After watching the debates last night, I think Kerry won (although by a skinny margin).   Immediately after the debate, I was overall sorta nauseous and perhaps gave Bush's position the slight edge while giving Kerry's overall "presidential-ness" a big edge.  After sleeping on it a bit, I think I'm ready to give the bout overall to Kerry.

If you're anti-Bush and/or anti-Iraq War, then there's probably little doubt that Kerry hit the right notes.   If you're the type for whom a southern accent & folksy language sound like nails on a chalkboard & are prima facie proof of illegitimacy, then you probably didn't need much swaying.  If, however, you're like me - pro-Iraq War but progressively anti-Bush - then the debate left you on the fence.  I think my initial reaction to give Bush a slight content edge was motivated by the broad Administration stance but, at the end of the day we've gotta judge based more on what was said in the ring rather than what's true outside of it.

The Administration's underlying position on several of the Kerry's core assertions was far better than Bush managed to portray.   For ex., Kerry constantly carped about internationalizing the effort to ensure that others beared the burdens of cost / casualty.   However, it's been clear for a while and made doubly clear now that France / Germany will not send troops into Iraq and/or bear casualties regardless of Kerry's election.   None of the root reasons they oppose Iraq will change with Kerry in office.  Kerry's position here is fundamentally based on a false choice - a position that sounds great in theory but can't happen in practice.  (see here for a prior post on the Korean War).

Bush could have said "we spent nearly 1 year in the UN trying to get French / German support prior to the war but it became clear that no matter the circumstance, it would never come;  predicating action based on this support is tantamount to not acting at all.  It provides a certain rhetorical comfort to say that you stand for action on these grounds but conveniently avoids having to display the cojones to actually take action."  But Bush didn't.  He instead repeated himself a couple times by saying "why you dissin' Australia & Poland?" and requoting Kerry's "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place" tirade.  It's famously Bush's weakness that he has trouble, uh, communicating.  But man, stuff like this really does need to be communicated - especially in a head-to-head debate.

Kerry wants to double the number of special forces?   The fundamental limit on these troops isn't budget or mandate (I'm sure SOCOM is practically swimming in $$$ and mandate now) but rather the fact that God makes so few Proto-SuperWarriors in the first place whom we can pump through a several year training program.   The fact of the matter is that the most deterministic way to achieve Kerry's stated goal here is to, alas, lower standards.   But Bush didn't say that.

Kerry kept saying that "Iraq was a distraction from Al Qaeda / War on Terror".   Bush could have dramatically clarified the rhetoric by simply saying "My opponent believes that Al Qaeda is the end-all / be-all of the War on Terror;   I believe it's the tip of the iceberg.  The root cause is the hundreds of millions in the Mid East yearning for Freedom and Opportunity.  In particular, the nearly 50M unemployed there live under such repressive regimes that the only thing you can do to Make a Difference in many of their societies is to go out and blow up an airplane."   But he didn't.

And so on.   Perhaps Andrew Sullivan is really getting to me - there's just so much of the Bush Administration's policies that we dislike - particularly domestically.   Yet there's still much to the Iraq war that's worth defending - but Bush did it poorly last night (contrast to Blair).   Bush's saving grace in the election might be that he's the luckiest guy on the planet to run against John Kerry rather than, for ex., Joe Lieberman. 

---

UPDATE - forgot a big one - North Korea. The Irony was simply delicious that Kerry tried to hammer Bush for NOT accepting "bi-lateral talks" (which, in the strange world of diplomacy would be the "unilateral" option).  Bush stood up for the current 6-party talks without ever once pointing out that in this case HE was the person bringing Allies to the table. 

Once again, I think the Bush Administration's position is fundentally the correct one (SDB Emeritus still has the best summary of why we're doing the right thing in N. Korea).   I use this sort of rhetoric lightly but, after this, there's little doubt in my mind that Kim Jong Il really wants a Kerry victory in November.  

However, once again, Bush never really explained why he IS doing the right thing and we're instead left - based on the debate alone - with the belief that some magical bilateral solution exists.  This fantasy ideology, alas, sways debate towards Kerry.

---