the less you think about what Kerry said, the better he did.

It won't wash.

Sorry for the multiple post.

I was agreeing with BumperStickerist.

BumperStickerist gets it exactly right. Kerry wins on style, not substance.

-------------------------------
Plenty of soundbites and video for Rove to
develop the 'flip-flop' theme.

Wow, John Kerry just stated he wanted to stop developing nuclear countries by stopping American nuclear weapons development. EYES SLAMMED SHUT!

Scary.

Senator Kerry has a "terrible" breadth of knowledge about a great many things. President Bush believes what he says. I'm not sure how it played in Peoria, but I suspect that conviction trumps knowledge. It has been my experience (when I was a member of Mensa, and other occasions), that most people distrust the smart guy, and respect conviction. I don't think it was a draw, based on the number of times I yelled "liar" at the TV screen.

"the less you think about what Kerry said, the better he did."

True. The problem is that Joe Sixpack probably won't think about it very hard. When you couple that with the inevitably declarations that Kerry won by the MSM, I have a feeling the pollas are going to tighten considerably or even swing in Kerry's favor over the next couple of days.

Oh, and don't drink and comment- it impairs your typing.

I kept waiting for Sen. Kerry to say "I have a plan ... as a senator I worked on (pick your topic) and as President will continue that work by ..." No references to any past accomplishments by Kerry. Lacking those links to accomplishments, the "I have a plan" lines fell flat. And the idea of jumping into North Korea with bilateral talks and cutting out the Chinese -- the President was too kind in his response. Something more along the line of, "That is about the stupidest *#!&* thing I have ever heard."

I agree Kerry did well on aesthetics, but substance was weak.

Seems like mostly a draw to my at first. But I think the prez has some decent soundbites to maul Kerry with.

Namely the "Global Test" and the dissing of the allies and the its a mistake but its not a mistake statements within fifteens minutes of each other.

Kerry may have one good sound bite, "four words: more of the same".

Bush was too eager to respond sometimes though. He didn't need to do it. He seemed antsy and defensive at first.

Tomorrow's another day boys. Your boy got hammered, but hard. Regroup and try again tomorrow.

Pleasant dreams,
Ketchup

Your boy got hammered, but hard.

That, boys and girls, it what is commonly referred to as "intellectual dishonesty.

Related: I wonder what the verdict is over at Oliver Willis's blog ...

There were so many mistakes that Kerry made. Bush picked up on them at times but could have done a better job counter punching. Honestly, I think bloggers can be a giant influence in this debate by fact checking the Kerry declarations:eg., Bin Laden is hidding in Afghanistan, nuclear weapons in Korea were created on Bush's watch etc.

Well, if you thought about what was being said, Bush was doing ok. If you only paid attention to how they said it, Kerry was winning hands down, at least to the point that it got to painful for me to listen to Bush stumble over another line. Defensive, yes but lordy, he sounded almost like he was *whining*. I just couldn't listen to any more well stated but totally empty platitutes from Kerry.

Kerry even handed him a golden opening with the bit about sending our soldiers over there with not enough gear, and Bush blew it. Just to salvage a draw, if he did, would have taken a complete turnabout from what I was hearing.

They both sucked, but IMHO, Kerry sucked less.

Kerry won this one by default, but I suspect that many, many people were turned off by the event. I sure was, and hell, I couldn't even sleep last night waiting for the damn thing to happen!

I suspect many people won't watch the remaining debates because this one was such a yawner. That probably plays into Bush's hand becuase his staff is much better at getting his message out through other channels.

It's very hard to debate someone who is constantly twisting the facts and a moderator who doesn't ask about Kerry's senate voting record, his wanting to cut intellegance, etc. If people aren't aware of what is going on unfortunately they will believe Kerry as he is a skilled fabricator.

