Debate, of course.

[kuangning]

Kerry did well.

I am frustrated sometimes at his inelegance when explaining himself; there are things I wanted to hear him say in a few clear and strong words that he did not say. But he said most of what needed to be said, and I'm warmly satisfied, at least, that he pounced on Bush's roundabout implication that we were in Iraq because we were attacked first and pointed out, neatly and concisely, that we were not attacked by Iraq, and conflating Iraq and Afghanistan does not change the underlying facts.

Kerry's referring to Bush "outsourcing" the job of capturing bin Laden was wince-worthy. And "It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong" was a point that badly needed to be stated.

Bush seemed to falter whenever he strayed from "Kerry inconsistent, Kerry depressing". He seemed especially uncertain whenever he was called on to directly explain his own decisions. Kerry displayed his own sometimes-maddening inability to sum his strategy up. He needed to do a bit more laying-out of what, exactly, will take place under his aegis beyond coalition-building, and at the end of it all, I don't feel he did that. However, I don't believe that's because he doesn't have it mapped out, I think it's because he's just not good, damnit, at that level of communication. I would have liked to see him field, without the constraints, that question of what would be indicators that we could disengage from Iraq, what would be the signals that the job is done.

All in all, though, not badly done at all.

Comments

[king-tirian.livejournal.com]

I agree with your analysis, except that I think that Kerry deliberately dodged the question on disengagement. Last time he answered that question specifically, the White House kvetched that revealing America's goals was abeting the enemy's ability to embarrass us, and it seemed to have an unfortunate amount of traction.

[kuangning]

That's true, and more generous than I was being. I still wanted/needed to know what he'd consider signs that the job was done, though, and what it feels like is that I got a more-vague answer than I wanted. Which is to say, the candidate didn't express what I wanted him to and maybe his goals with the debate were different than mine for him. That's more than okay. ;)

[michaelduff.livejournal.com]

I have quoted you here (http://www.michaelduff.net/blog/2004/09/kerry-destroys-bush-in-first-debate.html). Thank you for articulating exactly what bugged me about the debate.

[kuangning]

Thank you for the quote and the link back. I have to say, though, that it's a little disconcerting to be quoted by someone who doesn't support the candidate I do. Given the current atmosphere, where any criticism of Bush is seen as "bashing" by many, including some of my friends and family, finding your comment in my inbox gave me much food for thought.

[michaelduff.livejournal.com]

I've been taking a lot of heat for my criticism of Bush. Most of the people who read me have settled on the notion that Bush won by not losing.

But I don't think there's anything to be gained in denial. Bush is very weak in debate formats, and Kerry was utterly devastating.

I'm not criticizing Bush because I want him to lose. I'm criticizing him because I want him to get his act together.