Bush will have the edge in the debates. The one thing that George W. Bush is really good at is talking in a compelling way about national security and the war on terrorism. All the best-known moments of his presidency have been speeches, full of soaring, grand rhetoric about the goodness of America, the vileness of its foes, and the boldness of his vision of a world transformed by liberty and democracy. [...] Only reality cuts against Bush. But debates are not about reality, they're about Bush's rhetoric versus Kerry's. And Bush will do very well.

We know he beat the friendly, funny, charismatic Weld [NDCP : le candidat républicain au siège de sénateur du Massachussets, en 1996].But what's rarely noted is that he also beat John Edwards in the series of one-on-one debates they held at the end of the primary. Edwads came off as nicer and funnier, sure, but he lacked the gravitas and policy knowledge of Kerry. I watched those confrontations expecting to vote for Edwards, but got up from the couch a Kerry supporter. [...] In a time when voters want serious leaders who demonstrate competence, strength and judgment, Bush's glib moralizing and self-effacing jokes are not going to save him. In contrast, Kerry's boring wonkishness and obvious thoughtfulness (not to mention his 4-inch height advantage -- two of the debates are standing) just might.

Recent studies by Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and others of the debates held four years ago indicate that it matters whether a voter actually watches the debates or forms an opinion from reading media commentary devoted to them.

Those who watched the first debate, she said, tended to think Vice President Al Gore had won, while those who merely read about it took the view of many journalists that Bush had made Gore look hypocritical.