TONIGHT

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Archives
• Young Voices
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

RELATED LINKS

• Bio on Mr. Ridley
• Conversation with Mr. Ridley
• Mr. Ridley on NOW with Bill Moyers
• Mr. Ridley on NPR

E-mail a friend

Tavis: I am pleased to be joined live in our studios by a terrific group of guests here to analyze tonight's debate. First up, a contributor to my NPR show, Connie Rice, cofounder and director of the Advancement Project. Up next, John Dean, former White House Counsel under Richard Nixon, whose latest book is "Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush." Leslie Sanchez, a Republican strategist and the former point person for the Bush administration on Hispanic educational issues. She now owns her own marketing research firm in Washington. And finally John Ridley, a successful screenwriter/director and now a political commentator for NPR's "Morning Edition." I'm glad to have you all here.

Leslie Sanchez: Thank you.

Tavis: let me start with you, Connie, since you're on the end there. I'm not so sure it would be instructive or in any way useful for us to engage in this back-and-forth banter or debate about who won, who lost. We've got all day tomorrow and the next couple days to figure that out, and won't we get enough of that? But did we learn anything tonight? Did you learn anything tonight?

Connie Rice: Tavis, I didn't learn a thing.

Tavis: 90 minutes of wasted time? You didn't learn nothing?

Rice: I learned nothing. But here's how I'm looking at it right now, not so much who won, who lost, but who needed to do what tonight, and I don't know how the other panelists feel, but I felt that Kerry had a whole lot more to accomplish tonight. He had to dig himself out of the hole that he allowed himself to get into the previous 5 months and in fact change the sea--the tide of this debate, because it changed from a referendum on the incumbent to a referendum on him. So he had to change that, and he had to convince people that he wasn't a waffler, and he had to convince people, "I'm the better person." That was a whole lot more.

Tavis: Did he succeed or fail?

Rice: I don't think he did it. I don't think he did it. I think he made some solid points, and Bush made some solid points. I think that they both made their points, both of them stayed on message, one of them a little too much. But I just--I think that overall, Kerry didn't do what he needed to do, and Bush didn't lose anything.

Tavis: I used the word earlier, John--John Dean. I used the word earlier--"instructive." Was this debate at all instructive for you, enlightening for you in any way tonight?

John Dean: Well, I don't think I'm the audience the debate was playing to. I think that both men were obviously playing to those who haven't made a decision. They were talking a little bit to their bases to keep their bases stirred and interested, but they were really looking out for some voters that haven't decided. And--So I'm not the best judge. I do know they both know their stump speeches well, 'cause we heard them capsulized and summarized repeatedly tonight. In fact, I thought Mr. Bush a little bit more than Mr. Kerry reminded us his key talking points and message points tonight. But I really was looking to see how people would react, because one of these tests that has nothing to do with substance is our reaction to these people as personalities and this theoretical test of, is this somebody we want in our living room for the next four years? And you know, I don't know how people reacted on that. I obviously--I don't carry a brief for either man. I've actually written a brief against one, but that's beside the point. But I thought that Kerry, to me, at one point, got very comfortable, and when I saw him slide his hand in his pocket, an old trick that prosecutors and lawyers do in front of the jury, you know they're in their stride at that point. And that's when I think that he was certainly comfortable, and I suspect that radiated that comfort to a lot of people as well.

Tavis: Did you get the sense that Kerry, to your point, did in fact at some point find his stride and that Bush never did? Or did Bush find his stride as well?

Dean: I thought Bush was a little bit off-balance all night, whereas I thought that Kerry did in fact find himself comfortable in the situation he was in. And whether this appealed to people or not, as I say, we'll hear a lot of spin in the next 48 hours on that.

Tavis: Leslie, what line, if there was one, jumped out at you tonight? I wrote a few of them down, which we may get to here a little bit later. John Kerry's line comes to mind, "Don't confuse war with warriors." George W. Bush, the President used his stump speech line, rather well--"The only thing consistent about Senator Kerry is that he's inconsistent." Those two things come to mind immediately. Was there a particular line or phrase that jumped out at you tonight?

Leslie Sanchez: Well, the issue of preemptive attacks, that there would have to be a global test. And I think a lot of people probably stopped. And it's really great that the President jumped on that and said, "Global test? What exactly are you talking about? We're a world power. We're a world leader." That sets a new type of litmus test that I don't think a lot of Americans were even prepared to think about, much less really think that that's going to be the mission of a John Kerry presidency.

