You know it's bad news when even FoxNews' panel- Barnes, Kondracke, Kristol, and Connelly- all looked saddened when asked how Bush did, and all basically said, "not that good." Bush got beat. His loudest cheerleaders couldn't even muster the strength to rally behind his performance. Actaully his loudest cheerleaders are probably on this website... and in denial. But his loudest t.v. cheerleaders just looked shellshocked. Sorry guys. Kerry-1, Bushy-0. And you were calling it fer Bush just last week. Emabrassing!

I agree but will try to say it better.

Been posting here for weeks that "its in the bag" was a wee bit premature.

I didnt watch it, but I have read most of the posts of the live bloggers, and except for Hugh Hewitt (yeah yeah yeah for the home team) everyone seems to be conceding that Kerry won this one, and it wasnt close. And, that's what he needed for the MSM to start the Kerry comeback.

The story line for the next debate will be "can Kerry deliver the knock out punch?"

Its a long time til November 2nd.

It's a clear win for Kerry. I kept thinking, "that guy is the president of the United States?"

as a troll I want so badly to talk trash about how Steven ran headlines- not just analysis suggesting it, but headlines actually decalring it in bold- that the race was "over," period. But I won't. Assuming Steven posts about how premature he declared it "over." "Over" and "over" again.

Reading the transcript is a better method of evaluation content, Stephen. And reading the transcript reveals that Kerry is still wandering across the map, still contradicting himself - at times within the same page.

I thought that Kerry won on style and scored a few glancing blows but that Bush landed a few solid hits (what global test?, what consistency on Iraq?) and closed better than Kerry. Kerry really said nothing new, just that "he could do a better job."

Overall a tie. Which is a loss for Kerry since he really needed to land some body blows and knock Bush to the canvass at least once. And he didn't do it. I don't think this debate will change many votes.

I didn't get to watch the debate but, it's clear that those calling it for Kerry or even praising Kerry are celebrating a victory of style over substance.

Why didn't I watch? Because a) I was busy and b) I knew how it would come out and didn't want to see it. Bush is an abysmal public speaker. Always has been. Everybody knows this and will have already factored it into their opinions.

It is more important what you do and doing what you say you will do than it is to be a glib public speaker.

The transcripts show that Kerry was all over the map, contradicting himself several times. And, expect to see that "global test" faux pas repeated ad nauseum (it already nauseates me). The folks in flyover country, who are apt to think and make their own conclusions independently of the talking heads, are not gonna' like that.

Kerry "won" but only by doubling down on his existing bet - that Iraq will be viewed as a big mistake. He didn't do anything to actually advance that line of reasoning, but he did reiterate that if you already believe that, he's your guy.

He was on-message with that point, which is better than I expected of him, but I don't think he did anything to sell the message.

My scorecard was Kerry B+, Bush B-, Lehrer F for partisan questions.

One missed opportunity for Bush that I haven't seen mentioned. Kerry got onto Bush for not providing enough funding for "first responders" in response to a question about keeping the country safe.

I thought it was another instance, like in his convention speech, of Kerry saying that his answer to terrorism is to wait for another attack and respond to it.

The answer to how you keep the country safe is not fire houses and fire fighters. They are the answer when the country is proved not to be safe.

4 years of High School Speech and debate and here is my take

both get an F for performance and an F for content

bush however gets an F + and Kerry gets an F-

No doubt.

Kerry won.

Does it matter? YES, because if he would have lost the campaign would have been over.

Can Bush come back? Ofcourse.

Time will tell.

"The experts" say it was a draw.

As a 9/11 Democrat I thought the President knocked it out of the park. I keep up on politics like any good Chicagoan, but tonight some 50 million people tuned in, most of whom who have not been that tuned in before.

The President laid out in a very sober and serious way the nature of the world today. Senator Kerry was a gasbag.

Two things stand out. One huge specific mistake, probably the only really firm proposal Kerry made, was for bi-lateral talks with North Korea. How dumb is that? Multilateral talks at this time are obviously better.

The second is that while the President has G-8 meetings, NATO meetings, Group of Four [Middle East?] meetings, UN meetings and bilateral meetings, Mr. Kerry really wants to have a “big summit” where he will set everything right. I guess he wants to go to Paris again, perhaps in the spring, for some tète a tètes with uncoerced and unbribed world leaders.

I’m happy to vote for a Republican candidate for the first time.

