TNR: Kerry won so decisively I don't see many ways for Bush to recover.

[jefferson_dem]

I've never thought the chances of John Kerry winning this fall were very good, since it's become clear these last four years that George W. Bush and his advisers are more cynical and ruthless than pretty much any group of politicos in the country's history. I figured that even if the race got close--or, God forbid, Kerry surged to a late lead--Rove et al. would pull some dirty trick and that would be that. This may still happen--the forthcoming anti-Kerry "documentary" being exhibit A in this brief. But, after last night, I'm not sure it matters. Kerry won so decisively I don't see many ways for Bush to recover.

<SNIP>

Throughout the debate, Kerry was the textbook definition of presidential--authoritative and forceful, but always magnanimous. This was never more true than when Kerry responded to a question pressing him about whether it was really fair to attack the president for poor job growth, since, in such a large economy, the president can only control so much. Kerry, poised as I've ever seen him, responded with a mixture of humility ("I don't blame them entirely for it. I blame the president for the things the president could do that has an impact on it"); candor ("Outsourcing is going to happen. I've acknowledged that in union halls across the country"); and ordinary good sense ("I will ... make certain that with respect to the tax system that you as a worker in America are not subsidizing the loss of your job. ... Today, if you're an American business, you actually get a benefit for going overseas"). Beautiful.

In the postdebate analysis, most commentators were so desperate to find some shred of evidence Bush had held his own--it just wouldn't be journalistic to call the debate for Kerry until you got the go-ahead from the polls--that they repeatedly cited his moving answers on the role religion plays in his life, which came in response to one of the numerous softballs Schieffer larded the closing 20 minutes with. Okay, so Bush was moving about religion. If there's one thing pretty much everyone on the planet already knew, it was that religion plays a big role in Bush's life. Kerry, on the other hand, had previously been close to opaque on the topic. That he would get an opportunity to talk about the profound role of faith in his life, and that he would do it so eloquently--"I went to a church school and I was taught that the two greatest commandments are: Love the Lord, your God, with all your mind, your body and your soul, and love your neighbor as yourself"--gave him the decisive advantage even on this front. In general, while the last 20 minutes of the debate gave both men a chance to get warm and fuzzy, it clearly benefited Kerry far more than Bush. This is for the simple reason that no one knew Kerry could be warm and fuzzy before last night. If you'd have asked me before the debates started how you'd know if John Kerry had throttled Bush, I might have suggested it would be if the postdebate debate centered around which candidate was more likeable. Without a clear advantage on this, Bush has nothing. And he didn't even have that last night.

Noam Scheiber is a senior editor at TNR.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=scheiber101404

[rkc3]

1. During my lunch hour - shortened because my head exploded -

we talked about the debate and why Kerry is the wrong man for America.

Apparently, he's too articulate and not a man of the people. I had to leave for fear of choking someone.

A direct quote from one of bush's minions - "Kerry speaks too well, he's not a good representative for America in high level meetings."

My reply - "bush can't finish a complete sentence let alone a complete thought. How is this good for bringing the world together to fight terrorism?"

The reply - "bush understands the problem of terrorism and is able to speak of it in simple terms."

What surprises me is that I don't think they hear what they are saying. We conduct market research over the telephone - the one woman in today's argument won't hire people if they can't speak clearly as it does not reflect well on the company. Yet when I point this out and her choice for president she tells me that it's different.

Apparently it's not important for our leader to speak clearly.

When did stupidity become an asset?

And then they started on Theresa. She can't be first lady because she doesn't dress well enough - this comes from a woman who walks down the hallway and farts the whole way. In my mind, THK has more in common with the wives of other world leaders (speaks many languages, has traveled the world, understands many foreign customs, etc.) than does Laura "I've never left Texas but did run over a boyfriend" bush.

At this point I left.

[lancdem]

2. "farts the whole way" LOL

That cracked me up.

[Cha]

5. Stupidity is an asset for stupid people..

sorry about your co-worker.

[katmondoo]

3. This is called "KILL with KINDNESS"

[Cha]

4. Good debate analysis!

Thanks!