The debate itself

I understood why Bush decided to put on the "What Me Worry" smile tonight - because apparently polls showed that he was scaring off women with that snipey attack dog mode from last time - but it still looked damn silly when he was grinning vapidly during extremely serious issues that were being discussed. I was more than happy to watch him grinning his credibility with undecideds out the window, but still, it got painful to watch after a while even for me. Kerry meanwhile was his cool, calm, absolutely collected self.

On health, Kerry nailed it. A number of things happened here. First, he nailed Bush again on a fact to which Bush simply doesn't have a response, the five million individuals losing coverage over the past four years. Second, he provided a plan. As questionably feasible as it might be in its entirety, its a deeply considered national health care plan, and it's certainly far more substantial than anything Bush offered on the issue. Again, Kerry drove home the point about the illegalization of drug purchases from outside the country and how the only people helped by this are drug companies, the Bush Administration's best friends. The one thing I wish he would bury into the ground is this non-issue about trial lawyers. Just point out that it's just another example of the Bush campaign engaging in meaningless fright tactics and move on.


On fiscal responsibility and the handling of the nation's finances, it all boiled down to the Tony Soprano line which was dead on. "Hearing President Bush chide me about fiscal responsibility is like having Tony Soprano lecture me about law and order." A real "hel-lo!" moment. And how can Bush possibly respond, with the deficit he's got going on? He simply can't.

Jobs, the same. Kerry buried Bush, not just on the lost jobs figure, which is enough in itself, but on the fact that new jobs make less than the jobs they are replacing. He finally brought up the fact that the the average middle class income is dropping, while that of the wealthiest is going up. Bush could respond to NONE of these facts, because they are, in fact, facts. And anyone listening should have been appalled. Instead, he moved the discussion - as he did all night long - to education. It was the mattress he hid under the whole night long.

Pundits afterwards kept talking about how strong Bush was on education. What they failed to point out was that IT WAS THE ONLY THING HE TALKED ABOUT THE ENTIRE NIGHT. Every time the discussion veered toward jobs, Bush would direct it to education. Every time the discussion veered toward the deficit, Bush would direct it to education. Why was there not one pundit who would point out that this was for the simple reason that BUSH HAD NOTHING ELSE TO TALK ABOUT. He's had absolutely no noticeable domestic successes beyond the No Child Left Behind act (which as we are reminded again and again that he "underfunded") - at least no successes that he would want to bring up during an election year, because they would all drive home Kerry's central point, which is that this administration has done nothing but feed the coffers of the wealthy at the taxpayer's expense.

And this was a point that Kerry drove home, again and again, and while it usually drives me nuts when a politician repeats himself over and over again (as Kerry was doing previously but not thankfully tonight with his military service), it was really well done and extremely effective. And no point needs to get made more strongly in relationship to this administration than this one - a point that Bush really doesn't have a response to, nor could he - and if it's a point that Kerry can drive home successfully with the "undecideds" then he walks away with this election. Probably Kerry's most memorable "zinger" was that he was sick of hearing politicians who talk about "family values" and then don't value families. Because of the force with which he hit on this, this is going to stick.

There were groaners of course - I wish Kerry and Edwards wouldn't bring up Mary Cheney - but then, as my brother explained, it does the right thing because it makes questions about homosexuality and this administration moot, because Dick Cheney loves his daughter and embraces her and has never said anything in the least offensive about her or her sexual preference - which is exactly as it should be, and it casts the social conservative's perception of this administration's stand on social issues and this administration's actual stand on social issues stand out in stark relief. Final point to Kerry - this is a non-issue, and Bush can't possibly say anything differently on the issue. But the other groaner - major major groaner - any chance he had of getting my parent's vote (okay there was none anyway) - evaporated when he brought up gay men and women who get married and then realize - or at least finally admit - that they're gay. Huh? And you're bringing this up, why? Fortunately, I think the main fall out was that everyone was just scratching their heads as to his intent...

Let me just say that I was very thankful Kerry didn't have to list the list of generals that think he should be commander-in-chief, as much as I might agree with them. He almost made up for this by pointing out how butch and manly he is with a gun and has been since he was 12 or 13 (14 maybe, somewhere back there), but I understand why he has to do this. And his point about the AK47s was another complete slamdunk, and once again, as he did throughout the debate - and this is phenomenal debating skill - made about four dead-on points all at the same time: 1)Bush is the flip-flopper who mouthed opposition to letting the assault weapons ban lapse, but never-the-less caved to the NRA and let it lapse, 2)Kerry is the strong one who will stand up to the gun lobby no matter what it takes, 3)security is actually worse under Bush because terrorists know that, once they make their way in through those unprotected borders, America's the easiest place on the planet for purchasing lethal firearms, 4)security in terms of everday crime goes through the floor - going right for the security mom. And Bush could answer none of this.