Lehrer gave Kerry soft ball questions...
for example, there were no questions about Kerry's Senate record of voting against defense appropriations; or his sponsorship of a bill to cut CIA funding by 6 billion dollars a year after the first World Trade Center attack...or Kerry's support of the nuclear freeze movement.
Kerry wasn't asked why he met with vietcon leaders in Paris, or why he called vietnam soldiers war criminals.
Lehrer focused on Iraq with question after question that the war was going bad such as...
"You said there was a miscalculation in Iraq,what was it and how did it happen?"
"What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion,has President Bush made in these areas?"
Mr. President, has Iraq been worth the cost in American lives -10,052 - I mean 1,052 up to today?
You've repeatedly accused President Bush of lying to the American people on Iraq. Give us some examples of the president being untruthful on Iraq?
Lehrer never asked why Kerry voted to authorize the war, then voted against funding it. Or why he voted against the first Gulf War, even with its big global coalition
There was no mention of comments from French and German leaders who announced they wouldn't send troops to Iraq even if Kerry was elected.

I seem to remember one of Kerry's many positions being "Safer at home!" How is that so when he wants to stop our nuclear development programs?

Just a simple question.

We may be witnessing the campaign equivalent of the Battle of the Bulge.

It was the moderators: "Lehrer gave Kerry soft ball questions."

It was a tie: "They both sucked"

Pullease.
Hey Bill,
You and your ilk really need to focus more on the "style" versus "substance" talking point emanating from the RNC. It is really the only way to spin this positively for your boy, until something else distracts the populace (maybe Cheney will do better).

In fact, my advice is to just punk out now and delete my comment as even the folks reading this will recognize in their gut that it wasn't just a stylistic defeat tonight (completely self-delusional readers excused).

Did Bush demonstrated true substance tonight? "Intellectual honesty" indeed. Please point to the substance of Bush's comments tonight - he was fully unpresidential and uninformed INHO.

Regards,
Ketchup

Joe Lockhart called it a draw. Read Drudge. If that is the best result by such a partisan, I can't understand the depression around here.

And, let me add, if bloggers (as suggested here) are to counter Kerry's "OBL in Afghanistan" in order to correct his mistatements, let me add--as a frequent and longtime Afghan resident--OBL is in fact in Afghanistan. Dead. Killed by a rocket/bomb years ago. Everyone there believes it, even down to the date he was killed. The obits were run (see the big Egyptian newspaper front page on Google) and the AQ and local residents concurred. It's old news.

Good read on the debates. Probably was a draw.

Post mine to this comment page:

http:///proudrepublican.blogspot.com

Debate: Kerry did not win over the new Bush Democrats
Most polls show 9 to 15% of democrats currently favor President Bush. Senator Kerry had to win them over but failed to do so, no matter what the media spin on the minutae is.

The reason he did not is because of two very important mistakes:

1. President Bush pinned him to the wall on the "Global situations", which Kerry said whether or not he would start preemtive action. The President immediately kicked him in the shins by asking "What does the Senator mean by "Global situations", then when on to say he would protect America first and not worry about the rest of the world liked us or not.

2. The second mistake, and this may be greater: Kerry said we were wrong to be building Nuclear Bunker Buster bombs and he would immediately put a stop to it. Americans want us to have the newest and best weapons. This is his largest blunder.

After all the news media crowns Mr. Kerry, these two points will be salient.

The 9 to 15% of democrats have probably made up their mind to stick with the President and will not pay attention to the other debates.

ketchup -

People who begin comments like this ...

You and your ilk

... typically don't persuade anyone of anything. And considering the questionable nature of your debating skills ...

Let me tell you how it is in middle America.

I'm an independent, but generally vote republican and carry conservative values. There's no way John Kerry would get my vote. But John Kerry definitely was more effective than George Bush in this debate with specifics, facts, figures, statistics, and a very strong command of the issues and his views about them. If they were lies or inaccuracies, you sure couldn't tell it because Bush answered almost none of them head-on, instead repeating his campaign mantra.

The president came off as irritable and flappable, and was WAY too repetitive in his messages and points. He seemed "stuck" at times. More importantly, it also seems to me that Bush believed that he need only to continue to attack Kerry on his weaknesses leading into this debate, simply repeating his campaign messages and soundbites. To his own detriment, Bush "stayed on message" too much, and was non-responsive in terms of answering directly to Kerry's attacks, facts, and stacks of stats that Kerry cleary had prepared for this time. Again, if they were lies, distortions, or innacuarcies of fact, you sure couldn't tell it from Bush's replies.

