It is not that I think the questions were unfair to Bush, but I don't think he did much to challenge Kerry.

I would have liked to have seen him push Kerry more on policy beliefs and to provide more detail.

I also think he overly focused on Iraq-not that Iraq wasn't important, but over half of the 90 minutes was on Iraq, and by the end of the debate the Iraq questions just seemed to be the same things, with the candidates providing similar answers.

I can say the questions proposed was one of the biggest dissappointments in this debate.

I would recommend that everybody grab their umbrella and their lawyer, because last night it might have turned into a tight one.

I don't think this debate will move the polls much.

Perspective:
Reagan lost the first debate to Mondale in 84
Perot was said to have won the first debate in 1992
Gore was said to have won the first debate in 2000
So in all these cases the men who won the first debate did not win the presidency...

While many viewers of the debate may not pick this up, I think Kerry took some extremely troubling positions in the debate:
1) His idea that taking preemptive action to protect the US should meet some "global test"...his codeword for unanimous international approval, something which is almost impossible to get
2) His idea of bilateral talks with North Korea. Clinton tried this and got snookered; this is what has led to our problems with NK today. Bilateral talks are a codeword for appeasement: basically, the US tries to buy NK cooperation, but of course NK cannot be trusted. Bush is 100% correct in that the only way to apply meaningful pressure to NK is through multilateral talks, largely because of the influence China has over NK. And Kerry's assertion to do both is laughable; once we give NK what they want in bilateral talks, the multilateral talks collapse. Once again, Kerry is trying to have it both ways.
3) His idea to abandon the nuke bunker busting bomb. This is reminiscent of his idea of a nuke freeze during the Reagan era: simply disastrous. Here is a weapon that could really strike fear into the heart of a man like Kim Jung Il and force him into cooperation, and Kerry wants to abandon it. Simply sickening. Basically, Kerry is establishing a moral equivalence between the US and these rogue states: since we are equivalent in Kerry's mind, all we need to do is to stop building nukes, and they will as well, for they have the same motivations we do. It's all so simple, see: we make nice, they make nice. Appeasement all over again.
4) His bizarre scheme to give nuke fuel to Iran: again, more appeasement, and reminiscent of Clinton's deal with NK.

I must say with the 4 above points, any one is sufficient to reject Kerry. One cannot overstate how disastrous those 4 policies of Kerry would be to the US.

Anyone wandering into the debate would know Kerry was in Vietnam, but not had too much of an idea what he's done since... Where were the questions dealing with his 20 plus years in the Senate??

GW did look a bit tired, but then again, Kerry was off at the spa for tanning and manicures and GW was slugging through hurricane damage.

No out-of-the-park shots by either side, however --

Kerry gave up a few choice morsels that will play worse upon repeating.. ie the "Global test" and the moral equivalency argument he gave that the US is a hypocrit for pursuing bunker-busters while trying to keep same out of terrorist hands.

Yeah, that's the ticket. That's the kind of person we have as a CinC..someone who doesn't grasp the moral difference between the United States and terrorists.

err.... typo

should be: That's the kind of person we need as a CinC ...

PIMF PIMF!

"4) His bizarre scheme to give nuke fuel to Iran: again, more appeasement, and reminiscent of Clinton's deal with NK.
"

I agree with this point. Big mistake on his part, but I doubt the apathetic would notice much.

I don't think it is wise for Iran to have anything that involves nuclear power.

Kerry's strategy is right out of Neville Chamberlain's playbook...Churchill and Reagan are rolling over in their graves...

This is the Kerry strategy:
1) appease NK
2) appease Iran by giving them nuke fuel
3) appease all rogue regimes and terrorists by abandoning nuke bunker busters

In general I don't think this debate will have an impact on the race.

Also, I think a bit too much is being made out about how Kerry "looked presidential". My how far we have fallen from being the Yale debating champ to merely looking acceptable. Kerry did not need to win this debate on style, he needed to win it on substance. Bush's lead in this campaign is built on his positions, not necessarily his style. To the extent that Bush's style has an impact it is his clear, direct, and unwavering style. No matter how much Kerry tries he can't match that. He comes across as the 'slick talker' who will say anything to get elected.

