A.L. -

Well, here's a piece of transcript for you:

KERRY: I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing.

This is freaking Iran he's talking about. We should have supplied nuclear fuel to Iran, he says.

This mystifies as well:

KERRY: And now we see beheadings. And we got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border every single day, and they're blowing people up. And we don't have enough troops there.

Hear, hear on that last line.

Listening to those two was work.
Reading weblogs is entertainment, and interesting to boot.

AL: I think I understand the sentiment in the last sentence of your post, but I honestly could not handle listening to Kos and the LGF crew go at it for 90 minutes.

On the whole, I think W missed a host of chances to put Kerry to the sword (not, uh, literally as a mullah might, mind) but my girlfriend was happy to see Kerry "not do too bad."

"Not do too bad," for me is a measure of how far the Democratic party has fallen. Man, we have some crappy choices for candidates.

I also listened on radio, although I listened to XM Satellite, Fox. All three commentators on Fox said Kerry looked better.

He also sounded better. I then switched around and listened to CNN and MSNBC. Most commentators seem to agree that Kerry was the "winner."

I had major problems with Kerry's hat trick of pulling off some coalition. Who? The French and Germans have already said they want nothing to do with Iraq.

But it's not very presidential to sound irritated by a Senator. ;)

Kerry win, but I wouldn't say the margin was huge.

I'm glad to see that I wasn't the only person listening to it on NPR rather than watching it on television.

I called it a draw. I think Kerry won on style, but Bush won on politics.

The most amusing thing all evening was listening afterwards to E.J. Dionne, like a bought-and-paid-for boxing judge, declaring John Kerry the undisputed heavyweight champeeeeeeen of the world, scoring it on his card 15 to 0 for Kerry.

How many times do we have to hear W says "It's hard work". Sounds like he really reaching for something to say.

I also listened via Public Radio. I am disappointed. We've 300M people in the good old US of A, and these two are the best we can do? That's sad.

As Joe wrote, neither candidate was able to articulate the fact that we are in uncharted territory post 9/11. Either you believe that the geopolitics of the world have changed, or you don't. Either you believe that terrorism is a serious threat - that these are people who would have no qualm using WMD or biologicals on anyone, anywhere - or you don't. And if you believe you can't ignore it...

Which is why it is so profoundly disturbing to listen to an hour and a half of Q&A and NEVER hear either candidate speak directly and incisively to this issue. The President is supposed to LEAD - and that includes explicating complex and frightening issues to the American populace.

Kerry doesn't seem to "get it" at all, and Bush "gets it" but doesn't seem to get anything else... the real loser in this debate was the American public.

Forget academia, thinktanks and media pundits. I think there is no more objective and non-partisan analyst than a bookie, and that’s why I keep a link to a bookie portal as a sobering element of my blog.

This are the William Hill odds after the debate Kerry-Bush:

George W Bush --------bet US$ 1 to get US$ 1.50
John Kerry------------ bet US$1 to get US$ 2.50
Ralph Nader -----------bet US$ 1 to get US$ 101.00

There was a very tenuous improvement of Kerry’s odds, which before the debate were at 1 – 2.65

More bet odds at this link: Political Betting

The site is British –of course- and there you can even put a few bucks on who the next Pope is going to be. At: Bet on next Pope

In all fairness, Kerry did outperform Bush last night. However, I believe that Kerry potentially lost the election last night by suggesting that he would enter into a preemptive war only if such a war will pass a "global test."

Most Americans want their president to fight on their behalf with our without approval from the rest of the world. That is what Bush stands for. If necessary, Bush will go to war when America needs him to. The rest of the world's approval will only be icing on the cake.

I believe that the American voters can see through Kerry's slick debating skills and focus on the only issue important in this post 9-11 world: who will make America safer.

If you are interesed in a more detailed analysis of this particular issue, go to nathmonster.blogspot.com

I think you just got me on a good night. Usually, I'm as petulent and long-winded as any Presidential candidate.

www.mayflowerhill.blogspot.com

Mayflower Hill Endorses John F. Kerry

Every generation, it seems, has a challenge. Our parents' generation had the Cold War and the defeat of communism and the communist ideology. Their parents' generation had the defeat of fascism on the European continent and the destruction of Nazism. Our generation's calling is the defeat of jihadism and Islamic terrorism, combined with the sociopolitical liberalization of the Arab and Muslim worlds. It is somewhat peculiar that Mr. Bush has articulated this challenge more prominently than any other American. Liberals, after all, are the ones who espouse grand visions of what the future should look like, and conservatives are the ones who tell them that there is not enough money to pay for their ideas. But Mr. Bush has staked out new ground, and all of Islamofascism's opponents- regardless of any pre-9/11 political affiliations- will be forever grateful.

The Iraq War, however, was seriously tainted by Mr. Bush's decision to sell it to the public and the international community based on sketchy claims about illicit weapons programs. Those claims, as we all now know, were completely unfounded, and America's reputation has taken a vicious beating for it. Serious issues have also arisen regarding Mr. Bush's management of the wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq. American troops are spread too thin, there does not appear to be much logic to the occupation strategy (though recent developments in Samarra may prove that point incorrect (and I certainly hope they do)), and, over and over again, decisions on how to proceed militarily have been made based on domestic political considerations. No serious supporter of the Iraq War, and Mayflower Hill includes itself in that category, ever thought winning the peace would be easy, but the current sorry state of our occupation was- in many senses- avoidable.

Mayflower Hill is less interested in who is President than it is in succeeding in our mission in Afghanistan and Iraq. Right now, the dream of using the full spectrum of American power to end the institutionalized despotism plaguing the Middle East is lost somewhere between Abu Gharib and Falluja. If it is ever to be found again, and if we are to avoid creating, as one of my colleagues put it, "a generation of realists," then we must succeed in Iraq. At the first presidential debate, Mr. Kerry stated, "We can't leave a failed Iraq," and then went on to directly criticize Mr. Bush for being unwilling to secure Falluja. At the debate's conclusion, Mr. Kerry declared, "I'm not talking about leaving. I'm talking about winning." The Senator is, of course, a political animal, and it is difficult to say whether he was being sincere. Without question, it is hard to imagine him wanting to spend four years of a hypothetical Kerry administration sorting out Bush's legacy. But, at that debate, he seemed to demonstrate that he grasps the necessity of succeeding in Iraq. He also seemed to demonstrate that he grasps what it would take to achieve that success. Mr. Bush did not demonstrate either of those things, and provided ample evidence to suggest that he, in fact, grasps neither of those things. Getting Iraq wrong would be devastating for the United States, it would be a huge coup for the followers of jihadism, and it would deal a monumental setback to liberalization in the Middle East, which is why, with reluctance, concern and skepticism, Mayflower Hill endorses Senator John F. Kerry for the office of President of the United States of America.