Bush didn't answer up. He did not respond, and he said almost NOTHING during the debate to answer what Kerry was saying right there on the stage in real time. It was almost as if he weren't listening to Kerry on the stage, and had prepared to answer what Kerry was last week and last month, but not what he was tonight.

Kerry had some very effective one-liners, was very comfortable, and presidential. Bush seemed stunted... dull.

For someone who wants Bush to win, I'm quite discouraged by this performance. All the spin in the world by either side won't change this fact: Kerry won this debate hands down, no two ways about it.

Bush won.

Not the debate, I think that was a draw with a slight tilt in Kerry's favor.

But Bush just *won.*

The argument that Bush is in trouble because he didn't counter-punch is fallacious, IMO. Bush's strategy is not to counter-punch, it's to be the punching bag. He lets Kerry attack the snot out of him, but never gets knocked out.

Eventually, Kerry's knuckles start bleeding. I equate bloody knuckles with the first RNC ad where Kerry talks about eliminating the bunker-busters or other such nonsense.

Also, by acting as a punching bag, Bush has just lowered expectations for the next two debates. The fact that Kerry could not knock Bush out tonight indicates to me that he never will.

Kerry needs to knock Bush out. The problem is that you can't knock out a punching bag. Also, Kerry is noodle-armed.

Kerry definetly won on style but not on substance. What exactly did we learn about Kerry's plans for Iraq and what doubts did he really raise about Bush? (none). It won't change any voters minds - Bush will still be up by the same amount in a few days.

Bill, Agreed. I'm not here to persuade, I'm just here for the entertainment, and it is entertaining.

You are right, my debating skills are slightly worse than W's tonight, but I do have a good excuse (captured well by Bill above: "Oh, and don't drink and comment-it impairs your typing.")

Best wishes,
57 Varieties.

My initial reaction was that Kerry had a slight edge over Bush. But I keep forgetting how well the "Bush personality" plays with folks. I think his simple message, delivered with conviction and passion, and not much speaking ability, will play well with the home crowd. Kerry sounded tough, but very few people actually think he is tough. I think in Peoria they are gonna figure he's playing politics and Bush is telling it the way he always has.

New Kerrey flip-flop. He chided Bush for opposing the Kyoto Climate Treaty. (Bush upset Kerrey's foreign leader supporters.)

Yet Kerrey voted in favor of a sense of the Senate resolution that opposed the Kyoto Treaty unless it was a different treaty.

Kerrey was against the Kyoto Treaty before he was for it.

Senate resolution 98 in 1997:
SUMMARY AS OF: 6/12/1997--Introduced.

Declares that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997 or thereafter which would: (1) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex 1 Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period; or (2) result in serious harm to the U.S. economy.

The proposed changes to Kyoto would kill it. Those changes are "deal-breakers" for most of the third-world foreign signatories to the treaty.

Even though 95 Senators including Kerrey voted against the treaty in that resolution, Kerrey now wants to chide Bush for not backing the treaty. Has he changed his position in gratitude for his foreign supporters?

I think degrees_of_truth had it right, but instead of "irritable and flappable," I would have said "exhasperated" and flappable. It would be like Bill Clinton coming out and giving his "I did not have sex with that woman" performance after the DNA test came back. Utterly stunning.

John Kerry did win this debate hands down, if he is perceived as honest by the public. That is something we'll just have to wait and see.

gabe, I disagree.

Kerry was better as a technical debater. His presentation was better. No doubts about that at all, GW had some big problems up there.

The problem for Kerry was that he plunged a knife into his own chest. His comments about eliminating bunker-busters (and such) just ensured that the "Ed Koch" Democrats aren't going to swing back to him. Ever.

He's in deep trouble.

Ketchup:

Your a dumbass.

