Moderator Jim Lehrer laid down the law Thursday night, and the crowd at the presidential debate at the University of Miami stayed absolutely silent. The crowd in the first-floor lounge of Haven Hall, however, couldn’t stifle snickers and outbursts as President George W. Bush and challenger John Kerry went head-to-head for the first time.

A decidedly pro-Kerry group congregated in Haven for a debate-watching party sponsored by Syracuse University’s College Democrats and Sigma Iota Rho, an international relations fraternity. About 30 people tuned into C-SPAN’s broadcast of the debate. Their reactions ranged from sarcastic running commentary to silent contemplation.

One student knitted. Another scratched down a running tally of certain catch phrases, including ‘flip-flop’ and ‘wrong war, wrong time.’ After the candidates wrapped up their closing statements, still another student offered her assessment of the debate’s outcome and the country’s future in general.

‘Guys, we’re screwed no matter who wins,’ she said.

Some SU professors who watched the debate, while not nearly as pessimistic, did comment on the similarities in several of the candidates’ messages. Rogan Kersh, a political science professor, was struck by the similarities between Bush and Kerry’s strategies for ending the war in Iraq.

‘I heard very little wedge driven between the two of them on what to do in the future,’ he said.

The Iraq war was the focus of the bulk of the debate, occupying nearly an hour by Kersh’s estimate. With that amount of time spent discussing the issue, viewers should be left with no doubt about where each candidate stands on the issue.

‘If you didn’t know where they stood before on Iraq, you know now,’ Kersh said.

The candidates each failed, however, to address key concerns that have troubled their respective campaigns. Kerry, Kersh said, failed to adequately address Bush’s charges that he has frequently changed his position on the war. Bush, on the other hand, failed to emphasize the seriousness of the problems facing the new Iraq.

‘Bush continued to sound an optimistic note,’ he said.

Charlotte Grimes, Knight professor of political reporting in the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications, said that while Kerry did a better job Thursday of avoiding rambling responses, he will have to try even harder to stay on message in order to match Bush’s directness and clarity.

‘Kerry did better on that than he often does, but Bush has an advantage in the way he expresses himself,’ she said.

Mehrzad Boroujerdi, professor of international relations, lauded the candidates’ condemnation of the genocide in the Sudan, saying that memory of Rwanda weighs heavily on both Kerry and Bush.

‘I was happy to hear the candidate call this a genocide, because that kind of language was missing during Rwanda,’ he said.

Boroujerdi was critical, however, of the candidates’ strategy for halting the development of Iran’s nuclear programs. The sanctions against the country, which both candidates supported to varying degrees, have done little to retard Iran’s acquisition of the weapons.

‘The nuclear issue requires much more imaginative policy-making than we’ve seen from both sides,’ Boroujerdi said.

Published on September 30, 2004 at 12:00 pm