Debate Pregame and Postgame Thread

[Dooby]

Scattershooting:

We have a lot of rules, I expect most of them to be broken. I fully expect Kerry to ask Bush a direct question or two and I fully expect neither Bush nor the moderation to bring up his violation of the rules. The question will be whether Bush responds to the direct question.

I fully expect a couple of domestic policy question that are tangentially related to foreign policy questions. Pick two of these three: Foreign outsourcing of jobs; re-importation of prescription drugs and immigration reform.

I think starting with foreign policy is a bad move for Kerry, but not because it is Bush's strong suit. Generally, it is difficult for a challenger to talk foreign policy; all he can say is I'd do it differently. Kerry really can't get into specifics. If Kerry just talks negatively about Bush foreign policy, I don't see him making any headway.

But to me, the big question is whether we will see the complete "Dean-ization" of John Kerry. A long time ago, I talked about angry democrats wanting someone who was angry too and willing to call the President rightfully or wrongly a liar and a cheater, yell and scream at him, and accuse him of stealing Florida and lying to the american people in Iraq and do it to his face. The problem with that, as I said at the time, was that the only peron that would do that is a crazy nut. At the end of the day, Dean faltered for that same reason: he came across as a crazy nut and the democrats simply weren't willing to take that step and embarass themselves. Well, Kerry saw himself falter out of the conventions and faced with a demoralized base, tried to rev up the angry democrat base, and thus began his "Dean-ization". The problem, of course, with "Dean-ization" is once you do it, you have to go "all-in". It is like buying into a conspiracy theory, you can't just take a little, you have to buy the whole thing no matter how crazy it gets. You can't let up for one second and you are stuck with Bush lied, Bush did it for his father, Bush has ties to Bin Laden, Bush wants a draft, Bush this, Bush that... Will Kerry complete his "Dean-ization" and attack the President on things that the vast majority of the american people believe in and support the President on, or will he reign it in and disappoint part of his base? It will be interesting to watch.

[Dooby]

For the record, I think I am more than capable of fairly judging this debate. I am pretty hard on Bush when he speaks generally; I typically think he does a worse job than a lot of my friends that are democrats. I only gave him pretty good marks for his widely praised convention speech; I generally think his speech on 9-11 was pretty poor and it wasn't until he was in NY at ground zero that I thought he found his voice and I think his speech before the joint session of Congress was his best.

[Drbio]

Nice job on the debate thread and that first post was enjoyable. I'll chime in later. Nice start Dooby.

[kg_veteran]

Excellent post. Dick Morris had a good column yesterday about the quandary in which Kerry finds himself at this point in time. No matter what position he takes on the war in Iraq, he's going to alienate a good portion of his base.

[Dooby]

Kerry Spot has a good, predictable comment for Kerry to use:

"Rules do not permit me to ask direct questions at tonight's debate, but if I could, I would ask Mr. Bush, 'if we cannot secure the opening ceremony for a new sewage plant in Iraq, how in the world are we going to secure elections in January?'"

Problem for Kerry on that one is that it is a dig, but a meaningless one because he wants to hold those elections, too, and he isn't going to commit any more troops, either.

[Drbio]

I am fairly certain that Bush has answers for all of kerry's potential barbs and rule excursions. I would imagine that you are pretty dead on if kerry rambles that out dooby.

[u2sarajevo]

Good thread Dooby. I imagine that we will not see the Kerry "Deanization" thing because of the position of most polls, and given that his base will vote for him no matter what. No need to alienate part of the swing vote if you don't have to.

As to Bush and his speeches, I agree with you for the most part. I think the ground zero Fireman speech will define Bush's legacy. I can't remember being more proud of a President than that day. He obviously excels at connecting to the common man. I hope he can convey some of that tonight. But being a debate, I don't know how plausible that is.

I can't wait, I am pretty pumped. My brother, the most non-political person I know has re-arranged his schedule to be able to watch.

[Dooby]

Of course, a more difficult question for Bush to answer would be "What would you do if through popular elections in Iraq, a radical Shiite regime akin to Iran were put in power, which promptly demanded the USA get out quickly and trompted all over basic human rights?" I have no idea how he'd answer that question. [see folks, I can dish out to Bush, too.]