Why? Because you are in the wrong spot if your looking for partisans to pick a fight with. If you notice alot of people here gave some sort of edge to kerry. Clearly you have no idea what our "ilk" is, you presumptive halfwit.

That being said, its rather silly for anyone to say Bush got his ass handed to him. He just didn't make any big mistakes for it to be that one sided. Saying Kerry came off well and Bush didn't is probably about as far as any reasonable person could stretch. Only an idiot or an intelluctually dishonest person would stretch it farther.

I think Kerry did a good job of projecting a collected image and he tried to make a coherent case of his view on Iraq. But I'm pretty skeptical that he allayed many people's concerns.

I'm not certain about what vibe Bush was projecting. He did seem a little put off. That could be bad in that its "unpresidental" but it might be good cause I think people can identify with being frustrated with Kerry.

Ennnh. Nothing too outstanding either way. So its a draw.

Textbook,
I don't disagree with you. My point is that if one takes Kerry at face value, he acted like he had a real position on things.

Bilateral vs. unilateral talks with North Korea, for instance. Even when asked what form of talks he would be in favor of (bilateral or multilateral), he said "I want both." But he said it with such conviction that it looked like a definite answer!

Kerry's like one of those guys who gives a speech, and everyone says "what a great speech," but nobody knows what he said. If nobody bothers to actually pay attention to what he said, he wins.

If the "nobody could say this with a straight face" effect wears off, then who knows.

I thought a crucial mistake by Kerry was the "Global Test" remark when asked if he would use preemption he said he would if it passed a "Global Test" He did'nt strengthen his stance on defense with that remark. That is sure to be in a RNC commercial very soon.

I heard a rumor that Kerry was in the Senate for 20 years, made lots of anti-pentagon votes, and missed a huge percentage of intelligence committee meetings.

That must not be true, because I heard nothing about that in the debate.

This is all too late for me...worse, since I need my sleep for a morning class at my university where I'm sure both colleagues and students will be spinning for Kerry. I planned to put my remarks to bed a while ago, but an interesting phone call from my former partner in consutlting--for many years, but long ago and no longer--for the Democratic Party here in Boston/MA says Kerry blew it. Not for his performance, but for the lack of any substantive questions/answers on his senatorial QUALIFICATIONS for POTUS. It's one thing to attack, Lehrer and Kerry alike, but altogether something different to offer one's record of achievement and thus some qualifications to become President. Kerry never made the case through his own political biography. It's over.

Let us forget what happened tonight and get ready for the next one. We still have 2 more chances and let us call in the artillery. Swiftboat, Cheney, RNC, CC, gillespie, de lay et al and we can negate this "advantage" . We can't let this debate be the last impression. Is there way to get Laura on the podium.

Bush was pathetic. He looked tired and haggard and beat up. What's up with the president. Does he want the job or not. I am very disappointed with the leader.

"the less you think about what Kerry said, the better he did."

I'd add that the less you know about the military facts of life the better Kerry did.

When the senator pointed out that when we went into Iraq only the British and the Australians were with us (he missed citing Poland) I just laughed. One of the (in many ways, nice) problems the US has is that very few militaries in the world - and that includes many European ones - are able to effectively operate with us in a major combat environment. They don't have the technology or the training. To try to fold in foreign troops in that kind of operation is asking for blue on blue incidents. As a point of interest, the "Mission Accomplished" banner that has raised such a fuss was suggested by General Franks since there was little chance that we would have any allied military representation in Irag until major combat operations ceased for just those interoperability reasons.

As for the senator's response on Korea and his insistance that he wants bilateral as well as multilateral talks - he proved that he doesn't understand the way the world works. We just deployed the first elements of an anti-missile defense in Alaska with more to follow quickly. We now have a credible defense, or at least one that raises the uncertainty level regarding success, against missiles from North Korea, something that China and Japan and South Korea lack. They definitely have the bigger dogs in that fight and to give even the appearance of trying to circumvent Chinese participation in addressing the situation would be incredibly .... is stupid too harsh a word? Especially in light of the 'progress'on arms control that was made during the timeframe when we had all those bilateral talks and agreements with North Korea.

