from Tom Shales's review of the debate

[winterbadger]

One longtime political observer -- among the friends canvassed by this critic -- was more irreverent about the debate and how the two debaters came off: "It was Andy Griffith meets Barney Fife," he said, with Kerry in the Griffith role -- solid, sanguine, sensible -- and Bush as the nervous Fife.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64102-2004Oct1.html

I couldn't have said it better. :-) Bush didn't drop his notes on the floor or turn puce, but he dried up, tripped over words, and made faces that the cameras caught. He failed to come up with effective responses on a number of occasions, often stringing together pat phrases with (as Doreen put it) his own very nebulous and incohernt thoughts. He repeated catchphrases his campaign had trained him in, often when they made little or no sense at all. He didnot look presidential. He looked, as Curtis and Elton put it, like a monkey that's been put in a suit and strategically shaved. And this was the debate on his strongest subjects. If he doesn't improve in later debates, roll on November!

Comments

[ivorydamsel.livejournal.com]

Yes, good column by Shales (whose views will be discounted by Bush-boosters like my father as so much elite-liberal-media tripe, but Dad's not open to reason anyway).

As liatha pointed out, however, people will see what they want to see in the debates. The contrasting reactions just show you how polarized people are in their views of the world -- and of reality. The Blue vs. Red polarization -- politically, culturally, psychologically -- is real in this country. We can only hope that Kerry's greater stature, performance and grasp of what's needed will reach those undecided "Purples" out there.