That is a better question than "Why won't you admit you lied and that you are stupid and that you suck?"

I read all the "suggested questions" in the NY Times this morning. For the record, Madeline Albright is in no position to ask the President questions about N. Korea. Generally, I though most of the "questions" were stupid. They more akin to political statements or challenges, designed for a cross examination rather than to elicit an actual response. But then, that was probably the point.

[jacktruth]

Man, I am so pumped for this debate. It's like a playoff game!

It is a greater intellectual feat to communicate complex issues in common lanquage than it is to delve deeper into intellectual reasoning. Whoever does this best wins the public side of the debate. Bush has a clear advantage. Kerry does not communicate well to the common man. When he does, he comes across arrogant.

In a timed debate, it is better to state your point, then back it up through reasoning. Bush usually does this in interviews, Kerry does not. Kerry tends in interviews (especially lately) to start with a talking point, continue with the next point, next point, next point. But the time you reach a conclusion, you are lost. He's great in debates in front of the Senate, but to the common man, it's tougher for him.

Bush generally bottom lines first, then explains further. He does not always do a great job of explaining, but at least you know where he stands.

Kerry also has a sleep inducing charisma broken up only by girlish whining, but maybe this one is just me.

[Mavdog]

this format is really not a debate, it's a dueling press conference by each candidate.

With all the questions submitted prior to the "debate" I don't know if there's going to be any extraneous issues brought out.

It seems that the build up has put the pressure on Kerry. The news articles ask if he is going to be successful in defining his positions, etc. and there really is nothing expected on Bush's side. That should result in a possibility that Kerry can shine, while there's every reason to believe that Bush will gain nothing or lose anything (unless he really screws up...unlikely).

The one thing that could trip up Kerry is his proclivity to talk too much about an issue. Keep it short and simple and he could win some votes. That really is Bush's greatest asset, the ability to speak so the average voter can connect with him. Kerry has historically done very well in debates during his races so he is clearly capable.

There is a small chance that Bush will be defensive, feel that he has to explain and defend his foreign policy. That would be a huge mistake, would open the door to doubt and give Kerry the advantage, and I certainly don't expect this to happen (Bush is too well coached) but...

I'd really like to see direct questions and rebutals, but the handlers aren't willing to let their guys go after it. That real debate would be fun to watch.

[Dooby]

I actually do think Bush can accomplish a lot in this "debate". The question is, "Will he?" Of course, the stakes are not nearly as high as they are for Kerry. It will be fun to watch.

[chumdawg]

Dooby, I'm not so sure about that (that the stakes are higher for Kerry than for Bush). In fact, I have a very uneasy feeling about this debate tonight.

If the polls can be trusted, then Kerry is almost in a nothing-to-lose situation here. That always makes someone dangerous. For all of the talk about how the public already knows Bush, his record is out there in the open, and so on...there are probably a hell of a lot of voters who haven't heard much from Bush in a while. Of course there was the convention, but I expect that more people will watch tonight than who watched the conventions. I don't know. I have a feeling that swing voters are going to look at Bush through a clean lens. Kindof a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately attitude.

Ironically, I also am made uneasy by all the ridiculous errors the Kerry campaign has made thus far. In short, they're due for something good to happen. And if it happens tonight, then the timing works perfectly for them. Swing voters may have forgotten already the egregious gaffes from earlier in the summer. His performance tonight will be the most remembered thing of them all, come election day. Those who were inclined to favor Kerry in the early going may side with him tonight and think that a lot of the earlier stuff was caused by the Republicans' characterization of them, not by their own ineptitude.

I also am one who is turned off a bit by Bush's...lack of speaking prowess. It's fine that it doesn't come naturally to him. But in my mind, it's a major responsibility of his job. It's something he should spend the time and effort to learn. I have seen him make some strides in this regard, but unfortunately some of the improvements (better articulation, for example) make him come across as unnatural. I'd just like to see him find his natural voice more often and use that to good effect.

I'm uneasy, but mostly it's the kind of uneasiness you feel when protecting a ten-point lead in the fourth quarter. I still think Bush will win. I said this at the time, and I believe it even more so now. When Bush gave that prime-time press conference a few months back, he was previewing the attitude he would take in this campaign. Basically: no apologies. An image of strength, at all costs. I think they will live or die by that strategy, and I expect to see Bush portray himself tonight as a powerful, fearless leader. If he does that well, then I think Kerry will come across as whiny and grating. That's the best-case scenario as I see it.

