Centerfield

I watched the program on 3rd party candidates. It's all the evidence you need to show why they should not be included in tonight's debate.

I don't like the split screen.

So far, it seems like a draw.

I don't think any minds have been changed.

I think Kerry came alive with his answer regarding proliferation as the greatest threat. He seemed quite authoritative, and demonstrated that he's been thinking about it before 9/11. I believe he also correctly condemned the program to create bunker-busting low-yield nukes, which lowers the nuclear use threshold.

The debate is over. I think it was a draw. But the question is, if its a draw, does it freeze Bush's lead, or does it bring the race back to a draw?

I'd agree it was a draw.

It'll be interesting to know how it affects things. Kerry came across well and that can only help him with those who want to vote for him, but have been made nervous by the constant accusations of flip-flopping.

On the other hand, Bush didn't do anything that would make him look bad. He sounded great. It'll be interesting to see if there are more people impressed by Kerry's performance than there are people see Bush's and say, "he seems pretty good. Why change?"

As for the split screen...

I'd thought that one of the rules for tonight was no reaction shots of one candidate while the other was speaking. It seems the split screen would be violation of that.

I was interested in the debate and found myself drifting. I wonder if people stayed with the debate after the first 30 minutes. I guess we'll wait for some more polls.

I've never seen this John Kerry before, in 20 years. Frankly, I thought he cleaned Bush's clock on demeanor, poise, forcefulness, and all those visceral things. Bush too often looked tired, lost, grumpy, and annoyed, while Kerry looked engaged and in complete control. Now maybe this only matters for people who actually watched, but as I'm writing, I'm watching Fox, and they're going on and on about this right now.
They are all acknowledging the good things Kerry did and pointing out missed opportunities to make good counterarguments that Bush missed.

Most importantly, I think that if you watched the debate, Kerry by his manner and his statements made Bush's repeated attempts to paint him as irresolute etc simply seem dissonant. Bush kept mixed messages etc over and over, but then every time the camera went back to Kerry, it just didn't seem so. Kerry also showed a breadth of knowledge of the world and committment to statesmanship that I thought he sold extremely well.

Now maybe by tomorrow morning this will be lost on all the people who just get the digested and spun bits from spin alley. But if a lot of people watched, I expect Kerry to get a very solid bounce.

I'm not saying there were any big blows or that Bush was terrible. But I do think the contrast was striking, and that Kerry really solidified himself.

Now I've caugh a snippet of a forum with what CNN says is undecided voters, but the two people I heard talk didn't sound undecided to me.

Ok, now I just saw NBC do the same thing. they had a panel of 6 undecided voters. Every one of them said Kerry had a stronger night. Sure, they mighta cooked the books. It matches my impressions though.

I thought the split screen was an excellent way for the director to avoid having to choose which reactions to show and which not to. That would open them to the charge of selective 'editing', especially since the pool was the FOX news crew.

Did Kerry seem presidential? I'd find it difficult believing the sincerity of anyone who answers that one negatively.

Rick, I agree that the nuclear proliferation response was the best: it actually got a firm 'YES!' response from me.

Bush got an eye-roll from me when he claimed to know how this world works.

I don't think the flip-flop charge (aka mixed messages) was anywhere as effective tonight as it has been on the campaign trail.

Generally, a draw. However, my gut says that viewers can more easily entertain the notion of John Kerry in the oval office than before this debate.

It annoyed me that Bush kept referring to "my opponent." Would it have been so difficult to refer him as "Senator Kerry"?

Morton Kondracke: Kerry looked like a Commander-in-Chief

Bill Kristol: Kerry had a good night, and the race will narrow

Fred Barnes: No big deal, but Democrats will be encouraged.

On further consideration, I think it was a draw on the substance, but Kerry had the better body language.

In what universe was this a draw?

Kerry was in complete control, and Bush was flabbergasted and flailing.