Tavis: Did you--I'm sorry to cut you off. Did you get the sense, though--I was watching this, trying to ascertain, trying to listen for and look for more than just a nuance difference between where they stood on this whole notion of preemptive strike. I'm not really sure that I heard that. Maybe you heard something I didn't hear. That's a big issue, preemptive strike, but I didn't hear a distinct difference between these two guys on their policy on that.

Sanchez: No, I don't think on any issue. I think that's one thing John Kerry had to do. He had to very clearly, succinctly explain his position on Iraq. He's had ten different positions on that, eight or nine positions on the $87 billion of funding the war in Iraq. And I don't think we came away with a clear understanding one way or the other. That's one thing he had to accomplish. I think one thing we saw is that he is a Northeasterner. He's very eloquent. He's a very good debater. Yale, they called him one of the best in the history of Yale. And I think you saw the President speaking like a true American, somebody, you know, in Middle America. He was plainspoken in some cases, but he was really speaking to an audience that could understand it was hard work, stay the course, and I think those messages were very real.

Tavis: John--I neglected John Ridley. I neglected to mention earlier that you, at the start of tonight's debate, were an undecided voter. Now, I'm trying to figure out how you or anybody else could truly be undecided at this point of the process, but you started the night undecided. Are you still undecided?

John Ridley: I'm still undecided. You know, I'm doing this thing with NPR about how I'm an undecided voter. I'm actually voting in a swing state, in Wisconsin. I'm stunned that people are decided. You don't get a prize for picking early, and I think when you look at this debate, I agree primarily with what everyone has said, that there's no real winner or loser here. They played to their bases, they tried to bring some new voters in, or people to their camps, but I don't think anyone scored a knockout blow. But I think there are things within this speech if you really do some archeology. President--or Senator Kerry brings up the fact they're building 16 bases in Iraq. I don't know if people really know that. When President Kerry--I'm sorry, when Senator Kerry--not jumping ahead.

Tavis: Was that a Freudian slip?

Ridley: This is why I wanted my notes in front of me, so I remember who said what about what. But Kerry had talked about his fuel plan, his nuclear fuel plan for Iran. Now, that's been out there. I don't know if a lot of people were familiar with that, but that's sort of a dicey issue, to say that we're going to give fuel to Iran, nuclear fuel, and take the spent fuel back so that they can't use it for a weapon, but that is an approach to how you deal with Iran. So there are little bits of information out there, and a lot of people say, well, why are we giving nuclear fuel to Iran? Well, if they're gonna have it anyway, why not test them? And so, if we don't get it back, then we have a reason to really press them. So there were little bits of things there, but I don't walk away from this--I think we got exactly what we expected from both men. I don't walk away from it going, yes, I definitely want to go this way or that way.

Tavis: Let me probe a little further, though, because--And I could argue this either way, but this is, you know, your time, not mine. On the one hand, to the point I was trying to make earlier, on a lot of issues, there were not, at least from my vantage point, distinct differences on a lot of these issues. When you talk about Iraq, Kerry basically says, "I'll get us out of there faster." But he would have done the same thing with the same information, and now that we're there, we gotta stay the course. So Kerry basically said, "I'll get you out faster," but he doesn't have any major differences with Bush on Iraq now that we are there. So, on the one hand, I can understand how one might be perhaps potentially undecided, but you know, the mantra that we're getting from both of these guys is, even tonight, that, "We differ dramatically on the direction of this country." How can they differ that dramatically in their own minds, but you not be clear on what direction you want the country to go?

Ridley: I think there are places where they differ dramatically, if you look--And not even so much dramatically. Gay marriage--they have a difference there. Abortion--they have a difference there. Those are very important issues to people who are facing those issues. If you're gay, you want to get married. If you're a young lady or if you're in a relationship, you want an abortion, those are very important issues. Where I am in my life, those are not the most important issues. So when you have two people--And perhaps the most important issue for a lot of reasons is Iraq, because of what's happening, because of who's dying, because of the war on terror, because of the financial drain that it's gonna be for wh...ver's there. And both men are saying, "Well, we'll pretty much stay the course. I may stay it a little more differently than the other individual." It doesn't give you a lot of leeway when abortion or gay marriage or those other things aren't really playing into your daily life.

Tavis: Connie. I'm sorry.

