The trouble with this forum may be that it is too rapid. Bloggers will be immediately asked to comment, and will naturally adopt positions, which will later be hard to back away from. Those engaged in this exercise should consider certain facts beforehand:

1) Are the Candidates' positions on the Deficit and Budget sound policy? Will the Candidates have to change their policies on Taxes, and eventually call for Tax increases?

2) Are the Candidates realistic in statement of their health care policy? Remember it is possible at all times to condemn both Candidates.

3) Iraq is turning into another Vietnam, without realistic resolution, and with escalating Casualties. Has either Candidate a realistic approach to exiting Iraq and Afghanistan?

4) What Candidate is most realistic about Job Creation? The plan of creating Jobs by creating massive Government deficits has failed drastically.

5) Is either Candidate realistic about reducing the Trade Deficit? Continuance of such levels of Trade Deficits will force eventual Dollar devaluations. One must remember Treasuries are functionally identical to Dollars to the World markets, and the U.S. Government has been printing money to pay it's bills. lgl

The Daily Show's John Stewart was asked by Charlie Rose last night how he might design a news show. John said he'd like a news anchor to have instant access to experts so he can immediately catch a politician's lie and hold him accountable. John specifically mentioned using the "blogosphere" to do this somehow... tapping into experts scattered around the 'Net.

kerry seems much more comfortable/in control. unfortunately, i think he's doing a much better job. "i made a mistake by voting for the war. bush made a mistake by invading iraq. which is worst" or something like that. kerry is better.

next debate kerry will look into the camera.

Bush: What would the troops think if I admitted this is the wrong war at the wrong time? (He has said this at least twice.)

Is this to imply that if he wasn't President he would also think it was the wrong war at the wrong time?

Bush: Why would we want to join the ICC if it could hold our troops accountable for our actions?

Is this a position that make sense to anyone?

It's cool to hear we have 100,000 Iraqi troops now. I feel much better.

He went to see KGB HQ underneath TREBLINKA square? Kerry mixes up LUBIANKA street in Moscow and a Nazi death camp. Looks like the memories of his visit to Moscow are fading...

Why does Bush keep saying that they have the same intelligence? Doesn't it seem like Mister President should have access to different intelligence?

Bush missed a home-run hit. We haven't taken 90% of the losses. Our 1000ish, Iraq defense troops 750ish. No way, unless you aren't counting Iraq as part of their own defense....

So, JonK, are you saying the President should keep essential intelligence away from the Senate?

A mild joke, but no, the Senate should have access to the same intel as the President, foolish as it might sometimes seem.

John Kerry said that Bush had to shutdown the subway during the RNC. I used the subways everyday in NYC during the RNC. I don't remember them being shutdown and I rode the night of Bush's speech on the E Train which runs under Penn Station. I know this doesn't sound like a big deal but Kerry used it as an example that the lack of security in America. I never feared for my safety because of terrorism during the RNC just whacked out anarchists and the ABB crowd.

>>9:29 PM: "I made a mistake in how I tallked about the war in Iraq. President Bush made a mistake by deciding to invade Iraq." That's a good line.

How is that a good line? It's an outright lie. By voting against the 87 billion, Kerry did a hell of a lot more than make a mistake in how he worded his verbal criticisms of the war.

Bush's best line came in the following exchange:

Lehrer: He said you lied...does that raise your hackles?
Bush: No, I'm a pretty calm guy.

I think Bush is going to come away from this one with a significant advantage. You couldn't tell what Kerry was trying to say. He brushed aside the fact that Polish special forces were integral in winning the conventional stages of the war even after Bush tried to remind him. He came damn close to blowing off Great Britain. HE says we're gonna push aside China, SK and Japan and go straight to NK. Is this the guy who can supposedly make us more respected in the world? C'mon!

Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence Committee in the period when the Senate had to decide whether to authorize the use of force in Iraq. He thus had access to anything the president had on Iraq.

I think that Kerry scraped a win with wonks and Bush scraped a win with everyone else. Also, Bush dominated the debate early on. That gave him a head of steam that carried him for a good while.

Overall, Bush by a nose, which is bad news for Kerry.

Bush has dry mouth syndrom when he is critisized. I was concerned he would have to go to the bathroom before it was over.

I was surprised at everyone saying it was a draw or narrow Kerry win. I thought Bush won although clearly had some flubbed moments - although so did Kerry. The problem I thought was that even when Kerry sounded strong it was with points I don't think anyone believes him on. (i.e. Korea bilateral talks, getting multinational, never wavering)

Like others I was surprised Bush didn't speak about 9/11 more.

Kerry put Bush on the defensive the moment the debate began. Notice how it was Bush who was constantly wanting that extra 30 second rebuttal.

Loved your Blog. My favorite comment is about those damn Yankees!

Sen. Kerry won the debate. [By how much can
be up for discussion.] Kerry showed 'better
debating ability'. 21 speaker points.
Bush gets 19 speaker points.

Kerry was a little sketchy on the facts
however. As someon pointed out, among
other things he mis-identified the name
of the square under which the KGB dungeon
was hosted.

The important question we need to ask ourselves
is whether or not debating ability is the
proper way to determine who should be President.

"are there really thirty states with active WMD programs?"

I'm pretty sure I could come up with a list if I looked enough. Many of those might be defensive, but perhaps a full thirty are offensive.

I hope Bush doesn't call him Vlah duh MIR, it's Vluh DEE muhr.

Bush fumbled and stumbled on many of the questions, leaving long pauses during which I checked my watch. I kept asking myself, "this guy is president of the United States?"

Bush defended his (U.S.) border policies. If Kerry had jumped on that and talked about how the Bush administration has released thousands of non-Mexican illegal aliens - some from terrorist countries - from jail, he could have scored huge points. Only about five minutes was given to homeland security, but perhaps during the other debates.

Bush: "love [Missy Johnson] as much as I can..." WTF?

Bush: "[Kerry's] plan [for Iraq] won't work." Bush before: "Kerry's plan is the same as our plan."

Bush: "We use diplomacy every chance we get" It just doesn't work for Bush...

Bush didn't understand what everyone else understood when Kerry defined the "global test"...

Clear win for Kerry.

The way you know Kerry KILLED Bush in the debate was by watching the first 5 minutes of Fox News afteward. Mort, Kristol, and gang all conceded kerry won. They stretched things out as much as possible for Bush, and tried ot make the points Bush should have made themselves. It was the funniest thing I've seen on TV. They then tried to scrounge up the worst points for Kerry in the debate, and replay them on TV.

