Why who wins makes no difference
Kerry clearly won the first debate. One down, two to go. If he wins all three, he is certainly the better choice for president. Being president has at it’s core a need to communicate well and think on your feet-–or does it?
As a psychologist, I am pained to realize how much this debate exercise plays into the decisions of voters, when it bears little resemblance to what a president really does in office. In my opinion, a president needs to do very little thinking on his feet. He should be a man who has a clear framework from which he makes decisions, but he should be thoughtful and thorough. He has 100s of people who feed him information with which to make decisions. He needs to know where he’s going, he needs to know how to ask the right questions, and he needs to be able to synthesize the results such that they bring him to a conclusion.
Watching Kerry debate reminded me of President Clinton. So smooth, so confident. He can say things that lull me into thinking he has all the answers–and the ability to solve all problems with more programs and more excellence and......until I realize he is working with an unlimited phantom budget. The nice things he says may or may not be reasonable. It doesn’t seem to matter, they just sound good. Bush doesn’t do this well. I’m glad.
I don’t know of a better way to accomplish what the debates do, pitting one against the other, but more than ever I realize that even though Bush does a comparatively poor job at it, the things I want in a president are things he possesses, for the most part.
I’ll still feel good if he nails Kerry in the next debate, but I’m not holding my breath.
Tractorman