DRUDGE REPORT 2004�

The Debate:

Grim's Hall does not receive television, and CSPAN.com is lagged up. I will have to watch the debate tomorrow, though I have had a chance to see the transcript and various blog reactions (Instapundit and Allah have links to quite a few of those, both left and right).

My impression, having read a bunch of these, is that only the hardcore on either side think their boy won the day. Indeed, being ready to say "My candidate won," appears to be the very definition of a blinkered, blinders-wearing partisan (except for Kaus, whose claim to be a Kerry supporter is purely rhetorical). The consensus among bloggers is that it was a draw, with no movement to be expected on either side.

The main complaint against Kerry seems to be that he was too defensive ("I have a single plan for Iraq!" Sure, whatever: nice manicure, by the way); the main complaint against Bush seems to be that he didn't attack ("Every time Kerry opened his mouth, conservatives thought of the eight different responses and attacks that they wanted to see, and Bush mostly didn't use them." That's because the campaigns stuck to scripted responses to likely questions, focus-group tested to be sure they wouldn't offend.)

Having read the transcript, I have to say that's not surprising. I usually prefer to read speeches instead of hearing them, as it makes it easier to focus on the merits of what's being said rather than the merits of how it's being said. The transcript demonstrates that Bush was his usual self, clear about what he means in spite of his halting and having to rethink mid-sentence. Kerry's sentences were more polished, which is what everyone expects. In other words, the candidates appear to have played to type. There were few surprises, and I doubt many minds will be changed.

Still, there is some surprise being registered in the blogosphere. Out of kindness to the bloggers involved, I won't link to their posts because I'm going to be a little blunt, and I don't want anyone feeling singled-out.

Some are expressing shock that Kerry advocated giving nuclear fuel to Iran as a way of stopping their bomb program. These people haven't been listening, as Kerry's been saying that all summer. (Indeed, it was the core of the Clinton plan to stop North Korea's nuclear program, and it's likely to be just as successful). The plan is foolish in the extreme, but it isn't new.

Similarly, some have said that Kerry's idea of a "global test" was shocking. I'm not sure why that would be ("decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them..."), but again, it's not new. If you're overwhelmed by the idea that Kerry is an internationalist, who believes that the US should act in accord with the international consensus as to what is right-action, you've not been paying attention.

The difference lies between those who feel that "declaring the causes" is enough, and those who feel that they must convince people of the rightness of the cause. Kerry is, and has always been, in the latter camp.

Overall, though, there is nothing in the transcript that should move a single vote already assigned. For those who have not been watching the campaign, it was a clear presentation of the kind of man each candidate is, and his stance on the issues of the day.

For that, at least, both men deserve a measure of praise.