I had decided that there was no way I could vote for John Kerry when his statements convinced me that he believed that foreign leaders would base their policy decisions on personal dislike of an American president rather than on pragmatic calculations of their own strategic interests. Is that the basis on which John Kerry would conduct foreign policy? How far would he go to be liked?

Susann

"My point is that if one takes Kerry at face value, he acted like he had a real position on things."

Agreed. And he did lay out some real positions. Positions like "no bunker busters."

I just don't think that even if the public takes him at face value, he will win. In my opinion (and my opinion ain't the greatest), Kerry can't win without 9/11 Democrats. Guys like Ed Koch who would never in their life vote for a Republican... except after 9/11. Guys who want a gung-ho President who will start wars to kill these guys as fast as he can -- even as they bemoan his domestic policy.

Kerry burned that bridge tonight. He doused it in gasoline and started up the flamethrower. Bush was most vulnerable on Iraq (again, my opinion ain't the greatest, folks) and Kerry didn't do enough to hurt him on it.

Ah, yes. Those would be the bunker busters that would be so effective in haring Dear Leader out of his well, bunkers, right? Another bit of leverage that Kerry wants to give up. Well, at least he is consistent in this area.

Susann

Well, I see that Moby chimed in above. Another of McAwful's minions sent to spin. Anytime some begins a post telling you what a hardcore republicans they are , , ,

Truth is there was only one memorable part of the debate, and it was when Kerry spewed his "global test" nonsense and Bush called his ass on it.

Global test?

Gimme a freakin break.

Kerry's done. It's over.

Yes its funny that militarily Britain is worth 4 Frances or Germanies yet you never hear that. And Brits and US have overlap in equipment which can be useful logistically. Ah well I gave up on getting any kinda of good info from the press years ago. Especially on miltary and most especially diplomacy. Yeah they are biased and ill informed, but even worse on these issues they are woefully naive.

But no one will come out and say it anyway. It'd be a political gaffe.

One thing I wish Bush would have hammered Kerry on is the North Korea talks. Kerry goes on incessantly about bringing other nations to the table when it comes to the war on terror, and accuses Bush of acting unilaterally. However, when pressed on the North Korea subject, he insists that we have "bilateral" (which is us and them, and in the war on terror would be regarded as "unilateral") talks with North Korea, and ignoring China and the other nations involved in current negotiations. Other nations who happen to be much closer and easier to hit with a nuclear missle, by the way.

That seems like a flip-flop to me. Why should we pursue the backing of France, Russia, Germany, etc. on the issue of Iraq, but go it alone with North Korea?

If I were running the Bush campaign I'd have a commercial out tomorrow quoting Kerry's "global test" remark and keep running it over and over and over. Kerry may have won the debate (I think it a draw) but Bush has a golden opportunity with the best sound bite to come out of it to skewer Kerry but good.

The USA Today poll already up on the website shows that Bush was more likeable and believeable than Bush. That is more important than actually winning the debate. Bush is also holding up well on the perception that he is better able to handle Iraq.

I definitely think Kerry did better on style. Bush seemed off, and at times he didn't seem to responde much to Kerry's comments, but just stuck with his mantra.

I do think in substance, Kerry gave nothing new at all. I still have no idea what his plans are for Iraq, and I think he overly relies on the opinions of others in decision making.

I think his answer on anti proliferation and Korea was crap, I think Bush got him well on those.

I also think Bush's comment on Kerry's saying he could get more nations involved and Bush saying what are you going to say "come join us in a grand diversion" was very good.

Bush's answers were simplistic, sometimes too simplisitic in my opinion.

I also think Leher didn't do anything to challenge Kerry at all-and I would have liked to have seen more questions outside of Iraq ones-yeah Iraq is a huge issue right now, but there is a whole world out there, and I would have liked to have gotten more policy details on things outside Iraq and the War on Terror.