[Dooby]

I have been a fan of SMU football long enough to know that being "due for something good to happen" doesn't count for much. You could have easily said the same thing about Dole in 1996. The good never materialized. Campaign management is about taking advantage of opportunities and effective management of resources. Kerry's campaign has done neither very well.

Kerry's back is against the wall. Maybe he has nothing to lose. Maybe it makes him desperate or dangerous, but desperate and dangerous people hurt themselves too.

I disagree 100% that people will view Bush through a "clean lens". In fact, I think the attempt by the Kerry campaign to re-cast Bush is exactly why Kerry is losing. I have said here before that all of the negatives of George Bush in the 2000 election were erased the moment he bacame President because you can't call the sitting President inexperienced and you can't call the sitting President stupid. Because now Bush has a record. And rightly or wrongly that record is remembered for good and for bad. And people remember 9-11. And when people see Bush, they are going to see the President. In part because that is what he will be introduced as.

I don't like Bush's public speaking style much either. For the most part, he looks like an uncomfortable guy trying to look comfortable.

My final prediction: Kerry is going to come across as a guy that has spent his entire life wanting to be President of the United States and Bush won't. Bush will come across as a guy who wants to be President because it is what he is and what believes he is supposed to be and Kerry will come across as a guy that wants to be the President because he wants to be the President.

[chumdawg]

Dooby, it makes good sense, and I hope you're right. But I'm still finding it hard to expect anything close to a dominant performance by Bush. At best, I think it will be awfully close.

On the "due for something good" issue... Yes, the Kerry campaign hasn't done much well so far. But they haven't had any debates with Bush yet, either. It could be that they finally reach the ground they are strong on--and if this is the case, the timing isn't good for Bush.

To further your SMU analogy... I haven't followed them that closely, but my guess is that in all the games they lost since 2002 they were usually very much outmanned. Last Saturday they landed an opponent they had a decent change to beat, and--fortunately for SMU fans--they responded with a strong effort. I have a feeling that the Kerry camp is very optimistic about their chances on this particular day. And I fear that in this election, the candidates may be only as strong as their last game.

On the "clean lens" discussion... As you know, in many cases the voting public has a very short memory. The first President Bush had all the advantages of the incumbent, too. Not to mention eight years as a VP and a career as a statesman before that. Clinton was also a guy who appeared to have spent his whole life wanting to be President. Bush's advantages weren't enough to make up for the other problems he had in that election.

But as I said, I'm still optimistic. Tonight should be Kerry's deadliest bullet in this entire campaign. If Bush can get past tonight without any problems, it should be all downhill from here. But I'll be nervous all the way up until I see just how good Kerry's best shot really is.

[Dooby]

Originally posted by: chumdawg
Dooby, it makes good sense, and I hope you're right. But I'm still finding it hard to expect anything close to a dominant performance by Bush. At best, I think it will be awfully close.

For the record, I am in no way predicting anything close to a dominant performance by Bush. I am leaning towards a draw, which in my book means Bush wins. Kerry will get some hits in, but none of them will be memorable. Bush will do the same.

[Chiwas]

this format is really not a debate

"debate"

One more piece of our simulated "democracy".

I was reading Voltaire this morning. He said that a democracy could only be established in a small nation at most or at best.

Now it's Showtime! Whoever had had the best publicists, will win this program.

The Benefactor or the Apprentice?

[reeds]

Kerry took round one...Bush did NOT put him away as some expected.. Bush had the stupid face going as usual..Kerry looked as "presidential" and more profesional than Bush..

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: reeds
Kerry took round one...Bush did NOT put him away as some expected.. Bush had the stupid face going as usual..Kerry looked as "presidential" and more profesional than Bush..

Such an insightful "contribution". It's one thing to have an opinion of who won the debate (personally I thought both solidified their party and provided decent information to allow undecideds to make their decisions), but it is totally another reeds to insist on infecting a thread which has flowed with substance and style with your crap filled hatred of Bush.

If you can't converse on merit, please go see your therapist. How about trying to stay on topic for once?