Happy to have you on board, Russell :)

I mentioned this on my blog but I'll say it here:

Reactions at this point mean nothing for either man.

The real results of this will not be seen for a couple more days, when people have had a chance to think it over, chat with friends, etc. All the spinning by the partisan flacks, the declarations of defeat or victory or whatever by either party mean absolutely nothing.

On debating team points one guy or the other may have won. Maybe Kerry by a squeaker, not sure because I don't score that way.

Recall if you will that in 2000, almost everybody agreed in the immediate aftermath of the debate that Gore had won. By three days later, almost everyone had agreed that Gore had lost. Because they had time to think about it and talk about it.

I only heard the first half, and thought Bush did very well, but that Kerry did very well. I thought on substance he still looked too waffly but on style Kerry was excellent. But Bush was strong and hit Kerry hard in important areas.

What this will do to the election will have less to do with style and all that than how people think about the ideas expressed, and most will not be really sure until they've thought more about it.

Those of us who've already made our minds up on who we'll vote for really don't have much interesting to say, it's the waverers who matter most.

this debate cleary didn't do anything to sway Kerry supporters to the Bush side or vice versa, so bascially the question is, did any of the undecided's make up their mind after tonite...and i believe the answer is no..

Just imagine if you're an semi-informed, undecided voter watching the debates...what do you see?...

I saw one candidate (Kerry) contradict himself all over the board ("no unilateral action in Iraq...but unilateral talks with N.Korea") And i saw another candidate (Bush) repeat the same line over and over again ("we will win, this is hard work") and then you have both canidates practically quoting from their commercials over the past 2 months..

so basically there will be no change in the polls, and 90 minutes of my life was wasted when i should've been studying for my exam tommorrow

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!

I wish Bush would have made Kerry look like a flip flopper even more by pointing out the inconstancy in saying that 30 nations is not a big enough coalition in Iraq, while calling for bilateral talks with N-Korea! Bush should HAMMER saying Kerry want to act unilateral with N. Korea while saying just because France and Germany are not in Iraq, "we are going it alone!"

The sound bites angle is interesting. I think there is more opportunity for the Bush side to exploit post debate spin via sound bites than there is for the Kerry side. Especially when Kerry said "global test". That has real good sound bite potential.

Well, I see McAwful's trolls came out early in a desperate attempt to trick everyone into thinking Kerry won this debate.

Two words:

Global test.

Stick a fork in Kerry, he's done.

For those who can't get enough, the debate, in mp3 format.

What kind of firestorm do you think would have erupted had Bush referred to "Treblinka Square"?

How many of you think this will make even the back pages of the NY Times?

BUSH WAS WEARING AN EARPIECE!!!

LOOK AT PIX FROM BEHIND, WIRES SEEN FLESHING THRU TOP HALF OF SPORTCOAT!!!

AT ONE POINT, TOWARD END, SAYS LET ME FINISH *TO HIMSELF*!!!

MUST INVESTIGATE!!!

Bush handed Kerry a huge opening tonight.

The sad truth about our leader: Bush was weak!

Weak in style, weak on substance.

The Leader Of The Free World sputtered through most of the debate, grew flustered, appeared confused, couldn't seem to remember the question, lost his train of thought . . .

Kerry called him on his colossal failures and all he could manage was to point out Poland was behind us in Iraq.

And could he have been a bigger weanie the way he pouted and pursed his lips every time Kerry pounded him into the pavement?

George Bush was weak.

Our enemies took comfort tonight. They watched a weak president.

We are saddled with a weak leader.

No wonder we're in Iraq all by our lonesome. Can you picture George Bush negotiating with world leaders? We never get to see those private exchanges, we've been guessing for four years about how he acts one on one with a tough international adversary. Now we have a window into just how weak the man is. Putty in Dominique De Villepin's hands.

Our president is weak.

Dave, you obviously didn't see the part where Bush shredded Kerry for calling for both bilateral and multilateral negotiations in North Korea. And calling Kerry for confusing plutonium (fuel rods) with enriched uranium. Not to mention hammering Kerry for dissing our allies as coerced, and for calling Allawi a puppet.

This is not to say Bush did a great job, because he did not. His pauses were too long, and there were many, many rebuttals he could've made that he didn't.

So, Kerry definitely "wins" on style. The Dems are already talking about putting together a TV spot with Bush's "sucked on a lemon" (Ceci Connelly's remark) face, to capitalize on what they perceive to be a weakness.

