For the first two days after Friday night's second debate, the Internet was alive with discussion and analysis. Likewise, Saturday's newspapers gave thorough coverage. Fine. As it should be.
But where was all the expected spin on CNN, MSNBC, and the Sunday morning shows? There was enough of the kind of stuff they normally eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner to sustain the media for days.
To be sure, Bush had enough telling moments in his mannerisms and thought processes to keep any conversation lively. But other than standard after debate shows, the televised media has been strangely silent. What talk we did hear that night centered on the "draw" factor. This was in stark contrast to newspaper analysis that sided pretty convincingly with Kerry.
Are they afraid to declare the early TKO?
I mean really, for a media that has been obsessed with foibles as a measure of debate successes and failures, their silence is highly odd.
If they are trying keep the conversation focused on the facts and issues, that would be a fine and noble exercise, but Bush was trounced on that front too. Go to the videotape on the drugs from Canada segment. Bush said they were not safe and could be coming from third world nations? Kerry's response buried him. The moment when Bush jumped up and ran over Gibson was odd enough, but his response was regurgitated and simplistic. (Ask Tony Blair!) After Bush's angry rhetoric, Kerry calmly stood up and skewered him with his "If Missouri was a country it would be the third largest member of the coalition. That's not a grand coalition. I can do better." It was plain that Kerry won easily on the issues, on facts, on ability to give thoughtful answers and on style.
So, back to the original question. Why is the media refusing to define the debates on "moments" as they have always done? We saw nothing but the stupid clips leading up to this year's debates. Bush senior looking at his watch, Reagan not making an issue of Mondale's youth and inexperience. Nixon's sweaty lip. "What will be this years defining moment" they always asked.
Let's count the number storylines the media normally would be testing the waters with by now.
- Bush's strange and subdued performance in #1 vs his hyper and boorish behavior in #2.
- The facial reactions.
- He forgot Poland!
- Hard Work, mixed messages, he changes his mind ad nausea.
- My pal Vlad.
- Steamrolling Charlie Gibson
- Rumors on the internets!
- Want some Wood!
- Not being able to admit a single mistake.
- Wired for sound?
If Kerry holds to form in the third debate, this will be a sweep. If the media doesn't start talking about the strange, lame, scary, embarrassing performance of The Commander In Chief, The War President, The Only Administration That Can Keep Us Safe From The Terrorists. ... then we are all in trouble.