Don't fret, loyal readers! I was surprised to find emails and comments this morning concerned I had "gone soft" on Kerry. I most certainly have not! But I do think both candidates did a very good job in the debate last night, and I do think Kerry had a seemingly rational and reasonable rebuttal to the flip-flopping charges. I don't agree that his reasoning is accurate, for it seems clear that the flopping was more about Howard Dean, and saying anything it took to get the nomination. But for a voter not following politics as closely as those of us political junkies, I can certainly see how Kerry's argument may have been persuasive, and therefore I have to give credit where credit is due.

However, upon watching most of the debate a second time, I understood why it seemed Kerry was stronger -- he's found a way to neutralize the flip-flopping charge by being on both sides of each controversial issue at the same time. Consider over the last couple of years:

• Kerry spoke out strongly in support of the Iraq war, then spoke out strongly against it, and last night says he's for it again but would have done it differently.



• Kerry spoke out for the Patriot Act, then passionately against it, and last night says he strongly did support the Patriot Act (!) but would have applied it differently



• Kerry spoke out for No Child Left Behind, then gave speeches condemning it, and last night says he very much supports it, but would have funded it differently.



• Kerry spoke out against tax cuts, and has a record of voting for nearly 100% of tax increases and against nearly 100% of tax cuts, then said he'd cut taxes more than Bush, and now is saying he'll cut middle class taxes but raise taxes only on those Americans who have money (and create jobs).



• Kerry has a 100% voting record in support of every abortion procedure (even partial-birth), yet has been giving speeches to religious people explaining he's "pro-life" and hates abortion, and last night said he's a proud Catholic who, in his words, isn't "pro-abortion", and has nothing but the utmost faith and respect for pro-life people, but believes in, and I quote, "making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise." (If someone could translate that into English I'd really appreciate it.)



• Insert similar lines here about Kerry's shifting positions on outsourcing, health care, drug reimportation, medicare, etc, etc, etc. Can anyone think of a single position Kerry has held consistently over the last two years? Doesn't that scare you?

Perhaps most continually incomprehensible were Kerry's dual arguments that (1) the Iraq war has cost war too much money (that could have been used for social programs back home), and (2) Bush has underfunded the war and our soldiers don't even have enough money for body armour. You don't get to have both of those positions, Senator!

In contrast, I thought Bush was very consistent and unusually clear on his goals, interests, aspirations, and strategy. He continues to convey a stronger sense of leadership and optimism which Kerry lacks. And, what really won me over from Bush last night was this:

But history will look back, and I'm fully prepared to accept any mistakes that history judges to my administration, because the President makes the decisions, the President has to take the responsibility.

I think that's what I needed to hear: an acknowledgement that he's human, and trying his best with all the information given to him, and that the buck stops with him after all. I've often said I'd rather have a President I disagree with but who has conviction, over a President I agree with who lacks integrity. My personal and political beliefs are spread across Bush and Kerry almost 50-50. So in the case of who to support, I have to pick who I feel has detailed a true vision -- not a pandering political opportunist who tries to have every issue both ways if it will give him a few more votes.

(On a final note, someone commented that, "I think it's great how after reading that book, you seem to have a totally different tone in your article," referring to my admission that I just finished reading a very beautiful novel right before watching the debate, placing me in a more conciliatory mood. This is quite possible and something I hadn't considered, and perhaps explains why I was less impressed with Kerry when I watched the debate a second time. I still have to give Kerry credit -- it was the first time I thought Kerry seemed genuine and Presidential. But that wasn't meant to imply that I feel he is genuine and Presidential.)

Well, I just finished watching the debate (I viewed it on a 40-minute delay because I first absolutely had to finish the novel I was reading, "The Time Traveler's Wife" by Audrey Niffenegger, which is not only one of the best novels I've read in years but also the first novel to make me break down in tears twice). And I have to say... I am absolutely floored at both Bush and Kerry's performances tonight. For the first time in months, I've felt proud to support President Bush. And, for the first time ever, I really felt that John Kerry was Presidential, and impressive. In a way, I suppose it was a bigger win for Kerry in my eyes because it's the first time I didn't despise him. For the first time, I felt that Kerry actually did have integrity, did have genuine opinions, and could picture him as the leader of the country. And now, for me, I get to disagree with Kerry not because of his flip-flopping, but because I think his positions are wrong.

I wish all debates were this useful.

Unless you've been living under a rock the past few weeks, you know that Bush and Kerry have their second Presidential "debate" tonight (in quotes because a "debate" in which candidates can't ask questions and are required to speak in little memorized sound bites isn't particularly "debate"-ish.)

Tonight's version is a modified town hall format, in which everyday people ask the questions of the candidates, as long as they don't deviate from the question they say in advance that they're asking. But it still gives the candidates someone to look at, respond to, talk with, other than the moderator or the camera, which sometimes leads to more off-the-cuff answers. When you know your questions come from a moderator, they're a touch easier to predict. Assuming that the public's questions aren't too generic (i.e., "what would you do to fix the economy?"), there might be some interesting exchanges. Remember four years ago, when a gentleman asked Bush why he always seems gleeful when talking about the death penalty -- that was a very good question that would never have been asked by a moderator, and Bush had a very good and humble response which impressed me immensely. In an election this close, it's little things like that which can make a big difference.