[Dooby]

Kid duty forced me to miss a big chunk in the middle. IMO, Kerry did very well from what I saw.

[Lvubun1]

You can vote who won:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/

[Dooby]

Oh, and I thought it was boring as crap.

[reeds]

"Such an insightful "contribution". It's one thing to have an opinion of who won the debate (personally I thought both solidified their party and provided decent information to allow undecideds to make their decisions), but it is totally another reeds to insist on infecting a thread which has flowed with substance and style with your crap filled hatred of Bush.

If you can't converse on merit, please go see your therapist. How about trying to stay on topic for once?"

Dribio- I will admit- I was so excited after the debate, I had to get that out of my system...a detailed report will follow shortly..im sure you will love reading it..bottom line- it was a BUSH WHOPPIN

[kg_veteran]

I missed a few minutes at the beginning (although I just went back and watched it on tape), but otherwise I think I saw the whole thing. Both guys scored some solid points, but neither guy was a clear winner. All in all, though, I think Kerry gained more out of tonight's debate than Bush did.

[chumdawg]

I thought Kerry availed himself well. I thought Bush did a good job of sticking to his talking points. I'm not sure I heard a single word that was new, though. It would have been nice if the debate were more entertaining.

Kerry did a good job of attacking aggressively while still staying above the fray. Bush managed to stay out of any kind of trouble, which was probably all he really wanted to achieve.

Reeds, I can see how you would be excited by your candidate's performance, but come on. That was in no way a "whipping." Bush scored some points on his own. I thought he got the better of the North Korea debate, for one thing. How can Kerry complain about not getting support from allies in dealing with Iraq and then on the other hand complain that we should go it alone with North Korea?

Bush also did well with the "global test?" bit. That might be the biggest sound bite to come out of this debate.

I thought Bush looked the most "presidential" when talking about Putin.

Kerry may have won some points based on how repetitive Bush was. He appeared canned throughout much of the debate. (Kerry repeated several points too, but not as many times as Bush did.)

I give Kerry the nod on body language. Bush has his moments, but they are too far in between.

There's one thing that has been bothering me for some time now. It grated a lot of people all summer that the Dems seemed to have an "anyone but Bush" attitude. I'm afraid that I have been seeing the same damn thing coming from the Republicans. I swear, if I heard Bush say one more time that "I don't know you can be a leader when you do this and that," I thought I was going to scream. I'd like to see Bush take a little more initiative in this contest. You can only ride the "flip-flop" thing so far, especially if your opponent comes up with some ways to counter it.

I expect the town hall format to be more to Bush's liking.

[kg_veteran]

The "global test" is the biggest soundbite that could come back to haunt Kerry; Bush jumped all over that, and rightfully so. Bush also scored pretty big points when Kerry said it was a mistake to invade, and then in the very next answer said that it wasn't. Bush also corrected Kerry several times on factual details that Kerry should have known. While I'm thinking of that, Bush scored some pretty good points on the "denigrating our allies" rebuttal.

John Kerry won the body language aspect of the debate. Bush did hunch over a bit too much, and Kerry clearly has a confident demeanor, even if he is a bit of a haughty orator. Kerry also helped himself in that area, because he came across as a lot less robotic and stiff than he has in the past.

Kerry's explanation of his position on Iraq was still befuddling. It made absolutely no sense, and I think it's still his biggest weakness. No one is really going to believe that he voted to authorize force in Iraq, subject to a list of conditions. That's not the way it works.

[reeds]

Chumdawg- I admit- I am one of those "anyone but Bush" people. But I would be willing to bet the people on the "fence" tonight have to feel Kerry won this debate going away.

[LRB]

I thought both candidates did relatively well. I'd score Bush slightly ahead from my admitedly biased viewpoint. However I think Kerry gave tons of amunition to his detractors here that will come back to haunt him when he shifts course again.

I'll agree with others that Kerry won the body language portion, however I think that Bush easily came across as the most sincere. Kerry was smoother, but that works against him in the sincerity category.

I do wish Bush had spent more time articulating what has been done, is being done, and will be done in Iraq. I think that are lots of positives there which are getting precious little air time by the MSM.

