Spin spin spin...
I think it's fine if you thought Kerry "won" the "debate". He didn't though, unless you are narrowly discussing who sounds like a better orator. That is one area I won't argue with you. Bush looked pretty bad as far as the camera goes. I'm guessing the minute Kerry invoked Bush I, W was off his game a little.
But he won. Lockhart himself was caught saying it was a draw. Well, gee. How is it that the obviously superior-brained Kerry only got a draw out of it? Kerry needed to win decisively and not just to get back in the game. Kerry needed to win decisively so that this week in the press no one would have to talk about what Kerry actually said. I don't think he pulled that off.
They said Mondale beat Reagan in '84(in KC) for the same reasons. I watched that debate the other night and was downright shocked at how much more intelligent and articulate Mondale was, compared to the Gipper. I found myself let down then too. To see my hero get rhetorically trounced was a bit to take at first. But then I realized that Mondale was saying intelligent sounding things that were easy to recognize as principally different from Reagan. Reagan wasn't an unknown quantity, and neither is Bush. And history showed Mondale to be just about completely wrong.
I think history will probably remember Bush as a bad debater, and not the ultimate debating machine that the Kerry people billed him as . But history is also going to show Bush to be correct
. It shows through in the transcripts, and as Kerry is boiled down by the news cycle I think it won't matter at all how big Kerry looked behind the podium.
posted by M@ at 4:51 PM