I'm not going to have a live chat after this debate (but likely will after the third one). But I thought I'd share an edited snippet from our first online chat below:

[djj] the idea that the terrorists will all of a sudden stop hating us if we have a democrat in office seems a little naive

[gojohnjohn] if Gore has been president, would 9-11 have still happened?

[pjcampbell] I'd say it's a safe bet 9/11 would have happened regardless

[BostonTodd] No, Gore would've prevented 9/11

[openears] interesting... how could gore have prevented it?

[BostonTodd] By keeping up the vigilence -- Bush & his admin laughed and were surprised at the resources being used by the Clinton admin on counterterism

[Jim] Clinton slashed the military to the bone, and it still isn't back up to where it belongs

[BostonTodd] Terrorists won't stop hating us, but Bush has guaranteed another 50 years of terrorism by invading an arab country

[djj] I believe we went into Iraq with good intentions and was the best decision based on what we thought we knew.

[Tiffany] I do think that too ... but why are we STILL there

[djj] Because if we leave now, the country gets taken over by warlords and terrorists and then we have an even greater threat than Saddam was

[Jim] we have to stay until Iraq is ready for self governement, or it is all for naught

[elemgee] GWB and friends had good intentions (I suppose) but they didn't listen to significant, credible, experienced voices who disagreed with their predetermined course.

[MaDr] The preponderance of evidence from most world sources including France & the UN said Saddam had WMD

[skerry] agreed

[djj] Look at it this way -- a cop goes to question a guy about drugs, he freaks out and runs away, the cop chases screaming at him, finally catches up with him, arrests him and searches him for drugs, and doesn't find any. So why'd he run?

[ami2late] right. Saddam was ACTING like a guy who had wmds

[Tiffany] but once the cop catches up and sees no drugs ... LEAVE HIM ALONE

[MaDr] Saddam had all his weapons making capability, just waiting for the sanctions to end - Rus, Fra, and Ger were pushing for that. How long before they ended and we were all in the soup

[djj] I still don't quite understand Kerry's position, to be honest -- he goes on and on about the war being a mistake, that he wouldn't have gone, but somehow, that the world is safer without Saddam

[djj] was he just hoping Saddam would have conveniently died of natural causes, and Uday and Qusay decided to make a democracy instead?

[elemgee] Ok.... how about this. The world is safer without Saddam. The world is more dangerous because of the US invasion of Iraq. Both of those things are true.

I think there are some good points brought up in that little exchange, and these types of rational, reasoned discussions are taking place all over the nation and the world. But they're not taking place between the increasingly partisan and stubborn candidates for office. This knee-jerk "everything the other guy says is 100% crap" dialog helps no one. If Bush and Kerry got to sit down at a table and just share their respective ideas, in a conversation, we'd all learn much more about them than the current debate formats allow.

All work and no play makes John a dull boy.

I didn't get a chance to watch the full debate until much later this evening, but let me offer a few observations on the event now that it's over, before I allow myself to be too corrupted by the pundits and news magazines and opinion polls I'll undoubtedly immerse myself in tomorrow.

First of all, I had no idea who Gwen Ifill (the moderator) was until tonight, but thought she did an amazing, outstanding job. Not only did she take her job very, very seriously, but I'd challenge anyone to be able to guess her own political persuasion based on her questions. She was tough as nails, yet fair and respectful to both sides, and I'd take her over Lehrer or Brown or O'Reilly or Brokaw any day. I want to see more of this person.

During the first few debate questions, I have to go against the seemingly conventional blogosphere wisdom here -- I don't think Cheney was on his "A game". I thought Edwards seemed far more confident, comfortable, and interesting, and put Cheney on the defensive especially with regards to the tenuous Saddam-Al Qaeda connection. In fact, I was so shocked at Edwards' strong performance, I began to wonder if Cheney was ever going to stop wringing his hands a la Dr. Evil and stand up for himself.

Luckily, the Vice President eventually regained his footing, and began to expose Edwards for what he was -- a shockingly inexperienced senator who often didn't know what he was talking about. Edwards helped Cheney along in this critique by being completely unable to answer Ifill's questions without resorting to quoting a (sometimes unrelated) stump speech sound bite. By the end of the debate, it was clear that Edwards can't talk extemporaneously about, well, anything. Cheney might not be a public speaker, at all, but at least you could tell he was speaking from knowledge and experience, not memorized notecards.

A few things about Cheney's performance particularly impressed me. His chastizing of Kerry and Edwards' refusal to acknowledge the sacrifices of Iraqi troops cut Edwards down hard. His biting comments about Edwards never showing up to vote were quite powerful (though apparently the two did meet at a prayer breakfast last year, just never in the Senate because Edwards is never, ever there.) And the way Cheney waved his 90-second rebuttal, after Edwards' tried to drag his gay daughter into the debate, highlighted the Vice President's integrity and class, a quality rarely seen among these four men running for executive office. More importantly, Cheney really, really knew his stuff, he knew his facts, he knew his history. Edwards knew rehearsed and repeated sound bites, and was lost when the moderator tried to steer him away from them.

