comparing debates: how did Gore and Bush do in the 2000 debates?

[drumwolf]

I wasn't able to watch tonight's debate, but I've been keeping track of both GD2004 and the blogs (Kos, Atrios), and I gather Kerry kicked butt.

Can anyone compare tonight's debate with the Gore/Bush debates in 2000? How did Gore and Bush do back then compared to Kerry and Bush tonight?

[drumwolf]

1. kick

[Tangledog]

2. Kerry was much more presidential

B* did the pouting tonight. Kerry was so dignified. At first I thought he might have been too dignified, to the point of being remote and unmodulated, but he did something very subtle. He acted like he was already bringing dignity and respect back to the office of the President of the United States. He called out B* a few times, but walked the fine line between serious policy disagreements and personal dissing. B* couldn't manage the distinction.

Getting back to your question :) Gore had an unfortunate tendency to lapse into a sort of good ol' boy drawl at somewhat unexpected moments. He didn't play well as a good ol' boy, and the attempts took him away from being a Washington insider in the good sense: smart, studious, hard-working. He also had a sort of, well, "mean streak" is too strong, but there was a dissonance between friendliness and snarliness that showed up now and then.

Kerry wasn't trying to be "the President you could have a beer with". John Kerry is John Kerry; he's got a consistent personality. And man, is he gonna be a great President!!