Day.
I saw all this ennui and angst playing out for months on a leading Democratic website, a highly partisan message board called democraticunderground. com. These folks hate Bush, but many of them were still lukewarm about Kerry.
Until last night.
After the debate, the site was jumping with excitement.
"I am finally happy to vote for Kerry," wrote one poster.
"I dutifully fell behind Kerry when he won the nomination but it was not until tonight that I got energized for Kerry," wrote another.
"Happy happy joy joy," gushed a third.
And the site had hundreds more along those lines.
Yes, indeed, Kerry may well be back in the race - because he may finally have won the heart of his own party.
Rich Lewis' e-mail address is:
rlcolumn@comcast.net
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
