IMHO: Debate a draw

I opted out of "liveblogging" the debate. I figure Instapundit would be on it and linking to others who are on it. So go here and scroll up.

My take: a draw.

Truth in blogging: I'm a Bush supporter but I do try to offer as fair and objective an analysis of things as I can which means stating my point of view and not pretending I don't have one.

Both sides had their message and mission: Sen. Kerry had to be sure to avoid Al Gore's mistakes of being too smart aleck and aggressive. On that front (a personality issue), I think he was successful. Sen. Kerry had to draw differences (a policy issue) from President Bush yet not appear to be pandering to the anti-war voters. On this point, I believe he was less successful.

President Bush is regarded as clear in his positions. But there is sometimes doubt about his grasp of detail in formulating those views and carrying them out going forward. President Bush had to assure the voters he remains up to the job with enough of a grasp of detail (a policy issue). On this, I think he was successful. He also had to respond calmly (a personality issue) to reasonable criticisms on Iraq which I think he was less successful.

Let me elaborate on each point:

Sen. Kerry had to be sure to avoid Al Gore's mistakes of being too smart aleck and aggressive. On that front (a personality issue), I think he was successful.

Indeed, he did quite well on this point. He was respectful and didn't lapse into technobabble. He was able to stay within the time limit constraints. The exchange where the two men praised their families was a good moment that showed that political opponents don't have to be rude. I wish average voters who have a point-of-view could be as charitable to a voter who doesn't share that point-of-view.

Sen. Kerry had to draw differences (a policy issue) from President Bush yet not appear to be pandering to the anti-war voters. On this point, I believe he was less successful.

Kerry faced a real problem given his overheated rhetoric against the war in the past. He had to "thread a needle" of taking the position that he'll do a better job in Iraq than Bush yet retain his credentials as a critic of the war. He was able to point out deficiencies on the post-war Iraq problems. These were probably his most effective moments.

However, on other occasions, he criticized the decision to go to war on Iraq in such a strong way that it was easy to conclude that if he sees it that way, how will he resist the pressure from war critics to pull out of Iraq?

Kerry definitely knew he had to be tough rhetorically on Iraq and the war on terrorists. And on several occasions he said he would kill the terrorists. This needs to be said. But on other occasions his critique of the war on Iraq undercut his more firm pronouncements.

President Bush is regarded as clear in his positions. But there is sometimes doubt about his grasp of detail in formulating those views and carrying them out going forward. President Bush had to assure the voters he remains up to the job with enough of a grasp of detail (a policy issue). On this, I think he was successful.

Bush is not the smoothest speaker but he makes his points. North Korea was one of the more sharp differences on policy. Kerry wanted bilateral talks. Bush wants multi-lateral talks. Sometimes you worry that Bush will get tangled in his words but he clearly explained the need for all the nations in the region to be involved.

Bush also took advantage of the incumbancy in talking about the various world leaders he has had to interact with. This is a far cry from candidate Bush who couldn't name world leaders in an interview pop quiz.

He also had to respond calmly (a personality issue) to reasonable criticisms on Iraq which I think he was less successful.

Here is a case where television is different than radio. I watched the debate and at times they had the split screen format to show reactions to the candidate speaking. On a couple of occasions you got the impression that Bush was annoyed? It wasn't a condescension thing or an anger thing but it wasn't the usual good-nature Bush that is often cited as a positive.

The nearest analogy and it isn't a good one is the Reagan-Carter debate. At times, it seemed President Carter was angry and condescending being the incubant having to defend himself against Reagan whom he probably had little regard for.

The analogy breaks down in that President Bush didn't appear to have the same disdain that Carter felt for Reagan. And Kerry doesn't have the sunny manner of Reagan.

So all in all, a solid performance by both sides. In my book a draw.

I'm sure we will be spun dizzy in the next few days.

Did I just spin my blog audience? Was I "fair and balanced?"

I blog you decide! 8-)