Thoughts on the debate

[stevenehrbar]

What was proved:

Kerry is the better public speaker.

Why it didin't matter:

Bush came into the debate with poll numbers showing him drastically favored on national security, so it was necessary for Kerry to land a telling blow to shift it. I don't think he did; nothing new came out. If you agreed with Kerry before the debate, you still will, but he didn't add any new reasons to change your mind.

For example, Kerry claimed he has a plan to win in Iraq – one that will only take six months – while Bush doesn't. But when he was directly asked what he'd do differently in Iraq, all he came up with in two minutes was openly announcing we had no interest in long-term occupation. Huh? If you're one of the 60-odd-percent American majority that trusts Bush on security more than Kerry, is that really the sort of plan that's going to convince you Kerry has a better way?

What might matter:

 I think the debate looks like a moderate Kerry victory tonight. But I think the Karl Rove machine can cut together enough Kerry clips from the debate alone to fuel another thirty-second flip-flop ad. The consensus a week from now, I'm going to bet, is that Kerry screwed up.

Which he didn't, really. He's just in the difficult position of having to satisfy both a base that opposes the war and swing voters who are more concerned with winning it. It's a tough position, which is probably why the more-strongly pro-war candidate wins elections contested during a war (Madison 1812, Lincoln 1864, Eisenhower '52, Nixon '68, Nixon '72). 

Bottom line: 

Kerry needed a KO to change story momentum.  Since he didn't get it, the debate has to be chalked up as a tactical victory and a strategic loss for him.