(Oh, and on a personal note, if I hear John Edwards one more time complain about higher health care and insurance costs, after a career of causing those increased costs by suing doctors and HMOs and hospitals out of existence through frivolous and meritless lawsuits, I will start sending him my ever-increasing diabetes medical bills and asking for a personal check.)

And yet, I'm not one of those saying Cheney "spanked" Edwards or "creamed" him in the debate. I admire Bush for picking a man like Cheney who could help him govern (for he certainly wasn't picked to help him get elected/reelected), which is a stark contrast to Kerry picking the inexperienced Edwards because polls told him to. But Cheney has a stubborn inability to connect with the average voter. He is brilliant, informed, knowledgeable... and inaccessible. If you read the transcripts, it's difficult to imagine someone thinking Edwards won the debate. But watching the televised event, as most Americans did, it's quite different. Yes, Edwards was only speaking in snippets from past campaign speeches, but he sure looked better doing it. The reason Edwards was such an effective trial lawyer is because of his ability to connect with people. Cheney has no such gift, and it hurts him in this situations, where the wringing of hands and hunched back and downward gaze and muffling the lapel mike make him seem woefully out of place in politics in today's media age. For better or for worse.

If I had to make a final, digestible little assessment, I'd offer this: as with this year's first Presidential debate, the incumbent won on substance and the challenger won on style. Which are you looking for in a leader?

So last night, the eve of what may be his only debate for an executive office, Edwards said the following:

"If you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you've lost your mind."

This strikes me as a very, very, very stupid move on Edwards' part. Cheney is known as the attack dog, and tonight Edwards could have presented a contrast, with all that bubbly boyish optimism he wraps himself in. Going negative seems a stunning miscalculation if the desire is to differentiate himself from the sitting VP. Cheney could pull off being negative because he looks grouchy, but like an irascible old grandfather you love just the same. Edwards doesn't look right being negative, at all -- it seems forced, and coached, and ingenuine.

Maybe he was just trying out some pundit-style rhetoric, to make a little news before the debate, and will be himself tonight after all. If, however, Edwards invents and presents a completely new and previously unseen persona this late in the game, Cheney will come off as the more balanced and rational of the two, adding a needed boost for Bush's campaign.

More full articles are coming shortly, but I'd be happy to share a few Quick Takes for now.

The Tightening: Yes, as expected, the race has tightened up after the typically lackluster performance by our Commander-in-Chief during Thursday's debate. This was so highly anticipated it was practically a self-fulfilling prophecy -- when every major news network and newspaper is telling you repeatedly that (1) Kerry won the debate and (2) the race is sure to tighten up, gee, I wonder what the next round of polls show! It's important to note that Bush hasn't lost any support, really; just a lot of undecideds and moderates went the other way. I'm not willing to concede those votes as "lost" yet, though -- we'll see what the next few debates have in store. As far as I can tell, this country is firmly 45% Bush, 40% Kerry, and 15% undecided, which means that Kerry needs at least 2/3rds of the undecided/independent voters to push him over the top. Bush, needing only 1/3rd of these swing voters, has more to lose in these debates, but also less of a threshold to reach.

Cheney v. Edwards: I personally think Edwards doesn't stand a chance. After all, he's only the son of a millworker.

Kerry's Notes: The blogosphere has been going nuts that Kerry brought notes and/or a pen to the first Presidential debate in violation of the (lengthy) memorandum of understanding, but, eh. The hidden story, I feel, is that if Bush had been the one allegedly bringing a cheat sheet, it'd have made the mainstream press in a snap. I know many people get tired of the old "liberal media" argument, but in recent weeks if you haven't become convinced that 95% of the mainstream press will stop at nothing to insure the defeat of President Bush, you're not paying attention. (This is an independent question from whether you think they're right or not.)

Iraq: Bremer's mad at the troop levels, Rumsfeld is insisting better days are just around the corner, the Iraqi people are excited about voting but distrustful of their own new government (and police force), Samarra is looking up, successes and failures are both being made on a daily basis, and so both sides sound ridiculous: Kerry for claiming nothing has gone right, and Bush for claiming everything's peachy (expect that it's, you know, "hard work.") How about we all agree that Iraq turned out a bit harder than we thought, but if we work together we can get the job done the best we can and let them be. I have faith in two things: one, Iraq will eventually settle down, and two, I'm sure whoever wins the election will take full and complete credit for it.

In addition, there's a great article over at ludicrosity.com entitled "He Drew a Circle" which has got me thinking lately; worth checking out.

(By the way, I realized I never posted exerpts of our first debate chat; anyone interested in seeing this? There were some good questions raised, I thought, in addition to some fun typical chatdom such as: Tiffany> What's all this talk about being bilateral? / Skerry> I'm bi-lateral ;) )

Wasn't able to make a post this Monday, but I had two requests to share a couple more of the old studentangle comics, so enjoy!