Rice: Tavis, there was one thing that surprised me. I knew that both of them knew that nuclear proliferation was an issue and on the list, but it wasn't until tonight that it was clearer that both of them thought it was at the very, very top, and that was a little surprising to me, although I knew that both of them had talked about it. But if you think about the 9/11 Commission and the sort of rich, textured, radical framing of the terrorism, the fight on extreme Jihadism that that report gave, neither of these candidates framed their response to the war against extreme Jihadism in the terms that the report said, which was they both talked primarily about a military response. And the whole point of the 9/11 Commission was that that's actually a wrong strategy. You can't militarize your way out of this. You can't invade your way out of this. This is a war or struggle like nothing this country has ever had, and we're not prepared for it, because we're not working on the other fronts. That's what disturbed me about both of them, because I don't think either--They're both talking about stick to your guns, stick with the same mistake. "I'll do it faster. I'll do better." And they're both going to play whack-a-mole with a million moles as opposed to stopping this ideology--the spread of this ideology. They barely mentioned what the 9/11 Commission said, which was totally reframe the approach.

Tavis: John?

Dean: Tavis, I did hear one difference on one question. In fact, I was actually counting the questions to see if Jim Lehrer made the 16 that they'd agreed to in their 32-page agreement. They did make the 16. In fact, they had exactly 16 questions, new questions. And on 11, which was the question on preventive war--or preemptive war is the term he actually used--when laying out his response, Kerry was fairly explicit in his--in, you know, his general formulation of what he would do in preemptive war. Bush dodged the question totally. In fact, it's the only time we got what was a--going back, talking back to the prior debates-- a serious sigh. And with that answer, Bush just sighed very deeply, and he didn't seem to quite know what he wanted to say and then decided to say nothing. That was the one I thought he totally ducked.

Tavis: Let me ask you, Leslie, whether or not--Let me just try to advance this and come to some other issues in the time we have here. To the point that John Dean made earlier, both men did a good job, I think, of staying on message. Whatever that message was, they stayed on it, and we got a lot of stump speech tonight, for those of us who have been following these stump speeches for the last year or so. But did President Bush specifically make the label of flip-flopper work? I notice tonight he did not use that phrase. Mr. Kerry at one point said the Republicans have a word for it, but he obviously wasn't going to utter the phrase "flip-flopper." Did the President make that character trait of being a flip-flopper stick? He stayed on message about it, but did it work?

Sanchez: I think...I think it did. Because so many folks already believed that he is a flip-flopper, they were waiting, and the President reinforced that. I think there are many other cases where there were so many things that John Kerry said that were inconsistent with what he voted for, and they weren't brought up by the President. You know, the $87 billion, the war and not a warrior. How can you say you're a Vietnam, you know, vet and a hero and wear the stripes and then come and talk about the atrocities that the men and women you served with are committing while they're still overseas? I mean, there were numerous examples of that. But I think overall, the President did a very good job of explaining that this is not somebody who can be trusted to stay a course when the tides get tough. And that's probably the most important leadership characteristic that Americans are looking for.

Tavis: I'm glad you said that. I'm not as good or as smart as John Dean, so I lost track of how many times the President said it's hard work, but I know he said it more than a couple and one more again after that. So he kept saying, "It's hard work. It's hard work. It's hard work." Did that work, or did--are we going to find out tomorrow that the American viewer thought that was simplistic, that, 'It's more, Mr. President, than telling me it's hard work. You got to come with more than that'?

Dean: He's playing to his base, though, Leslie, is what he really is.

Sanchez: I really do. I think there's a geopolitical struggle going on. You have this Northeasterner who's talking about old--the old Northeast, against somebody who represents more of Middle America. You know, trying to unseat a Texan who represents more mainstream America--Middle America, let me say that. And that's a clear distinction. Do you want old? Do you want new? And a lot of folks look at it that way, and he speaks the way a lot of women that I talk to in focus groups speak, you know. And that is the way people understand the course of America--it's hard work. It's something that you have to stay the course. It's something that--John Kerry didn't show--I would say especially women voters, who are a lot of the swing voters in this election, that he's going to do something dramatically different, that he's gonna be able to protect our men and women any better than President Bush has.

Tavis: John Ridley, I know you can't speak for those "swing voters," and I'm not sure who can, other than you. You are the only undecided voter I know.

Ridley: 8% to 12% of the country.