That was gut reaciton, BEFORE RNC could distribute talking points.

What I also love is how Dan make's Bush "strongest selling point", apparently a strategic mistake. That is truly hilarious.

Comment #2:

The one time Kerry puffed up was when he said Britain and Australia with America did not make a "GRAND ALLIANCE". As if Britain and Australia are nothing and the smaller allies even less.

Kerry seems to have the idea his presidency and his alliances have to be GRAND, above any in American history. Whether they accomplish more than Bush's is beside the point.

Not a single idea Kerry proposed is anything new from what he has said before. I would like to know what Kerry's reaction would be when the DRNK deligates walked out of a meeting following one of his grand speeches.

But not at the loss of my vote. This election will be the most important vote I ever cast. I'll feel like I have struck a blow for freedom.

I thought Bush looked like the parent whose young child is throwing a tantrum in public and is trying to resist yelling at he child.

North Korea's Nuclear Program:
An Assessment of U.S. Options, "When Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly visited North Korea in early October, he presented his counterparts in Pyongyang with U.S. intelligence suggesting that North Korea had sought and acquired materials necessary to build gas centrifuges to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Good debate. Substantive over stylistic. Kerry did well. Bush did good. Both met or exceeded individual expectations. Kerry might shore up his support among panicky Dems with his performance.

Bush stumbled almost every time he tried to speak. He was clearly flustered, and was even lost at times. He can't think on his feet, which I think even his supporters have to admit, but this is worse. He looked incompetent. In the split screen, when he wasn't talking, he looked peeved... bitchy even. Clear victory for Kerry. Polls will start to swing toward Kerry right away. I expect we will have a new terrorist warning shortly in a vain attempt to prop up Bush.

Bush looked exasperated most of the evening, like a man who knew what he wanted to say but just couldn't find the words. Kerry looked poised and kept his verbose prolixity under tight rein. Sorry Republicans.

A stunning win for John Kerry. Cool, poised, and confident, he exhibited a sound grasp of the issues and articulated a clear vision for his presidency. The President, meanwhile, looked was to busy bumbling to say anything coherent. How the media can call this debate a "draw" is beyond me. One candidate showed himself to be a far more capable leader than the other -- and it certainly wasn't W.

Hey if the Yankees clinched the AL east and their prize is to play the Twins, then that works for me.

I'm a Boston guy and have always disliked Kerry, but I thought Kerry mopped up on Bush especially on the viscersl response/body language count. He looked poised, in control, very competent, and constantly engaged, while Bush looked tired, annoyed, dogmatic, and sometimes lost or rattled.

In 20 years, I've never seen the Kerry I saw tonight. If a lot of people really watched the debates, I think Kerry will get a decent bounce. If people just listen to the war of opinions about what happened, then the effects will probably be blunted.

In surveying the post debate punditry, even Fox didn't say much good about Bush. They pointed out lots of good things kerry did too. In a report from spin alley, the sense seemed to be that the Kerry people were buoyed, and the Bush people were saying that it was a draw and their guy had kept things the same as before. Read between the lines on that.

When I hit NBC, they had a panel with 6 undecided voters, who all said Kerry had a stronger night. Sure, they mightta cooked these books, but it was the impression I had too, and I'm not at all a partisan, I don't like either of them.I thought Kerry looked in charge while Bush seemed overmatched.

9:29 PM: "I made a mistake in how I tallked about the war in Iraq. President Bush made a mistake by deciding to invade Iraq." That's a goodline.

This was the biggest applause line of the evening amongst the group of people I watched the debate with.

Charles - Did you see Kerry in the split screen? He had a snarl on that would give Cheney a run for his money. No one is going to argue that Bush is the world's greatest debator. But he did quite well in the debate. You couldnt tell what Kerry was trying to say. Bush's strongest point was that he stuck to this line - that Kerry is inconsistent and you can't figure out what his message is. Kerry made sure to say that it wasnt a mistake to go into Iraq - even though thats all he's been saying in this campaign and even though he said otherwise elsewhere in the debate. We have to win, Kerry and Bush both say. But how is Kerry going to convince the troops that they need to win when he doesnt even believe in what they are fighting for? Whoever said Kerry won 21-19 in speaker points, I would agree with. I dont think Bush necessarily won convincingly, but neither did Kerry.

10:03 PM: Bush keeps pronouncing "mullahs" as "mooolahs" -- that can't be correct, can it?

*************************

Yes it is correct, the U sound in Farsi is much closer to a Spanish U than an English one.

Don't you have any Iranian friends?

Bush got his ass whooped. He can't think on his feet. His stubborness really hurt him tonight... I wouldn't be surprised at all if he is trailing in the polls after this...

Kerry won this debate on style. But its easy to win when the other guy has to do all the defending. Where were questions concerning Kerry's judgement on foriegn relations? If not from his statements on the campaign, how about 19 years worth form the Senate? The questions were slanted. Truly, if you see how Bush defended himself, Bush won on substance. Unfortunately, too many Americans are impressed by "style".

I thought Kerry missed opportunities to throw at Bush the personal criticism that Bush does not handle well. The word "incompetence" was never used, for example, and when Bush went on his "mixed messages" theme for the 5th time Kerry couldn't find a way to say he thought the reason to be worried about where Iraq was heading wasn't the troops, the allies, or Allawi -- it is a bad commander in chief.

But overall Kerry came away with an edge. Bush, I thought, overdid the staying on message thing by repeating the same lines 4 and 5 times in a short period of time. He was absolutely right in knocking Kerry for his endorsement of bilateral talks with North Korea, which is a terrible idea, but not very many people know enough about Korea to feel strongly about this one way or the other. Bush also suffered from a weird camera angle that made him look shorter than he is, and couldn't lose a kind of lemon-lips expression when Kerry was speaking.

The camera didn't do Kerry any favors either, or rather Kerry didn't favor himself by always talking at Jim Lehrer rather than to the camera. He looked better than Bush as the debate proceeded, though. Jim Lehrer as moderator? Personally, I like panel formats and follow-ups; these candidates obviously hate both, so Lehrer's fairly soft questions were all we had to work with. The questions posted on Dan's board were better. At least Lehrer didn't allow himself to be trampled the way Gore and Bush trampled him four years ago.

How big an edge for Kerry? Enough to keep people interested for the town hall thing next week. Not a good night for Bush, but it could have been worse.

Bush's inability to react tonight reminds me of the infamous 7 minutes on 9/11. I think this debate will really haunt him and will likely cost him the election.

