Cobb

That has to be one of the most... er... creative analyses of the President I've ever read. But the President's performance was "graceful"?

His frequent malaprops explained as a person "... overawed by the power of his words"?

C'mon, Cobb.

Bush stays on message and he doesn't talk extemporaneously without being pushed. He's tight-lipped and doesn't want to speak out of school. But I get the impression that behind closed doors he'll talk a blue streak peppered with curses, malaprops, and all kinds of shit, and that by the time he's finished you know exactly, unambiguously what he thinks. I've had bosses like that.

But put him in front of a microphone and camera and he's all toned down. You can see traces of where he splutters - where what he really wants to say gets pre-empted by what he has to say *presidentially*.

In the end it's all mental masturbation.

These are the questions about the debate:

1. Were you decided on who you were voting for before the debate?

2. Did the debate change your mind?

3. If the debate changed your mind, why?

4. Who is the best person to run the country?

#4 trumps 1-3.

I guess I don't see the President as this dignified, articulate executive toning his act down for mass consumption. I expect all political candidates to stay on point to a degree, but Gump has this habit of speaking as if he's not quite sure of what he's saying but it it's repeated enough, it'll somehow make sense to us.

There's nothing wrong with being plain-spoken. I've worked for my share of coarse or gruff individuals. But they could explain their positions in detail, even if they had to rely on a few colorful metaphors in the process. When confronted, the President reacts as if he's been knocked off-balance; he next goes into vapor lock momentarily to then fall back on a pat answer. ('There's no place like home... the world's safer without Saddam'.) Keep in mind, these are the reactions from a person who's been prepped exhaustively.

After about 35 minutes of, 1) "The world is safer without Saddam Hussein", 2) "I made a decision" and, 3) "It's tough work", the incumbent had shot his entire wad without addressing any details of his own for Iraq/WOT/homeland security or owning up to now-known mistakes. I concur with him that the President needs to act decisively and portray integrity, but to insist on consistency of action (?) when the results can be proven as wrong is irresponsible and reckless.

Kerry performed quite well overall, but after confusing Lubyanka Square (Russian home of KGB documents) with Treblinka (Nazi death camp in Poland), I don't think he or his supporters are in any position to make fun of Bush for his Malaprops.

Oh yeah, I caught that one too.

Coleman Young was plainspoken. Would cuss (and DID) on national tv to make a point (particularly if he thought the interviewer was either an idiot, a racist, against Detroit in some way, or a combination of all three). There is a distinct difference between someone who is plain spoken and someone who is inarticulate.

Bush looked like he was handled. Like he had a stock set of tactics, designed to deal with a caricatured version of John Kerry.

Kerry on the other hand looked to be in command of the facts. In a number of cases I felt he was softer than he should have been. Wet paper soft.

Bush's story about the soldier did nothing for me. I suspect the domestic debate to be more of the same. Bush can be a better debater, but I do not think it possible for him to present facts on his feet.

If I held to any standards of debate, I would have watched less than the 30 minutes I did. Again, I'm not sure blogospheric rigor is possible on television. So I'm really not sticking to the substance of the debate, just the things it told me that I could only guess before.

Again, the Fallows analysis I think still holds water. Listen.

mental masturbation

Interesting!

Could you post that link again, I can't get to it.

You're right. It definitely isn't possible in most circumstances to talk about these issues with rigor when you've got nothing but a clean notebook in front of you and you're being grilled. But there is a standard internal to debates that we can measure this by. Kerry made a few mistakes, in tone, and in substance.

But Bush's response continually focused on language designed to evoke strength and consistancy. In as much as the questions he was asked required facts and data, he failed miserably. His language did not fit the circumstances.

Cobb, I have to admit, I am surprised to hear you singing this tune. While it is rare that I agree with you on anything, I respect your intelligence. Bush proved once and for all last night that without his handlers he is a poor impression of Forresst Gump. He got his ass handed to him on a plate last night, no matter how you spin it, and I would rather someone be confussed over Moscow geography than the difference between Saddam Husein and OBL any day.

James Fallows:
http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?display=day&todayDate=09/28/2004

I haven't heard anything from Kerry which suggests that he'll handle anything better. I know W speaks like an idiot but he's not an idiot.