Tavis: Exactly. I don't know how anybody could be undecided. I'll keep riding that thing, but they say there are some of y'all out there who are undecided. Did the President, beyond John Ridley--And I know you can't speak for every undecided voter. Did George Bush or John Kerry do anything to play to that all-important "undecided" voter?

Ridley: I think they tried. I think in numerous occasions, they brought up Wisconsin, Ohio, Illinois, Iowa.

Tavis: They kept throwing those states out there.

Ridley: They just happened to mention, "I met somebody in this state," as if we couldn't relate to it if they didn't tell us that they met somebody who actually lost somebody. Otherwise, they have no concept that there's a war going on. You know, I can't--As you said, I can't speak for all the swing voters. I think that, you know, Karen Hughes was playing down expectations for the President all week long. I think he lived down to those expectations. I think John Kerry managed to keep his answers within that time frame, and that was a big deal for him. I don't think anyone, again, leveled a knockout blow, but I think that both of them were so focused on what they have to do--Bush not talking in big words and grand words and grand thoughts and Kerry just not talking too much.

Tavis: It was funny, though, to your point, that the only people they seemed to meet in a whole year campaign were in swing states. But I digress on that. I met him in Ohio. I met him in Michigan. I met him in Pennsylvania. Nobody in California. Exactly.

Rice: We don't exist.

Tavis: We don't exist. Exactly. Connie, I was pleased that Mr. Lehrer, PBS' own Jim Lehrer, at least raised the question of Darfur tonight. So when you have a conversation about foreign policy, it wasn't just about Iraq or Afghanistan. We did get a conversation, brief conversation about Sudan. What did you make of that and the response of either man?

Rice: Well, both of them disappointed me in that they didn't use it as an opportunity to talk about the plight of the whole continent of Africa and the fact that we're not focused there at all and what their plans would be to fight the different battles that the United States should have leadership positions on for that entire continent. Instead they turned it to the war on terror, the whole discussion to the war on terror. But both men decided it was genocide, and I was glad that they decided that. I think Kerry effectively brought up the fact of our overextension, the overextension of our troops, and I think the point that he made, that he didn't drive it home and he doesn't quite know how to make it stick. It's so frustrating to listen to him, 'cause he raised points he hasn't been able to raise in the campaign, but he doesn't say it succinctly and pointedly enough to make it stick, and he started to talk about the overextension of the troops. He started to talk about that alliance, the need for our alliances, and I don't think he connected enough of the dots for the average J... six-pack American. And I just wish he could have knitted it together better. Bush, I think, has a--He has a way of speaking in a simpler way that registers at an emotional level that I think he--I think Bush reads the American emotional temperament better. And I don't think Kerry understands that the points he's making sometimes go over people's heads because he doesn't understand where they are, what their perspective is in terms of their fears.

Dean: I've got to disagree with that. I think you can never underestimate the intelligence of the American people. They say the same thing with a jury, or when you're writing, never underestimate your audience, and you've got to assume that they're a lot more intelligent than sometimes we want to really believe they are, but they are in fact more intelligent. And I think that Kerry played to their intelligence tonight, and this--We're saying, "Well, Bush is a man of simple talk," and actually on the issue of Sudan, these two men are almost same peas in the same pod on that. There was virtually no difference. They said we want to go through the African Union and solve it there, if we can, diplomatically. And then Kerry of course making the footnote, we don't have troops to do otherwise, which was a good point.

Rice: But I think the reason that Bush does stick, I don't think the American people read enough to know how to evaluate either man's points. And if you get most of your television--

Dean: That's kind of scary.

Sanchez: Wow.

Rice: Well, it is scary. Because if you get--Most Americans get their news from television. They do not read newspapers. They don't read the books that a lot of us--

Tavis: Hey, don't--don't hit on television.

Rice: But I--I'm just trying to say that, you know, in order to really be able to push back on a lot of the points that both of these men are making, you would have to read a whole lot. That's why most--That's why the point that Al-Qaeda was somehow attached to Saddam Hussein sticks. People don't read. They don't know.

Tavis: Let me ask you, Leslie--I want to move this again a little bit further in the time we have left. I recognize we're all Americans, and when the terrorists hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the other target they were going after, they didn't come after black folk or white folk or rich folk or poor folk. They came after Americans. I get that. Having said that, if you are a person of color--And there are a few of us assembled on the stage tonight. If you are a person of color, did this debate move you one way or the other?

Sanchez: No.

Tavis: On these issues. We haven't got to the domestic stuff yet, but for people of color, were you moved in one way particularly?

