There's a lot of ink being spilled over last night's first matchup between Kerry and Bush. Here are a few nuggets:
My favorite, from BusinessWeek, casts Bush as the errant teenage son being chewed out by Dad:
Perhaps what was so unnerving was that Bush found himself in a foreign-policy debate with a seasoned politician who was espousing the same sort of measured, internationalist approach to a dangerous world that was the hallmark of his father's Presidency. Debating the security and future of the nation on live national television isn't easy -- but debating your Dad is downright scary.
>snip<
The poignancy of a man ill-prepared for and overwhelmed by his job was never more apparent than when Bush said, "I never wanted to commit troops. When we were debating in 2000, I never dreamed I'd have to do that."
The message that Kerry hammered home was that, in fact, Bush did not have to "do that," did not have to send our soldiers -- at least not to Iraq.
But Bush, the onetime black sheep of his family, wanted to wipe away the "wimp factor" stain that his old man had left on the Bush clan. And so he rebelled against the family mantra of prudence in all things. Last night, he looked for all the world like a sputtering screwup -- again.
Nice.
From
Rediff.com:
On another note, does it strike you that the adjectives 'ludicrous' and 'absurd' - used, to the accompaniment of Oscar-bait facial expressions by President George W Bush during the debate - pretty much typifies the administration's central case for making war in Iraq?
How does it go, again? 'We gave Saddam Hussein an opportunity to disarm. He would not. So we had to go in and attack him.' That, in sum, is the stated position?
All right, so answer this. 'Disarm' what? The Bush administration has since said the man has no weapons of mass destruction - nor, in fact, did he have any weapons of any significance whatsoever. So what precisely was he supposed to disarm himself of? That little unloaded popgun he was found with at the time of his capture, and that Bush now reportedly has on his Oval Office desk?
Here's one from the New Zealand Herald, which concludes that Kerry won the battle, but not the war -- because Americans are stupid:
Mr Bush's flippancy and detachment from reality would have cut little ice with many in the international audience. They would, instead, have applauded the manner in which Mr Kerry cleverly uncoupled Iraq from the war on terror, and cheered the challenger's insistence that the invasion had been a rushed, unnecessary risk.
But international viewers do not have a vote. Those of middle America do, and the President was undoubtedly telling them what they wanted to believe about their own country, and about a happy ending in Iraq.
And one from Bloomberg, rounding up the various polls conducted last night, all of which concluded that Kerry won the debate, and a few more votes:
Democratic challenger John Kerry beat President George W. Bush in their first debate, according to three instant surveys and undecided voters in a focus group run by Republican pollster Frank Luntz.
Instant polls by the Gallup Organization, ABC News and CBS News found Kerry ahead by as much as 16 percentage points on the question of who won the debate. Five of the 18 voters in the focus group said they moved from undecided to supporting Kerry, Luntz said in a press release. None switched to Bush.
>snip<
Luntz measured the reactions of his focus group by having them use computerized dials to indicate their reactions at any moment in the debate and later summarize their thoughts.
Kerry, 60, a four-term Massachusetts senator, scored with statements such as "the future belongs to freedom, not fear," Luntz said. Bush, 58, lost ground each time he referred to the presidency as "hard work" and voters described the expression on Bush's face as "arrogant" and "pissed off" at times when he was listening to Kerry answer a question.
Heh. And this guy thought Kerry should have talked about the "hard work" of the presidency!
Reuters notes that Europe's overt support for Kerry will put pressure on them to cooperate with a Kerry administration:
"Kerry created a mood of empathy for the Europeans, which is no surprise," said Annette Heuser, director of the Bertelsmann Foundation think-tank, of a debate Thursday pitting President Bush against his Democratic rival.
"But I would warn Europeans it would then be up to us to deliver," she said, adding that Kerry's popularity with the European public could make it harder for war opponents such as France and Germany to ignore future calls for military help.
A nice rejoinder to those who say that a Kerry win won't make any difference. Kerry can and will improve our alliances.
Please add on other read-worthy snippets as they are published!