I thought Kerry did well, though maybe not in a way that will translate into more votes. He looked presidential and he gave what were mostly short, easy-to-follow replies. I don't understand how people can look at Bush's "deer-in-the-headlights" blank stares and see a leader. But then I never understood how women can look at Mick Jagger and see a sex symbol.
Bush and his spinmeisters seem to be throwing up a number of arguments that almost argue that someone in Bush's position can never be criticized. Rudy Giuliani is on The Daily Show, saying "I don't know how you tell those young men and women [serving in the military] to continue to carry on this war if [you're saying] it's a mistake." Well, okay, but what happens if our leaders do err? Doesn't that argument work to quash any sort of criticism of any military effort?
Bush kept reminding people that Kerry said Saddam Hussein was a threat who should be removed. I kept waiting for Kerry to say, "Yes, but that didn't mean that I don't care how many Americans were killed, how much money was spent and how our forces were taken away from more pressing business to accomplish that removal."
Question: If the studio audience is not allowed to react to anything, why even have them there?
I thought Bush was better at the end of the debate than he was at the beginning. There were moments, especially in his last few statements, where he sounded statesmanlike and like a guy who wanted to be a "uniter, not a divider." I thought Kerry may have gone a long way to debunking claims that he doesn't have actual plans or that he can't give a straight answer.
And I think tomorrow, the polls will be all over the place.
I'm going to go get something to eat.