Not so fast Ace.Blog around awhile. The truth is out there. You or someone with your nym was on a live chat the entire debate. I was there also.You're going to take the negative side fine.

Bush was himself. A tired, angry, unbelieving self, but if you read the transcripts, Kerry put his foot in it more than once.

Victor Davis Hanson has the best review I've read so far.

I still love ya!

Kerry's performance last night was good, no doubt. I have posted some things I noticed but then, like you I am a news junkie. People who do not know about his reputation will not appreciate the obvious crap he spews.

That said, I think it will not effect thing long term and anyone who really thought Bush was going to knock him out of the race last night was being a tad optimistic and would you really want to back the DNC into a corner like that? They can gloat all they want the spin is going to be intense.

I think kerry totally blew it with the "Global Test" comment. I can see the ads already. It was like a gift to the RNC.

I think Kerry was thrown softballs and leading questions with the exception of one or two. Bad choice of moderation and the primary Bush mistake, I think.

Either way with the situation changing so much in the middle east I think it will be of little consequence. Yes he proved he could be a leader. But what will he lead us into is what worries people.

I dunno. My impression was that Bush scored more devestatign blows than Kerry did, but he also stumbled around a bit with Kerry constantly jabbing him. As you said, listening to Bush is incredibly frustrating because he doesn't make the points we want him to, that seem to obvious.

I'm new here, and just an amateur Ace, but I think your take on the debate last night is right on target. Kerry was shining, not with substance, but by comparison to a tired, lack-luster Bush.

I love W, but share your frustration; he is not a good debater if this was the best he could offer Kerry. He did miss a lot of points to attack Kerry's charges. His rebuttals were repetitious and predictable. He was facing tough questions by Lehrer (compared to the creampuffs served up to Kerry) -- but he should have taken charge of those questions with an authoritative Presidential "The real question, Jim, is why did Senator Kerry... whatever," and shifted the attack toward Kerry's flip-flopping, his record after Vietnam in betraying his band of brothers, and his Senate record, including the huge percentages of meetings he's missed, the absence of significant legislation, his wealth, and the usual litany of other things we all know and hate about Kerry.

ACE writes: Kerry presented himself well enough to overcome doubts about his fitness to lead, and furthermore Bush did his own cause some harm by not seeming more authoritative.

Sorry. That's the way I saw it.

Nothing to be sorry about, ACE. You called it like you saw it. The only one who should be sorry is George Bush. It wasn't just that he seemed to fail to open new lines of attack or defend what is his strongest area and Kerry's weakest....he was awful on style and appearance. Bush blew it as bad as he let the "cakewalk and rose petals at our feet" neocons blow the postwar in Iraq.

But I really think the debates are less important each year. The media likes to hype them as the Superbowl of politics, but like in football, better games usually happen in the regular season and the playoffs that anchor fan loyalty. Much has been made of Gore's sighs as the reason he lost the Presidency. Bullshit. Bush's ads on Gore showing his anti-gun stance cost him several states, and Bush almost lost because false Dem ads targeting Bush as hostile to blacks energized the black vote far more than the Repubs expected.
In earlier years, there was less political advertising, so impressions and opinions of candidates really depended heavily on the debates to shape them. I say by now that most voters have opinions, and the debates are less important.

Still, my impression of Dubya was (some of what I said on the Debate thread):

Gave the impression he was stupider than Kerry. Not able to defend himself on Kerry's attacks or just not inclined to do so because he had less energy. Missed opportunity after opportunity to nail weak or inconsistent Kerry stances. Didn't want to be there. Stubborn. Defensive, pleading hand and arm gestures. Hunched over, not standing tall. Face figiting and looking like he just ate a bad oyster. Audible sighing a la Gore. Repetitious. Stammering. Lots of Ahhhhhhs and ummmmmms. Lots of recycled stuff, repetitious words. Overall, Bush appeared weak in defending his foreign policy and attacking Kerry's.

Kerry had some bad moments, since he has a bad incoherent foreign policy, "Global test" and insisting America abandon multilateralism with the N Korea situation were big hits. His insistance that even though the war was a mistake he would honestly not cut and run even if more soldiers died for a mistake will hurt him with the Deaniacs. But he did a better job selling his lemon junker than Bush did selling his dented but in great running shape BMW.

Kerry helped himself, Bush hurt himself.

