LAST THURSDAY, the American public was treated to an event that only happens every four years: a presidential debate. This year's debate format is a little unusual in that the three debates have themes. The first was to be on foreign policy, the second will be a town hall-style debate with an audience of undecided voters asking the questions and the third will be similar to the first except the topic will be domestic policy.
In 2000, high expectations for Al Gore and low expectations for George W. Bush gave the former Texas governor the debate victories -- even though most watching the debates believed Gore was the better debater. Learning from the 2000 campaign, John Kerry and Bush have been playing the "expectations game" for weeks now. Both candidates would constantly praise the others' debating abilities, while admitting their own inadequacies at debating. It's really an amazing sight, considering the norm of candidates insulting one another and speaking praise of themselves.
Although the "expectations game" did manage to produce fairly low expectations for both candidates coming into the debate, Bush was still a fairly clear favorite, as the topic of foreign policy and national security is supposedly his strength. What's more, Bush's recent lead in the polls implied that a solid Bush win in the debate could probably end the election right there, meaning Kerry would be under more pressure. Now, days later, it becomes clear that neither happened, and that in a total surprise, John Kerry won the debate, if not decisively, then at least by enough to make it a close election again.
So, why is it that John Kerry was able to attack the president's greatest strength and come away the victor? Is it because he was better able to articulate his positions than President Bush? Well, Kerry basically said many of the same things he's been saying for a long time, just in a more condense version. Bush had several points and drove them home over and over again. Therefore, better articulation of ideas isn't the reason.
If that wasn't the reason, then maybe it was just that people understand John Kerry's positions on the issues to be better than the president's? Although some people, myself included, may believe that to be true, the fact is that very little about Kerry's positions came out in the debate. Kerry spoke in theoretical terms about bringing in allies, and didn't go into any detail about his plan to win in Iraq that he kept referring to. He mentioned bilateral talks with North Korea, but didn't explain why these talks are necessary. In the end, Kerry gave no clear announcement of his positions, meaning no one got a chance to even consider if his positions were better.
What was it that gave Kerry the debate victory? From hearing the many interviews with undecided voters who watched the debate, as well as pundits and analysts, there is only one clear conclusion to make. Kerry just looked and sounded better. As Kerry spoke, he stood tall, he spoke clearly, he didn't stumble and when he wasn't speaking, he was generally smiling. President Bush hunched over a podium that was too high on him to begin with, hesitated before speaking, got frustrated at times and would scowl when he wasn't speaking.
The fact is, as much as we like to think that our country is purely issue-driven when voting, it simply isn't. People who watched the debate were reassured by Kerry's ability to promise a brighter future if he becomes president. He didn't do this by stating how, just stating that he would, and sounding good while doing it. President Bush's voice was scratchy, and he never really got on his pre-planned message. By 30 minutes into the 90-minute debate, Bush was done.
This is yet another example of how modern times and technology have unfortunately skewed the voting process. Since Americans have to practically live with a president in their living rooms for four years, they have to be comfortable doing so, and won't be too ashamed of voting based on how a candidate looks or sounds. In the future, then, if we are to continue to have strong and effective presidents, candidates must keep this in mind.
In future debates and appearances, candidates must make sure they are well-versed in the issues, have the best make-up teams they can find, that the debate agreement they reach will have podiums that account for height differences and that the candidates are well-rehearsed enough not to stumble and stammer in speaking. Only with this kind of preparation can candidates allow their personal image not to get in the way of an honest debate on the issues, so that the American people can select the right man for the job.
Tonight, John Edwards, a former trial lawyer, and Dick Cheney, a man who's been in government literally for decades, will have their vice-presidential debate. These two men have years and years of experience in preparing for statements and speaking in which image is everything, and will certainly use that experience to be as prepared as possible for their debate. Both presidential candidates would do well to watch their running mates. The performances will likely be excellent and should serve as good examples to both Kerry and Bush not to repeat any mistakes from Thursday in their next two debates. Maybe then, the pundits after the debate won't be talking about who looked better, but whose positions are better for America.
Sam Leven's columnappears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at sleven@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
