Showdown begins

Professors say debate proved no clear-cut winner between candidates

By Sylas Wright

The first presidential debate of 2004 between President Bush and Senator Kerry lacked new and unpredictable subject matter—and a clear-cut winner.

Instead, both candidates sparred evenly, jab by jab, through their rehashing of positions and criticisms on commonly discussed issues such as foreign policy and homeland security.

They were not given much choice, however, as the questions forced them in that direction.

“There was not a knockout blow on either side,” said David Provost, a political science professor. “But I would have to give a slight advantage to Kerry because he came across as equal to the president.”

Provost said the debate reminded him more of a dueling press conference.

“Both sides try to eliminate the element of surprise,” Provost said. “[The debate] was very predictable. They keep calling these debates, but they really are not.”

Provost said he thought Bush did a good job of stressing Kerry’s inconsistencies about the war in Iraq, and that Kerry was effective in convincing people that the Bush administration did not plan well for the post-war chaos in Iraq.

Possibly the most effective tactic during the debate was when Kerry mentioned Bush’s father and his reasons for not occupying Iraq: There was no “viable exit strategy.” Bush did not respond to the comment.

Kerry impressed Provost most through his demeanor, which he said was calm and collected. Bush, Provost said, appeared to be earnest and convinced, which is always good in debates.

Doug Fraleigh, a professor of communication, also thought the debate was fairly even.

“In terms of looking at having a good delivery and not pausing mid-sentence,” Fraleigh said, “Kerry had the upper hand. But in the context of the election, the fundamental principles of debate, Kerry needed to show that he has a better solution. I’m not sure he did enough to convince undecided voters. I’m not sure if he made that case.”

Freshman Michael Savage said he liked Bush’s style.

“Bush seemed really relaxed, like he’s just talking to you,” Savage said. “He really treats the debate like he’s just talking to you, the listener, rather than just answering questions. Kerry seemed more along the line of getting his point across and kind of pushed that. [Bush] wasn’t going to hammer you with his point.

He was going to make his point and let it stand.”