ANNANDALE, Va. -- The story line this weekend will be that
President Bush did a lot better, and John Kerry not as well, in
their second debate. The only worry now is that in Arizona
Wednesday the two will again be behind lecterns, which will once
again play to Kerry's advantage and Bush's distinct
disadvantage.
The Washington Post's often astute, sometimes maddening
TV critic Tom Shales has already declared Bush the St. Louis winner on style,
Kerry on the winner on substance. Coming from a Dan Rather liberal,
that's saying something. Specifically, that Kerry lost on both
counts. In liberal eyes the fix is always in on substance -- by
definition there's no way a nonliberal can win here. What's more,
the superiority on that front is supposed to go hand in hand with
stylistic command. When it doesn't, it's a dark day indeed.
Poor Kerry. Without a lectern to tower over, he was a freak
show. Perhaps John Edward can sue the television camera
manufacturers. But exposed in his thin tallness on the stage floor,
particularly when caught in profile, Kerry came across as some sad
mix of scarecrow and arthritis sufferer, unable to bend his back at
all or even take an unstiff step.
Bush by contrast thrived. No longer short he was in his sauce --
because he was among people. It's no accident his best performances
have always seen him in a sea of humanity. (Yes, even on the USS
Lincoln.) He was made to be seen with others. He easily
leads because he likes and is liked by those he serves.
Kerry is another matter entirely. As someone has said, he can't
help but treat people like help, and even to remind them they're
help. Has anyone ever said anything more revealing than Kerry
Friday night, apropos his tax hike promises on higher income
brackets, when he said: "And looking around here, at this group
here, I suspect there are only three people here who are going to
be affected: the president, me, and, Charlie, I'm sorry, you
too."
And looking around here, in this tacky auditorium? At this group
of obvious nobodies? That's what he meant. By the way, he forgot to
include his wife among the high rollers in the room. Or to convey
any understanding of the American dream, more importantly.
There were some surprises. The awfulness of the town hall format
was mitigated by the participation of some fine and serious
citizens. The few dolts gave themselves away, usually by not having
the good grace to wear a tie to such an event or being able to read
the question they themselves had composed. The pointed questions
seemed mainly directed at Kerry, and they all came from women. In
response to Ann Bronsing's question about why no further attacks on
U.S. soil since 9/11, Kerry stumbled badly, his practiced
smoothness suddenly giving way to confusion ("…it's not a
question of when, it's a question of -- excuse me -- not a question
of if, it's a question of when. We've been told that") and lots of
filler about the need for good intelligence. Before he was done he
jumped back to answer an earlier questioner. (He did that several
times in the evening, picking up on John Edwards' bad habit.) Two
pro-life questions just about finished him off, in part because
they allowed Bush to drive home some key points, but also because
they brought out the NARAL side of Kerry which requires him to use
the mother's health excuse as his reason for backing partial birth
abortion and to oppose parental notification because all teen
pregnancies apparently stem from incestuous rape.
Charlie Gibson will hear it from his colleagues for allowing
those questions through. But has there been a lovelier and sweeter
young American at such an event than Sarah Degenhart, who asked the
second pro-life question? You have to wonder what tax bracket
she'll end up in when she gets to heaven.
topics:
Television, Abortion, Oil
