Debating the debate

 

The San Francisco Chronicle has been doing a surprisingly decent job on occasion reported national news over the last couple of years.  This was a good post-debate summary, on the whole:  Bush, Kerry clash over wisdom of Iraq invasion by Marc Sandalow San Francisco Chronicle 10/01/04

This is the same Marc Sandalow that went completely off the reservation last week by doing some serious fact-checking on Bush's campaign claims about Kerry "flip-flopping" on the Iraq War.  It's a shame the press corps has fallen so low that a reporter researching public statements of a major party presidential nominee today looks like aggressive investigative reporting:

Flip-flopping charge unsupported by facts: Kerry always pushed global cooperation, war as last resort by Marc Sandalow San Francisco Chronicle 09/23/04

He also did a follow-up this week:

Record shows Bush shifting on Iraq war: President's rationale for the invasion continues to evolve by Marc Sandalow San Francisco Chronicle 09/29/04

Polling the debate

The following three articles give different perspectives on what is apparently the same poll of the immediate results of the debate among viewers.  It's important to keep in mind that the debate is an event that includes the 90 minutes of the candidates talking as well as the discussion and reporting on the debate in the following few days.  It will be very interesting to see if these numbers shift noticeably over the next few days.

Debating the first debate CNN.com 10/01/04: In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey of 615 registered voters who watched the debate, most said Kerry did the better job and almost half said the debate made them think more favorably of Kerry.

USA Today gives some details of presumably the same poll: Kerry holds edge over Bush following first debate 09/30/04.

And here's Gallup's take on presumably the same: Kerry Wins Debate by Daniel Moore Gallup.com 10/01/04.  Not that Gallup has been criticized - justifiably, it seems to me - for using samples this year that had a much heavier selection of Republicans than voter registration and experience in previous elections would justify.  That's why Gallup's polls this year have seemed to give Bush a substantially larger lead over Kerry than many others, which show the race essentially tied.  In the past, viewing audiences for presidential debates have been disproportionately Republican.

Blogging the debate

Here's some blog comments that struck me:

Steve Gilliard: Nightmare in Coral Gables 10/01/04.

Why was it bad [for Bush]?

Bush looked angry from the first question and kept repeating his talking points while Kerry seemed to actually understand the issues. And his talking points hammered on the man who must not be named. Bush simply had no answer for the charges of "outsourcing" the capture of Osama Bin Laden to Afghan warlords.

But the Bush campaign couldn't have predicted such a total collapse in such an important setting. Bush was unprepared, unable to answer questions coherently and think on his feet. Unless you're a total ideologue, it was clear someone came off way second best.

I was just stunned by how the gaps in his answers didn't seem like he was thinking,but that he was poleaxed. In any other campaign, Karl Rove would be looking for work. I was astonished at how poorly prepared Bush was, and Kerry held back and Jim Lehrer took pity on him. Which was the worst thing possible.

Bush, allegedly, is tough. Instead of being tough, he looked weak and small compared to the Presidential-looking Kerry. And that isn't just spin, Kerry seemed to gain in stature as Bush lost his. If the situations were reversed, and Bush was the challenger, his campaign would be all over but the voting.

I've got to add the word "poleaxed" to my regular vocabulary.  I don't even know exactly what it means, besides "clobbered."  But it's too good a word not to used.

Hesiod has some thoughts on The Great Debate Debate 10/01/04:

I think I finally realized what Bush's major character flaw is derived from.

He's never really had to deal with the potentially harsh consequences of his own mistakes.

That creates a sense that he can do no wrong. Or that no matter what he does, someone somewhere will fix the problem or mess he creates.

There are two ways you can gain confidence in yourself. One is to take risks, and have those risks pay off and be successful.

The other is to never really feel the sting of failure because you are pampered and protected.

So, Bush is simply doing what he always does. Stick to his guns, until someone saves his butt.

Unfortunately for Bush (and more especially for the American people and the people of Iraq) when you are President of the United States, Mighty Mouse is not going to come save the day. The Buck stops with YOU. And if YOU can't solve the problem on your own, it doesn't get solved.

Juan Cole thinks Kerry could have been a little harder on Bush about his own "mixed signals" (formerly known as "flip-flops") on the Iraq War: Debate and Chalabi 10/01/04.

I wonder if more could not have been made about Bush's constant zigzags on Iraq policy. First he was going to send Jay Garner. Then he suddenly switched off and sent Paul Bremer. First Bremer was going to be proconsul for years. Then he suddenly was going to hand off power to a new government elected through caucases in May 2004. Then Sistani asked for open and free elections, and they were postponed until January 2005 and power was handed to an appointed caretaker government.

Moreover, some of this zigzagging reflected very poorly on Bush's judgment. I have it from insiders that in April, 2003, Jay Garner let it slip to some of his staff that his charge was to turn Iraq over to Ahmad Chalabi within six months. The staffers were shocked and some contacted the State Department to see if this was known there. It was not. So they blew the whistle on Bush with Colin Powell. I was told that Powell then made a coalition with Tony Blair and that the two of them went to Bush and got him to change his mind.

The plan to put Chalabi in charge of Iraq was frankly idiotic. Chalabi had no grass roots. He was the one who had the bright idea to throw thousands of ex-Baathists into unemployment (which encouraged them to join the guerrilla resistance). It later came out that some of the Neoconservatives in the Pentagon had let it slip to him that the US had broken the Iranian diplomatic codes. Chalabi is chummy with Tehran and let his friends among the Ayatollahs know this tidbit. As a result, the US can no longer closely track the Iranian nuclear program.

This is the man to whom Bush-- and I underline Bush-- was planning originally just to hand Iraq over. An Iranian asset. This was why, as Kerry noted on Thursday night, Bush had done no real planning for the period after the war. He thought he had everything sewn up because Chalabi would handle it.

The Bush campaign spin

Possibly the grimmest commentary on Bush's performance in its own way was the talking points that Ken Mehlman, the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign manager sent out, giving the correct position forthe faithful to promote about Bush's success in the debates.  It's really pretty think gruel:

* The President spoke candidly.
* John Kerry failed to close his own credibility gap.
* Truth and optimism are not competing ideals.

"Truth and optimisim are not competing ideals"?  The Bush campaign must be freaking out if they're resorting to a line like this.  Just because I'm optimistic doesn't mean I'm lying?!?  Wow.