President George W. Bush and Mass. Sen. John Kerry squared off in the first of a series of three debates (plus one vice presidential debate) at the University of Miami at Coral Gables, Fl., on Thursday, Sept. 30. The debate, hosted by PBS anchor Jim Lehrer, focused exclusively on foreign policy. The two presidential candidates were asked alternating questions and given two minutes to answer. After the candidate being asked the question responded, his opponent was given 90 seconds to respond. Additional 30-second rebuttals were allowed at Lehrer’s discretion. Both candidates were prompted through the questions into outlining their thoughts and plans for the next four years of foreign policy.

The next presidential debate will be in a town hall format — a debate driven by audience questions — on Friday, Oct. 8, and the third debate — which will follow the format of the first and address domestic policy — will be on Wednesday, Oct. 13. The only vice presidential debate is on Tuesday, Oct. 5.

Patrick Callahan, contributing writer

Both candidates came out to defend their views on foreign policy and the war in Iraq. Democrats looked for Kerry to hit a home run by laying down his plan for Iraq and by explaining his goals for the United States on a global scale. Republicans expected Bush to recite his usual lines about staying the course and bringing freedom to the world. Both sides got what they wanted. However, the victory goes to Kerry thanks to his ability to clearly and concisely express his vision of an America that attacks terrorism from a globally united perspective. Bush reassured his support from those who share his beliefs and don’t need extensive oratory or in-depth explanations to confirm their stance. But he failed to reach those people who will determine the outcome of this election — the undecided voters. He stuck to his guns by giving short and cliché answers that will prove to be unconvincing to those outside his circle of right-wing supporters. Kerry vowed to lead the fight against terrorism in a way that will bring the world together in a common goal rather than pushing international opinion aside.

Brian Goodman, staff writer

It cannot be doubted that Kerry came away as the overall performance winner in Thursday night’s debate.

As many of his public appearances are, he came off as polished as freshly cleaned glass — botox injections and $1,000 haircuts will do that for a man.

But when appealing to the public, it was — at best — a draw for Kerry, who still is unable to talk to Americans like he is an American — a problem the president doesn’t have. Bush’s colloquial — yet strong — speech, as well as his newfound quick retorts, won him significant brownie points.

The political climate after the debate therefore is almost entirely unchanged, except that the two candidates tactfully called each other names to their faces, rather than in stump speeches to farmers in swing states. Kerry still claims Bush lied, but shouldn’t be called a liar. Bush still claims Kerry flip-flops, but shouldn’t be called a pair of Rainbow sandals.

As a result, Republicans still are proud of Bush and Democrats still are happy that Kerry isn’t Bush. It is the swing voters, 30 percent strong, who were no better off Friday morning than they were Thursday night.

Travis Jones, senior writer

Kerry clearly outdebated Bush in the first presidential debate Thursday night. Kerry was clearer on the issues, more eloquent and generally appeared more presidential throughout the 90-minute duel.
Kerry finally gave clear answers on the major issues, while Bush failed to have a firm grasp on them. Kerry, a former member of the Yale University debate team, won this debate with his eloquence and body language superiority.

Kerry seemed better prepared, quicker on his feet and spoke in short, concise sentences. Bush stuttered and paused often, seemed confused by his own answers and frequently struggled to fill the time allotted to him. Kerry stood tall with his back straight and head high, looking very comfortable the whole time. Bush was somewhat hunched over his lectern and seemed nervous, flustered and fidgety — appearing smaller and less commanding than his Frankenstein-esque opponent. When Kerry criticized Bush, he reacted with scowls, smirks and squints, while looking disgusted. Bush’s scowl already is being compared to Al Gore’s infamous loud and pained sighs during the first debate back in 2000.

Democratic voters now feel that it is possible to be for Kerry and not just against Bush. However, Kerry only has won the battle — not the war. This one debate does not necessarily mean anyone has gained or lost votes, yet it certainly is a step in the right direction.

Jonathan Kelly, contributing writer

The question of how the candidates would bring about stability in Iraq and defend the homeland was interlocked with thought-provoking musings on the merits of the use of force and nation building, even though neither candidate demonstrably was clear. They preferred to map out general guidelines on how to proceed in Iraq rather than specific concrete steps, with Bush emphasizing resolute perseverance and Kerry seeking allied aid. Security issues pertaining to Iran and North Korea, wherein nuclear weapons are being sought or mass-produced, received considerable attention.

Kerry’s breadth of knowledge and experience in foreign affairs, as well as his rhetorical agility, shone through flawlessly. Though he appeared somewhat nervous in the beginning, the senator had no trouble forging ahead in the debate. He conveyed his points with the impassioned reason of a country preacher, projecting a combination of authoritativeness and emotion. Anyone who had heard rumors of the senator’s extensive debate training now had full confirmation.

The president successfully executed his familiar style of elegantly rugged forcefulness, although he frequently seemed to run out of material to use and sometimes appeared testy. One of his most adroit moments was his anecdote of an interpersonal encounter with the wife of a fallen soldier in which he conveyed the difficulty that any president experiences of putting troops in harm’s way. It was a resourceful method of appealing to women, especially married women, within the electorate.

Alex Sirney, opinion editor

Thursday night’s debate was a solid success — it allowed both candidates to reveal the deep ideological differences in their methods, if not their goals, for conducting U.S. foreign policy. Both Kerry and Bush clearly articulated their points, resulting in a high-quality debate. While Bush tended to repeat himself at times and give occasionally vague or irrelevant answers, it was clear that Bush favors acting in the United States’ interest regardless of the sentiments of the world community, while Kerry favors a multinational approach and would draw many nations together into a true coalition.

They both perceive similar threats to the United States, but this revelation of the differences in their methods greatly should help undecided voters determine which candidate they agree with. It is likely that the debate on Oct. 13 that covers domestic policy will reveal even deeper ideological differences, further showing that, while both certainly have the nation’s best interests at heart, they differ greatly on how to achieve it.

As a result of these debates, this election should not come down to the choice between the lesser of two evils that many perceived the 2000 election to be, but rather the choice between who the electorate believes has the best strategy to lead the United States domestically and abroad.