Next debate, maybe a manicure for Dubya might not be a bad idea, if it worked for Kerry. At least sit him down and pound him on his poor performance, tell him to get serious, feed him a couple cups of coffee before the next debate. And bring on kinky Dick Morris as a debate coach and utilize Morris's magic remote-control vibrating butt plug on Dubya. Everytime in debate #2,3 that Bush slouches, acts like he isn't interested in being there, works his face into silly contortions, turn the butt plug on and straighten Bush out.

Ace,
My impressions were similar to yours, but I think/hope that your conclusion is a little more pesimistic than needed. It bothered me that Bush is inarticulate and repeated himself, but he has always been like that. If anything he was less ineloquent.
Also, while I had hoped he would hit back more, he did hit some. He pointed out how Kerry's "wrong war" schtick is going to make it harder to get allies and he had a decent critique of Kerry's bilateral fantasies in N.Korea. I have to admit Kerry probably helped himself, but maybe it is not as bad as you think.

I watched the whole thing carefully. Bush frustrated me, too, with his difficulty in being articulate, and missing what seemed some obvious opportunities. He also seemed a bit peevish, and that has been noted by others as well.

Kerry was cool, pat, glib and very articulate. Smooth, but not terribly persuasive. In terms of blunders, he made by far the biggest one of the night, with the "global test" answer to the question about preemptive war. Bush might have missed some opportunities, but he didn't step in any potholes throughout, and he hit the "global test" right back into Kerry's court immediately, which tells me he was paying attention and plenty engaged. I think Bush also won points on the question about bilateral versus multilateral talks with NKorea.

Bottom line guess: Kerry gets more style points and "won the debate" but Bush did what he had to and drove home consistency, core values, and strength on security issues, where Kerry just wasn't that convincing. No knockout for either side.

You or someone with your nym was on a live chat the entire debate.

I was not live-blogging at all. I didn't even see a computer between the Oliver Willis post and late night (2-ish), when I quickly checked for reactions.

Where was this psuedonym of mine? Did he actually represent himself as me, or was he just using the Ace of Spades handle?

He got under Bush's skin. Who the hell coached Bush? Poor preparation...I'm not voting for a good debater, though. I'll vote for a good leader. Bush should've Zell Miller'ed him, and when referring to sending messages "What kind of message is that to send to the American people? What kind of message is that to send to the troops? What kind of message is that to send to the Iraqis?"-- I kept hoping he'd add "And what kind of message is that to send to the terrorists?" Further, he should've said "How can the troops trust a CiC who during Vietnam, while still in the Navy, met with the enemy (NVA and VietCong)?"

ace,

I think your impressions were right, but your conclusion was off.

Kerry did have the better part of the debate, but that wasn't enough. He needed to wipe the floor with Bush and he didn't. Watching the whole debate, I'd call them a draw, objectively.

My wife (politically opinionated Republican, but mostly apolitical in behavior) has even started asking me (hilariously timed) if I knew that Kerry served in Vietnam.

So, for all his smoothness, I think Kerry didn't overcome the essential unease most folks get when they see and hear him. Bush's inarticulatelness and irritation (and MOOLAHS) created an equivalent impression, but only in the transitory sense.

In other words, people I think sense that Kerry's kinda weird and "off" ALL the time; Bush just had a bad night.

Well, Kerry's voice, demeanor, and appearance affects me like nails scraping down a blackboard, so I wouldn't have given him any points. But then I guess I'm immune to the Voice-of-Saruman effect.

These instant polls give it to Kerry by 13 and 15. Independents by 16 and 19.

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/

"Treblinka Square" should've gotten more play -- c'mon, John, if you're gonna try to impress people by dropping obscure place names, at least fucking get it right. (He meant Lubyanka, the Soviet prison, not Treblinka, the Nazi death camp.)

As Dave Barry might say, "Treblinka Square" would make a good name for a rock band. Or a blog.

Isn't it Dzerzhinsky Square outside of the Lubyanka Prison, or did they rename the square after the USSR fell apart?

This is why I can't be bothered to watch the debates. I already know far more than enough to reach a decision for November 2nd. (In Kerry's case I knew enough in 1973 to say I'd never voted for him for anything.) All this seems to be is a TV talking head auditioning a couple of middle-aged men from other career tracks to do his job, which is to look good on TV regardless of how silly the actual words.