More importantly was how they stayed "on message". Bush sounded like he was merely repeating himself. Kerry always said everything slightly differently, and in a way that said "hey, this is just common sense."

Bush did decently. Kerry was dynamite.

But of course, if so many people see it as a draw, that might not matter.

Well, Kerry surprised the heck out of me! He did *much* better than I was expecting. He looked and sounded like a statesman.

I just got back from the Edwards rally. I was afraid it would be difficult to hear, much less to judge, the actual debate, given that I was sitting in the middle of 10,000 screaming Kerry supporters, but they had a good sound system and had it cranked up pretty high.

On the whole, I think Kerry was clearly better tonight. He was especially good in the beginning, and hit that "sweet spot" we've all been talking about where he is calm and measured, but still manages to criticize the president's policies strongly. Bush really seemed back on his heels for the first 15 minutes or so.

Bush recovered midway through, and did a good job at times making his fundamental points. He also shared a lot of facts on the issues, while, at other times, seeming to fumble with them.

On a substantive level, I'm not really "convinced" by either world-view. I have problems with both, and think one shifts too far to the traditional left (engagement and diplomacy over war) and the other too far to the right (deephasizing the world community, relying on military force).

I have to say it was a very good debate, substantively. I really got a sense in detail for how these guys look at things.

I agree with BK on Kerry having better on presentation and demeanor. Bush got animated a few times but mostly seemed a little aloof and sometimes looking like he lost is train of thought. There were quite a few missed opportunities to counter Kerry, but stayed primarily to his talking points. As far as debating, I think Kerry won.

I think Kerry did help his campaign tonight, although some of the things Kerry said could come back to haunt him. His quote about always being consistent on Iraq sounds great if you haven't listened to him before, but the boys in the GOP advertising studio are going have a lot of fun piecing together a pretty effective ad having Kerry contradict himself.

It will be interesting to see how the dust settles on the debate and Kerry's statements. I think we learned nothing new about Bush and he gave the same refrains he has been using throughout the campaign. Kerry on the other hand sounded like he has a plan to "change the dynamics on the ground". It would be a lot easier for him to get elected if he actually had a plan, but at least it's a start.

It sure seemed to me that from the standpoint of reasoned debate, Kerry cleaned Bush's clock, especially compared to the haughty senator's dismal campaign performance to date. Most of the stereotypes about the flipflopper fell away, with the Mass liberal coming across as self-confident and articulate, while the Texas good old boy
stammered repetitively and looked discomfited with his best insouciant Alfred E. Neumann gaze. There may be hope (on the way) yet. The final exchange regarding the dangers vs. necessity of "certainty" was an illuminating contrast that said it all. Score one for nuance and understanding of complexity over simplistic arrogance.

Well, I listened to it on the radio as I was finishing up a 12 hour work day. So, I didn't get to see any of the visual cues so many are talking about here and elsewhere. And I missed the first 15 minutes too. But, I think Erasmus' comment most closely resembles my perception as a radio listener.

I think Kerry helped himself a great deal more than Bush helped himself. Will that be enough? Time will tell. Polling numbers early next week should give a good indication of how much (or little) Kerry helped himself.

Kerry may have talked more smoothly and maintained composure, but did anyone else have a problem with his idea of only bilateral talks with North Korea and being against more multilateral efforts (aka involving China and surrounding countries) to stop their nuclear weapons programs, espeically after he criticized Bush for not being multilateral enough when it came to Iraq?

Thought that Kerry did what he wanted and needed to (image creation; sounding firm), and did it smoothly. Thought that Bush seemed less prepared and more prone to "same old stuff" rhetoric. Not good for someone like me who would have been more impressed if he had been using more substantive talking points to convince me that his world vision is the correct one.

I would have liked to see a topic related to the future role of the UN and the US role within in (or outside it, for that matter). I am pretty skeptical about that body's usefulness right now, and would like to have heard both candidates' take on it.