Generally, a draw. Kerry, slightly, on style; Bush, significantly on substance, especially in light of the fact that most of the questions were adversarial (which is why he asked for so many addition 30 seconds to respond). Tonight doesn't change the race, but it probably changes the chatter amongst Kerry's primary support, the media.

Gallup polled ~ 600 people, Kerry won the debate 53%-37% . I think we know who won the debate, and pretty clearly. The only thing now is, who will have one the debate in a week after the wingnuts spin, spin, spin and ignore all the facts.

I thought it was a rather clear win for Bush. Hugh Hewitt has a scorecard for each response that I agree with.

Pundits and Kerry supports will be disappointed when the national race polls come out next week.... What plays in Cambridge and Manhattan does not play well in the heartland.... And there Bush wins every time in this debate.

Kerry has this forceful and authoritive way of speaking (all the time). To me it distracted from what he said. When you look at what Kerry said, it's incoherent. Our allies are worthless, but I'm going to have more of them. Invading Iraq was a colossal mistake, but we can win it with my leadership and my magic plan. Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, W is for wrong, but I'm going to get the Allies to go in and win it for us, because the USA can't win the war.

What are Kerry's anti-war Democrat base going to think, when Kerry's promised to win the Iraq War? Kerry's militarism killed his Convention bounce and he's doing it again.

Kerry flubbed Pottery Barn, flubbed Treblinka Square, claimed to be consistent on Iraq and he BROUGHT UP HIS SERVICE IN VIET NAM AGAIN.

For Pete's sake! Only his tone and attitude are keeping him up. Just wait for people to get to the substance.

lol, someone citing Hugh Hewitt, to claim Bush won. LOL. Hewitt is a first-rate partisan hack. First rate, no doubt at all. The gallup poll and the initial thoughts from Fox news hacks said it all. Kerry won.

What happened in North Korea:

The goal of the agreed framework was to put restrictions on the plutonium that North Korea already had. At the time, there was some unaccounted for material that could constitute 1-2 bombs. The only evidence (as I understand it) that these bombs existed was simply that some amount of material wasn't there.

As part of the agreed framework, we also included a provision that North Korea not enrich uranium. This, however, wasn't a big deal. Uranium enrichment is hard and takes a long time. The plutonium was the proximate and vastly more serious issue.

Now, as Bush came to office, in the midst of a rather incoherent attempt at a North Korea policy, accused them -- correctly -- of attempting to enrich uranium. The North Koreans, perhaps surprisingly, admitted to it and essentially said 'so what'. The Bush administration cut off the aid that was part of the agreed framework and North Korea threw out the monitors from Yongbyon.

It should be emphasized that the removal of the plutonium was always the red line of this situation. As soon as that happened, who knows where it goes and it becomes a period of months until North Korea definitely has 5-6 nuclear weapons as opposed to a possible one or two. (Whether or not their designs would work, who knows until the test. The designs aren't exactly secret, however.) Bill Clinton, according to all the accounts I know, was willing to go to war with North Korea over this issue.

So, what happened when North Korea threw out the monitors, broke the seals and removed the plutonium?

Nothing.

Nothing at all.

Jabba, you are an idiot, perhaps you ought to try to get some non-wingut friends to understand that Kerry's speech was a gigantic success.

What I love is that, Bush lost the debate on his supposed largest politcal strength. Wait till we get to the economy and health care. The true beleivers are truly pathetic.

Wingnut Schnieder reports on the gallup's debate poll on cnn.

Before debate, who are you going to vote for?
Bush 52 , Kerry 44

Who won the debate
Kerry 53, Bush 37

Kerry comes out with better favorable ratings arising from debage. Bush still has better security polling.

Unrelated but hilarious, ,WashPost is reporting that the whitehouse wrote Allawi's speech. I'm sure insta-idiot will report on this throughout the week.

To do the math for the wingnuts who never made it out of highschool, an 8 point lead for Bush, turned into a 24 point swing in terms of who won. TWENTY-FOUR points. BUSH LOST, LOST, LOST. Keep trying to stammer and spin.

A draw, with Kerry perhaps eking out a win.

But mark my words, that "Global test" line is going to come back to haunt him.

Bush did better than I expected - his command of the facts was surprising to me - but Kerry was in control from start to finish.

The best line to me - "nuclear proliferation" - without a second's hesitation. All Bush could do was agree with Kerry.

This is an ace-in-the-hole that Kerry's been hiding for weeks, and he's got the President dead to rights on it - why the hell didn't Bush fund Nunn-Lugar? I've never heard any explanation of this.

I watched the debate with a democratic friend (I being republican). My friend who had already been leaning toward backing Bush , came away 100% certain that George W. Bush was worth crossing party lines for...were you guys watching the same debate that we were? I thought the President had the same look that most Americans have when they listen to John Kerry....a look of bewilderment and disbelief. Kerry is a man without substance...Bush won hands down.

Danny,
I'm not sure what debate you watched. If you disagree with every single position of John Kerry then fine. But if you're interested in analyzing the actual debate, especially in terms of how undecided or soft supporters think then subtle things matters of performance and stature count for a lot. Expectations were that on this score Bush would beat Kerry. But the opposite happened. Face it. Bush looked angry, defensive and incoherent. And as for being "on-message" he almost made it into a parody by using literally the same phrase over and over. One of the important points about being on message is that you slightly mix up the syntax but deliver the same fundamental point. For example, don't just say "flip flop" but say indecisive, wavering, unsteady, etc. The campaign has done a good job of being on-message but not clownishly repetitive. Bush tonight looked like he thought all he had to do was say a few stock phrases over and over. In respone Kerry just breezed past it, realizing that Bush was making more trouble for himself than for Kerry.

Kerry, on the other hand, looked confident, decisive and in command. His policies may be garbage but he appeared very presidential. The contrast with Bush was jarring.

why the hell didn't Bush fund Nunn-Lugar? I've never heard any explanation of this

Good question. But an even better question is, Why does John Kerry think we should cease production of bunker-busting bombs that can destroy rogue nations' WMD programs?

I thought Kerry won this debate by a hair but opened up a HUGE window of vulnerability by showing his true peacenik/freeze tendencies.

Unilateral disarmament was an asinine idea in 1983; it's even more dangerous now. Rove and co. will probably go to town on this one.

I hate to say it but Kerry cleaned up. Every time Bush groped for words I cringed and moaned and gave a 'why me' gesture with my hands. Bush won on substance but nobody will remember what the questions or positions are tomorrow. Kerry came across as polished, Bush as inarticulate and confused. And his expression on the split screen was also cringeworthy.

On the bright side for Bush, I don't know that there are many undecideds left to be persuaded by Kerry.