This strategy reveals that the Democrats are still operating in Sept 10 mind-space. They really think it's important that the President was grumpy, that's it's actually more important than his policies.

Security moms and and the youth demographics for Bush say otherwise. Flash polls reveal that Kerry won the debate, but they also revealed that the Bush-v-Kerry numbers haven't been affected.

I guess we'll have to wait and see whether mainstream America is living in the present, or stuck with the Democratic strategists back in the world of 9/10/2001.

I'm betting we're all in the here-and-now, and the Democratic strategists will be surprised.

Ceci Connelly a Bush cheerleader... and I'm the Easter Bunny.

Kerry and co. absolutely knew that they would blow Bush out of the water on North Korea and Iran. But he blew it on these points. Blew. It. The best that can be said of Kerry, substantively, is that he had more to say than Bush, numerically speaking and didn't repeat himself as often. But that's about it. On Teevee, like Kennedy/Nixon, Kerry came off better. But Kerry's gaffes easily outnumbered Bush's (unless you count Texan pronunciation) which is a surprise. And Bush poked some giant holes in Kerry's claims and proposals.

But hey, Bush met with the victims of a hurricane in Florida and looked tired. If that's what LOSES an election in 2004, we really do have trouble.

Joan,

I'm not saying Bush didn't have a single good moment, but for the most part, he was stunning.

I for one, expected a whole lot more out of him.

And the security moms I saw interviewed were leaning heavily Kerry.

I think it's a little funny that Bush is getting killed in every poll on the debate, and the best the Right can muster is "it hasn't changed the overall numbers much."

That tends to take a couple days. I watched NBC's wrapup, where they had a little focus group of six hardcore undecideds from Ohio. None had changed their minds after the debate, because they said they were waiting to hear the domestic debate. But four of the six were leaning heavily toward Kerry. They were very enthusiastic about him. But still waiting--not ready to jump on a bandwagon in one night. Not one of them said one good word about George.

This was not a huge sampling--that's the job of the polls--but very useful in illustrating what's going on: Undecideds still waiting for all the info to come in, but moving heavily from the fence to enthusiastic toward Kerry.

That's a HUGE shift. Give it time, and the polls will follow.

Tabby, You don't have to agree with Stephen, but he's a good guy. Those kind of personal attacks are uncalled for. Please don't give Kerry supporters a bad name.

HH, Ceci Connelly was notorious as a hatchetwoman against Gore in 2000.

That debate was just tedious. It made me not want to vote. I lasted about 15 minutes. Very quickly, I couldn't pay attention if I wanted to because everyone in the bar was talking over it. I found a cute blond to talk to.

The President spent the day visiting victims of the hurricane. The Senator spent the day getting a manicure. Today in Baghdad the terrorists attacked a grand opening of a sewage plant killing upwards of 40 children that soldiers were giving candy to. My unit was conducting Iraqi Police recruiting and were overwelmed with candidates, as well as continuing to rebuild 2 universities. Our soldiers undaunted, the majority of Iraqis depending on us to defeat the enemies of freedom. I'll take the guy who spends his day comforting those suffering over a guy who gets his nails done anyday.

Remember guys, these debates aren't for all you wonks and pundits who've been salivating over every 'nuance' of every statement each of these men have made since birth.

Most of the people who watched this debate couldn't tell you the difference between bilateral and unilateral.

Bush stutter and stammered and went totally blank repeatedly, he was petulant and looked both tired and bored. He slouched against the podium like a teenager or someone with a hangover.

Kerry looked very presidential.

To the average viewer, Kerry won hands down.

So little was expected from Kerry, due to his negative press leading up to the debates, that the fact he didn't totally make a fool of himself was a positive.

Bush looked tired, and clearly annoyed by the continuing ankle biting buy an unclear, confused, negative follower. As usual, Bush exuded clear, resolute, positive leadership, in contrast.

There will be little or no poll number movement.

This whole Kerry won the debate idea is a bunch of crap.

Kerry trotted out his old nuclear freeze beliefs. We can't be trusted with nuclear weapons!!! How dare we "contemplate" using them?

Give Iran nuclear fuel? Alrighty then.

Iraq is a mistake, wait, kids are dying? Nevermind, it's not a mistake.

That "passing the global test" bull was laughable. Bush called him on that.

