Debate Roundup - Mission Not Accomplished for Kerry

There are two ways of looking at this first debate. One is to view the debate as a stand-alone event, the other is to view it is part of the broader political campaign. The criteria of winning the former doesn't necessarily advance your cause in the latter.

In terms of viewing it as a solo event, the debate was a draw to viewers who are not political junkies.

John Kerry is behind in the polls by a significant amount. He had several missions in this debate.

1. Hold on to his base. 2. Win over undecided voters. 3. Peel voters away from President Bush.

Some are anti-war Howard Dean types. He didn't have much to offer them, in fact, many probably felt confused by his performance. On one hand, he sees Iraq as the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. On the other hand, he wants to fight for "victory" but never quite defines how that will be. He criticizes the President both for spending $200 billion on Iraq, and also for wanting to fight the war "on the cheap." His antiwar supporters don't want ANY war, and many already see Kerry as "Bush Lite." Expect that perception to grow among the radical antiwar ABB crowd. The Blogspirator expects a slight bump to Nader's poll numbers after this debate, most likely at Kerry's expense.

He has another group of supporters who don't like President Bush (some to the point of being ABBers), but think that we need to "win" in Iraq. While most all will continue to support Kerry, some must be wondering how Kerry can say on one hand that Bush has no plan for Iraq, but at the same time that Kerry says he will do what Bush is doing (train Iraqis, etc) "better" and "smarter."

Kerry needed to attract undecideds to change the dynamic of the campaign. The first thing to keep in mind is that undecideds aren't ABB types. They are non-ideological, which is why they are undecided. The Blogspirator doesn't see that Kerry gave them much reason to favor him. They know what Bush is all about. Kerry says he has a plan and Bush doesn't... but this group walks away from hearing Kerry and can't express exactly what Kerry's plan is... and they know what Bush's plan is.

Bush supporters will be dissapointed that he didn't knock the Kerryball out of the ballpark, that he wasn't passionate enough, that he didn't lay the smackdown.

Bush is ahead in the polls. Kerry had something to prove in this debate, Bush didn't. Bush only had to not say anything that he could be ridiculed for.

Kerry, on the other hand, had several such moments. Talk radio will be all over them tomorrow, have no doubt.

* Kerry demanded a "Global Test" before defending the US. A regular part of Bush's stump speech has been that he wouldn't ask for a "permission slip." Expect this Kerry gaffe to get worked in. * Kerry wanted multilateralism for Iraq, but unilateralism for dealing with North Korea. Huh? * Kerry offered to send nuclear fuel to Iran. Like Clinton did with North Korea... and we all know how well that worked out! * The flat out lie about the NYC subways being shut down during the RNC because of Bush's budged. Never happened. * He said that he went to Treblinka Square, the HQ of the KGB. Oops, it's Yablonka Square. Treblinka was a Nazi death camp in Poland. * Kerry didn't respond to Bush mentioning that he insulted Allawi, the UK, Poland, and a number of our allies - how can we Kerry build more allies if the ones we have, he denigrates?

No one walked away from this debate with a clearer idea of Kerry's positions except in things that will be percieved as negative among undecideds. For example he's against missile defense, he said he wants to give nuclear fuel to Iran after saying how dangerous it would be for Iran to get radioactive materials, and said he would ask the rest of the world for permission before defending the US. He didn't give undecideds a reason to vote for him, and he didn't peel away Bush supporters.

Summary: Draw for this debate, loss for kerry in terms of advancing his campaign.

The key point to take from this is that Democrats seem to think that Kerry won the debate... but then they also think Gore won the 2000 election. In other words, take it with a big grain of sodium chloride.

The reason why Kerry "won" is because Bush didn't bother to point any of this out. It was definately a disappointing performance from Bush in that regard, but it was worse for Kerry with a lot of vague and confusing and down right bad policy proposals.

I'm with counterpunch. As a Bush supporter, I was dissapointed last night. Bush did worse than I thought, and Kerry did better than I thought he would. Don't misunderstand me....I think Kerry is full of crap, and everything he said last night was the opposite of at least ONE statement he has uttered in the past nine months, but I wanted to see Bush on the attack more and pointing this stuff out.

I still consider the debate a draw (leaning Bush) simply because I know there was more fact than fiction to what Bush said, but I really would have liked to see Bush turn things around more often on Kerry.

Best line of the night though goes to Bush when he mentioned he agreed with Senator Kerry that anyone who doesn't consider Saddam a grave threat to the United States does not have the judgement to be President of the United States.

I was HOWLING at the TV though when Kerry said something about the troops not having body armor and Bush did NOT take that opportunity to talk about the $87 billion. That was the PERFECT retort, and Bush fumbled it.

I think he did well...but not great.

when Kerry said something about the troops not having body armor and Bush did NOT take that opportunity to talk about the $87 billion.

That was a bid one for me too. Also that Bush didn't point out that Kerry's plan to give Iran nuclear fuel is exactly the sort of failed policy that has lead us to the predicament with North Korea. Also I was disappointed that when Bush said Kerry's mixed messaged were sending the wrong signal to our troops, our allies, and Iraqis, he failed to include OUR ENEMIES in that list. He did this twice.

I was sitting here last night shouting Bush's responses to Kerry. He never picked up on one of them.

He could have made a fool out of Kerry several times. One of the most obvious was pointing out, dramatically, Kerry's contradiction in wanting a multilateral approach to Iraq, but a unilateral approach to North Korea.

Bush is a smart man, but was obviously nervous and self-conscious last night. I would think he'd be beyond that by now.

Kerry, OTOH, is a smooth talker, but is simply not that smart. It was obvious last night that Kerry was making stuff up, and Bush never called him on it.

Bush is a smart man, but was obviously nervous and self-conscious last night. I would think he'd be beyond that by now.

Bush handled the debate like he handles press conferences. I was on the defensive, and acted persecuted. He needs to go into these debates like he's on the stump.

I think I know what the problem is. When Bush is wearing a suit and tie, he acts uncomfortable and awkward. When he's got a flannel button up with his sleeves rolled up, he's at ease with himself.

I think the Bush campaign should break all the rules and just ban the suits and ties. Wouldn't that be a great juxtaposition, with Kerry stiff and patrician in a suit, and Bush dressed casual?

I agree that the President missed many opportunities to point out Kerry’s inconsistencies, but I believe the President was also playing his hand close to his chest insofar as he did not want become involved in a verbal skirmish with Kerry. It has been said that Sen. Kerry is one of the best debaters to come out of Yale, and it is easily believed if you watch recordings of his past debates. However, this does not necessarily mean that he is more knowledgeable or even “correct” (I use quotations because of the old adage about opinions: everyone has one, but…) – but he does know the tricks in winning a debate.

His favorite tactic is to expound his point via rapidly throwing around large words in an attempt to confuse his opponent, obscure the contradictory facts, or warp his opponent’s words -- while never actually committing an answer to the question. This is why President Bush repeatedly offered several key points (which caused some to say that he was not prepared for the debate) without allowing many openings for Kerry to respond in his own peculiar fashion. Bush should have jumped on the eighty-seven billion supplemental and probably should have explained his objections to the world court a little more; but by-and-large, he used the correct strategy of circumventing his opponent’s strength.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.