In a report from spin alley, the sense seemed to be that the Kerry people were buoyed, and the Bush people were saying that it was a draw and their guy had kept things the same as before

Not how Lockhart saw it. 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 , “The consensus is it was a draw.”

What on earth is the rationale for halting production of bunker-busting bombs? Who gave Kerry this bright idea?

Bunker-busting weapons are an essential tool for non-proliferation in that they can destroy rogue nukes hidden deep underground.

We alone have them. Destroying them is a patently stupid idea that not even Helen Caldicott would have dreamed up. I can't believe Bush did not rip it to shreds, or that Rove will not in coming days rip it to shreds. How can anyone who takes WMD seriously vote for Kerry after watching him passionately argue for unilateral disarmament?

I was surprised at how many opportunities for some Zing both Bush and Kerry missed. For example, Dan and others think highly of Kerry's, "I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq." Bush's Zing? My opponent thinks his mistake is talking - that he's inarticulate. He's dead wrong. His mistake? When asked to provide critical supplies to our troops in Irag --and Afghanistan -- he chose to hang the troops out to dry since it was Democrat primary season and he judged he couldn't be too far right of the Deaniacs.

Bush's pronunciation of 'mullah' seems incorrect to me. While Iranians may say it that way, it is an Islamic title and so probably Arabic, not Farsi, in which case, Bush is incorrect.

Listening to the debate, instead of watching it, was an interesting experience. Kerry was the clear winner- Bush can't string together an original sentence and comes across as inarticulate.

I can't believe what I'm reading here. A draw? Even a Bush win? Bush has substance???!! Holy mackerel!

Bush had to pause (dead air on TV... tsk tsk) and collect his thoughts often before mumbling a bunch of semi-coherent platitudes about liberty and freedom. This could have been a knock out if Kerry had been stronger. As such, Kerry wins on points, though it's gotta be a unanimous decision.

And this "foreign affairs" debate was supposed to be a win for Bush? Just wait until they get on to domestic issues at the next debate. Jobless recovery and outsourcing. Deficit. Health insurance. Social security. What a mess. I want to see W explain the "ownership society" to Ozzie and Harriet.

Has anyone mentioned that seeing Bush’s collective responses in the debate from beginning to end reveal a sloppy impression, but when chopped up into sound bite clips - bush looks really good? Sounds like a good Hughes/Rove strategy if you are facing the best debater since Cicero!

On mullah vs. moo-lah: The American Heritage Dictionary, by my reading, disagrees with Bush: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mullah

They give two alternate pronunciations, one with the oo of 'took' and one with the u from 'cut'. Neither are close to the way Bush pronounced it.

One of the MSNBC commentators said it best: "This debate is unspinnable. Kerry clearly won on an issue that was widely thought to be the President's strongsuit."

and Lex,

The question was on new Bunker Buster bombs of the NUCLEAR variety. I can understand why George might be afraid to tackle the word "NUKULER", but its a legitimate point. Hypocritical policy is bad position to have if you're serious on NPT.

I was nervous about tonight's debate. The format seemed designed to suit Bush's strengths - repeating platitudes until he uses up his time - and I didn't like the idea of no follow-up questions.

Oh, am I glad I watched! Kerry was articulate and definitive, able to answer intelligently ex tempore, and obviously knows his stuff. It was a joy to see and hear. Called Bush out on his whoppers so beautifully, too: kindly, gently, almost pityingly explaining the difference between Bush's empty slogans and objective reality.

And Bush -- my god! Inarticulate, all but incapable of moving beyond his talking points, and even WITH his talking points he couldn't fill the time without going into brainlock blank stare mode. He provided some memorable WTF moments comics will be dining out on for a while, too.

If the Bush supporters here really think Bush won the debate, they should go visit LGF and NRO. It's like a funeral over there; they could probably use the cheering up.

lex writes: "Bunker-busting weapons are an essential tool for non-proliferation in that they can destroy rogue nukes hidden deep underground."

And it's a damn good thing we didn't have them in 2003, or Bush might have used them on all those extensive underground weapons lab bunkers that Saddam didn't actually have.

Dan writes: "(UPDATE: Bill Schneider confirms Gergen's assumption -- the pre-debate polling sample was 52 to 44 in favor of Kerry)."

I'm pretty sure he said the pre-debate polling had Bush in the lead, not Kerry.

Gallup can blow me, and Kerry still did enough to stay in the race. The next Dem that cites the Gallup poll should wash their mouth out with soap (4% advantage for Republican identifiers, ring a bell?). Look at the poll, its still the same.

I think Kerry was better on mannerisms--he looks, speaks and generally acts presidential (or "royal", actually, but we don't know the difference). But as for substance, Bush definitely won. I mean, Kerry kept saying that he would have "done it differently" in Iraq, and then chided Bush for not doing another round of inspections and resolutions, which is "not doing it" instead of "doing it (differently)". The dumbass comment about sanctions on Iran and Bush's response made me laugh out loud.

I'm really disappointed in Lehrer. I wanted to hear Kerry explain his history of appeasement policies in the context of the GWOT. We got to see a fair bit of his inner peacenik, but we didn't get to hear the faulty reasoning behind such thinking or the challenge of it (didn't Carter say we were "free of the inordinate fear of communism" just before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and restarted their expansionist drive in South America? Kerry was on that bus, remember).

In the end, I think that Kerry came across as being safe to vote for, simply by not blowing it (and by not being confronted by Lehrer) -- his head didn't split open and Lucifer did not pop out -- so he will probably solidify some of his weak support. Bush doesn't have much weak support (it's hot or cold, mostly) so that will mean Kerry is more likely to get a boost.

Aside from the poise and repetitiveness issue, it seemed to me that Bush did a lot more dodging of points than Kerry. For example, on the subject of proliferation, and specifically, the insecurity of the stocks in the former Soviet Union. My understanding is that most proliferation experts point to that as, far and away, the biggest threat for a terrorist acquiring nuclear weapons. Not from any rogue nations, like North Korea or Iran. And Bush never said a thing about security of those stocks, which is not surprising, since I don't recall him ever talking about the issue in the last four years.

There were other instances as well, like when Kerry pointed out Saddam Hussein didn't attack us, and Bush responded, "I know that," but then didn't address the point.

Not how Lockhart saw it. From Drudge:

Well gosh, if Drudge says it, it must be true.

