WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 (UPI) -- Thursday's presidential debate was not as important, in the life of the 2004 campaign, as what happened afterward. In the political lexicon, it's called "The Spin Game."
Both campaigns do it. Operatives -- called "spinners" -- are accorded star status, getting their own area where reporters can come to get their thoughts and opinions about how the debate went. It's such an integral part of things that the place where this occurs is openly referred to on camera as "Spin Alley."
The comments were what might be expected. Kerry spokesman Joe Lockhart argued one central message of the debate devoted to foreign policy was that it appeared more important to President Bush that he defend his tax for the "wealthiest" Americans than to fully fund the first responders on the homeland-security front lines.
The Bush campaign, which also had an active rapid-response operation running throughout the debate, was equally tough. Former Bush White House aide Karen Hughes pointed to Kerry's "consistent willingness to change positions" on Iraq.
Kerry, Hughes said, "doesn't understand the difference that Sept. 11 made."
It is those comments, and ones like them, that over the next few days will help determine who won and lost the debate.
One reading of the verbal sparing is that neither Kerry nor Bush clearly won or lost.
Bush looked tense, ill at ease and overly coached -- something that was also the case with Ronald Reagan in the 1984 debate with Walter Mondale. But he also avoided saying anything that could be construed as a major gaffe, certainly nothing on the order of President Ford's insistence that the people of Eastern Europe were not dominated by the Soviet Union.
Kerry also emerged relatively gaffe-free. But one statement he made -- "It is vital for us not to confuse the war, ever, with the warriors" -- as happened during and after Vietnam, may cause him some trouble.
Over the next few days, it may be pointed out that Kerry himself was one of the major offenders in that regard. In his 1971 testimony before the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations, Kerry included false claims about atrocities committed by U.S. troops in Vietnam while expressing his opposition to the war.
Bush may have over-extended the tolerance of the American people with his repeated use of Kerry's description of U.S. operations in Iraq as "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." Kerry may have done the same in both his repeated references to his command of troops in the field, what he "learned in Vietnam" and his attempt to slam the "90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the costs" sound bite about Iraq home and onto the 11 o'clock news.
The professional spinners from both parties, however, concede that neither man made a major mistake. The consensus in the minutes after the debate concluded seemed to be that the race might tighten but that this debate will not do much to affect the outcome of the election.
What is different is the impact the Internet may have on the way the story is written over the next week.
Throughout the day, messages flew across the Internet indicating someone was organizing an effort to hit reporters with e-mail messages full of "citizen spin" both during and after the debate.
One message, purportedly sent by Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe, warned of the dangers of letting "George Bush's henchmen steal another victory."
"We need your online help immediately after the debate, so save this email, print it out, and have it ready with you as you watch the first Presidential debate tonight," the message said. "Immediately after the debate, we need you to do three things: vote in online polls, write a letter to the editor, and call in to talk radio programs. Your 10 minutes of activism following the debate can make the difference."
The author of the message should take comfort in the fact that the troops in the field heeded the message.
Even before the debate had concluded, messages began appearing in my e-mailbox -- using similar language and themes -- touting Kerry's performance.
"Kerry was clearly the winner," more than one said. How did he come across in the debate? He appeared, the writers said, "strong," "statesmanlike," "clear," "presidential," "decisive." A few of the messages were sent by people who, while not giving their names, identified themselves as "independent" or "former Bush supporter."
Some went beyond the obvious talking points. "While I truly wish it were not necessary to spend my time doing this," wrote Katherine McFarland, "the sorry state of substantive discourse by the media has made it critical that we participate in trying to get you guys to deal in fact instead of spin."
This indicates -- and there is no evidence in my e-mail that the Republicans or any of the non-party groups backing Bush engaged in similar efforts -- that politically active Americans have become much more politically sophisticated -- up to a point. Writers working on tight post-debate deadlines may not appreciate having to wade through a morass of electronic messages that had every appearance of being coordinated.
Nevertheless, as was so ably demonstrated by blogs like Little Green Footballs and Internet communities like FreeRepublic.com during the chaos that followed CBS's use of allegedly forged documents to back up a story alleging George W. Bush ducked out of the Air National Guard early, there are lots of people who have figured out that the information gatekeepers need to be influenced and pressured just like politicians. What's wrong with that picture?
--
(The Peter Principles is a regular column on politics, culture and the media by Peter Roff, UPI political analyst and 20-year veteran of the Washington scene.)
--
(Please send comments to [email protected].)