On points, Kerry wins, clearly.

On substance, we learned nothing new, at least about Iraq. I was hoping they both would not focus on the case to go to war, in which I think in the public's mind the verdict has been rendered. I think both of these guys needed to be more detailed about their plans for the future for either of them to score the knock out blow.
What more do we know about what either of these guys will do to help us in Iraq?

Personally, I agree with Bill that both world views where troubling. Bush is wrong that certainty is right all of the time, and Kerry is wrong that diplomacy is always right.

I will say that I think pundits and some of you have done what people always do in regards to Bush. He fumbles and stumbles all over the English language, but I think there are a lot of people that actually like that. Furthermore, I think Kerry was trying to present a new message tonight which will take longer to resonate with the American people, although I agree he helped himself and probably will get a bounce that will tighten the polls up a bit.

Bush was very affective at conveying the message that has kept him ahead in the polls.... I am a leader who makes tough decisions, my opponent is a flip-flopper that can't be trusted.

Gallup says Kerry wins, but Bush maintains his advantages in the leadership category:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.poll/index.html

Tom Shales says,"even if Kerry appeared to win the encounter on basic debating points, Bush retained the tremendous advantage of being a wartime president seeking reelection and a vote of confidence in the war he started. He's no Ronald Reagan, but he did strike a note of Reaganesque sloganeering eloquence when he told the audience, in reference to the war against terrorism, 'We climbed the mighty mountain and I see the valley below, and that's the valley of peace.'"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64102-2004Oct1.html

Mondale/Reagan all over again? Chris Matthews said the same thing last night. I don't think Bush is as good as Reagan, or that Kerry is as bad as Mondale, but it is an interesting thought to ponder.

I thought Kerry looked and sounded much more presidential than Bush. I am a Bush supporter and was very disappointed in his performance. I am a terrible debater, but could have provided better answers the president Bush did to many of the questions. I am surprised Jim Leher did not ask senator Kerry where these allies were coming from to assist us in Iraq.

I do think Kerry’s answer that he wanted both bilateral and multilateral talks in North Korea is ridiculous, but it remains to be seen if that statement will do him any damage.

I also thought that the president was being presidential when he refused to say that the real reason the UN didn’t go along with us in Iraq was that Saddam had bought China, France, and Russia. It was interesting to note that senator Kerry did not mention the UN when he was asked about the Sudan. The UN’s action, or lack of, on Sudan will support the president’s position on Iraq, but unfortunately not before the election.

I've been surprised (and pleased, as a Kerry supporter) that people have taken note of Bush's stumbles, and repetition of the same talking points. The reason I first scored it a draw is that I've seen Bush stumble frequently before, and it never seemed to hurt him. Perhaps when he's on stage next to someone who's more poised, people do notice.

Regarding North Korea, that was the only issue where the Bush position seemed to make more sense to me. I also wondered why Kerry insists on bilateral talks, and if that was at variance with his general multilateralism. Bush's insistence that China's participation was critical seemed effective, though I think Kerry saved himself in the end by saying that China was a critical player, even if not a formal participant in the talks. On the whole, I think the NK debate was to esoteric to affect any votes.

It's a valid point that people in general may not read this the same way that we wonks did, so we'lll have to wait and see. But I really think Kerry did what he needed to do, which was strike a tone that made him feel like he could be a viable President to those in the audience that have doubts about Bush but were uneasy about Kerry.

I agree with many of the points made about facts and details, but my strong sense is that these just aren't the things that undecided voters will make up their minds on. Thay's why I was watching this debate for tone and demeanor.

I also am not entirely convinced of either guy's world view, but I think Kerry sold his MUCH better.

At this point I have doubts whether the Bush camp will find much more success via trying to drag Kerry down by stressing the "mixed message" point and poring over the minutaie of what Kerry said at different points. I'm not saying that I don't personally believe that content should be important. I'm saying that I doubt whether the remaining undecided voters will decide on this basis.