Kerry did present himself the best that I've ever seen him I'll say. Still Iraq is a tar baby for him and the multiple positions that he's espoused on it. Kerry did keep on the offensive attacking Bush throughout and forced Bush not to be on the offensive as much.

What I took from it was there was a choice as to the war on terror. A more agressive approach concentrating on offense in taking the war to the terrorists even if it means leaving some of the international community behind for a time, or a more passive approach concentrating on defense and not outstripping the international community in taking the war to the terrorists.

[Chiwas]

Scoring the Debate
More Viewers Say Kerry Won Debate, But Voter Preferences Remain the Same
ABC News


Sept. 30, 2004 — John Kerry won the first debate and with it a shot at reinvigorating his campaign for the presidency. But in the first blush, vote preferences among viewers were unmoved.

Among a random sample of 531 registered voters who watched the debate, 45 percent called Kerry the winner, 36 percent said it was Bush, and 17 percent called it a tie. It was a clean win for Kerry: Independents by a 20-point margin said he prevailed.

Moreover, while 70 percent of Bush's supporters said Bush was the winner, considerably more Kerry supporters — 89 percent — said their man won.


Who Won? (Among Debate Viewers)
Kerry 45%
Bush 36
Tie 17


As is customary, the debate did not immediately change many minds. Bush's support was 50 percent among viewers before the debate, and 51 percent after it; Kerry's, 46 percent before, 47 percent after. Ralph Nader had 1 percent before and a tad less than that after.


Vote Preference Among Debate Viewers
Before the debate After the debate
Bush 50% 51
Kerry 46 47
Nader 1 <0.5


This kind of outcome is typical in presidential debates, which tend to reinforce viewers' preferences rather than change them. But the debates — an essential window on the candidates' styles as well as their substance — can affect the race more subtly as voters move toward their final judgments.

The results of this survey are not among all registered or likely voters; instead they are among registered voters who watched the debate Thursday night. They are, however, similar to the race overall, 51-45 percent among likely voters in an ABC News/Washington Post poll earlier this week.


Party ID

Political party allegiance of debate viewers also was quite similar to its division among all likely voters nationally in the last ABC/Post poll. Among debate viewers, 35 percent identified themselves as Democrats, 35 percent as Republicans and 24 percent as independents. That compares with a 36-35-23 percent division among all likely voters in the ABC/Post survey.


Party ID of Debate Viewers
Democrats 35%
Republicans 35
Independents 24


Partisanship drove views of who won, but again the advantage was to Kerry. Sixty-nine percent of Republicans said Bush won, but 81 percent of Democrats said Kerry won. And among independents, as noted, 48 percent said Kerry won, while 28 percent picked Bush.


Who Won?
Kerry Bush Tie
Democrats 81% 6 11
Republicans 6 69 22
Independents 48

[Epitome22]

For a long time, I and many others were talking about how handicapped Kerry was because since Bush is an inexperienced debator and a poor public speaker, the bar would be set low for him.

But going into this debate, it was made very clear that Kerry, while maybe not on the ropes, was definitely staggering, and Bush had a chance to knock him out.


In that sense, I think the handicap reversed. Bush had more than enough ammo and opportunity to make a fool of John Kerry, and while it may be debatable whether or not Kerry won (I think he did) because Bush couldn't really chink his armor, people seem to be giving Kerry the benefit of the doubt.

As for won/lost. I wouldn't call it a knock down victory for Kerry, but certainly a Kerry victory in a Boxing judge's decision sort of way. It was a push in a number of ways. Bush got in a few good barbs, and Kerry was able to get barbs in at Bush. Bush seemed much more rattled by Kerry's barbs than vice versa. It also unfortunately came down to technique. First off hands off to Kerry for not getting knocked out, his oratory skills and superior verbal capabilities allowed him, for the most part to dodge the massive flip flop issue which is no easy task. Beyond that, it wasn't just Kerry's obviously honed speaking and debating skills, but when contrasted with Bush's seeming inability to even string together a complete sentence sometimes hurt him. Bush clearly had the upperhand going in but he looked very uncomfortable and seemed as if he was struggling. Not to mention that 2/3rds of the way through he seemed to run out of material and Kerry got the jump on him from there.