As far as new ammo, Kerry gave plenty. What'd Bush give 'em? Same old Bush. Same statements and positions.

Kerry won the battle of cheap shots. To the low intelligence viewer, Kerry would have won. To the more discerning person, particularly the person who cares about the continuation of a robust western civilization, Kerry was not reassuring.

"Expert" consensus looks to be a draw, but Kerry is already getting hammered for factual errors in his arguments (Drudge)...on top of the ones Bush called him on in the debate itself.

Kerry won on style, but Bush won on substance. Maybe that constitutes a draw, but to me it says that Kerry won the battles but lost the war.

Kerry made more specific policy statements, but didn't say how he planned to do them. *How* is he going to get all fissile material secured in Russia in 4 years? *How* is he going to conduct unilateral and multilateral talks with NK at the same time? *How* will this happy little summit solve all the problems in Iraq?

Kerry had no answer when Bush called him out for trashing our allies in the war. Kerry also betrayed a poor understanding of the facts and dynamics of North Korea.

Kerry may have been a better debater, but he didn't look like a man ready or able to be President of the United States.

A big summit. Why not? Versailles worked out SO well in the first part of the last century.

Concur with Mike M, the followup on Kerry is going to be brutal. He offered no specifics, just told us he would do things differently. I don't think that's going to be enough to swing many votes.

Lehrer was an extremely weak moderator. His questions were designed to do nothing but bring out campaign talking points, he followed up when it wasn't warranted and didn't follow up when it was. Nearly every question was regarding Iraq, which while a big one, is hardly the only foreign policy issue facing us. I thought he should've asked both of them what comes next in the WoT.

Kerry's the much better speaker, but everyone knew that already. Bush was flustered at times, but he did have more concrete approaches to things than Kerry. Kerry's going to train more Iraqis & train them better? How? And what do our troops over there think of his denigrating their current effort? Style & sound bites to Kerry, substance to Bush.

I thought Bush should have been less on the defensive and more on the offensive. Kerry's arguments had more holes than sadamms palaces, but the president never went in for the kill. Kerry never made it clear how he was going to convince france and germany to support the quagmire ( lol )
Bush never hit him when kerry said he wants more foreign troops in Iraq but he wants to go it alone in N Korea. he also didn't remind kerry that N lorea got nukes on clintons watch.

my opinion, bush was too much of a gentleman and not enough of a cowboy, he let kerry get away with too many inconsitancies. He repeated himself to much, it was although he was thinking" people can't really buy what this guy is saying, let me allow him to hang himself" Bush actually look at times like he couldn't believe what Kerry was saying, I thought that was funny, he even did a double take. Bush stuck to his message and had more substance and knowledge on the issues, but I'm sure that won't be discussed on cnn.

Kerry hit on every liberal anti war point. he mentioned vietnam about 5 times and the "evil" haliburton twice. He avoided the 87 billion he voted against, and tried to explain his inconsistancies with more inconsistancies The liberals & dem's will cheer victory, but I don't think so. He looked and sounded good and that's it. No real message, no substance.

the lighting helped kerry lose that code orange spray on tan. it also looked like dr. botox came to visit him as there were no wrinkes on his forhead and around his eyes, his eyebrows were also tweezed. LOL gotta love them shallow liberals

round 1, two more to go.

I was astonished by how similar last night's debate was to the 2000 debates. Kerry/Gore, so polished and forceful. Bush, so fumbling but sincere.

What is the obvious implication?

Stephen is right. Bush and Kerry were equal on substance, but Kerry looked better and sounded better. Kerry helped himself. Those hoping that he would destroy himself like Vice President Gore did were very disappointed. Kerry gave Bush several predicatble openings, but Bush never countered.

Movies:

Kerry "handed" Bush some wonderful opportunities, and Bush didn't take them. But Kerry still ended up saying the same old drivel. My biggest gripe about Kerry is that he kept saying that there needed to be a "plan" for Iraq. There is (was) a plan: Go in, get the bad guys, help the good guys, go home. Maybe Kerry STILL doesn't get this, but war does not opperate on a timetable. You CAN'T say "I will get it done in 4 years", since just because WE have a timetable, doesn't mean the bad guys work according to it. No one can set a timetable to the type of work that needs to be done there. There are simply too many variables. For Kerry to say that it is taking too long, I say that we can't work long enough to bring stability to that region. I can say that I will build a house in 90 days, but it all depends on the coorporation of the other factors. There will be no cooperation from the hangers-on from Hussein, therefore there is no way ANYONE can put a limit on how long it will take to meet the goal. Possibly he missed that lesson in ROTC.