Also, I guess I am in a minority but I think Bush's exasperated look was a plus for him. It wasn't a sign of weakness as in 'I don't have an answer' but rather of strength as in 'the bastard doesn't know what he is talking about'.

Overall, it is a draw, with Kerry providing the Bush campaign with some soundbite gems, such as the "global test" comment and him calling the Iraq invasion a "mistake" and 'not a mistake' within a minute. If I'm the Bush campaign I would measure the time between those two comments and make a commercial about it.

Kerry is toast. The MSM will try to spin this into a great Kerry victory and a tied race but that won't wash.

The more I think about Kerry's proposed policies of appeasement towards NK and Iran...the more I realize that a Kerry presidency really does increase exponentially the possibility of waking up to a nuclear cloud over one our cities one day...

- Kerry said there was a right way and a wrong way to disarm Saddam....He claims Bush to it the wrong way....Since flyover's and sanctions weren't working What was the right way, to go to France, Germany, and Russia and ask them to stop shuffling billions under the table to Saddam through the food-for-oil program....Why the hell is the Admin going so soft on that issue, Bush didn't once raise that when the UN came up....In fact no one in the Admin is even alluding to it....

I do think the questions were stacked against Bush. Maybe it is part of the whole incumbent/challenger thing, but the result is that the debate ended up being all about Bush's ideas and actions. In terms of the debate, it put Bush on the defensive and let Kerry skate on a lot of stuff in his record.

Folks right now think that gives Kerry an advantage, but I don't think so. In fact, it recapitulates the two major mistakes of the Democratic campaign calendar.

First, since it wasn't about Kerry's ideas, the debate last night didn't give voters last night a reason to vote FOR him. It's back to the ABB model where Kerry thought all he had to do was be a credible replacement. Maybe that strategy would have worked if he had been ahead or tied, but it doesn't when he's behind. This repeats the mistake of the Boston convention.

Second, Kerry's past record was not vetted on stage in front of everyone where he could answer the charges in his most effective venue (more effective than I expected, frankly.) Now he's ripe for his debate statements to be juxtaposed with his records in campaign ads where he's gotten whipped. This repeats the mistake of the front-loaded primaries.

People who are coming away thinking how well Kerry comported himself last night are going to be surprised when the structural weaknesses are exploited and change the poll numbers accordingly.

I did not watch the debate last night, but I did hit the internet after it was over 1) read the contents of the debate and 2) the view opinion and reaction from the MSM and blogs assessing the debate. It was pretty sickening, especially from the blogs and NRO. Kerry won - boohoo. For the life of me I could not figure out why the blogs were talking a ‘Kerry Victory’. I read the transcript and beside the MSM wasn’t even going ga-ga over Kerry like I thought they would. (That is telling enough). Then I heard sound bites. Evidently, the same group who brought CBS/Rather down has confused Kerry ability to speak English and ability to deliver a speech with the substance of what he said. The man wants to outsource this country’s defense for heavens sake. I don’t care how WELL he said it just the mere fact he said it makes him a loser. That is what people will remember. The Bush team has great sound bites from this debate and if the Kerry supporters and ‘highfiving’ each other now, wait until the sound bites hit the air. They will be screaming about some type of Karl Rove conspiracy. (Frankly, I believe Rove has read ‘The Art of War’). But my real disappointment lies with the ‘New Media’. Hugh Hewitt is correct in his analysis. By the way, is it true that while he was in hurricane fatigued FL., Kerry spent the day getting a manicure? May God have mercy on us.

With this Cheney wins the debate: "My opponent said that Iraq was the most imminent threat facing the United States - bigger than Iran or North Korea. Now he and his running mate tell us that we should have dealt with North Korea and Iran instead of Iraq, never mind that we're dealing with all three threats. So which is it?"

And yes, if he uses that line, the MSM will declare Edwards winner for smiling the most.

What is interesting is the arrogance of the Kerry world view. How arrogant for the US to cut a deal with the North Koreans and ignore the interests of the countries most affected by North Korean aggression such as South Korea, Japan and China. How arrogant to announce that he is going to magically persuade France and Germany to funnel thousands of troops into Iraq. If there is a concept of ugly Americanism, making these assumptions is a clear and perfect example.

