The final word

After the Lieberman-Cheney debate in 2000, many people responded that the vice-presidential candidates appeared more presidential than the tops of the tickets, who were spouting slogans about lockboxes, and reformers with results, while their seconds had a serious discussion about issues. What happened this time is that yet again, Cheney showed himself to be the brains behind the President. Not so with Edwards. He seemed clearly lighter and less qualified than Cheney for a jod as, for example, Secretary of Defense, the sort of job which Cheney has held several times. But Edwards isn't running for Secretary of Defense, and Cheney's cold CEO demeanor may alienate more voters than Edwards will lose with his drawling non-responses on security issues.

I don't think anyone will walk away from this debate wanting an Edwards-Kerry ticket more than a Kerry-Edwards one, but I'm at least curious how a Kerry-Clark ticket would have fared. On the other hand, Bush's ineptness only looks worse when contrasted with Cheney's robust command of the few arguments that can support his increasingly flawed policies. There is a danger that Kerry's win over Bush will be spun as a win of style over substance. This would be to misunderstand what happened, and not just because Bush failed on what is being called "substance" as well.

The debate format isn't a good one for getting to the bottom of issues like what effect bilateral talks will have on North Korea, or what Zarquawi did and when. THose issues can all be hammered out in articles and round tables by people other than the candidates themselves. The true value of the dabates for voters who are not policy analysts is that they see for the first time how the candidates think and respond under pressure when confronted with greater and more direct challenges than they face on the campaign trail. This is not a question of style, but one of basic competence for the challenges they will face every day in office.

Issues like "winning the stride," or looking into the camera are purely style, but the ability of a candidate to defend his positions in an open forum is a good measure of his ability to handle the job. For that reason, the obvious competence gap between Kerry and Bush, and the even more obvious gap between Cheney and Bush (as they're defending the same positions) should give undecided voters serious doubts about whether George W. Bush can be trusted to continue in office.