I was astonished by how similar last night's debate was to the 2000 debates. Kerry/Gore, so polished and forceful. Bush, so fumbling but sincere.

What is the obvious implication?

I fell asleep halfway through the debate, and I had a dream that Harry Truman was holding Kerry by the throat, and saying.....what the hell is the matter with you you SOB, your going to completely destroy our party.

My impression at the time was that Kerry won - handily. Even knowing that Bush isn't good at this sort of thing, I was very disappointed in his responses to obvious Kerry openings (the 90% casualty figure was rebutted in YESTERDAYs Wall Street Journal, the various "true coalition" openings, Darfur and the UN, the Oil for Palaces program, etc...).

Having thought about it, I think Bush, purposefully or not (and I'm going with "not"), gave Kerry enough rope with which to hang himself. I can see any number of great Bush campaign ads coming out of this. Bush may not be a great public speaker (understatement of the decade) but his campaign takes no prisoners. A LOT of good fodder here.

Kerry clearly won on style, but there was little or nothing that would change any votes last night. Perhaps the hard Democrats will be galvanized, as Stephen wrote, but this didn't change the election--it is still Bush's to lose. I'm also surprised at the left-wing media's tepid reviews of Kerry this morning given that he did fairly well.

Bush, of course, could have put the election away and didn't. Perhaps that was the biggest result.

I Love a Good Debate... too bad I didn't see one last night. I offer some thoughts on my blog.

To those saying Bush should have taken Kerry's openings and attacked, I say: Bush is quite aware of the openings, but is also quite aware that the election is in November, not this morning. He has plenty of time to allow his surrogates to hit at those openings - Global test, bilateralist multilateralism, and so forth.

Bush's style is to stay "above the fray" - not to do the attacking himself, but rather allow others to make those points. Lets see what Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove et al do with "Global Test", before you declare those openings missed. Attacking brings you negatives, while letting your peeps do it brings you fewer negatives, and still beats the opposition. I've seen this before, against Richards, Mauro, and Gore - the Bush campaign will move on these questions when it is time, not before.

I'm votting for Bush.
I think Kerry did better.

But I dont think it will change anybodies opinion.

How could anybody be undecided at this point? Would they even go to the polls?

I still say Bush wins.

I guess these comments are proof of the divisive nature of this campaign, and validate the CW that no one will change their mind based on the debate.

Personally, I thought Wooden John's deer-in-headlights look was easily as uninspiring as Bush's pained, scowly, petulant faces. Each time Bush looked directly at him, or took issue with one of his statements (uranium v. plutonium, etc.), JFK looked positively terrified, I thought.

I watched it with two undecided but left-leaning people, and each time Kerry spoke, they groaned. The don't like Bush but the alternative doesn't thrill them either.

Once again the polished career politician supposedly beats ol' simplistic Bush in a debate, and once again when the smoke clears the outcome will be re-evaluated.

Hey JP, good to hear from you again.

I was about to write how I viewed the debate and then came across Dick Morris' article, which pretty well summed up my thoughts. http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/29492.htm

Good post Rob.

My wife didn't think that Bush did well but she wasn't impressed by Kerry either. She is still ambivalent about the two (although she says she'll vote for Bush). She is not much of a political observer but she definitely has the opinion that Kerry is a flip-flopper.

I think Bush did terribly. All Kerry did was talk about diplomacy (except for North Korea where we must be bi-lateral), summits, meetings, sanctions, and more resolutions. He did not strike me as a strong person, but as one who will bend to the whims of the world.

Unfortunately, Bush was completely unable to argue the folly of what Kerry was saying. I am extremely disappointed with him.

A friend of mine has made and is selling "Don't forget Poland" t-shirts. They're hysterical:

any mention on your site would be GREATLY appreciated.

Kerry may have won on style, but I didn't like a single thing the man said.

Apparently we need allies, except when dealing with North Korea, where we can do that ourselves, apparently. Or not.

I'm sorry guys but that chimp of yours could not do a better job showing everybody what a total fraud he is. Any which way you look.

This country desperately deserves better.

Who really cares....we had a smooth talking shyster in Clinton-we have another one in Kerry. People with any brains can see thru the snake-oil baloney.

