As debates go, tonight's is Game 7
13 October 2004
It's nearly over.
Thank God. Three debates down and one to go and, let's face it, they're getting tiresome.
Oh, I know, the debates are good medicine, civic Geritol for the tired blood of democracy. But somewhere in the midst of the second presidential debate, it occurred to me: These guys are repeating themselves. They've run out of material.
Has anyone watching these debates actually been surprised by the positions the candidates have taken? Have there actually been any of those "Hey honey, you won't believe what he just said" moments?
I doubt it. The platforms of both men are well plumbed and well known. After all, they've been at this at least since late February.
Which is not to say the debates have been worthless. Far from it. The arguments may be familiar, but seeing the two men side-by-side has had a significant and perhaps decisive impact.
At one point last August, Kerry proposed weekly debates. He's lucky Bush turned him down. With so many encounters, viewers (and networks) would have lost interest.
Instead, the limited number of debates combined with the
heightened interest in this year's contest has pushed viewership
upward. For the first debate, 62.5 million people tuned in (in 2000, it was
only 46.6 million). An estimated 43.6 million saw last week's veep debate (vs. 28.5 million in 2000), and another 46.7
million watched Friday's town hall confrontation in
And for tonight's Tempest in
If one were to consider the debates as a whole, regarding them perhaps as a four-act play, tonight represents a denouement of sorts. The first debate - Act 1 - saw expectations confounded. A president appeared uncertain while a challenger portrayed as vacillating looked strong and sure. Act 2 - the vice presidential matchup - was a sideshow of sorts, an opportunity to reflect on the main drama through the lens of minor players. The third act gave the president an opportunity to recover, mitigating some of the failures from Act 1.
And Act 4?
Kerry has the advantage. Tonight's format is similar to that of the first debate: A moderator (in this case, CBS' Bob Schieffer) will ask questions while the two candidates stand motionless behind their podiums. That's tougher on Bush, who clearly prefers interacting with ordinary citizens (as happened in the second presidential debate). On the other hand, it's good for Kerry who, quite frankly, seems to excel at being motionless.
Moreover, tonight's topic is domestic policy. That should be Kerry's strong suit; polls show voters favor Democrats on domestic issues. In addition, while Bush's certainty and lack of ambiguity helps him when it comes to foreign policy, we are more comfortable with Kerry-like nuance and compromise on subjects such as health care, education and jobs.
Still, what matters in these encounters is less what the candidates say and more how they say it. In a sense, the debates allow us to take our measure of the character of each man. That's because for many voters, the core concern is not where each stands on a myriad of topics. Rather, it is, how each would handle the unexpected - the issue that isn't on the agenda, the event that, like 9/11, is virtually unimaginable.
For a long time, the Bush campaign thought the character issue played to its advantage. Kerry has reversed much of that. Tonight, Bush needs to show Kerry doesn't have the stuff to be president, that it is in him, and not his challenger, in whom voters should trust. If he fails, this debate could be Kerry's moment, the chance to bust the election open.
All of which, despite the weary repetitiveness of the arguments back and forth, creates the potential for high drama. The stakes can't be greater. This is the last time they meet face-to-face, the last time so many will pay attention. There are no other events between now and Nov. 2 that can so profoundly affect the race.
Which is why even if you spend tonight watching the game, it's worth your while to tape the debate.
The Red Sox, after all, still have Game 3.