The polls show Americans were impressed by John Kerry last night, but many of those same Americans will be swayed by what the media say about the debate and the candidates’ performances.
Fortunately, the opinions were pretty consistent here, too.
Here’s a telling anecdote from The New Republic’s Ryan Lizza:
The first inkling that the Bushies know their man didn’t do so well comes minutes after the debate ends when Karl Rove walks into the press filing center. Like a game of telephone, the conventional wisdom that Kerry won the debate is already seeping out across the sea of journalists in the room. Into this skeptical ether, Rove tries out a line: “It was one of the president’s better debate performances and one of Kerry’s worst.” Vince Morris of The New York Post stares at Rove and asks, “Can you say that with a straight face?”
Here’s another equally entertaining anecdote from Slate’s Chris Suellentrop:
One of the first questions asked of Rove was whether the president’s frequent pausing was a problem. Rove disputed that Bush paused because he wasn’t sure what to say. “Paused for effect, is what I think,” he said. Over and over again, Bush surrogates were asked about the president’s demeanor. (Question for Paul Krugman: Are you still angry about the media’s focus on style over substance?) Wasn’t the president defensive? a reporter asked Matthew Dowd. Didn’t he look confused? a reporter asked Ken Mehlman. “I think he spoke with passion,” Mehlman said. Another reporter asked Bartlett, didn’t the president look irritated? Tired? “I think he showed a range of emotions,” Bartlett said.
The LA Times, meanwhile said that Kerry “won Thursday night’s debate on foreign policy by a comfortable margin.”
Kerry’s performance must have come as a huge relief to supporters who worry about the senator’s propensity to talk in nuanced, ponderous Capitolese. In contrast to the president, who at times seemed tired and annoyed at having to share the stage, Kerry’s command of the facts didn’t get in the way of his being lucid and direct. The senator and former prosecutor delivered a powerful indictment of Bush’s foreign policy record.
It wasn’t much better for Bush among the on-air talent. Even (or should I say “especially”?) among conservatives.
For example, there was Weekly Standard chief Bill Kristol, on the Fox News Channel:
“I talked to a half dozen Republican officials tonight and they’re all a little bit deflated. They were hoping for a knockout of Kerry and they didn’t get it.”
I think that’s an understatement.
Mark Kleiman noticed many of Kristol’s fellow conservatives in full grieve-mode:
* Mort Kondracke: This is the President’s turf, this is the place that the President is supposed to dominate, terror and the war in Iraq. I don’t think he really dominated tonight. I think Kerry looked like a commander-in-chief.
* Kate O’Beirne, National Review Online’s the Corner: “I thought the President was repetitive and reactive.”
* Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online’s the Corner: “The Bush campaign miscalculated on having the first night be foreign policy night.”
* Joe Scarborough: It was John Kerry’s best performance ever…As far as the debate score this a very clear win on points for John Kerry.
This was, apparently, a pretty common sentiment.
“Did Kerry connect?” asked CNN’s Jeff Greenfield. “I think the answer here was yes…. People who expected to see a wordy, conflicted, self-contradictory senator didn’t.”
On Fox News Channel, analyst Fred Barnes said: “I have to say John Kerry did better than I expected. He was very good, very articulate.” But Barnes, referring to the Iraq war, the debate’s central theme, said that he didn’t think Kerry made “a strong case that he has a plan, a strong plan, that will work in Iraq.”
Another Fox analyst, Morton Kondracke, said of Bush and Iraq: “The president does have a plan, and I didn’t hear him really spell it out well tonight.”
ABC analyst Mark Halperin said Bush at times appeared angry. “It’s not usually a very becoming posture for a candidate,” Halperin said.
All of this matters, far more than it should. Viewers who watched and were impressed with Kerry will have their opinions reinforced. Viewers who were partial to Bush will second guess their opinions. Those who didn’t watch at all will hear that Kerry won and they’ll believe it, even without seeing it.
BC04 is no doubt preparing their counter-offensive, explaining why none of us should believe our lying eyes, but unless they start inserting “sighs” onto the audio feed, Bush’s team is in a bind.