I think that Kerry 'won' in the sense that if this was your first chance to see the Senator (outside campaign commercials), you couldn't help but be impressed by how calm, collected, and, yes, commanding he was. There are a lot of people who still haven't paid much attention to this race- some of them are my good buddies. But, quite a few of those same people tuned in tonight (one report I saw said that as many as half the people who will vote on November 2 were watching tonight). If you tuned in tonight expected to see a "weak liberal flip-flopper", you would've be disappointed.

I am a solid Bush supporter, and I'd suggest that the next time the Senator tries to use the President's father's own words against him, that Bush reply "The last time I checked, my father was voting for me--and I doubt that he'll change positions on that!"

I think this was a missed opportunity by Bush, but one that I'll forgive him for.

With that said, my criticism for Senator Kerry pertains to an inconsistency in his policy...

Why does Senator Kerry, like Bush, support a larger coalition in Iraq, but unlike Bush, support a smaller coalition in North Korea?

Waffle,

You're misinformed. We already have a nuclear bunker-buster, the B61-11.

From CDI:

Little noted in this debate is the fact that the United States has been at work on similar weapons since the mid-nineties and already has a bunker-busting nuclear weapon, the B61-11, a nuclear gravity bomb.4

The Pentagon began developing the B61-11 in 1993 and deployed it in 1997. Treading lightly around its obligations under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the United States observes but has never ratified, American nuclear scientists billed B61-11 as a spin-off of an existing weapon. By putting an iron casing around the nuclear warhead, the design theoretically allowed the weapon, released from an aircraft, to burrow through earth or concrete to destroy its target - the same mission officials at the Department of Energy envision for weapons currently being studied.

Funny that Kerry didn't have a problem with the Clinton administration's explicit threats to destroy Libya's underground nuclear weapons facilities by means of bunker-busting bombs.

In 1996, the United States even threatened to use the B61-11 against Libya. When American intelligence learned that the Libyans were building a large underground plant to develop chemical weapons, Defense Secretary William Perry stated publicly that the United States would consider its whole range of weapons to stop construction - an implicit reference to nuclear weapons.

As I say, he's arguing for disarmament. And going against a policy already put in action by a Democratic administration that was actually faced with a rogue state determined to push ahead with its underground nuclear program.

We're back to 1983 again, and the same silliness that we heard from the freeze crowd. Bush/Rove will make mincemeat of Kerry just as Reagan did of Mondale in 1984.

ps--the nunn-luger funding is red herring junk. There are multiple sources of funding. The amount of on-books budget was indeed reduced, but there were other appropriations that were issued as part of other works, and the cumulative funding has indeed gone up. Check out the non-partisan sites on proliferation; the facts and details are out there.

I wish that Bush had more forcefully responded to this point other than to say "we increased spending 35%" but that's why these 2-minute debates suck so much. There were lots of other things that needed responding to and weren't addressed. OTOH, I was pleasantly surprised by many of the responses, especially those which I had not heard from Bush before ("I don't think Kerry was misleading us when ..." lol).

pps--Kerry is on the Senate Intelligence committee which has oversight responsibilities for the CIA. Sure they operate under the executive branch, but Kerry's group is there so that the legislative branch has checks and balances. By sitting on that committee, Kerry did have direct acccess to every single piece of intel that Bush had. Worse, his committee is partly (but only partly) responsible for the failures, since they clearly failed on their oversight duties. I mean, the check and balance is useful only when it is used right?

Waffle, you're not seriously arguing that we should be less tough on the mullahs than Clinton and Perry were on Khaddafi, are you?

Jack Straw's farcical mission to Teheran is finished. We've already sold bunker-busters to Israel-- perhaps those include some B61-11s. Obviously, diplomacy without a credible threat to destroy the mullahs' facilities is meaningless.

As is Kerry's posturing on these weapons, which will not convince anyone in Teheran not to push forward with their nuclear program but which would deprive us of the most credible deterrent we have for any rogue state aspiring to build underground nuke production facilities.

Funny that Clinton and Perry saw fit to brandish this weapon against Libya in 1996-- after which, lo and behold, Khaddafi halted construction of his undergraound nuclear facilities-- but that Kerry now says it serves no purpose.

Even funnier that Kerry attacks Bush for refusing to change tack, or learn from "new facts" as they emerge. Kerry's understanding of deterrence was frozen, as it were, around 1983.

Too bad. He turned in an otherwise OK performance last night. He'll spend the next thirty days trying fruitlessly to respond to Rove's attacks on him as an idiot peacenik stuck in the early 1980s. Learned nothing, forgotten everything.

Marc writes: "I am a solid Bush supporter, and I'd suggest that the next time the Senator tries to use the President's father's own words against him, that Bush reply "The last time I checked, my father was voting for me--and I doubt that he'll change positions on that!""

That's a bit like saying, "Oh yeah? Well.. my Mom says I'm the handsomest guy in town. So there."

It's kinda pathetic.

Marc writes: "Why does Senator Kerry, like Bush, support a larger coalition in Iraq, but unlike Bush, support a smaller coalition in North Korea?"

A few years back, Republicans were all up in arms about Chinese espionage against the US.

Now, they want Communist China to be our first line of defense against North Korea.

I dunno, do you really trust China to be an honest participant, not cutting side deals with North Korea?

China is scared of N. Korea selling nukes on the open market too. I mean, they don't want fundies in ~Indonesia getting them either. That's really all that matters here.

Wow!

Some truly deluded folks out there tonight.

Anyone who thinks this debate was a slam dunk win for Kerry is engaging in wishful thinking, at best.

Anyone out there who thinks this debate will cost Bush the election needs to report back to their rooms for their nightly dose of sedatives.

Wow!

Anyone whose followed the campaign to this point can easily see right past Kerry's lies, despite how many times he repeats them (i.e. I've never waivered in my life ... I've been consistant on Iraq ... yada, yada, yada, ad nauseam). Kerry is clearly hoping that viewers haven't been following his escapades up to this point. Nothing else could explain such blatantly inaccurate and dishonest statements.

Kerry knows he's in trouble, but his incessant intellectual chest thumping (we can do better, cuz I'm so much smarter ...) is so both juvenile and nausiating, and it doesn't play as well with the public as Kerry would like to think it does. Ditto for his ... they like me better ... claims.

His repeated claims that Bush alienated old Europe and that's why they wouldn't join the coalition are pure B.S, an outright lie. They were all on the take, cashing in on the Oil-for-Food program kickbacks from Saddam. Kerry knows this, which is what makes his arguement even more abnoxious than if he actually believed it.

If Bush made a mistake here, it was not pointing that out to neutralize Kerry's arguement.

