Except that is a tremendous misreading of the situation regardless - Bush did NO harm to himself. The question is how much he may have gained, if any. I contend that Bush was focused on gaining those in the middle and Kerry was focused on trying to sustain his liberal base. Kerry maintained some anti-war support. Bush wouldn't lose anybody because of last night and his cool demeanor scores points with those in the middle and women, especially, who wouldn't like a blitzkrieg that many seem to have been demanding. But the anti-war voters - or those even at all affected by Kerry's appearance - will not ever consider voting for Kerry; they were the ones Kerry was losing to Nader & why he jolted left to stop the bleeding. I like Krauthammer too but he lives in the liberal vaccum and is frequently susceptible to the spin that exists there, despite his otherwise sound reasoning. Same thing happened with people sucking up to Kerry after his convention when only a few correctly determined that was a LOSER (as was this debate for Kerry)
You make a lot of sense. I have always enjoyed and respected Charles' opinions, but forget the "liberal vacuum "in which he lives. Well said!
Pray for W and Our Troops