Kerry has no substance. He repeated the same nonsense phrases over and over again, in a nuanced style. His handwaving was an attempt to cover up his drivel and hypnotize the weak minded.

Gawdamman,

Unfortunately, its those people without brains who will decide the election.

I still want someone to smack the traitor in the mouth...fuckin' bastard.

Does anyone besides me see the irony of the democrats running a man who should be locked up?

Otter -- I agree that this debate was not designed for wonky types. Given that, I agree with your assessment of the style of the two debaters. But it's also true that Kerry committed some gaffes that would be obvious to people not following politics closely. He talked too much about his own military service (without using the word Vietnam), playing into the perception that he's only running on what he did 35 years ago. The phrase "global test" was a huge mistake. Insisting that he has been consistent on Iraq is laughable, and his attempt at explanation was incoherent, or at leased too nuanced for me to follow. Quoting the former French president, while invoking JFK is another eye-roller.

Expect Cheney to use some of Kerry's sound-bites against Edwards.

Mainly, though, this debate was dull and repetitive. The politically uninterested certainly changed the channel. They will form their opinion based on sound bites used in news shows and ads in the next couple days.

Howard -- You're right about Lehrer; he was weak, and the questions should have had a broader range. Iraq is important, of course, but there's a lot more to the foreign policy. If one of the candidates had mentioned in closing remarks that Latin America or Africa had been ignored, he would have won some points with minority voters.

Tradesports electoral state movement reflects what Stephen said in his post. Movement back to Kerry in New Hampshire, New Mexico and Minnesota; no movement from formerly blue Iowa; and very little Kerry movement in formerly blue Wisconsin. They still show it 291-243-4 (New Hampshire uncalled).

I think the sound bites theory is very important. Already heard the talk radio pundits hammering on the phrase "global test". Don't be surprised if Cheney deploys it in the next few days.

Also, given the general impression that Bush didn't win this debate, I would look for Cheney to savage John Edwards next week.

Eric:

It's odd, but I've heard internal polling shows Kerry didn't do as well among women and may have even lost ground. I thought Kerry clearly won on style, but apparently women (like your wife) found something about Kerry they didn't like. It's one of those intangibles that almost always pops up.

As I read through the transcript, I also will say on substance Kerry has left himself wide open on several points. That insipid remark about the U.S. doesn't need to develop new weapons because it encourages nuclear proliferation is quite revealing.

This is shaping up to be another one of those debates where the person I thought won may not fare well at all for reasons I didn't see or catch immediately.

I have to agree with russell and mike m. Kerry may have "won" the debate based on style and debate points, but the next few days will see Bush as the winner. Kerry had no substance. This isn't a "debate game", where nobody remembers what you said the next day.

The debate puts me in mind of Reagan vs Mondale. Similar to Kerry, Mondale came across as a better speaker and was pronounced the 'winner', but Reagan hammered him on substance - in the debate and the next few weeks.

The weird thing is, a guy I know who is rather anti-Bush says Bush won. And he actually wasn't even baiting us. :D

He said that when he woke up in the morning, all he could remember was Bush saying Kerry gave mixed messages, and a few other points Bush made. Maybe it's all about whose little sound bite sticks in your head when November comes along.

I wish Bush had done better, but I think Kerry made a handful of dreadful mistakes.

Been following the spin and it's really hard to get a handle on the general reaction.

The Kerry/style, Bush/substance thing seems fairly universal, but people are ranging from saying this is an incredibly important and meanigful debate, to a bunch of fluff that has had no effect on the polls at all.

Some conservatives are pessimestic. Some liberal media outlets are saying it was a big win for Bush. Joe Lockhart and most of the blogosphere says it was a draw. No one really seems certain about what really happened last night and it's kind of weird.

This debate seems to have struck some kind of chord other than raw partisanship and we just have to find out what, exactly, it was. Maybe that weird feeling is coming from having to react to something *besides* raw partisanship for once...

Mike M -- It is hard to tell how important that debate was. It's hard to even tell if very many even watched it.

However, I heard this a.m. that Fox News coverage beat CNN and MSNBC. That's not good for Kerry. (Whether Fox is GOP and CNN is neutral, or Fox is fair and balance and CNN is liberal, if you're Kerry, you want people watching CNN.)