Beyond that, Bush's inarticulate nature comes as no shock to anyone, which is why I fail to see why so many put so much stock in it. People don't care about how he says it, it's what he says and what he does. When you review the last 4 years on that basis, never mind Kerry's lackluster 20 year free ride in the Senate, Kerry doesn't hold up well.

He has limited responsibilities as a Senator from Massachusetts. Show up to vote. Show up for the Intel Committee meetings. Kerry meets these limited responsibilites by blowing them both off almost entirely. AWOL, if you will.

Is this the hallmark of a competent leader and future president?

NOT!

By the way, Lex is right, the B61 was a pre-existing weapon in the U.S. arsenal.

That's not a ploy, it's fact.

I know, I convoyed and loaded them.

Kerry obviously won this one. He got the initiative early and maintained it throughout the dabate. And while Sullivan thinks Kerry erred in not laying a killing punch, I think it showed he has class and is a fine gentleman. He could indeed have destroyed Mister Bush when he wavered on the question of whether he felt it was worth the 1000+ lives. But instead, Kerry offered a supportive arm by saying that he agreed with Bush. A class act. I am sure Bush was appreciative, if not those who enjoy seeing people destroyed.

Kerry, Soldiers and the World won tonight. Help is indeed on the way.

We just saw the next President of the United States, and I like what I saw.
And I imagine you feel a little better about the future yourself.

Thanks for sharing your thought-processes.

-Anonymoses

What's amazing to me is, how the wingnuts don't care that Dear Leader let OBL completely get away. IT shows their deep sincere commitment to the WoT. I mean, standing still for 7 minutes while the country was under attack, apparently is not sufficient. Keep the wingnutery going, Cognitive-Disonance '04!

Bush did fine. Kerry did, too. Props to Lehrer, though, who realized that Kerry was the sideshow and Bush the main event. Nothing was Kerry-centric in the debate, everything revolved around Bush.

Such a setup is going to make Kerry look good in comparison but that's not really enough, Kerry's sewn-up the ABB vote, he needs the Kerry vote. He didn't do anything to stoke that fire tonight, he was a strict contrarian with no vision, no positive message, none of the leadership traits that resonate in your gut. Unless you count vainglory...

Bush, I think, did a good job on defense and a poor job on offense. He's not exactly a five-tool player, but he's solid.

I'm a supporter of Bush's hardline and will vote for him in November. Nevertheless, he just got his ass kicked by Kerry in the debate. If I could remotely trust Kerry to do the right thing regarding Iran in the future, I might vote for him.

Enough with the $87 billion vote already.
When it looked like the Dems and moderate Republicans were going to make part of the $87 billion a loan to Iraq instead of a grant, the White House threatened to veto it - body armor and all.
When the loan idea was voted down, Kerry voted against the final $87 billion in protest.
Bush was just as prepared to veto as Kerry was to vote 'no' if it had gone the other way. What's unclear about that?

Kerry didn't "kick ass" last night. He spoke fluent sentences in a measured and calm tone, giving the lie to the notion that he's a tinhat nut. If Kerry's goal was to show that he's not a flashback-suffering, golddigging schizo warHeRoSLASHWarCRImiNal, then he succeeded.

But if his goal was to put forward intelligent, serious policy prescriptions for Iraq, Iran and North Korea, he failed utterly. What the man actually said, in many cases, was fatuous.

The most asinine little fairy tale he repeated-- and he's been slapped down again and again on this by the Euros and by US leftists themselves-- was the one about how "Help is on the way" from France and Germany in the form of soldiers in Iraq. Again, idiocy delivered in a steady voice, a la Ted Baxter. And there was also the foolishness about bargaining with the mullahs, and the stupidity of unilaterally throwing away the bunker-buster missile that Clinton's team used to scare Khaddafi in 1996 and deter him from continuing with his own underground nuclear program.

EARTH TO KERRY: EUROPEAN "HELP" IS NOT "ON THE WAY". The lefties know it, the French Germans Belgians Swiss Spanish Dutch and Danes know it, your own people know it.

So stop insulting everyone's intelligence and try another tack, surfer dude.

And do not f*** with our deterrent by throwing away our bunker-busting missiles. It's not 1983, and you're not Helen Caldicott.

What was with Bush's stammering and stuttering.

" um, ah, er .. fffffffffffffff ... fffreedom, ah"

Looked awfully grumpy and dour.

Kerry seemed confident. A bit of a surprise.

Alice in Wonderland:

Bush clearly won on substance, and Kerry clearly won on style. Before the debate, I would have bet anything that it would have gone the other way, if there were going to be a split.

Did Bush realize he needed to prepare for this debate. He was hunched over , slumping into the poor podium. I thought he was doing a great Cheney impersonation. Since the questions were not hand selected---along with the usually stocked right wing audience--I believe he was not used to a REAL WORLD setting/audience. It was a staged event---but not nearly as staged /scripted/cast as the many faux events starring laura--and george jr. here in ohio. Bush made a few points--but a clear loser to Kerry in this revealing debate.

Did Bush realize he needed to prepare for this debate. He was hunched over , slumping into the poor podium. I thought he was doing a great Cheney impersonation. Since the questions were not hand selected---along with the usually stocked right wing audience--I believe he was not used to a REAL WORLD setting/audience. It was a staged event---but not nearly as staged /scripted/cast as the many faux events starring laura--and george jr. here in ohio. Bush made a few points--but a clear loser to Kerry in this revealing debate.

I'm perplexed concerning the vaunted "substance" of Bush's statements. He said, repeatedly, 1) mixed messages 2) hard work 3) wrong war, wrong time, wrong place and 4) ... right, there were only three things he said. Nothing related to his policies, his decisions, his presidency. Shouldn't an election featuring an incumbent swing on the incumbents record?

People couldn't understand what Kerry said? Did they have the sound off.? It was excrutiating waiting for Bush stumble to get his thoughts together. How about that crack about the tax gap? Forgot that the rules prohibited audience reaction, huh. I thought Bush improved through the evening. Kerry started off hot and stayed hot.

I'd really like to think that my president is capable of reasoned thought on complex issues, this debate made it clear the Bush isn't up to that task.

"Bush won on substance"?

Give 2 examples.

Bush wins on substance in that debate only if you are on his side already. And style was telling last night. The phantom Kerry the RNC and the media has put out there was replaced with a much better approximation of the man, and was juxtaposed with a petulant smirking opponent.

I watched him fail miserably to talk about our North Korea policy other than China has to be part of it otherwise we're doomed. How far do you think China will help?

My view of the "flow" of the debate is that Kerry started off strong and Bush started off weak, yet as the debate continued Bush gained steam and confidence while Kerry lost much of his initial edge in presentation.