"He's no Ronald Reagan, but he did strike a note of Reaganesque sloganeering eloquence when he told the audience, in reference to the war against terrorism, 'We climbed the mighty mountain and I see the valley below, and that's the valley of peace.'"

I caught that too. But, I don't think it helps him except with those who have already decided to vote for him. Reagan could pull off slogans like that because they sounded like Reagan being Reagan. With Bush it sounded so foreign to his normal manner and style of speaking that it came across to me as obviously contrived.

"turning detail-geek", LOL... I love it!

I think Kerry pretty definitively cleaned Bush's clock in the debates. If I were voting for the president of a school debating team, Kerry would be the clear choice. However, Bush & Kerry are NOT running for president of a debating team they are running for President of the U.S. and good debating skills are entirely tangential to to that job (in my book).

What I want in some-one who is President of the United States is a person of strong character and good judgement whose vision of what the United States should be closely matches my own, who can put together effective plans and policies and lead us in that direction and who can choose and lead a good team to help us get there. For me Bush matches that description much more closely then Kerry. As far as the debates go, they might as well be a swimsuit competition for the degree of importance I attach to them.

Tully, you dine with legislators?! Good gravy, am I ever out of my league here. I ate pizza on the living room floor with my stupid cat drooling over me. :-)

I agree with the North Korea assessments you all have put up. I think Bush is right about NK--all of the regional players as well as the US need to be engaged on that one.

Don't diss the cat, Amy! If drooling is your sole criteria, he/she may very well make to congress. I'm certain we've had worse legislators.

Sounds kinda snooty, doesn't it? :-) State legislators, Amy, not federal. I work on local campaigns, have for many years, so I sometimes run with a sordid crowd. I'm working on several local campaigns right now. ("Foreign policy" to these legislators means water rights fights with Nebraska. "Domestic policy" means school funding.)

The gourmet menu, prepared on site by moi and spouse, was ribs, burgers, salads, and beer, with a few real drinks after, and the de rigeur garb of the evening was denim. We served off the finest domestic Chinette with matching white Dixie plasticware, complemented by Wet-Naps and paper towels. Truly a major soiree! But it was fun.

Don't diss the cat, Amy! If drooling is your sole criteria, he/she may very well make to congress. I'm certain we've had worse legislators.

Well, Will, you may be right after all. She also sneaks around and pees in corners and leaves the mess for others to clean up, so she just *might* be congressional material! :-)

No, Tully, it didn't sound snooty. Just way more cool than my social life. :-)

I disagree with what Bush said about North Korea. It's illogical to say that bilateral talks would in any way prevent China from having their influence with NK on the nukes deal. Kerry was absolutely right to say that China has a vested interest in a non-nuclear Korean Penninsula. Whether there are bilater or multilateral talks with NK, Chinese influence over NK will remain the same.

NK? Whatever works. Talk to NK alone. Talk to NK along with others. Like it or not, I'm not sure how much our objective of de-arming them is served by a no-talking stalemate. So if we insist they come to the table on our terms, and then they don't come to the table but do keep making nukes, where does that get us? With increasingly heightened tensions, that's where.

NK wants to talk to US because WE are the ones they are afraid of. Since it's also true that THEY are the ones WE are afraid of, it seems we're the main parties to the conflict, althouhg of course the others have important interests.

I think the bilateral v. multilateral thing is a little red herring-ey. Talk. So far, for both better and for worse, Bush's foreign policy has been a series of stick measuring contests where he whips his big one out and then expects things to unfold on his terms or not at all. Some people think this is working and others don't.

It works sometimes, but at this point ther is just no way I can resist suggesting that maybe we need a multi-pronged foreign policy, pun intended.

Amy,

For the record, as someone who has worked for legislators I would take the cat, anyday.