I think Lehrer's questions were unfair. If he had asked questions of Kerry's record (voting again Iraq War 1990, intelligence cuts, statement made in the 1990s about Saddam's nuclear capabilities), then the questioning woudl have been balanced. But Lehrer only posed questions that were meant for Kerry to attack, and Bush to defend.

I wasn't all that impressed with Lehrer's questions, but they could have been worse. Regarding how the candidates did, Dick Morris has an interesting view at: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/29492.htm

- Karen .... Its in the best interests for the MSM to keep this as much of a horse race as possible...if its becomes a slam dunk for either man a lot of people will lose interest and revenues for the media will fall off accordingly...I think in most cases its more a case of bottom line than raw liberal partisanship that drives the MSM...Thats why they keep proping Kerry up in every way they can....

Some of the above comments are very picky. I think that Lehrer did a great job for who he is. He did good follow-up and made the debate flow logically. With the format, each candidate had a chance to score sufficient points. I think Bush left some key ones on the table in the interests of civility.

Now that foreign policy is back in the realm of the media, the fun begins. Look for lots of mud, blood and guts to come.

Where can I get my study guide for the "Global Test"? It wasn't available on Amazon.com. or at Barnes and Nobles.

Violent Kitten: You hit it out of the park, "the bastard doesn't know what he is talking about".

As far as nuke fuel for Iran; same mistake as the last Dem President, just in a different country. I spent 2 years (Jan 99-Jan 01) literally on the DMZ in Korea. I could see the N.K. flag from my barracks window and hear the propaganda each night. From what I saw, one good swift kick and the whole thing (N.K.) will fall. The only problem with that though is now they probably have the bomb. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know you don't give ANY kind of nuclear capability to an unstable dictator. That is giving matches and a can of gasoline to a three year old writ large.

One question that was missing was where these allies Kerry keeps talking about are going to come from? The French and Germans have both emphatically stated they have no intention of sending troops to Iraq under any circumstances. NATO has indicated that they are over extended now. Which allies is Kerry going to get to send to Iraq?

While I agree with Bill that any foreign policy debate is going to center on the world as it presently exists because of the decisions of the incumbent, I also think it is "incumbent" upon a moderator to force both contestants to defend their positions.

Lehrer didn't do that at all.

He could've asked Kerry, for example:

"American troops remained in Germany after World War II, first to pacify the country, then to protect it against the threat of the Soviet Union. In fact, American troops are still in Germany today. If you are elected President, would you provide Iraq the same sort of protection we provided Germany post World War II if Iraq requests it?"

"Which is more important - a stable Iraq which does not threaten her neighbors militarily or removing American troops from Iraq?"

"You've spoken of the need to repair alliances. You've also referred to the coalition we have assembled in Iraq as 'bribed', 'bought', 'coerced' and a spokesman of your campaign called the interim Prime Minister of Iraq a 'puppet'."

My question to you, sir, has two parts.

First, how does belittling the nations currently in the coalition serve to expand that coalition?

Second, if France and Germany join the coalition, would it then be genuine?"

"You've spoken at length about having a 'plan' for Iraq, a central part of which is to expand the coalition in Iraq.

Yet you have also called the war in Iraq the 'wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time'.

What are you prepared to offer to nations who are currently not members of the coalition to join the 'wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time'?

Oh, and here's a bunker buster question:

"Senator, you say you will shut down the nuclear bunker buster bomb program. The Administration says it is necessary because it will allow us to attack command & control bunkers of an enemy which we cannot currently hit - and the ability to hit those enemies in their bunkers is necessary to deter attack against the United States."

How will you deter enemies who know we cannot attack them in their bunkers?

This guy claims all he did was speak about voting for the 87 bil. Wrong He stood in the Senate and cast 2 votes. 2 votes which have consequence. The consequence of the YEA vote gave needed support to the troops. The consequence of the NAY vote ripped the support from their bosom.

In the 60's the Senator went to Viet Nam, and supported the troops in his role as a LTJG. He in some fashion did his duty. He then came home and started an organization that ripped the support of the troops from their bosom. He admitted to sitting down with the enemy at least once and it has been show twice. He is no different today than he was in 1971. He is Judas.