This has more to do with Bush than Kerry. Yes Kerry is a solid debator, but even the second dumbest Republican politician instead of Bush up there and victory wouldn't even be debatable. Who knows? Maybe Bush's eagerness in the debate to escape the intellectual and oratorial parts of it and just go "look here's what I think, here's where I stand, Saddam was threat...dada etc" will endear him to Americans. At least you can say you know where he stands as some conservative pundits have been saying, which John kerry most certainly can't say. IMO there's not much else you can say about him though.

[EricaLubarsky]

[mercury_rev]

Bush has sketchy communication skills.

Kerry sees no difference between American and Iranian ownership of nuclear materials.

Is this a gross oversimplification of what we already kinda knew?

[mavsman55]

In terms of who came off as the most confident and relaxed, John Kerry definitely won that battle. As much as I love the guy, George Bush sucks at speaking. His mind is in the right place, but you can't win a debate if you throw an "ummmm" in every other sentence.

John Kerry Flip-Flop alert: During the debate yesterday, Kerry clearly stated that "Saddam Hussein was obviously a threat. The problem is how we took action to deal with the threat."

A few months ago, Kerry was stating that there was no reason to be in Iraq anyway. Hmmm...

[Usually Lurkin]

Pros
Kerry: Better poise and articulation, had more jacket (and less podium) showing than Bush, did not drone on past time limit (as was predicted), snuck in a few domestic policy barbs, came off better on nuclear prolif. Had a good first half. Had a lot of good offense (did not miss a lot of opportunities)

Bush: Came off better on Korea, Russia, and Iran, and Sudan. Good digs against Kerry on troop and ally support. Had a good second half.

Lehrer: Handled the '30 extra seconds' thing well. Kept time well balanced.


Cons
Kerry: Factual errors, droning just a tad near the end

Bush: Had speaking errors and looked uncomfortable (as was predicted). Missed opportunities (NYC subway was shut down?? and why?; Kerry has used the word "lied". Could have hit Kerry's 'global test' harder. Could have hit Kerry's "I'll get more countries into this wrong war" harder), repetitive

Lehrer: Seemed to be a lot of anti-Bush questions: "Bush, you've made some mistakes, name them", "Kerry, you've called Bush a lier, why?"

[Epitome22]

Some linebytes from the blogosphere


Fri Oct 1st, 2004 at 06:28:44 GMT

PoliPundit says:

"I think most people's first impression, is that Kerry was strong and forceful, while Bush was less effective, more hesitant."

"I've been watching the debate for five minutes now. Despite my partisan inclinations, I have to admit that Kerry has won this debate. And not just in the high-school debate-coach sense of the word.Kerry comes off as the prosecutor accusing Bush of incompetence. Bush comes off as his Meet-The-Press, press-conference version - dogged, arrogant and unlikable. Kerry will get a significant bounce in the head-to-head poll numbers from this debate."

Powerline Blog says:

"But, candidly, I don't think it went that well for the President. I think Kerry helped himself tonight. He came across as a credible candidate, and he was usually on the offensive...I think Kerry made headway, and there is plenty of material there for the mainstream media to proclaim the beginning of Kerry's comeback...On the whole, though, I think Kerry helped himself tonight."

Freepers say:

"While we were all hoping that Bush would defeat Kerry handidly tonight and put the election out of reach, we can't be that upset with tonight. Kerry may have even had a slight win..."

Post more hysterical wingnut freakouts as you find them. This is fun!

Update [2004-10-1 0:22:2 by kaelamantis]: More:

Oxblog:

"ONE LINE ON THE DEBATE: Kerry won. Hands down. By a lot. That's all for now."

Winds of Change:

"Kerry did well in terms of his persona; I went in expecting a pompous windbag and he wasn't one. Bush did less well in persona; fragmented, repetitive..."

New Republicans:

"Well, if I'm generous, then Bush stuck to his talking points. As a former debater, however, I am tempted to say that Bush missed many, many, many chances to really make key points against Kerry...I'm not certain that Kerry won more than a few swing votes in this, but I don't know if Bush can win those votes back. He simply didn't deliver as well as Kerry."



More Powerline:

"I've taken more than an hour to try to talk myself out of concluding that John Kerry won tonight's debate. I haven't succeeded. Senator Kerry, I think, edged President Bush on substance and, surprisingly, looked better throughout."

