Four years ago, when Al Gore and George W. Bush left the stage after the first of three presidential debates, the consensus among viewers polled by the TV networks was that the vice president had beaten the Texas governor. In the words of Hardball host Chris Matthews, Gore had “cleaned the other guy's clock.”
But within a few days, opinion began to shift, as pundits like Matthews focused relentlessly on the fact that Gore had sighed too much.
When last night's presidential debate ended, there was little doubt among viewers who had won; the networks' in-house quick-polling operations all gave John Kerry the win by sizeable margins.
But there were also signs that the pattern of 2000 was beginning to repeat itself, as television commentators groped for an overly simple theme to use in describing the debate -- and the theme they were looking for had little to do with the substance of the discussion.
Kerry and Bush had not even left the stage before FOX's Brit Hume asked the question burning in the minds of pundits across the nation: “Which exchange in this debate,” he wondered, “will be the one played over and over again in late-night broadcasts and in the morning news and in the days ahead?”
Yes, citizens, the two men vying to lead the world's remaining superpower had just spent 90 minutes arguing about the best way to balance America's need for security with its need to maintain alliances, and Hume was looking for a sound bite.
So, it seemed, were most of the talking heads on FOX. And they were seriously bummed about not finding one.
“This was a relentlessly high-toned debate,” said Fred Barnes. “I mean, they had some digs at each other but it was really a high-toned discussion of foreign-policy issues … . I don't think there was this bad sound bite for somebody.”
Finding nothing in the sound-bite department, Hume moved on to the other vital aspect of all presidential debates: body language.
“What about the body language of the debate?” he demanded. “Which of these two men did a better job when they were not talking tonight?”
Unaccountably, Morton Kondracke tried to turn the topic to the actual substance of the discussion, but Hume was having none of it:
Kondracke: I think it is more important what they did when they were talking, and I think that Kerry –
Hume: That's not the question that I asked you. Answer my question, then you can say whatever you want.
Of course, Kondracke would not be allowed to say whatever he wanted. Within moments, Hume was badgering him about his assessment of the president's facial expressions: Did Bush look annoyed by Kerry?
Hume's focus on the trivial should have come as no surprise to anyone who had channel surfed through much of the pre-debate coverage last night. On MSNBC, Hardball host Matthews had to shout even louder than usual to make himself heard above the mob ringing his outdoor platform, which looked more like the setting for ESPN's Saturday-morning College Game Day than a political talk show.
This isn't to say that political events shouldn't be attended by boisterous crowds. But it does say something about the level of the discussion you expect your anchor to conduct when you put him a few yards away from a pep band and a bunch of screaming college kids, half of whom at any given time seemed to be calling their friends on cell phones to shout, “Hey, I'm on TV!”
In the post-debate wrap-ups, at least, not all the news shows launched into immediate analyses of the candidates' demeanor. Over on CNN, to his credit, Wolf Blitzer managed to keep his stable of reporters and commentators more or less focused on the actual issues of the debate. (Except for Jeff Greenfield, whose assignment appeared to be to make inscrutable pronouncements about the mechanics of the event, such as, “[Kerry] was at pains to be direct, to not go over his time, and also, in a classic debate move, to take control of the room.”)
Back on FOX, even Hume's archconservative commentators managed to sneak in some comments about the debate's substance, and even they had to give Kerry his due.
“There was a chance that the president would knock Kerry out of the race tonight if he had won this debate decisively, if Kerry had looked like a figure of mixed messages,” said Bill Kristol, who was part of a FOX News panel. “I think Kerry survived and indeed did very well tonight,” he continued. “I think Kerry was forceful and articulate.”
“John Kerry did better than I expected,” said Barnes, also on FOX. “I thought he was very good, very articulate -- particularly in raising questions about decisions made by President Bush.”
What will be interesting to watch, as the right-wing spin machine churns into action overnight and in the next few days, is how willing Kristol, Barnes, and others are to repeat their praise of Kerry's performance. Will they stick to their original observations, or will they scour the tapes for some previously unnoticed Kerry tic -- he took too many notes! -- that they can inflate and amplify beyond all reason to prove that Kerry actually lost.
Rob Garver is a journalist who lives in Springfield, Virginia.