He claims he is going to kill terrorists. He votes against funding this war. He claims Ossama is in Afghanistan. Ossama is not there. He claims this is the wrong war wrong place wrong time yet he claims he is going to build a coalition to go in and send their sons to get killed so Americans can get out. Ain't gonna happen.

But worse than this he tears down those nations who have stood proud with us. His campaign calls the prime minister of Iraq a puppet. How is this ever going to build a coalition?

Why are we in Iraq? A war is fought in several ways. There are tactics and there is strategy. These are not always the same. In Iraq we are greeted with pictures of some ugly chick with a fag hanging out of her mouth laughing at some Iraqi’s Johnson and we call it horrible torture. It is minutiae. It is nothing.

There was a movie about Al Capone. In the movie the mobsters were all sitting around a huge table eating and sharing in wiley banter. One of the mobsters had stolen from Capone. Capone started talking about baseball and teamwork while holding a baseball bat as he walked around the table. Around and around he walked saying his piece. At one point he took the bat and cracked the cheater in the head killing him. This is how business is done in the Middle East. You may not like it, you may think the UN is a more tidy solution. None the less this is how business is done. Before we were in Iraq we didn't have a place at the table. We were two oceans away. Somewhere over the rainbow. We must deal with this reality. John Kerry does not deal with this reality. George Bush does. You may not like that this is reality. That is irrelevant. This is the hand we have been dealt and this is the hand we must play.

Iraq is the strategic key to the Middle East. If anyone doubts this sit down with a map a look at what surrounds it. To the east is Iran. To the east of Iran is Afghanistan. We now have Army's in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think this fact has gone un-noticed by the Iranian Generals and leadership? To the North of Iraq is Syria. To the east of Syria is Turkey and to the southwest is Israel. There are now 3 forces that surround Syria. Do you think this has gone un-noticed by Bashar? To the south of Iraq is Saudi Arabia. To the south of that is the Ocean, as well as the UAE Qatar and Kuwait. Once again the kingdom is surrounded. To the west of Iraq is Jordan. To the west of Jordan is Israel. Jordan is out of the play. By going into Iraq we have cracked the crook in the head with a ball bat. In addition we have shown the rest of the thugs at the table what we are capable of, and we are sitting at their table. Would you want to be the Saudi government who funds the like of Ossama? Bet it’s gotten a lot harder for Ossama to keep his hold together today than it was for him in 2001. Al-Quida is not a government. It is not a country. It has no real assets to hit like a country does. It exists almost wholly at the whim of countries that support it. IU think by going into Iraq support has dried up at least to a large extent.

This is why we are in Iraq. This is why American blood has been shed there. This is what has changed the balance of Power in the world. It is "common knowledge" the war in Iraq has gone bad. In fact the war in Iraq from a stragetic perspective is a smashing success. And for this reason alone George Bush deserves to be re-elected. This guy understands how the game is played. This guy understands how the game is won.

As to Kerry's plan to use the UN to hold out on Saddam it never would have worked. Saddam lives in a jail cell today. He still thinks he is the President of Iraq. There is no greater pressure that can be brought to bear on him and he still refuses to admit his situation. Kerry's plan is predicated on the idea that Saddam has a clue. Clearly he does not have a clue hence Kerry's plan is stupid, and for Kerry not to see this and continue to press this as a viable plan means Kerry is yes dare I say it IS STUPID as well or he thinks we are stupid. We are not. We do have a clue. A vote for Kerry is a vote for stupidity.

If we want a television news anchor type for President, go with Kerry. He won on style and points, but could have done that regardless of the talking points his staff gave him. He was / is that good of a debater. He did not convince me that any of the things he mouthed were deeply held convictions.

AT the same time, they do generally describe his approach to governing. He's wrong on N. Korea - dangerously wrong. Wrong on the UN, wrong on his understanding of the global paradigm as it relates to US national security. The very people he would align himself with, France, Germany, have shown that they value their own economies over America's security. There is no other way to explain the Oil for Food scandal and the types and number of armaments found inside of Iraq after we won the initial campaign.

So, if you want a leader who is comitted to our best interests and "gets" the world as it is aligned today, go for Bush.