I have no idea how the right can listen to bush boy and say he had any substance in his drool. "It's hard work", anyone count how many times he said it. Can't seem to remember hearing him say anything else."It's hard"' "It isn't easy". Please someone stop this skipping record and let me get off. Good sound byte yes- substantive hell no-

Pete et al:

Good to see you got Terry's memo telling you to go out and spin on everyone's comments. Unfortunately, you all sound so ignorant that I think you're probably having the opposite of the desired effect...

If you have an intelligent comment, by all means, post it, whatever your political leaning. If it's just verbal diarrhea, please drop it on DU.

In the interests of disclosure, let me start by saying I was planning to vote for Kerry before the debate.

I thought Kerry came off alot better. Not just style-wise, although in that area he far and away won it. It was a little excruciating to watch Bush when he stumbled, couldn't figure out what to say, etc - I always cringe a little when speakers freeze like that, because I know how awful it feels to be the one doing it!

I also thought Kerry came off as more substantive. In fairness, I've seen stuff both men said contradicted in some way by fact-checking that has come out today. And the time limits/format to a large degree impeded a really comprehensive discussion. But Kerry seemed to offer more detailed responses, while Bush kept hammering the same couple of catch-phrases over and over. Bush came across to me as a guy who couldn't (or wouldn't) provide in-depth explanations for policies. I'm not saying Kerry gets an A on that one, but he was more detailed than Bush.

I felt like both candidates missed opportunities to delve deeper into the differences between them. I know, I know, we're a soundbyte culture, but I hold out this vain hope that our political leaders will speak openly, honestly and in-depth to us about the problems we face and their proposals for addressing them. Kerry is certainly to be faulted for not doing better in this regard - anyone who wants to be president should be held to a higher standard than what either man gave us last night, despite time and format limits. But Bush is already the President, so I guess I am doubly disappointed that he seems so disdainful of providing comprehensive arguments.

Howard-
Is that all you got- calling me ignorant- Tell me what bush had to say except for "its hard" and "stay the course". If it has meaning to you then you are as dumb as he. You can call me names all day, but it doesn't change the fact that bush has no message except for "It's Hard". If, he does please enlighten me. Please use your infinate knowledge to explain how bush's tripe had any substance.

Someone mentioned earlier that all Kerry did was say that he was the better man for the job. Well, I mean, isn't that the point? He's trying to take a job from someone who has it already. So to me the strategy would be to say you're the better man for the job and show why. I think in this debate he did a much better job for saying, this is the result of Bush's failed foreign policy. This is why I think I'd be better at it. Now you might not agree with his argument but you have to agree that he did a better job explaining it than Bush did in defending his presidency.

I think Bush got the wind knocked out of him. And in the debate that he should have commanded and walked away with as a winner. He failed...miserably. I really think he's all talk. I heard little substance for how "staying the course" is a good idea when the course is so off track in iraq. The only substance he used were misleading figures of how many people will vote in Afghanistan and how many Iraqi guardsmen we have trained and will train by January when their "elections" occur. I'm over the false promises. I think after the next two debates, if Kerry holds it together, this race will tighten and I Ohio will be back in play.

Kerry won on style, but Bush won on substance. Maybe that constitutes a draw, but to me it says that Kerry won the battles but lost the war.

Concur with Mike M. Kerry had the better delivery, but the content of what he said left me cold, especially the part about bringing more allies into Iraq and sharing the burden. The simple truth is that the forces there will be overwhelmingly US no matter who wins the election- no other western nation has the logistics to support deploying enough troops to do the job, and we don't *want* to use troops from Iraq's neighbors.

Kerry seems to think France, Germany, etc have ~x0,000 deployable troops that they're not sending to Iraq because they don't like W, and it just isn't so.

Style is fun during elections, but substance is what decides things. Bush was weak on substance in the debate, but we've got his first term to look at. With Kerry, all we have to determine what he'd be like as President is what he's said in the campaign, and what he's done in the Senate (and Kerry doesn't talk about that much). On that basis, Bush won- not on points, but because Kerry failed to meet the burden of proof.

And the part about bilateral US-NK negotiations... aaargh. Unbelievable. Doesn't Kerry know how much work has been put into getting North Korea to even consider talking to South Korea, much less Japan, and to get Russia and China to participate? This is a big accomplishment, and a major change from NK's position just a few years ago. Doesn't Kerry know this?

I have no doubt a lot of people in the State Dept were just staring at their TV screens in shock last night.

