How did they do ?...from USA Today

[fishface]

So how well did they do?
Here is how experts in communications, linguistics and politics assessed the performances of President Bush and Sen. John Kerry in their debate Wednesday night (edited for length and clarity):
Allan Louden, Wake Forest University political communication professor and 1992 debate coach to Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C.: "Bush had to look like he knows what he's talking about and had to look presidential. I think we saw that. He showed knowledge we didn't think he had. Kerry matched Bush in many ways, but when you parsed the questions he looked political, like he was giving stock answers.

"The last debate was confrontational, polarizing, divisive. This one was actually a celebration of the political process."

Sonya Hamlin, author of How to Talk So People Listen: "President Bush has had a habit of this funny kind of a lopsided smile, sort of a smirk as it's been called. He's using it more than ever before, and he laughed at times. I think it works against him."

Larry Powell, head of the University of Alabama at Birmingham Communication Studies department and co-author of Political Campaign Communication: Inside and Out: "It's déjà vu all over again. They repeated arguments from the previous debates. Bush started off smirking and smiling inappropriately but seemed to gain his footing on the question about homosexual choice. He made two attempts at humor that both fell flat. Kerry pointed out topic shifts at times but shifted topics himself."

Richard Greene, speech consultant and author of Words That Shook the World: 100 Years of Unforgettable Speeches and Events: "Kerry won by showing again that he is a substantive guy with strong feelings. Bush won by looking less impatient and compulsive. But neither candidate scored major points nor the much-desired knockout punch."

Myles Martel, debate adviser to Ronald Reagan in 1980 and author of Political Campaign Debates: Images, Strategies and Tactics: "While Bush gave a humorous, sincere, fitting response to the question regarding women's influence on him, that question actually gave Kerry the opportunity to appear more human, more engaging than at any point during the three debates. And the fact that that came late in the debate was very opportune for Kerry."

Jane Elmes-Crahall, Wilkes University communications professor: "It was an interesting ending. We had sort of a sincerity battle. It was good to hear both of them say something spontaneous and from the heart. If it came down to a battle of ethos, the challenger, Kerry, came across more convincing. Those moments of sincerity were probably the highlight of the debate."

Roger Wilkins, George Mason University history professor: "Bush was better than he has been in any of the other debates, but he still lost because the facts aren't on his side. Although it seemed his delivery was better than it has been, he still was smirky and sometimes juvenile.

"Kerry was also better. Near the end he tightened up his delivery and was quite eloquent in talking about the women in his life and his mother. I clearly thought he was the more presidential of the two."




http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-14-debate-experts_x.htm