a little hubris by W on the "i'm gonna win" line, but so far so good.

Is it just me, or does Kerry remind anyone else of a Used Car Salesman?

[Off the cuff] Summary: If you trust Bush, and you appreciate all of his platitudes that weren't backed up by hardly any facts and figures, vote for Bush.

If you want a wonk, vote for Kerry, who seems to have dispelled many of the myths about his commitment to protecting America.

Clear win to Kerry.

Unfortunately, only about five minutes was devoted to homeland security. As I've continually pointed out, Kerry could score huge points talking about things like possibly allowing terrorists to infiltrate the U.S. via our porous borders. Perhaps during the domestic or townhall debate someone will bring that up, and to that we'll have two minutes of sputtering from Bush.

Misrepresenting the "global test" looks to be the major BushBot talking point. Look, he was saying we need to make sure that we look good to the world about the things we do, something that I and many other greater pundits on all sides have said. Expect this to be used to call Kerry a "globalist." They're both globalists, it's just that the globalism of Bush is barely covered in the press.

From the live-blogged debate here.

I thought it was a tie. I wish President Bush had sounded more like his usual confident self, he shouldn't try to be so nice in the next debate cause on TV it looks like he is being too timid. Maybe Bush wasn't feeling well cause he stuttered a lot more than he usually does. I also didn't like when he said "I hope so" and "I hope not" so much like about Iran and the other times. If Kerry is going to harp on the "I have a plan" line like abroken record it sure sounds like we're about to hear "Hope is not a plan" and he is just giving Kerry an opening.

Not even close. After 4 years the President still has no clue about the world beyond Crawford. He may be fit to be Mayor of Crwaford, but he is the worst President in modern American history, and he showed the simple mindedness tonight that has made him such. God Bless America.

Kerry's delivery wasn't bad. Bush, as usual, stumbled over his words occasionally. But on policy, in my opinion Kerry made a some major mistakes: 1) bilateral talks with North Korea. Been there, done that. It got us nothing. China and other Asian powers must be involved; 2) a "global test" on U.S. military action? No way! What is Kerry talking about?!?! 3) Handing Iran nuclear fuel to see what they do with it? Is Kerry nuts? Why don't we just give them a couple of nukes to see what they do with those? It's, frankly, one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard from a politician; 4) others may disagree, but I just don't see nuclear proliferation as the biggest threat to our security, and IMO, it shows just how much Kerry just doesn't get it. The biggest threat is terrorism. The kind of weapons the terrorists use is a secondary issue. Chemical weapons kill people just as dead as a nuke.

Overall, I'd grade Kerry a B on delivery and a D- on policy. I'd give Bush a B-/C+ on delivery and a B+ on policy. On the whole, a Bush win, but not an overwhelming one.

Softballs to Kerry; the questions mostly are "how is Bush wrong here". No questions about Kerry's 20 year voting record against the military.

Bush should openly address the press expectation of Unreal Perfection. My suggestion, grade success: over 2500 Americans died 9/11.
Regime change in Iraq at 2500 or less is great (A), up to 5000 is good (B), up to 10 000 is fair (C), up to 20 000 is barely acceptable (D), over 20 000 killed is failure (F).

In Iraq, so far just over 1000 = A.

Half of the point is focus on how good it has been, half is to get the critics to try to have some other scale, or else accept that Bush is actually doing very well.

Another unspoken issue is the free rider problem on world police action -- the other G-8 countries aren't up for any serious regime change, anywhere. ALL they can do is sit around a table and talk. And complain about imperfect America is. This will have to be addressed, soon.

I do NOT think Kerry could have been better. I do think Bush could have been.
Pretty much a draw -- but a fine debate.
http://tomgrey.motime.com/1096618664#349229

Why does Bush need China to help with Korea when he did not need Old Europe's help to deal with Iraq? Sounds like he is flip flopping. Again.

He needs China, S. Korea, Japan and the others; so that when N. Korea breaks the agreement we will have a local ton of bricks ton of bricks to drop on Kim Jon's head.

If we don't have China on board then striking N. Korea will be a diplomatic disaster.

If we don't have China on board then striking N. Korea will be a diplomatic disaster.

Kind of like our attacking Iraq was a diplomatic disaster with the rest of the middle east? If we had a real coalition of countries with us, we would have had a ton of bricks to drop on them.

Bush is flip flopping all over the place.

Yeah, Bush is "flip-flopping" alright - and if Kerry did it (and he does, and much worse), it's only called "nuance".

Let's see - using different approaches to different problems. Isn't that amazing coming from a complete idiot (who also manipulates the entire world and controls media and is HITLER REINCARNATED).