Kerry "won" the debate on style, not substance, but even on this point we really have to define what is meant by "won." Was Kerry more polished and articulate? Sure. Did Bush come across as defensive and at times visibly annoyed? Yep. But Bush's "weakness" as a debater is also his strength. I think the President came across as the more sincere and honest candidate. (And I think the polls bear me out on this.)

Bush "lost" by not winning. (I know... that statement comes close to being a Bushism.) By this I mean that Bush COULD have won if he had been more aggressive. In fact, I think Bush could have knocked Kerry out of contention completely if he would have just grabbed the offensive replying to Kerry's position calling for the unilateral cancellation of our "Bunker-Busting" weapons program aimed at a (as Kerry himself noted!) nuclear weapon armed North Korea.

Frankly... I'm surprised so few people have picked up on this.

In terms of "imminent" threat, there's no greater danger to world peace than North Korea. A conventional or even nuclear/biological/chemical war that might within days lead to thousands or even tens of thousands of American military and civilian deaths is more likely to start in the Korean Peninsula than anywhere else on earth. North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il is crazier and better armed than Saddam Hussein ever was - even before the First Gulf War!

If... God forbid... we're ever forced to use military force against North Korea it'll be a far bloodier war if we don't have the capacity to take out many, most, or (optimistically!) all of North Korea's nuclear weapons which are... IN BUNKERS!!!

I mean... this is vintage Kerry - vintage left-wing Vietnam era protester Kerry. I realize that Jim Lehrer didn't really ask any questions about Kerry's 20-year Senate record or his past foreign policy and intelligence votes on the Senate floor, but Bush should have inserted Kerry's past record into the debate.

Also... Bush should have bashed the U.N. and especially the French. I understand that it was the Bush plan to avoid "attacking" Kerry personally and to avoid appearing "bullying" or hot-headed, but to not tie in French/German/Chinese/Russian/et al commercial and foreign policy self-interest into Kerry's "multinational" mantra was a missed opportunity.

Regarding Iraq...

Yeah... Bush was definitely on the defensive throughout the debate. (As previously mentioned, this was due to Lehrer's questioning as much as to Kerry's debating skill.) That said... did you come away from the 90-minute debate knowing any more about what Kerry intends to do in Iraq than you did before the debate began? Bush's answer regarding leaving it to the commanders on the ground and the diplomats to answer when we actually start withdrawing large numbers of troops may not have been the most satisfying... but at least it was an answer. Kerry gave NO firm answer to the question!

Anyway... that's my take.

I'm really surprised the "Global Test" comments are not getting more attention. It was a direct exchange, and a clear point of difference. Some people think it makes sense, and others think it is a clear error for Kerry. I'm of the latter opinion - it was a major error where Kerry actually let his core beliefs show through.

Actually, Jonah's point about outsourcing in Afghanistan vs. Iraq is astoundingly dumb.

It would certainly be a bad idea to outsource security in Iraq to Afghan warlords, or the Iraqi equivalent. But that's not what Kerry is advocating, as far as I know.

Exactly Damien...and Rove et al will be sure to drive it home.

Several commenters have noted that Bush frequently looked peeved when Kerry was talking. I noticed it was usually when Kerry was making accusations about focusing on Iraq instead of the WoT.

I think the reason Bush was peeved is this: the invasion of Iraq is a step in a plan of attack in the overall WoT. First Afghanistan, then Iraq, then Iran, then North Korea. But Bush can't say that. He CANNOT tip his hand, tell his enemies what he intendes to do, and still have his war strategy be successful. So he is frustrated, knowing what he knows and not being able to refute Kerry's whining.

That's my two cents on Bush's peeved looks. Anyone want to bet me that this turns out this way by the end of Bush's second term? You heard it here first.

There are good moolahs and bad moolahs in Iran. There are even some fabulous moolahs. And some iron sheiks also.

I have to say I struggle with the disconnect between what impresses me and what seems to impress most people watching debates like this. Neither candidate got high marks for substance in my book; Kerry insisted he had a plan while providing no details that seemed at all practical, while Bush's main point seemed to be that criticizing his decisions sent mixed messages to troops in the field. Kerry endorsed one really dreadful idea -- bilateral talks with North Korea -- and Bush, in charge of the biggest-spending administration in world history, dismissed Kerry's ideas about homeland security spending by asking how he would pay for them.

But Kerry looked better, and blanked out many fewer times than Bush did. My assumption is that this meant more to viewers and a media far more oriented to campaign dynamics than it is to government than it does to me. Also, to reiterate a point I made yesterday, Bush's reaction to personal criticism is a major potential weakness. Kerry's criticisms last night were relatively mild and mostly indirect -- this wrong war, that administration failure. If Kerry focused his attack, for example by ascribing one policy error or another to Bush's own incompetence, Bush's reaction might do him more damage than the charge would.

So do the Kerry supporters think GIVING Iran
nuclear material to see if they use it for
'peaceful' purposes is really a good idea?

Why not give an 8 year old a semi-automatic
weapon and a target to shoot at and see
if he uses it correctly? Tell you what,
I will promise to punish him 'appropriately'
after we attend your funeral.

And what did Kerry mean by "the global test"?
Bush quite substantively picked up on that one.
Does the U.S. need "gobal" approval before it
defends it's interests? I suppose we could
get the UN on board if we bribe them enough.

And can there be more than two parties in
"bi-lateral" talks? I think China might want
to be involved with the North Korea issue.

So substance was on Bushes side.

Kerry was obviously the "better debator". I
would certainly want him to be my partner in
any debating contest.

But I can't understand why that means the
good Sen. from Mass. should be President.

Someone please explain why debating ability
should be the only reason to vote for a
candidate.

I was blown away by Bush's discomfort under fire. What we saw last night was a weak man, and his stuttering, agonizingly long pauses, and verbal missteps show that. Perhaps the only time in his presidency that we've seen what he's like when he's caught out, under pressure, and answering hard questions.

Like most independents and undecideds, I think Kerry dominated him.

Some people here seem to have internalized the Bush campaign lies to the point that they now believe that anything that contradicts the lies is itself a lie. And they are disappointed now that Bush wasn't able to articulate his lies.

Here is the problem: Bush is still mainly trying to leave the outright lying to others so that he will not publicly be called a liar by the media. That's why he couldn't respond "better" to Kerry's points. He would have had to lie.

And that's also why you guys out there who think that Bush "won on substance", but failed to deliver his lines well enough, are saying that: it's imaginary substance, based on lies that others have articulated for him (the swift vets, Cheney, Zell Miller etc.).