Dissenting opinion: I think Bush crushed him.
No one will remember what Kerry actually said, other than global test, stupid summits, and the blaring inconsistencies about when we should be multilateral (when there's no chance of support from the countries he wants it from) and when we should be bilateral (negotiating with crazed lunatics who do nothing but break bilateral agreements).
Bush looked peeved, had pauses and stumbles that made you wince, didn't say 20 of the best replies you were cheering for him to say, BUT... everyone who watched will remember: We are safer, we are winning, we can't send mixed messages, no global test, must be consistent.
Kerry on style, Bush in the polls.
Then the MSM will be scratching their heads (or elsewhere) trying to figure out why, if Kerry won the debate, Bush had another mini-bounce. Hint: It's because Kerry didn't win the debate.

Note: The chattering classes -- including the conservatives -- thought Kerry's DNC acceptance speech was effective and would earn him a bounce.
Not.

It was a draw.

Decry the "style over substance" mantra all you want, as I'm sure hardcore GOP supporters are used to making excuses for Bush's verbal inadequacies, but style (unfortunately) DOES matter.

I'm a pro-war, reluctant Kerry supporter. Wait until the domestic policy debate to see WHY I still support the guy. You'll get all the substance you want that evening.

If you'll allow me to be a Civil War geek for a moment: this one's like the Battle of Antietam (Kerry's the Confederacy, Bush is the Union, in this analogy). Bush fought rather poorly in the short term, but he allowed Kerry to say some really stupid things which will doom him in the long run. Thus, an apparent stalemate becomes a decisive victory.

I'd wait until the next debate before making any judgment calls, though.

My blog post about the debate (not overly detailed, just some random observations): [url]http://defenseministryofqumar.blogspot.com/2004/10/push-goes-to-house.html[/url]

Election day is just 30 days away. Local Republicans need any time you could spare, as well as the enthusiasm you are showing here, to help President Bush.

There are all sorts of jobs, large and small, where you can contribute. Last weekend, and I will be doing this weekend also, I walked my local neighborhood contacting registered Republicans from a list provided by my local contact.

I just had to remind fellow Republican neighbors to be sure and vote in this important election, where to vote, and hand out a state party generated card that listed the party recommended candidates for local, state, and federal offices. It is the first time I had done anything like this and I am glad I did. I met like minded neighbors and new friends.

If you would prefer to write opinions for news outlets, etc, various help is needed. If you could contribute some time to help President Bush, just go to:

http://www.gop.com/GetActive

and enter your zipcode or state for your local contact information.

I have to agree with Jonathan, who brought up the Reagan-Mondale debates. In fact, during the first of those debates back in 1984 Reagan seemed confused (his aides admitted afterward he'd been overcoached), and Tony Coelho snarked that at least Reagan hadn't been drooling.

The next debate, Reagan knocked Mondale down for the count by turning the concerns about Reagan's age into a big joke.

The conventional wisdom has been that only the first debate counts. History suggests otherwise. Stay tuned.

There will be little or no poll number movement.
Posted by Jim R at October 1, 2004 05:13 AM

The Race is On
With voters widely viewing Kerry as the debate’s winner, Bush’s lead in the NEWSWEEK
poll has evaporated

The face of frustration?: Bush on debate night

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Brian Braiker
Newsweek
Updated: 6:04 p.m. ET Oct. 2, 2004

Oct. 2 - With a solid majority of voters concluding that John Kerry outperformed
George W. Bush in the first presidential debate on Thursday, the president’s lead in
the race for the White House has vanished, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll.
In the first national telephone poll using a fresh sample, NEWSWEEK found the
race now statistically tied among all registered voters, 47 percent of whom say
they would vote for Kerry and 45 percent for George W. Bush in a three-way race.

Removing Independent candidate Ralph Nader, who draws 2 percent of the vote,
widens the Kerry-Edwards lead to three points with 49 percent of the vote versus the
incumbent’s 46 percent. Four weeks ago the Republican ticket, coming out of a
successful convention in New York, enjoyed an 11-point lead over Kerry-Edwards with
Bush pulling 52 percent of the vote and the challenger just 41 percent.

[...]

For the NEWSWEEK poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates interviewed 1,013
registered voters aged 18 and older between Sept. 30 and Oct. 2 by telephone. The
margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6159637/site/newsweek/

Anon, I refuse to exploit, for purely political purposes, your youth and inexperience.