NRO’s Kerry Spot is calling the speech a draw. So do “the experts” (whoever they are). Of course I’m going to be a bit partisan and say I think the President did well - better than I expected.

He is not a great speaker - everyone knows that. But he came across tonight as unscripted and casual, where as Kerry sounded just the opposite. That’s not to say I didn’t think Kerry came across badly, but he did look stiff at times. Kerry stayed on message and was consistent in his comments - for tonight, anyway.

Key Kerry point: that he would do a better job and communicating with our allies and in a way that wouldn’t offend them. He did an effective job at getting that point across that, per him, the President didn’t utilize every tool at his disposal to build a bigger coalition in Iraq - but he didn’t exactly say bigger, he said “genuine” which leads me to my …

Key Bush points: The President was very effective in nailing the fact that Kerry denigrates our allies by calling them a ‘coerced’ coaliton and by questioning Allawi’s credibility. I was hoping he’d do that and he did. Remember, Kerry is the one who keeps saying, and did so repeatedly tonight, that he’ll do a better job at bringing our allies to the table. Kerry kept playing into the President’s hands with his comments about the coaltion not being a ‘genuine’ coalition. Secondly, the most effective point and I think the “theme” to the President’s message tonight, was the “mixed signals” comments he kept talking about that Kerry gives off with regards to his position on Iraq. As we all know, he’s been all over the map on it. Bush said those mixed signals confuse our allies and make our troops second guess while they’re there - neither of which should be done, obviously. What he essentially did was attack Kerry’s tone towards our allies and towards our troops and the signals that sends out to the world, something I blogged about last week. Here’s was my key point from that post:

John Kerry has given us his plan for how he’ll handle the situation in Iraq should he be elected President. Fine. But the face he puts on any comments he makes about Iraq is the face of someone who really wishes he’d never voted in favor of the war resolution, and would rather walk on hot glass barefooted than to have to deal with the consequences of it. Our troops, and the Iraqi people and the terrorists they face there, MUST see strength in a Commander in Chief, not pessimism and certainly not weakness. This is not the time for jello spines from our world leaders, in particualar, a US President. Our men and women (alongside the coalition and the people of Iraq who are fighting with us) are in the fights of their lives there right now and the last thing they need is a shaky CIC who regrets voting to send them there in the first place who’ll do little more than the bare minimum required there to get them out, rather than seeing the goal of democracy come to fruition in a place where it would do such good, not only for the people who live there, but for the region, and in fact the world. The sacrifices our troops have made, and continue to make, should not be made in vain for purposes of expediency. The President understands that. In my opinion, John Kerry does not.

Here were some of the Presidents comments to various questions and followups tonight that echo the opinion I expressed:

First of all, what my opponent wants you to forget is that he voted to authorize the use of force and now says it’s the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place. I don’t see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. What message does that send our troops? What message does that send to our allies? What message does that send the Iraqis? No, the way to win this is to be steadfast and resolved and to follow through on the plan that I’ve just outlined.

and:

My opponent says help is on the way, but what kind of message does it say to our troops in harm’s way, “wrong war, wrong place, wrong time”? Not a message a commander in chief gives, or this is a “great diversion.” As well, help is on the way, but it’s certainly hard to tell it when he voted against the $87-billion supplemental to provide equipment for our troops, and then said he actually did vote for it before he voted against it. Not what a commander in chief does when you’re trying to lead troops.

and finally:

Now, my opponent says he’s going to try to change the dynamics on the ground. Well, Prime Minister Allawi was here. He is the leader of that country. He’s a brave, brave man. When he came, after giving a speech to the Congress, my opponent questioned his credibility. You can’t change the dynamics on the ground if you’ve criticized the brave leader of Iraq. One of his campaign people alleged that Prime Minister Allawi was like a puppet. That’s no way to treat somebody who’s courageous and brave, that is trying to lead his country forward. The way to make sure that we succeed is to send consistent, sound messages to the Iraqi people that when we give our word, we will keep our word, that we stand with you, that we believe you want to be free. And I do.

Jackpot!

It was essential for the President to get that message across to the American people and I think that was his theme - that Kerry’s position on Iraq as part of the larger global war on terror keeps shifting and that we don’t need a shifty leader like that in these critical times - he did a very effective job of keeping that theme alive through the debate. I’d give the Prez a solid “B” on his performance, and surprisingly, Kerry a B-. Overall, however, it was a draw.

I may add more later but that’s my initial take on it. In the meantime, I’m going to surf the blogosphere and see what others are saying and report back here for duty

More: Hugh Hewitt thinks this is a big (his emphasis) win for Bush. His detailed recap of tonight’s debate may just persuade me - and you out there who may believe this was, at best, a draw - to his side.

Jeff Goldstein believes it’s a draw.

Allah has a round up of critiques. (wink: Jeff Goldstein at the above link) Update: Welcome, Allah Pundit readers

Still more: Mickey Kaus exclaims that Kerry wins. Why? He says man-tan works. Hmmm.

Edit to add one more thing: how in the world can Kerry stand there and say in the same breath that he’d go unilateral - one on one - with North Korea on talks, yet goes for the mulilateral route with regards to Iraq?? This is a guy who’s claimed that Bush went war “unilaterally” with Iraq (we all know that’s not true) yet in the same breath this is how he wants to approach North Korea?

Can someone explain this apparent hypocrisy to me? Maybe I’m having a “Pajama Monologues Blonde Moment” or something.