Kerry won the debate, but he didn't score a decisive victory just yet. But if Bush's performance doesn't improve in the next two debates, that might well cost him the election.

Kerry's Iran strategy is the same strategy that failed with North Korea. As part of a bi-lateral deal negotiated by the Clinton administration, the US gave North Korea two light water reactors in exchange for assurances that it would not pursue nuclear weapons. The North Koreans cheated.

Here's what Kerry said in the debate last night:

"I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing."

Only a credulous candidate would believe that an energy-rich country needs nuclear reactors for peaceful persons. Only a morally-impaired candidate would think that a country led by Islamic fanatics is interested in the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Only a suicidal candidate would give nuclear fuel to a country that has already threatened Israel with nuclear holocaust. But Senator Kerry thinks we should offer them fuel to see whether or not they'll use it peaceful purposes. I guess that makes him credulous, morally-impaired and suicidal.

The Mullahs will build their nuclear arsenal in bunkers deep underground yet Kerry wants to deprive the US of the sole means of destroying those bunkers. He said:

"Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense.

You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons," but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using."

Kerry still doesn't understand that there is a difference between free democratic countries retaining nuclear weapons for defense and rogue regimes seeking to acquire nuclear weapons for offense. That proves he is a credulous, morally-impaired, and suicidal candidate.

I was blown away by Kerry's outright prevarications and two-sidedness on the issues. First he claims he would have "done it differently" and then proceeds to tell us how he wouldn't have done it all, opting for another resolution instead of war.

Kerry's comments that Iraq has not attacked us is an outright lie or stunning ignorance. Saddam attempted to assassinate a former president, blew up American cultural institutes in Prague and Manilla, and more. Kerry sits on the intel committee and has no excuse for these kinds of lies.

Like most knowledgable folks, I think Kerry threw it away. The flimsies will still like him.

Jon, Charlie:
Only the Intelligence Committees have full access to all of the intel that the POTUS has. So, no, Kerry didn't have access to all of the intel the President had, but he had access to the same intel summaries the President had. The summaries, however, don't contain the caveats and contradictory information available in the actual intel. If the President is only using the summaries to make decisions (possible) then he is being irresponsible in not considering all the information available to him.

Danny:

Poland would disagree with you, since they have said they were lied to in being brought into the war...

I think the first rule of debating was at work here: the one who gets mad loses.
Bush got mad, and lost the debate.

The question is, and has always been, how will the debates affect the "swing" voters. It will probably take a week or more to determine the effect of this debate on undecided or less committed voters. At most, I expect this to even things up at about 47-47 or so for the next couple of weeks.

As for blogger reactions, I prefer to avoid the purely partisan hack blogs (like Kos and Hugh Hewitt) for commentary. It might be more informative to look at people like Andrew Sullivan, Mickey Kaus, Dan here... Their assessments of the debate are far less likely to be colored by purely partisan intents and therefore are more likely to be even-handed.

In re the style vs substance weighting, note the downline questions in the Gallup poll.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13237

better able to handle Iraq: K-43, B-54
trust more as C-in-C: K-44, B-54
good understanding of issues: K-41, B-41
agreed with you on issues: K-46, B-49
more believable: K-45, B-50
more likeable: K-41, B-48
tough enough for the job: K-37, B-54

did better in the debate: K-53, B-37

So there you have it--Bush did better on substance, but Kerry won on style (only), and Gallup is using style as the metric.

I think both candidates did well. Kerry impressed me, but he impressed me in the way a magician impresses you. You dont know how he pulled it off but you're pretty sure it wasnt real magic. I think Bush zinged him quite a bit but he also missed some golden opportunities such as pointing out that 'outsourcing' to Afghan warlords is basically what Kerry is advocating in Iraq right now. Also i think Bush had a brilliant chance to show his CIC bonafidis by blasting Kerry for second guessing Tommy Franks and the people on the ground. Tommy Franks basically debunked the whole issue on CNN about 15 minutes later so I guess it doesnt matter. Kerry should be careful, he cant claim to be out of the intelligence loop while at the same time second guessing all the military decisions of the last 3 years. It makes him seem like an armchair general. Stick to the political decisions.
Kerry missed some golden opportunities to blast Bush on specific blunders in Iraq. Why didnt he point blank ask Bush _why_ there are still terrorists pouring over the borders of Iraq? Why arent the borders sealed? He hinted at it but that would have been devastating. Some righteous anger at how practically none of the Iraq money has been spent yet would have been 1000 times more effective than whining about how it would better have been used propping up the welfare state here. All the exchange showed me was that Kerry isnt going to be any more zealful in kicking ass in Iraqi reconstruction. Will he pinch pennies so he can get his healthcare bills passed?
As far as presentation, Kerry took it, he looked and sounded very good. Personally I was just really pleased that we got a real honest to god debate out of this. I thought Lehrer did an ok job, but he never questioned Kerry on his record which was a clear example of bias. The guys running for president shouldnt he have to defend his record at some point?

Zathras"There are good moolahs and bad moolahs in Iran. There are even some fabulous moolahs. And some iron sheiks also."

Best comment in the thread.

I yearn for the 80s when international disputes were settled in the wrestling ring. No matter what you've heard, the Cold War was decided via a flag match between the tag teams of The Iron Shiek and Nikoli Volkav vs Hulk Hogan and Hacksaw Jim Duggan.

Normally the debates don't mean anything unless one guy slips on a banana peel (Ford re Poland), but this time the debate may have finally done some good by forcing a real discussion of specific policy choices going forward for Iraq Iran and NoK.

Kerry's back in the game, but if Bush will get his own head back in the game, he should have no difficulty ripping Kerry's positions to shreds on the above issues. "[European] help is on the way" is the most egregious but not the only idiocy that's ripe for shredding. Kerry's foolish proposal for a freeze on bunker-busters is also an easy target.

Kerry may have won the skirmish but opened up a huge vulnerability that will lose the war.

Kerry won on style and substance. That is not to say the Bush did terrible. In fact, Bush did well for the first 10-15 mins. He looked strong and resolute. Unfortunately, he clearly became fuddled once he ran through his talking points the first time and had to repeat them... over... and over... and over... If you go back to the transcript, Bush did not really have much to say that any real substance. It is fair to say that he offered no real plan or goal for Iraq except to keep on trucking on, which is clearly a downward spiral... just read the news. On style, this was not the typical Bush who seems calm and unflinching (e.g. the 2000 debates and on the current campaign trail). He appeared upset and almost angry (rather Gore-like fr