Sanchez: No, because I think fundamentally--I do have to address this point. I'm still thinking about what, you know, what you said, in the context of that, being Hispanic and the context of that. I think it's not a question of the intelligence of the voter. It's a question of connection. So many voters, I'm sorry, are looking at things in a domestic context. They look at national security and foreign affairs in a domestic context. You talk about dollars. They talked a little bit those are resources that we could have spent on health care or education, other places. People say, "Am I safer here?" I think that's the question that is the number one headline tomorrow: "Am I safer here?" Kerry didn't make a case that he could make us safer, regardless of the color of your skin.

Tavis: John, I want to stay with this question here, because in the context of this conversation, I don't want this to get this lost. People of color disproportionately make up the military, certainly African-Americans. We live in the most multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic America ever. We live in a world that is a whole lot browner and redder and yellower than even our country is. If you are a voter in this country and who happens to be a person of color, was there anything that touched you in any way tonight at your core?

Ridley: It touched me in the sense that for a moment I just realized I've still go to vote for two rich white guys. I mean, that's basically it. When John Kerry talked about the tax break on the richest 2% and he slipped "we" in there, which I understand was self-deprecating in a sense that, "It's gonna affect me, too," you realize these guys are rich. When they started going on about Princeton--

Tavis: And the jokes about Harvard and Yale.

Ridley: Yale and my kids and my daughters and all that kind of stuff, it just reminds you that, yeah, these guys are going to represent all of us, but for me--And I think they're both going to try to represent all of America. You just kind of go, eh, but where's Barack when you need him, you know?

Tavis: Ha ha ha! Let me start on this end, and I hope I can get enough time to come all the way down the row here. I guess the ultimate question that we'll be debating for a few days, till the next debate, Connie, is whether or not this debate shifted the momentum one way or the other?

Rice: I don't think so. But I think Kerry had more to move, and so on that score, I don't think he accomplished what he needed to do. But I don't think he lost any ground. I don't think Bush lost any ground.

Tavis: But that don't help John Kerry tonight, not at this point.

Rice: That's right.

Tavis: Yeah. John Dean, did it move the momentum one way or the other?

Dean: I think actually Kerry moved himself a little bit further as somebody that people can identify with. I really felt that.

Tavis: Significantly enough or just slightly? Like a turtle's pace or a hare pace?

Dean: Uh, I think that first of all, a lot of Americans don't know Kerry. They don't have a clue who he is, even though the campaign's been going on for months, and a lot of people were paying attention tonight and saw a man that they said, "Yeah, that man looks like he could be a President." And I think that probably happened tonight, so I think he did himself some good just by the fact he was there and the way he handled himself.

Tavis: Any movement, Leslie?

Sanchez: Not the kind of movement he's gonna need. You gotta think that this guy has had a lead for the last--for five months. Five months did he lead in every national poll, and in the last two polls, since, you know, the end of August or beginning of August, he's been behind the President by six to eight points. That's gonna be--You can't do that in one debate, and I don't think he's going to be able to recover.

Tavis: All right, John, we know he didn't move you. But did they move anybody else in the country in momentum, one way or the other?

Ridley: Here's my feeling. This is my prediction. I think in 48 hours, John Kerry's gonna get something out of this, the way that Gore slipped after 48 hours when people started talking about the sighs. There was so little going on, people had to really dissect what was going on. They started talking about the sighs and the eye-rolling. That hurt him. I think the fact that Gore was--excuse me--John Kerry was actually able to bring up points and be very specific about some things, I think is going to help him. And I think that the swing voters who are really going to decide this thing, coming down the pike, when it starts being about domestic policy and things like that, they're going to be still paying attention. I think that's what's gonna make a difference. So, 24 hours, no. 48 hours, we'll see.

Tavis: I'm delighted that we had a chance to do this tonight and particularly pleased that we could assemble a multicultural panel of people to offer their point of views on this debate tonight. We'll do it again, I hope, as we get to these other debates, these other two that are scheduled and indeed the vice-presidential debate. So, John Ridley, I thank you. Leslie Sanchez, I thank you. John Dean--Too many Johns around here. John Dean, I thank you, and, Connie Rice, I thank you, and I'll talk to you on the radio. That's our show for tonight. As always, you can catch me and Connie on the radio on NPR and John on the radio--John Ridley on NPR. I'll see you back here next time on PBS. Thanks for watching. Good night, and keep the faith.