One more thing before I go night night: does anyone else out there wish that in some alternate universe that it was Zell Miller who debated Kerry tonight? Sigh …

Uptown Girl has started a “caption this” thread at her blog about Kerry’s new faux tan. Check it out! Provides much needed relief from all the seriousness of this election season

So proclaimeth the Kerry team in advance of tonight’s debate:

Advisers for the Democratic presidential candidate demanded Thursday that the lights signaling when a speaker’s time has expired during debates with President Bush (news - web sites) be removed from the lecterns because they are distracting. The commission hosting the debates refused.

Bush’s campaign accused Kerry, known for favoring long sentences and statements, of trying to violate debate rules against windy answers.

An angry exchange between representatives of the Kerry campaign and the Commission on Presidential Debates took place just hours before the candidates were to meet at the University of Miami for the first of three debates, according to several officials familiar with the meeting.

Kerry’s team threatened to remove the lights when they visit the debate site with the candidate later in the day. “We’ll do what we have to,” Kerry strategist Tad Devine said after his meeting with the commission. Later, after Kerry had toured the debate stage and departed the building, the lights were still in place.

Probably trying to tone down the harsh look of that tan.

The word “shameless” doesn’t quite do it justice:

Republicans are criticizing TV ads that show a look-alike of a Colorado congresswoman fleecing a corpse and an American soldier during battle.

In one of the ads, a pink-clad actress with a purse climbs over rubble to rob a U.S. soldier.

”Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave claims nobody supports our troops more than she does, but she voted to slash veterans’ benefits by $14 billion,” the narrator says. The new ad also says Musgrave voted against a $1,500 bonus for soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. In another ad, the woman in pink creeps up to a corpse and takes off his watch. A voiceover says that while she served as a state senator, Musgrave opposed a bill that would have prevented nursing homes from billing patients after they are dead.

”I think they have reached a new low in sleaziness,” Colorado GOP Chairman Ted Halaby said of the ads’ sponsor, a group called Colorado Families First.

… with a little help from the Kerry camp. Don’t think it was on purpose, though

My friend Les, a Kerry supporter, sent me the following email, which contained a quote from an article in today’s NYTimes from ‘Kerry aides’:

From New York Times article: ” . . . At the same time, Kerry’s aides suggested that if Bush accused him of inconsistency in the debate on Thursday night, Kerry might retort that the president had ‘consistently been wrong,’ particularly on Iraq.”

[Les]: Catcher to Barry Bonds: “Uh, Barry–just thought I’d mention that I just signalled for a fast ball right down the middle of the plate. Let’s see if you can hit THAT.”

Heh!

… can be found here.

Yet another example of CBS attempting to Kerry the Democrat’s water.

Wink: Vodkapundit.

Bush has built a nice lead in Florida, but other battleground states remain close. Here are a few snippets:

Florida

The Florida poll, conducted Sept. 24-27, finds Bush leading Kerry 52% to 43% among likely voters, with Nader at 1%. Among registered voters in that state, Bush has a smaller 49% to 44% lead, with Nader at 2%.

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania, a state Al Gore won by 4 percentage points in 2000, has been one of the key fronts in the 2004 election battle. The latest poll, conducted Sept. 25-28, shows Bush at 49% and Kerry at 46% among likely voters, within the poll’s four-point margin of error. Nader was just recently ordered onto the Pennsylvania ballot and is supported by 1% of likely voters in that state.

Among registered Pennsylvania voters, Kerry has 49% support, Bush 45%, and Nader 3%, underscoring the uncertainty of that race as well as the importance of voter turnout on Election Day.

Ohio

The race in Ohio has tightened when compared with an early September poll conducted just after the Republican convention. The current poll shows 50% of Ohio likely voters supporting Bush, 48% Kerry. If Nader were on the Ohio ballot — something he is hoping to achieve through ongoing legal action — he would poll 1% today, compared with Bush at 49% and Kerry at 47%.

As in Pennsylvania, Kerry does better among the larger group of registered voters in Ohio. Currently, 50% of registered voters there say they would vote for Kerry if the election were held today, compared with 46% who say Bush.

In the meantime, Bush has narrowed the gap in Michigan.

Bush is also gaining on Kerry in Oregon.

Be interesting to see how/if those numbers change after the debate tonight.

Will he or won’t he? The speculation continues …..

WHEN George W Bush confronts his rival John Kerry at today’s US presidential debate, he plans to make him sweat.

After weeks of gruelling pre-debate negations, the Bush team won a clause to keep the temperature inside the venue above 21.1C.

The Kerry camp insisted on a chillier environment because their man has a propensity to sweat “and women don’t like sweaters” crowed one Bush official.

That orange glow won’t help matters.

In all seriousness, this election needs to be decided in the arena of ideas, not how one looks or gestures. The Gore “sighs” are widely considered to be the reason why many believe he lost the debates to the President in 2000 but I’d like to think that the President won more on ideas than superficiality. Of course, Kerry is doing his part (as are people from the Republican party - to be fair) of playing the low expectations game. This is pretty interesting, seeing that Kerry was a “brilliant” debater at college and most liberals think the President can’t put two words together without flubbing them.

Stay tuned …

Powerline notes a Washington Post piece today that notes poll figures indicating that there is a lot more enthusiasm from Republicans for Bush than Democrats for Kerry. Key stat:

65% of Republicans are enthusiastic about Bush, versus 42% of Democrats for Kerry

Tonight and the other two debates will be extremely important for Coppertone Kerry. If he can’t even get his base energized, how the heck is he going to persuade undecideds and independents over? Perhaps he’ll be able to do that with the help of always- a-bridesmaid-never-a-bride-Al Gore, who is only all too eager to assist.

Bill Hobbs notes here quite a few investigations are going on in several states regarding voter fraud allegations. Here’s his latest post on the topic. Please check the comments section, which contains several more links to stories about voter fraud investigations underway.

Unbelievable. Me thinks we’re in for another wild election, folks.