Pretty Decent, NYT Debate Editorial

The New York Times does a pretty good job of debate analysis today.

If Americans who tuned into last night's presidential debate were waiting for one of the candidates to catch the other in a fatal error, or leave him stammering, the event was obviously a draw. But if the question was whether Senator John Kerry would appear presidential, whether he could present his positions clearly and succinctly and keep President Bush on the defensive when it came to the critical issue of Iraq, Mr. Kerry delivered the goods.

And they rightly observe that Bush's spinning platitudes didn't work:

But last night Mr. Bush sounded less convincing when he had to make his case in the face of Mr. Kerry's withering criticism, particularly his repeated insistence that the invasion had diverted attention from the true center of the war on terror in Afghanistan.

To everyone's surprise the debate did have a lot of substance unfortunately for Bush none of the substance helped him.

Before last night's debate, we worried that the long list of rules insisted on by both camps would create a stilted exchange of packaged sound bites. But this campaign was starved for real discussion and substance. Even a format controlled by handlers and spin doctors seemed like a breath of fresh air.

Bush's constant mantra that being critical of the war or the way it was being run was disloyal to the troops and threatened the war effort seemed to fall on deaf ears.

Mr. Bush, whose body and facial language sometimes seemed downright petulant, insisted, again and again, that by criticizing the way the war is being run, Mr. Kerry was sending "mixed signals" that threatened the success of the effort.

The Times said "Mr. Kerry delivered the goods", I'm not sure that's true. It is not so much what Mr. Kerry did but what Mr. Bush didn't do that may make the debate a pivotal moment.