#6637: bitchphd — 09/30  at  08:43 PM
I totally thought Bush came across as the student-we-hate, too. But we aren't the electorate.

Check out unfogged when you get a chance, we had fun liveblogging it over there...

#6641: ~DS~ — 09/30  at  09:25 PM
Early poll results:

Insta poll 11:11 PM EST:
Has this debate changed your view of John Kerry?

For the positive: 51 %
For the netagive: 23 %
No change: 25 %
source

Who won the debate?
George Bush 50%
John Kerry 50%
Did it change the candidate you support?
No 73%
Yes, I now support Kerry 17%
Yes, I now support Bush 10%
Total Votes: 76,420

Source: AOL 11:00 PM EST

A seven point pick-up in potential votes. And this was on Bush's 'strong suit' of national security. Can you imagine, given the nervous shuffling and eye blinking on the part of Dubya, how he will fare defending tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of homeland security under the withering fire of criticism he cannot control?

#6643: — 09/30  at  09:58 PM
Has Bush started drinking again?

#6644: Hank Fox — 09/30  at  10:06 PM
Jeez, lotsa heat and light in America tonight! :D

Here's the real truth about this first debate, though:

In this first debate, all Kerry had to do was to be seen as the President's equal ... to appear on TV debating Bush on an equals basis.

That happened. No matter what else, it was a HUGE victory for Kerry.

Any debate points Kerry scored, in addition to just showing up on the same stage with Bush, was pure gravy.

#6645: — 09/30  at  10:50 PM
I've got to say, I didn't want to watch the post debate talking heads, but...

Surprise surprise, the common wisdom comming out of this is looking good for Kerry. At least for tonight, the script was "Kerry strong", "Bush team admits loss", "The Bush eyeroll" and "Polls show Kerry victory."

We'll have to wait to see what happens tomorrow, where, like Jon Stewart said "We'll learn that what happened last night didn't actually happen."

#6647: ~DS~ — 10/01  at  01:11 AM
What we need is a pool on the day and time the next obligatory 'terror alert' rears it's head. What would be truly tragic is if they're not kidding this time and the alert is not taken seriously because of questionable alerts in the past.

#6649: Ben — 10/01  at  03:05 AM
Oh, I loved that Poland bit. I almost thought Bush was lampooning himself, until I remembered that he has no sense of irony. I know I'm biased, but that was a pathetic display. It was like watching an argument between an adult and a 10-year old. Lincoln, Roosevelt and Kennedy had the same job. I can't believe it.

#6650: — 10/01  at  03:33 AM
I stayed up to 4 am to watch the debate (I'm in England). Bush was, of course, pathetic. But I also found Kerry disappointing. I thought he seemed evasive on his own voting record, and didn't adequately explain why he voted for the war or why he voted against the budget proposal for Iraq. I also thought he didn't hammer Bush nearly as hard as he could have done, especially on Iraq. I think part of this may have been a reluctance to admit just how bad the situation is there. He probably reckoned that admitting the war was unwinnable would get him seen as a defeatist.

He didn't mention that the majority of Iraqis want the coalition out and want an Islamic state. So Bush's rosy picture of a "free" and "democratic" Iraq is inconsistent with his picture of Iraq as a US ally. Bush even claimed that a democratic Iraq would be good for Israel. But no genuinely democratic Iraqi government could possibly be a friend to Israel as long as the occupation of the West Bank continues. Bush is living in a fantasy land.

It seems to me that the best hope for Iraq is that an Islamic government is elected in January and it asks the coalition to leave. That would allow us to leave without losing face. The trouble is that it's hard to see how even a half-fair election can take place. Even if Allawi and the US were willing to allow fair elections, the outcome would be biased by the fact that the areas most opposed to the current regime are the ones where voting will be most difficult or impossible.

Incidentally, did anyone understand Bush's reference to "Iranian moolahs"? Was this a reference to multiple Iranian currencies?

#6651: — 10/01  at  06:22 AM
If 'winning' in this instance means who walked away better off politically than when they walked on stage, polls are still showing Kerry got the better of it.

AOL has it Kerry 54 % Bush 46 %.
On the question: Did it change the candidate you support?
No 72%; Yes, I now support Kerry 18%; Yes, I now support Bush 10%.

From Eschaton

CNN / GALLUP POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE
Kerry: 53
Bush: 37

CBS POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:
Kerry: 44
Bush: 26
Tie: 30

ABC POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:
Kerry: 45
Bush 36:
Tie: 17

A number of conservative commentators are coming out strongly that Kerry 'won'. Same for many conservative bloggers.

Don't anyone get complacent. Now is not the time to gloat (OK we can gloat a tiny bit)
You gotta figure Rove has some kind of plan to distract the public from these developments.

#6652: — 10/01  at  07:43 AM
For however much or little it's worth, I thought that, for the most part, Kerry mopped the floor with the Texas Twerp (and Good God, did he look and sound twerpy last night!). Whether it makes a significant difference is the important question, and I'm a little pessimistic about its likelihood of doing so. Bush still enjoys the advantage (a grossly unfair one in this context, but he still enjoys it) of being an incumbent in wartime.

#6653: — 10/01  at  08:22 AM
A very sharp comment, btw, from William Saletan at Slate:


"But the greater shame belongs to the candidate who launched this war, refuses to admit his errors, and now holds the moral pride of his countrymen hostage, blackmailing them into shunning the truth. Tonight he scoffed, 'If I were to ever say, "This is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place," the troops would wonder, "How can I follow this guy?"'

Exactly, Mr. President. If you were ever to give them the correct assessment, they would ask the correct question."