John Kerry's debate victory could translate into election victory

Americans prefer a tall president. To neutralize Kerry's (6-foot 4inches) height advantage over Bush (5-foot 11 inches) the Republicans demanded and got the podiums for both Bush and Kerry to be of the same height. Republicans did not want America to see Kerry tower over Bush just as Regan (6'4") had towered over Carter (5'11") in 1980 presidential debate (incumbent Carter lost). Knowing that Kerry has a tendency to sweat in debates (just as Richard Nixon had sweated in the first ever televised presidential debate in 1960 and lost the election to Senator John F. Kennedy), the Republicans refused Democrats' request to lower the thermostat below 70 degree Fahrenheit in the debating hall. To expose Kerry's propensity for long and winded answers, and to highlight the president's to-the-point brevity, the Republicans made the Democrats agree to install on the two podiums lights set to turn red, buzzers set to go off if anyone exceed the time allotted to them (either 2 minutes, 90 seconds or 30 seconds).

Surprise! While Kerry remained erect and tall during debate, Bush slumped over the podium and looked even shorter. Confronted with a time clock, Kerry was precise and to the point, while Bush was often incoherent, bumbling and unintelligible. While Kerry looked presidential, Bush looked angry and petulant and non-presidential. Instead of Kerry, it was Bush who sweated. Instead on Bush knocking out Kerry, it was Kerry who knocked out Bush!

Kerry was the clear winner on substance, style and looking presidential. It appeared as though Bush, who looked weary, fidgety and clueless like a deer caught in a headlight, wanted to be somewhere else. Regardless of how Bush performed, it was expected that the rightwing cable news media would spin the debate as a victory for Bush. They did not or could not. Bush was so thoroughly outclassed in every aspect that even the notoriously pro-Bush commentators on Fox News channel grudgingly conceded that Kerry had won. As the Democrats were giddy after the debate, defeat was written all over the faces of even the Republican spinners. The country agreed. In The New York Times of October 2, nine out of the eleven letters published on the debate declared Kerry the decisive winner. In The Times of New Jersey, readers labeled Bush as "not presidential," "unworthy," and "embarrassing."

So, what happened? In life, eventually most people get their due. It is better not to pretend to be what one is not. George Bush is not the most intelligent person on earth. That does not disqualify him from being a great president. An intellectual Ronald Reagan was not; but he was very successful. For the last four years the Republicans have done a marvelous job of shielding George Bush from public scrutiny. Unlike Reagan, all of Bush's appearances were before carefully screened, friendly crowds, who lobbed friendly questions at him. While Bush attempted to look presidential, his surrogates, such as the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" did all the dirty work for him, and through smear tactics attempted to destroy his presidential opponent John Kerry. However, just as a pugilist enters the ring without his entourage, Bush found himself alone on the podium without his sleaze team to prop him up. And from the get go Kerry tore into Bush. Surrounded by "yes-men" these days Bush was suffering from the monarch-syndrome. Kerry's blistering attack on Bush with the world watching, rattled Bush. The audacity of a "subject" (Kerry) made Bush in turn irritated, annoyed and angry. Bush lost his cool, his coherence, his demeanor, his logic, his memory and the debate! This was Bush unhinged; and America and the world now knows that an unhinged George Bush without his supporting cast is not a pretty sight!

Does this mean that the presidential race is going to swing Kerry's way now? Don't bet on it. The other day, former Democratic Governor of Texas Ann Richards, whom George W. Bush defeated in 1994 in the Texas gubernatorial race, said something very revealing on television about George Bush and his people. Ann Richards was a very successful first term Governor when the Republicans ran Bush against her. Unable to discredit Richards on her record, Mr. Bush's "brain" Karl Rove, circulated rumours that since many of Ann Richards' appointees are unmarried, they must be gay! This was followed a few weeks later with more vicious rumours. Ann Richards, a mother of five children, had just undergone a painful divorce. Since she had not remarried, the rumours implied that she, too, must be gay! To drive home the point, flyers were found under car windshield wipers of some churchgoers in Texas that showed a black man kissing a white man, with the caption, "This is what you can expect if Ann Richards is re-elected." John Kerry's people must know that Karl Rove will stop at nothing if he feels that his candidate Bush is in trouble.

In the debate Kerry did what he needed to do. As straightforward as he was straight-backed, Kerry was the aggressor and pressed his case for a change of command in the war on terror. Kerry succeeded in separating the war in Iraq from the war on terror, something Bush had successfully fudged. So successful in painting Kerry as a vacillating wimp, Bush nevertheless failed to reconcile his upbeat assessment of how things are going in Iraq with the disturbing daily news bulletins and pictures from the Iraqi insurgency. Instead, Bush stayed on his message and kept parroting Kerry's "mixed messages," statements such as "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time;" accusations Americans had heard hundreds of times courtesy of the Republican ads that are getting tiresome. Kerry countered aptly by reminding Bush that there is no virtue in being resolute while adhering to a wrong policy. Naturally, Mr. Bush is not running on his dismal 4-year record as president; he is running against Kerry's miscues.

It is as though Bush and Kerry are being chased by a bear and Bush's strategy is not to outran the bear, but to outrun Kerry, so that when the bear catches up to Kerry it will eat Kerry and spare Bush!

Even after being clobbered in the debate, Bush continued to run against Kerry's miscues. Ridiculing Kerry's comment that American preemption has "pass a global test," Mr. Bush derisively labeled it "The Kerry Doctrine," which will imperil America. Mr. Bush still believes that he can win by running away from his pathetic record all around as the incumbent president and by insulting his opponent. Both the candidates disgraced themselves by going out of their way to shamelessly praise Israel, just as mass murdering criminal Sharon was massacring 28 Palestinians the same day.

Things are clearly looking better for John Kerry. Reversing recent trends, in a Newsweek poll taken two days after the debate, Kerry leads Bush 47 per cent to 45 per cent nationally. Incessant negative commercials by the Bush sleaze team had reduced John Kerry to a caricature of his true self. On September 30, he showed America his true self -- a strong leader in command of facts, who articulated an alternate vision for success abroad -- which bears no resemblance to the caricature. On the other hand, the Republicans had built George Bush up as a strong and decisive leader America can depend on during the time of crisis. Instead Bush came across as a bumbling imbecile, who ran out of materials 35 minutes into the 90-minute debate and spent the rest of the time repeating his tired and stale mantra over and over again as if by rote. Because of the Republican demonisation of Kerry, the bar for Kerry was low; he cleared it easily. Packaged by the Republicans as the "War President," the bar for Bush was high; he ducked under it.

This is reminiscent of the contempt with which President Jimmy Carter and his people had underestimated Ronald Reagan in 1980. Although Regan was a two-term Governor of California (1966-74), the Carter campaign painted him as a third rate Hollywood actor with no knowledge of foreign affairs and domestic policies. In the debates, Reagan looked every bit as presidential as Carter. With American diplomats held hostage in Iran, Americans were looking for an alternative to Carter in 1980. During the debates, they found one in Regan and elected him in a landslide. A recent poll showed that even if Bush wins reelection on November 2, 89 per cent of the Americans want him to follow a different course in Iraq. In the debate Mr. Bush insisted that he will do the same things in Iraq he is doing now. Mr. Kerry said he would do Iraq differently. John Kerry gave the Americans an alternative to George Bush. It is up to the American voters to reward Kerry the way they rewarded Reagan in 1980.