Christopher Caldwell 's take:
"It was a bloodbath," he writes. "Never has a presidential candidate entered a debate with lower expectations than George W. Bush. He managed to fall short of them.
"Gore was the alpha male, talking over Bush and Jim Lehrer, setting his own time limits for questions, getting the last word on everything. Lehrer did an abysmal job as moderator, allowing Bush to be punished for having better manners. But once it was apparent Lehrer would do little to rein in Gore, a tough leader would have slapped Gore down himself. Bush didn't. ...
"Immediately after the speech, all CNN's analysts agreed that Bush had done better than he appeared to, since no one will remember the quantitative specifics. They're wrong. People won't remember the figures, it's true; but they will remember that Gore looked competent and Bush looked confused. ... Bush's larger problem is not rhetorical but ideological: His lily-livered unwillingness to defend small-government conservatism leaves him fighting on Gore's turf."
National Review, which strongly favors Bush over Gore, is disarmingly frank. Ramesh Ponnuru grudgingly concedes a Gore victory: "Al Gore was at his obnoxious best in the first presidential debate. While George W. Bush spoke, Gore grimaced, sighed dramatically, chuckled mirthlessly. Gore interrupted and browbeat. He kept ... ex-AG-ger-a-ting his ... in-TO-nations in that weird way of his. And he won the debate. |
