September 30, 2004

WRAPUP: Both closing statements were pretty good. Overall, while neither of these guys is an especially good orator (or maybe because neither is an especially good orator) it was a more substantive debate than I had expected.

Kerry was tougher than I had expected, which is good -- except that you never know what he'll say next time. If I hadn't been paying attention to the campaign, though, I'd be fairly impressed -- and Kerry has to hope that most people who watched the debate fall into that category. [LATER: Andrew Sullivan seems to agree with this take.]

Bush started off weak, got better as it went on, and finished well ("the transformative power of liberty"). Both did a pretty good job of sticking to issues and there weren't too many cheap rhetorical tricks. I don't think it'll change a lot of minds. But I have a very consistent track record of getting this stuff wrong (I thought Carter beat Reagan. . . .) so take my opinions with a large grain of salt.

UPDATE: This take from The Corner:

John Kerry plus: He does not come across as arrogant and obnoxious as we believe him to be.

John Kerry minus: His positions don't hold together in any coherent way.

George W. Bush plus: He has an air of authority, experience, and purpose I don't recall from 2000.

George W. Bush minus: The President is a dismally poor public speaker.

About right, I'd say.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Chuck Simmins:

Overall, a near draw, which translates to a win for Bush. Kerry started strong a few times then failed to move in for the kill. Unwilling or unable? . . . Both men seemed at a loss for words at times when I expected them not to be. Jitters?"

Neither one is an especially great orator.

Hugh Hewitt thinks it was a big Bush win.