In general I agree, Kerry looked good, content was still not pointing in the direction it should be to pick up voters. Kerry got a few easy balls from Lehrer while Bush missed the easy balls thrown to him by Kerry.

However, Kerry in return gave the GOP a number of soundbytes that will continue to jab at him until election day.

Possibly Bush wanted Kerry to keep on swinging at him until he was comfortable enough that he came out of his shell and started waffling such statements that keep on giving to the GOP.

A Foreign Policy debate was supposedly Bush's forte, this means Kerry has to out-Bush Bush and I don't think he did. Summits? Global Tests? Giving Nuke fuels to Iran??? Yikes.....

Perhaps the other reason for the focus on Kerry is that everyone had a certain interest in where he did stand after months of swinging in the breeze. Bush OTOH has had a consistent stance for months.

Dave:

It was officially renamed after him when he died (1926), and renamed back sometime in the 90's. But it was always commonly known as Lubyanka.

(Last comment mine. Renamed back in '91, not that it matters.)

After putting my wife in a head-lock and forcing her to watch the debate, I then asked for her opinions. (At least of the 30 minutes she stayed awake for) Since we are from Massachusetts, we have seen JFK speak many times so his polished manner was expected. My wife cut to the heart of it, she said Kerry pissed her off with three comments. 1. About canceling the nuclear "bunker-buster" program, she said his statement put us at the same trustworthiness level as the terrorists. 2. The well documented "global test" 3. The bilateral talks with NK. (She said which is it? He faults Bush for "unilaterally" going into Iraq, yet he wants the U.S. to unilaterally negotiate with North Korea)

The fact that I got her to talk about politics at all is amazing, she is about as apolitical as they get. She is also a hardened cynic, she said they can talk all they want, but the man who gets elected will be the man who looks best, and has the best looking wife. (So on this basis she is voting for Bush... God help me)

DelphiGuy - I worked in nuke power for 25 years. Giving 3% enriched uranium fuel to Iran from Franatomme, Russia, or America makes perfect sense. We do that with S Korea, Japan, Brazil, Sweden, Spain, Switzerland, Germany and 6-8 other countries operating nuclear reactors.

Kerry's pushing that is a good thing.

Let me explain. The dangers are in a country that enriches uranium to HEU - bomb grade level, or that harvests spent fuel early in the fuel cycle so that the PU-239 isn't contaminated with other isotopes. If you get a country to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, you control both factors and supply the needed fuel. Iran going full-bore on centrifuges is the problem. Not selling them 3% fuel assemblys that can't have the U-235 separated from the 97% U-238....and under control so that spent fuel is burned long enough to put bad plutonium isotopes (240,241) in with the bomb-grade PU-239. No danger if you fuel their reactors, ensure they burn the fuel long enough, and track the spent fuel assembies and don't show any effort to get PU reprocessing technology.

The Iranian situation has other problems, political and strategic:

1. All factions in Iran strongly support a nuclear power program and a nuclear deterrant -and not just the Moooolahs. Secular people that want a democracy also deeply think Iran needs it.

Because:

1. Non-signatory to ANY proliferation treaty Israel has a huge bio, chem and nuclear WMD program, a 250-350 thermonuclear and boosted fission weapons stockpile, and WMD bombs mounted on missiles aimed at Iran.
2. Non-signatory Pakistan, a traditional enemy of Shiite/Persian Iran, also has a large nuclear stockpile and missiles.
3. Neighbor Russia has nukes.
4. Neighbor Iraq was believed by the Iranians to have a nuke WMD program going until a year ago, and after losing 700,000 men to Iraq in war, inc to chemical WMD, Iran was working on it's own stuff with Saddam in mind. But now they have the Americans that kicked the ass of Iraq's conventional forces in 3 weeks right on their border - Americans also in the other bordering nation of Afghanistan - and the neocons who have hijacked America's foreign policy under Bush demanding regime change.

Unless some treaty is worked out, any sane military person in Iran would say that Iran getting a nuclear deterrant is a matter of common sense. That treaty could be worked out with Pakistan, Russia, Iraq, and the US - but Israel is, as in most matters in that ME region, the sticking point.

I'm with ya Ace but check out some of the internals in the Gallup poll today and cheer up a bit. But if Bush happens to invite you to kick him in the ass, go for the 30 yard punt.

Ace,

He had "ACE" as his login name. He sure spoke like you. No finger pointing intended. This is my first read every day.