AN EXPERT ON JOHN KERRY AS DEBATER (William Weld's Take)

William Weld, now an investment banker in New York, was the popular Republican governor of Massachusetts in 1996 when he ran against Sen. John Kerry. Their campaign featured eight debates that many observers said were among the best of the modern era. Weld talked about Kerry's skills as a debater:

• `` Sen. Kerry is a master of substance and has both sound bites and more lengthy pronouncements in his memory bank. Thus, he can rip off a policy torrent, in response to a question, without having to frame or choose his words. Lesson: You have to listen to what he is saying, even if it sounds canned or glib, because he may actually be breaking substantive ground.

• `` Sen. Kerry is not at all wooden in debate. It is his preferred milieu. In a debate setting, he is Br'er Rabbit in the briar patch. Nor is he detached in debate. It is the one context in which he goes regularly for the jugular. He ranges comfortably around the ring and chooses the topic he wishes to respond to .


http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/politics/9768937.htm

Let the expectation remain low for Kerry please.

I'm dense, but I need to know if all this is sarcasm or not. The only reason George Jr. is even a moderately good debater is because expectations are always so low, so that if he doesn't totally flounder, they say "he did a pretty good job."

Or maybe I'm blind? and deaf?

It's like Arnold in the CA debate. All he had to do was not totally f*ck up and he was declared the winner, when, in fact, Comejo was 10x the debater he could ever be, but expectations were so low for Arnold that he came across looking good.

david

We are trying to lower expectations for Kerry and raise them for the turd. We want Kerry to have the same advantage as Arni the boobiegrabber had.

I think in 2000 George Jr. was the underdog and an imbicille, so everyone cut him some slack. This time I think he's the freaking President, so expectations have to be much higher. I don't think we'll laugh with him when he mangles words or forgets the names of foreign leaders, and his smirk is much less "endearing" after being subjected to it for four years.

I don't think he can get away with what he got away with in 2000 this time.

I just hope Kerry isn't as wooden or obviously poll driven as Gore. I remember laughing with Gore as he tried to be fluffy in debate #2, but now I'm just kinda sickened by it - that he so tried to alter his persona because everyone said he was too tough in #1. Kerry needs to decide who he's going to be before he starts and stick to it.

Anyway, I agree, let's raise the expectations for George Jr. (though I don't think we need to do that to anyone on this board - most of our minds are already made up :) )

david

...but will he be able to match Cicero Bush is a whole different issue.

Where Kerry performed magnificentally, and I recall one line Kerry can use again to GREAT effect on Bush:
"We're electing a President, NOT a cabinet".
(and Bush has, hands down, one of the most incompetent cabinets. EVER.)

I don't remember him much. I was a big Kucinich supporter, and liked Dean too, so what Kerry said and how he did didn't imprint itself on my memory.

I remember not liking what Edwards said, but liking the way he said it.

david

with a field that crowded, and Sharpton having us snorting coffee out of our noses laughing all the time?

he seemed to have to fight for face-time in most instances. Granted I did not see all of the debates. Remember, up until Iowa he was barely on the radar.

Jay

there were too many people, all answering the same question.

Al Sharpton stole the show, every time, his campaign funded by Roger Stone & Repugs.

But, I remember watching Kerry in the debates and he came across as "presidential", confident and he knew what he was talking about. I can't remember much more than that.

then he wins the debate. In fact, that is the only reasonable goal in this pardoy debate format.

I watched as many as I could, and watching it live, he didn't impress me much.

However, I would then go back and read transcripts, and I liked Kerry on paper better than any of the others.

Kerry responded to a question that asked him to cite examples of how the we can support our troops. I recall he tossed out five (remembering the number and not the substance) examples of how the troops need support and how the Bush administration had failed them.

He also responded to economic concerns: rampant unemployment, new job training and future economic necessities. He effortlessly constructed a statement that tied energy policy to job creation. In that statement, he advocated renewable energy resources as the new frontier for American job creation (among many other potential avenues) because energy resources in the future will be localized.

He was quick, decisive and persuasive.

particularly if you were really behind a different candidate. That's exactly the kinda appeal and personality he needs to really shine on Thursday.

I'm getting very nervous again, but also hopeful!

david

any of these co-op speech sessions were really debates.

Jay

...he could shred Bush, but it wouldn't matter to those neocon cement-heads...

These rinos don't care, they see a shrub and that is all they want to see.

He needs to reach the Mickey Mouse voters - the voters like my Mom and many others who don't see any redeeming value in either candidate and will probably write in "Mickey Mouse" rather than cast a vote for either.

The nuculer crowd is lost already.

david

Bush has yet to lose a debate.