It's an easy call for me.

Hey did that figurine of Edwards come from Lileks famous hummel (sp.?) collection the Hewitt is always talking about?

Nope. It was a special edition released at the DNCC. Also be sure to buy the commemorative plate.

Karen said:
I think Lehrer's questions were unfair. If he had asked questions of Kerry's record (voting again Iraq War 1990, intelligence cuts, statement made in the 1990s about Saddam's nuclear capabilities), then the questioning woudl have been balanced. But Lehrer only posed questions that were meant for Kerry to attack, and Bush to defend.

When has a an election with an encumbent EVER been about the challenger? It's always about the encumbent. Did you really want Lehrer to ask Kerry about voting against weapons systems? That's a point that Republicans will lose if Kerry has 2 minutes.

Many say that Bush won on Substance, but everytime Bush went back to his refrain, I heard "Stay the course. Thousand points of light. Stay the course."

It worked for his dad, so it may be a winning plan, but Kerry isn't as weak as Dukakis and he doesn't come off as weird as Gore.

This was the worst debate I've seen Bush in. I expect a stronger performance week. All in all, Kerry won. But if you look at Gallups poll, many of the details outside of who won favor the President, so Kerry's has a lot of work ahead of him.

Kevin

I agree that Lehrer's questions weren't all that terrible. The current president and his challenger are both grown up, and should be expected to be able to answer questions that might have a shade of bias like grown ups.

Not that they did. I thought Bush threw in a few good counterexamples towards the end, but other than that, it was slow moving.

By the by; while I'm here, I've been meaning to ask something. I recalled when I watched the debate that Bush said that spending to stop nuclear proliferation had been increased 35% during his term. But whenever I look at the transcripts, it says "decreased". Am I insane or is that a transcript error?

"- Kerry said there was a right way and a wrong way to disarm Saddam....He claims Bush to it the wrong way....Since flyover's and sanctions weren't working What was the right way,"

Excellent point.

Which takes us back to the fact that Lehrer's questions didn't challenge Kerry.

Lee: Good summation on the importance of Iraq strategically. The only things I would add is the fact that they sit on a VAST pool of oil and even though this is NOT a war for oil, we can't forget it is there. Also, I might not try to compare the U.S. to Al Capone, some people might not get it. When we finally win in Iraq, and we will, it will have a profound impact, not just regionally but globally. Also, it will give us a VERY strong position.

Last night Kerry tried to gain points by saying that terrorists are pouring into Iraq and therefore the situation is deteriorating into chaos. What the President needs to say in rebutal is something like this, "Yes, terrorists are coming from other countries into Iraq to fight against us. I welcome this. It is drawing them out into the open so we can kill them. It is better to do it there in large numbers than here, 19 at a time".

Kerry may regret pushing for the townhall. It will give Bush a time to recover from the first debate and at least give him a chance for some of his own softballs from the Bush "soft" supporters.

The Gallup internals indicate the big win for Kerry was a big pick up for favorability while Bush made a small pick up for favorability. The net plus for Bush was people didn't seem to change their minds and more people thought Bush's criticisms of Kerry were more fair than the other way around (both candidate's criticisms were considered fair by a wide margin). Translation: negative ads work! Bush was considered more believable and likable. The big surprise for me was how many people thought Bush was tougher. Kerry was as tough and focused as I ever saw him yet Bush won by 17 points on this.

I was surprised how substantive this debate was. The areas where Kerry is not flip-flopping scares the hell out of me, though. If he turns out to be president I hope he shows more "nuance" in dealing with Iran and North Korea. While Kerry's retrospective view of Iraq differs widely from Bush, his prospective view is indistinguishable from Bush's because where he differs is impossible to implement. Thus my fears are more limited to Iran and North Korea than Iraq given that Bush's plan has enough momentum to carry through a Kerry term.

I agree with most of the analysis already posted. Kerry "won" the battle last night but in doing so he lost the war. I can see the ad now, "John Kerry, Global President vs. George Bush, American President."

My frustration last night was seeing so many opportunities not taken to put a stake through the Kerry campaign. Bush was definitely off his feed. The questions were tilted against Bush but as others have commented, he should have been able to turn all of that around more skillfully.