VodkaPundit:

"Kerry won on points, which probably was enough to shore up his weakened support in New Jersey, Michigan, and Pennsylvania."

Dean's World

"My gut's telling me it's a win for Kerry because, frankly, he scared me less than I expected him to."

[jacktruth]

I really couldn't care less about Kerry. I really watched for how President Bush did.

I think strategically, Bush executed very well.
He avoided two baited questions early.
-He was passionate in his support for our troops and the troops of other nations.
-He was passionate and definative in his defense of America.
-He's has the better approach on Korea.
-The question of how Kerry wil build a coalition while insulting the coalition we have - that will stick and get hammered on over the coming months.
-The question of why Kerry would build a coalition for Iraq and destroy one on Korea will stick and get hammered on over the coming months. But it's best that Bush did not do this in the debate. Kerry would have found a way to turn that around on Bush.
-Bush played the character traits question perfectly, I think I saw a little tear in John's eye.
-I think a telling thing was when Lehrer asked them to clarify thier positions on Sudan. Bush needed one sentence, Kerry needed about 5.
-Bush's closing statement was fantastic and by the Grace of God, he went last.

Kerry Observations:
It will be easy to pull sound bytes that show contradictions within the 90 minutes.
Kerry did define himself better and probably put some fire in his base for sure.

The debate is one step in the campaign. Bush will use inconsistencies and the "global test" successfully against Kerry and Kerry will have to remain on the defesive.

[Chiwas]

I was wondering myself, if Kerry beat Bush in the topic in which Bush has been stronger (Iraq, war on terrorism) in the campaign, how will the President defend himself when the turn of their weaknesess come in place for the next debates? It seems that Kerry won 1 point on the vote preferences; what if in the next debates he wins a couple in each? They could get the elections day virtually tied, and Florida, the Court and the Senate could become the factor again; I wouldn't like that to happen or something similar, it wouldn't be sane for our democracies; whoever wins, have to be a clear reflex of the citizenship willingness.

I have another conclusion; even if Bush wins the elections, if was very fortunate that he has lost this debate: he would have to improve his foreign relationship and security policies....if he listened.

[kg_veteran]

Here's an excerpt from David Corn:

In the spin room, as reporters pressed representatives of each campaign for comments that were mostly predictable, the journalists also questioned one another about the debate. The overwhelming consensus was that Kerry had "won." But the word spread that I thought Bush had done better than Kerry. Joe Klein came up to me and said, "So I hear you think Bush won." No, I did not. But I did think that each candidate had done fine and that few new votes would be won by either side as a result of this debate. It's apples and oranges. Kerry and Bush think differently, talk differently, and appeal to different crowds. As I've noted in previous articles, Bush pushes buttons; Kerry attempts to score points. That's what each did at this debate. But most importantly for Kerry, the debate did look like a fight between equals--in that Kerry seemed as presidential as any challenger to an incumbent can seem. This does not mean Kerry is on the road to victory. But this debate probably keeps him in the hunt, and for Kerry and blue-staters everywhere, that certainly beats the alternative.

I think that's a fairly accurate assessment.

[knowitall]

Bush didn't stray far from his fear factor campaign. Many Americans still listen to his impending doom words. I don't think he suffered any kind of a hit (so to speak). He did appear to be uncomfortable. As Chiwas said, maybe he can make a concerted effort to include some of Kerry's ideas in dealing with foreign leaders. Attempt to be a little less arrogant. There is nothing wrong with considering all options first. I think he'll find domestic debates to be a much rougher road.

[kg_veteran]

I found this interesting (clipped from Drudge):

LOCKHART: DEBATE CONSENSUS A 'DRAW'

Unbeknownst to Kerry adviser Mike McCurry, a C-SPAN camera quietly followed McCurry as he found Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart on Spin Alley floor and asked him his impression of the debate. Lockhart candidly said to McCurry , “Basically, the overall is that the thing was a draw.”

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: knowitall
Bush didn't stray far from his fear factor campaign. Many Americans still listen to his impending doom words.

There are legitimate criticisms of Bush's performance last night; this isn't one of them. Bush was clearly the optimist; John Kerry was the one proclaiming that things are a mess and need to be fixed.