I am glad that someone other than me picked up on this (evilwhiteguy); Kerry opened himself up by saying we should have bilateral talks with N.K. He tries to hammer the President for not building a coalition in Iraq (untrue, but nice try), then wants to go it alone with someone who quite possibly has nukes? Not too smart in my book. The President passed up a golden opportunity to throw it back in his face last night. Hopefully they will use it in commercials. Also, about Kerry saying he would discontinue development of nuclear bunkerbusters; this was another golden opportunity for the President to say, "See, he wants to cancel a weapons program AGAIN!" Plus, couldn't that be a leak of classified information? How many people knew we were developing this prior to last night?

Overall, I would give a slight edge to Kerry, but only on style. Hopefully, as was suggested above by others, the President was playing "rope a dope". Only time will tell if that was true, but he better hurry. November is coming fast.

Tuned in to the NPR (WFAE) station this morning. The local show programmed for that hour sometimes has a call-in segment and today was one of them.

Now, usually this is a balanced show just slightly left of middle in its content. But today I'd say (roughly), the emails and callers were 10:1 in support of Kerry's debate results and indicated that they would vote pro Sen. Kerry. This may be expected, I do not know, but leads me to wonder if these debates will have more of an influence on the election (in Kerry's favor) than many are saying.

My take on the debates - watching it from the point of view of how "others" may view it - was a solid Kerry take away.

I'm still voting for Bush for other reasons.

Johnathan . . . keep in mind the email memo that McAuliffe sent out yesterday before the debate. On the list was to call up the radio shows. How many of the folks calling received this email memo?

I did an amateur analysis of the Gallup poll numbers (see blog URL above). Bottom line, Kerry "won," but doesn't seem to have changed any minds.

Hi Lola - right - could be. And if that accounts for a part of the big pro Kerry draw on today's show it may serve to make other listeners (not aware of McAuliffe call to arms) take notice. Just not sure how effective it will be to further change the general population's perception but it drowned out the half hour I listened to this show.

Kerry's comment about a "Global Test" was skerry. We need to be discussing that one more out in the open.

Read about it here:

John Kerry's Global Test

Rumor, can anyone confirm?

Someone who recorded the debate said that during the post-debate handshakes, Lerher gave Bush a regular shake, but gave Kerry a very warm handshake and a wink as well. Can anyone else confirm this?

Have you folks seen this?

http://www.conspire.com/fox-photoshop.jpg

I'm not buying it yet, for one because the two pictures aren't close enough to be changed just by Photoshop.

Does anyone have a source of another news service using the photo on the right?

nevermind, I found it from the horse's (AP's) mouth:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/041001/1913/w100102ajpg

Even speaking from a perspective of hindsight Kerry couldn't make any substative points.

Second guessing mistakes made in the heat of battle is always easy for armchair generals.

See Victor Hansons "The Fog of Battle" at http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200408270843.asp

In summary, Kerry LOOKED good, but his words belie a mind that doesn't have even a adolesent grasp of foreign policy, particularly military matters. It was a debate on foreign policy, not a freaking beauty contest at a charm school.

I believe it is to soon to tell what President Bush was trying to do during the debate. However, what I have learned over the last 3+ years is everytime I get the feeling Bush is down and out or not responding to the attacks against him he always seems to pull it out. It took me a while to figure it out but Bush and Rove always seem to have a plan. Like forcing Kerry into a position recently where he had to make a comment and as soon as he did they used it against him.

I heard someone else sum it up better than I could with a very simple phrase... "Kerry is playing Checkers and Bush is playing Chess". Bush is always five moves ahead.

I would suggest we wait a little while and see what happens.

I don't know what he is going to do but the fact is that Bush was in Florida on the morning of the debate meeting with people devasted by two hurricanes while Kerry was getting his hair and nails done in prepration for the debate.

Florida is a key state in this election and the President was out with the "people" while his opponet was getting his nails buffed. Which one is going to connect with the voters in Florida???

Even conservative Drudge has posted a news piece showing Bush having lost his pre-debate lead. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6159637/site/newsweek/)
Doesn't really matter. Statistically again, they are tied. It's like watching the Superbowl, except I don't watch the Superbowl.

4061 How can this all be as nice? Check out my site http://www.pai-gow-keno.com