After hearing the pundits this morning, I do think the Bush campaign could be significantly hurt if they let the debate news linger for too long. They really need to nip it in the bud by discrediting the things Kerry said or there could very well be a significant shift in the swing vote. If I were them, I'd be using a big chunk of their remaining funds to do big time advertising blitz over the next week or so, striking hard.

The risk is that they could look defensive and nervous, but the risk may be bigger if left with the impression that Kerry is strong and consist on national security.

Kerry definitely did well energizing his base and changing the dynamics.

China is the 800 lb gorilla of the region. They have much more influence on NK than we do. And leaving SK and Japan out strains relations with them. Indeed, the only leverage we really have at all over NK is bribery, ala Clinton, which has already failed once but is just what Kim Jong Il wants, more of our money. Threatening to invade or assault without China in agreement is pointless, and highly unlikely in any event.

The important point to remember is that China could shut down NK entirely in a heartbeat, just by stopping trade and opening the Chinese border to NK refugees. The mass exodus would leave the country nearly empty. Negotiating with NK without China at the table is futile for any purpose but paying Danegeld.

The point is that from NK's POV the only reason to prefer bilateral talks is to get more T & A (that's "Trade and Aid," folks, get your minds out of the gutter!) from the U.S., without the 800 lb gorilla being involved. We know how well that worked before. It didn't.

Tully:

It's certainly not working to NOT talk with them. That's what Bush has been doing...and we can see where that's gone.

Seems like the carrot stick approach is better for the North Koreans in the long run...than just the stick.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to do both bilateral and multilateral talks. Kim Jong is no fool and he's outmaneuvered Bush at pretty much every turn.

But then our focus under Bush hasn't really been on N Korea.

But we don't have the stick. China, and to a much smaller extent SK, have the sticks. All we have is the carrot! The pattern remains. They want T & A, they rattle the sabers. We obligingly provide the goodies, and in exchange they promise to play nice. Then they go right ahead with doing what they want to do anyway. When the goodies run out, they rattle the sabers....

China laughs and SK fumes. They know they're the ones with the sticks, and we're the sucker. Having bilateral talks in addition to multi-lateral talks just provides KJI with more maneuvering room while actively offending Japan and SK. It doesn't do us any good. Certain downside, unlikely upside.

Opening up a two way line of talking while continuting multilateral negotiations effectively negates the purpose of the 6-way talks, and makes them appear worthless. It's like going behind the other countries' backs that are involved in the negotiations and saying "we want you here to look good, but the real negotiations are going to take place without you." If I were another country, espeically one like China, learning of that would incline me to drop out of the negotiations all together. Bilateral talks along with multilateral talks could easily be seen as very disrepectful to all the countries invovled in trying to persuade North Korea. And since we aren't the ones with the "stick", I cannot see negiotiations being very productive if we jeopardize the willingness of other states to participate, especially if they hold clout in North Korea's eyes.

Bilateral talks would not be disrespectful at all. China has been encouraging unilateral talks all along. It's been the US that has insisted on multilateral talks. There is no reason to think, as Bush said, that bilateral talks would drive China away. China is going to do what's in China's interest. And it's not in their interests to open the border to NK refugees. That is exactly why they are afraid of any action that would create chaos in North Korea. China, and probably the other countries, think that bilateral talks between the US and NK are more likely to be productive. At the end of the day, what North Korea wants is normalization with the United States.

As far as the debate, I thought Kerry was much stronger than Bush. Bush continually took cheap shots at Kerry, misrepresented his position numerous times, and made it pretty clear that he is not well versed on the issues. Bush made several statements about which I couldn't decide whether to LOL or fume in outrage. Still, I initially thought that Bush did what he needed to do, which was to keep projecting strength and steadfastness. Kerry gave him at least one good sound bite with the "global test" line but, in general, he looked much more presidential and confident than Bush. Still, my first impresssion was that the debate would not hurt Bush significantly. But maybe I'm wrong about that.