All in all, a great way to leave the debates. More later on the latest disheartening reports about early voter fraud...

And you know the conservatives are nervous

When the National Review online has their analysis entitled "Third Time's a Charm?". You can just see them standing with their fingers crossed behind their backs. Wishing... Hoping against hope...

A choice quote from the debate analysis I read in the NRO, by Greg Andres - while of course "pro-Bush" and yes I mean those quotes because you can tell they're lukewarm about this man really in their heart of hearts - is this: "President Bush clearly had enough facts down to sound substantively credible". I think there isn't an intelligent, honest conservative around whose entire belief in the actual abilities of their candidate doesn't come down to exactly this sentiment, or something like it. This is the best they hope for from him! Not that he actually BE substantively credible on policy issues, just that he can muster up enough attention to master the minimum to SOUND substantively credible. Even then, this statement is a reach, and clearly the poll respondents to the CNN poll disagree, but regardless - I think this statement says a whole hell of a lot about how even conservatives - in their heart of hearts - really feel about W.

On The Corner, the National Review chatroom, meanwhile, the best they could come up with was that "the media will of course "spin" this as a Kerry victory". Because God knows the American people can't see the obvious with their own two eyes and hear it with their own two ears...

Viva Kerry!

All I can say after watching these three debates is how terribly badly I want to see Kerry become our next president. Not, "well at least he ain't Bush", not, "well, I kinda like him I mean he'll do", as Christopher Hitchens recently characterized Democratic support of the new JFK. I really seriously want to see him, John Kerry, as our Prez in a way I never felt about Gore, and in fact have not felt in this way possibly ever in my adult voting life. Clinton was charming and wonky all together and it was a wonder to behold, but no one ever, on either side I think, really had any illusions about his personal character. Part of his charm was in fact that he was a rogue and able to charm his way through any tight squeeze. Kerry will never have that kind of appeal, and, right at this point in history, probably thank God for it (though of course as Kelley pointed out, imagine Clinton debating Bush - damn, the mess they'd have to mop up off the stage after those blowouts). Polls, even the current excetionally heartening CNN post-debate-poll that shows all numbers sliding into Kerry's lap, even the latest in which Kerry is finally (thank the good Lord of all that is sane and reasonable) seen as "more believable" - all of these polls consistently show Bush as more "likeable" (although that gap has closed considerably as well). With Bush, the only possible appeal I can imagine is that he appears to be "just a good ol' boy, never meanin' no harm" - beyond this, he strikes me as nothing much more than smarmy, stiff, garbled, occasionally just plain lost in space, and sometimes downright petulant and rude like someone that never learned their damn manners, Gufus to Kerry's Gallant. Unquestionably I myself am going to be more strongly pre-disposed to the cold, reserved, intellectual types. But the constant characterization of Kerry as this cold, fact-spouting "Boston Brahmin", after these debates I finally really don't get. There's something that I've really come to like about him, something very curious about the thoughtfulness and confidence of his approach, that I would love, love, love to see in action in the White House. Really and truly.

Kerry was almost preternaturally calm during these debates, and what I think will become more and more discussed is how self-confident he must be if he can take a good solid moment to compliment the President sincerely on his response to 9/11. I think any typical campaign advisor would think, my God man, are you suicidal, bringing up the opponent's shining moment and highlighting it? But no, watching the poise and grace with which he delivered these encomiums was wonderful. And I think - subliminally or no - that my response is not unlike the response a lot of people are going to have to him, and are having to him. That likeability gap is closing fast, and with good reason. I can't see how anyone, in their gut, couldn't be impressed as hell with him. When I watch Kerry, while there's the straightforward issue of "is he Presidential", which without a doubt anyone with clear eyes would be forced to admit he is in spades (as certainly as his opponent is not, conservative denial states be damned) - there is another issue, harder to define, and easier to get laughed at for trying to define, whether beyond the huggermugger politics which he like any politician is forced to mouth, there isn't someone with a very strong moral code who not only "seems Presidential" but in fact deeply deserves to lead this country. Maybe I've just been watching too much West Wing, maybe I just want to believe too strongly that there really is a Jed Bartlett out there waiting to stand as a moral beacon in the White House, guarding the interests of the common man. But I don't care. I've really loved watching him in these debates, watching the absolute glacial calm, with occasionally just the merest hint of an amused smile, while he waited his turn to speak, the measured pace he would take to drive a point home without having to raise his voice or lose his demeanor, the fact that he was always perfectly ready to jump in with an informed, articulate, smart, rational response (not like he didn't occasionally make us all cringe with certain of them), and how he never seemed fazed in the least by Bush's attacks. I want to see him take this election more than I ever imagined I would. Yes, admittedly for me Kerry used to be "anybody but Bush". Not anymore.