Seems to me that if Rove, et. al. do their job, Kerry will have been hoisted on his own petard. Let's see if Cheney can drive that stake in on Tuesday.

good commentary; I think the North Korea question was the most important of the night because it has been a secondary issue at best to date, but demonstrates clearly how the two men think: Kerry wants a "global test" for Iraq (I think I got an 1100 on that one ;-), but wants bilateral talks with NK? how does that work, with the "global test" and all? for his part, Bush continued to acknowledge the coalition we have in Iraq, but failed to draw the parallel of NK needing the right participants -- like China -- though he made good points about his NK strategy.

my off-the-wall question was about Kerry's statement that the President "has secured less nuclear material in the last two years since 9/11 than we did in the two years preceding 9/11." um, wouldn't that be a good thing, because, say, you might have stepped up security to a level that none of the perpetrators feel they can get away with trafficking in nukes? I'm just askin'.

I did not watch the debate last night. My Comcast was out, so I tuned to the radio broadcast. Perhaps, it was a good thing, because instead of watching President Bush smirk, and Kerry "look Presidential", I listened to the content of their responses.

Via audio alone, Bush did not seem frazzled, and Kerry actually sounded quite hollow in his responses. I felt unconvinced, and each time Kerry quoted a statistic, it sounded as if he could have filled in the numbers with "yada yada yada" and no one would have been the wiser.

His remarks, referencing his respect and appreciation for Tony Blair, and the "one or two other countries" that joined in a coalition with us came across as flippant.

I'm just saying...if you have the discipline, check out a radio re-broadcast somewhere, and see if it changes your perception.

interesting. Back during the first televised presidential debates, the people who saw the TV version generally thought that Kennedy had won, and the people who still listened to the radio generally thought that Nixon had won.

Certainly raises some questions

Well...should Kerry win, at least Israel will be free to go pre-emptive against Iran's nukes, knowing that by the time the "Summit" over their unilateral action is convened, their security will have been secured.

I have heard people who read the transcripts make similar comments.

I think TV has definitely changed politics and how we vote over the year. Visual perception often plays a role most of us aren't aware it is playing.

I think in the end though, Kerry gave Bush a lot to work with, and all the dems apparantly have is the smirk, because if they had more, they would have used that instead.

You americans!

Kerry ain't no prize but it was embarassing to watch Bush try and remember enough of his lines...and when he messed up 'mese...mixed messages' - priceless! The man and his administration are a disgrace, and reflect oh-so-badly on the 49.?% of ya that voted for him. As for your foreign policy fears re a Kerry victory, puh-lease. Bush's foreign policy has been disastrous - (any of you heard of 'soft' power?)- and Iraq, well that's just obvious.

His line - it's a hard job,,, the FBI director and other good sorts work with me, i'm doing my best,,,, you really can't see the advantage of having an intelligent person running the executive? would you hire him to direct your company? those TAX CUTS... your budget defecit....no comprendo nada.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
No, i guess it is still funny.

In sum, BOOOO to Bush, MEH to Kerry, and God Bless America

Bush's foreign policy has been disastrous

Disastrous, eh? I don't think that you quite know when the term "disastrous" applies to foreign policy. Then again, it appears that you're an Israeli, so perhaps you do ...

Does anyone have a copy of the questions on the 'Global Test'? Is it open book?

Iraq is just obvious, apparently.

Whenever anything is "just obvious", that translates to: I'm too good to condescend to your level and explain the clear truth.

You know, it is possible that there are people who disagree with you, good sir.

Congratulations on a good site, and on the people who post here. I have to say there is a great deal of intelligent, rational, logical, insightful posts here - which amount to a significant quantity of time and thought.

Thank-you all.

Kerry looked good -- as good as a rich pampered Kerry can look. BUT, to use his favorite word, he added to the minus column with his Global Test and his emphatic declaration of a nuclear freeze.

Hasn't anyone explained to him what a nuclear freeze actually means? I thought they did some movie or something on what a nuclear winter would look like.

Or, perhaps someone ought to point out that the Dear Leader is actually Dr. Strangelove.

Kerry is frighteningly stupid and, therefore, mad-mullah dangerous.