Thoughts on the first debate

• Kerry did about as well as a Kerry supporter could hope
• Bush did much worse than a Bush supporter could hope
• The debate was actually pretty good and substantive
• While Kerry was articulate, his main concrete plan seems to be "hold a summit!" and convince more nations to send more troops that they don't already want to send
• The "global test" thing is going to be fairly bad for Kerry, in the sense that it'll be mentioned a lot against him
• I thought the entire section of the debate on North Korea was very good. I think Kerry's approach is dead wrong and Bush is exactly right, but I think it was a healthy section of the debate.
• I'd first heard most of the debate on the radio and actually thought it was pretty much a disaster for Bush. Once I saw it on TV I changed my mind and thought it came out about equal. On radio Kerry came across much better and Bush much worse. Overall Kerry was more confident, less defensive, more articulate, and more in command of facts. On radio, Bush's silences I took as being "confused" silences (I pictured him looking confused), but on TV they came across much different, mostly as neutral pauses (Bush's face was confident, and he was choosing his words). I think listening on radio and then watching on TV was actually a pretty neat way to view the debate, since I got two perspectives on it.
• Ultimately, I think the debate was almost a draw (in that I don't think it will have changed many minds, though I think people who aren't really familiar with Kerry might feel comfortable going with him after the debate) though I'll give Kerry the advantage. He had to come across as presidential, confident, and not whiny, and he achieved that. I also think there's more to criticize Kerry about on about what he said, so we'll see how the long-term opinion of the content of the debate shapes up.
• Kerry actually mentioned his plan to give Iran nuclear fuel!! It blows my mind.
• I noticed Kerry called bin-Laden a "criminal" as well as a terrorist. I think Bush should have pounced on this and explained the two thoughts on how to handle terrorism -- as a criminal action or as a war. Kerry's focusing heavily on "first responders" and such is one signal for this.
• I was glad Bush mentioned that Kerry was disparaging our allies, and particularly that he mentioned Lockhart's despicable "Allawi is a puppet" claim. But he should have done much more. "Bribed and coerced" was one phrase, "phony coalition" was another that he didn't use. Bush should have been able to rattle off a list of our allies who have troops in Iraq (Britain, Poland, Denmark, Japan, Italy, South Korea, etc. (Update: I can't believe I forgot the Aussies. Sorry.)), and said rhetorically "Well, what are you going to do if France and Germany don't decide to suddenly send troops?" (and what difference would that make anyway?) The assertion that Kerry will somehow get more nations is an empty promise, particularly when Kerry's been disparaging our current allies the whole time. In short, "asking for help" is not a policy or a plan. Kerry also seems to overestimate the military capability of the rest of the world. The rest of the world really doesn't have much of one.
• I was very surprised that Kerry mentioned Israel
• Bush was very ineffective in general at getting his points across, challenging Kerry on his past statements and positions, and explaining the differences between them.
• I think Bush was extremely foolish to not spend the day resting and instead going to visit around Florida. He probably felt it was the right thing to do, but I think it made him tired and hurt him in the debate.
• It seemed like Kerry prepared very well for the debate, but Bush didn't prepare well at all. Bush is pretty bad at public speaking and when he's on the spot, but Bush should have been able to do better.
• The question of nuclear proliferation (that segment was good as well), seemed to reveal another big difference between Kerry and Bush. I kind of want to go over this segment again, but I think this exchange was illustrative of the two views of America, contrasting the view that the left has, that America is bad, or not morally superior to other nations, can't be trusted with nukes any more than another nation can, etc., and the view that the right has, that America is a morally superior nation, and can have whatever weapons it wants because it will use them responsibly. It's like when people say "Well, why can't Iran get nukes? It's only fair, since we have them and Israel has them".
• I too thought some questions were biased, but not horribly so, and overall I thought the moderator did a very good job. Also see below what Hugh Hewitt thought about the questions.
• Some "if you say so" moments for Kerry:
  • I'll get all of Russia's nuclear materials in four years. Uh, if you say so.
  • I'll train the Iraqi troops faster. If you say so.
  • I'll hold a summit! Uh, ok.
  • Allies will rush to our side in Iraq if I'm president. If you say so.
• Ultimately, Kerry's proposals are really just stupid. But Bush didn't call him on them.
• The "I'll give nuclear fuel to Iran" moment could have been the centerpiece of the debate if Bush had highlighted it and said "Really? You want to give nuclear material to Iran?! Seriously?", and compared it to Clinton's policy of giving nuclear technology to North Korea and showing where that's gotten us today. But, yet again, Bush missed his opportunity.

Other reactions:

• Hugh Hewitt has a question-by-question review. It infuriates me that he doesn't have permalinks, and I usually avoid linking to him because of it.
• Roger Simon
• Scott Elliot from Election Projection.

I may write more or revise what I've said above as I think about more. If I completely change my mind on something, of course, I'll make a note about it.

Permalink | 8 Comments | Tags: Opinions/Politics | id 5650

12:50 (utc-4)
edited: 2004-10-03 06:15 (utc-4)