One Out of Seven...

...is all Bush needs...

Mason-Dixon's track record in 2002 is excellent, having called 22 out of 23 state races in 2002 correctly. So if we take a look at the Mason-Dixon polls published at Captain's Quarters, things are looking very good for President Bush.

So I headed over to the handy LA Times flash electoral map. I gave the states to the candidate currently leading outside or on the 4 point margin of error which brings the electoral count to 266-186 in favor of Bush. That leaves only Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Hawaii up for grabs.

If Bush takes any ONE of those states, he will be re-elected while Kerry needs a clean sweep of all seven. These are the key states to watch on election night: you can go to bed if any are called for the president, so it should be a much earlier night than the pundits are anticipating.

IRS Takes on the NAACP...

...about its tax-exempt status...

It's about time...They've been shilling for Democrats for a long, long time under the pretense of being "non-partisan." I can only hope that their tax-exempt status will finally be revoked once and for all...

Devastating...

...that's what this ad is...

Considering how many times Kerry has mentioned how "Reagan got it right" and cited him approvingly, this would be utterly devastating...This needs to play everywhere, but we can make sure it makes its' way around the internet. E-mail it to a friend and ask them to pass it along...

Kerry's Winter Soldier Testimony...

...comes back to hunt him....

Spoons Gets the Flu...

...vaccine argument just right...

I had read Kevin Drum's piece earlier, but work interfered and I didn't have a chance to post my response. Spoons saved me the trouble...

Ashley's Story...

...is a powerful one...

Progress for America hits a homerun with this one. It's awfully hard to make attacks about Bush's heartlessness and how is he's like Hitler when the factual evidence so strongly refutes that point.

They're investing $14 million in running this ad across the battleground states, and there's no doubt in my mind the polls will move in Bush's direction as a result.

Better Hair...

...that's what Edwards brings to the ticket...

The phrase "vain/glorious" comes to mind...

Republicans Like Sex...

...more than Democrats...

The ABC story says that it has to do with more women identifying themselves as Democrats than Republicans, but I find it hard to believe that there is a large enough gender gap to account for their survey results.

My feeling is that there is a simpler explanation: Republicans are generally better adjusted and happier people, so their sex is better. Democrats are the victim party, the party of grievance, the party of class warfare. If you spend your life feeling victimized by other people, then it's far more likely that you're going to be generally unhappy with your job, your personal life, and your sex life.

Zero....

...those are the odds that this story will be covered in the New York Times...

They haven't covered how Kerry's promises to hold bilateral talks with the North Koreans have stalled the multi-lateral talks while Kim Jong Il waits for a more favorably disposed administration.

Given the huge Haitian immigrant population in Florida and this story's potential to harm him with those voters, they will bury this story as deeply as their shovel will let them...

Our President in Prayer...

...via Betsy's Page...

And this is the man whose opponents call 'Hitler'? Spiteful, hateful little people...

Treading on Dangerous Territory...

...now Elizabeth Edwards decides to stick her foot in her mouth...

For her to stick her piggish nose into the Cheney family business is ridiculous and shameful. She should stick to feeding her face with yet another mouthful of food rather than try to tell Lynne and Dick Cheney how they feel about their family.

Obviously Mary Cheney doesn't feel that way, or she wouldn't be working to get her father re-elected.

Is there no depth to which these people won't sink? Elizabeth Edwards is a disgusting human being for even suggesting that Lynne and Dick Cheney are ashamed of their daughter. I am furious at this small-minded, tub of trash for stepping into their family business to try to score cheap political points.

I shudder to think how much more desperate these people are going to get before it's all over...

Stupid Enough to Put It In Writing...

...that's the DNC under Terry McAuliffe...

Everybody and their brother knows that the Democrats trot out the race card at every opportunity to keep their stranglehold on minority voting. They know that screaming "voter intimidation" will get out the vote. They all know this without being told. Every Republican in the country has figured this out and can see it coming from a mile away.

So why be stupid enough to put it in writing? This is jackass dumb. This is a level of Democratic stupidity and arrogance that we haven't yet witnessed. It's further proof of just how unhinged and desperate these people have become. They want to make sure that even if Republicans get elected, they will have an ax to grind in future elections.

It's the surest sign yet that their internal polling for Kerry is just awful...

Reason Enough...

...for four more years...

Admit it, do you really want to have Teresa on your TV for 4 years?

It's not even close...

Bob Schieffer Channels Dan Rather...

...did John Kerry write the questions?

Bob Schieffer clearly threw a lot of softballs to John Kerry. He even adopted the Democratic Talking Points "backdoor draft" terminology when talking about the military.

"Is homosexuality a choice?" Is that a debate-worthy question? You have 90 minutes with the two candidates for the presidency, and this is the best you can come up with.

More evidence of the bias? Education has always been the president's signature issue, and it should have been a vital one in the debate. It outranks healthcare on the list of "most important" issues to voters. Can you find even ONE question on education?

The question about Catholic bishops saying voting for Kerry amounted to a sin was completely out of bounds. It was designed to give Kerry a national platform to answer a nagging question about his candidacy. How was the question fair to Bush? He's not a Catholic, and in order to have a fair shot at answering the question as phrased he would have had to speak about Kerry's faith (or lack thereof). That's a legitimate interview question, it was inappropriate and biased to ask it in a debate.

Why was Bob Schieffer citing media sources when there are authoritative non-partisan sources? Any question that begins with "The Washington Post says..." or "The New York Times says..." is always followed by asking a Republican to answer the partisan editorial position they put forth. Name me one question Kerry was asked where he was asked to refute a charge put forth by a media organization....That's what I thought...

Bob Schieffer was a disgrace...

The Last Debate...

...goes decisively to Bush...

Kerry screwed up here...big time...

The gratuitous mention of Mary Cheney was uncalled for. If the issue is obesity is it fair game to talk about Elizabeth Edwards? If the issue is healthcare is it fair to bring up Teresa's need to be medicated? Kerry wasn't debating Cheney last night, and it was a cheap shot to talk about his family. Talking about the candidates' families - on either side of the aisle - is generally off-limits, and it's a measure of the desperation of his campaign that both he and Edwards have felt it necessary to start down this distasteful path in order to win the election. Lynne Cheney had it exactly right when she called Kerry "not a good man" for bringing her family into it. Try punching above the belt next time.

Kerry's answer to the question about "strong women" was simply awful. After the president's charming answer: "Listen to 'em. Stand up straight and don't scowl. 'Love at first sight,'" Kerry reminding people how he chased the billions isn't exactly endearing. The uncomfortable silence in the audience told the tale. Then to follow up by talking about his mother? And who believes her final words were actually "Integrity, integrity, integrity"? And if they were, why did he completely ignore her to toss the Mary Cheney cheap shot?

I won't go into all the detail because it's not really new. If you're for government running your life and government solutions to every problem, then you're voting for Kerry. If you're not, then the president is your choice. We all knew that going into the debate so it came down to who screwed up and who didn't.

Kerry screwed up. He lost the votes of many moms with the slap at Mary Cheney, and he lost many wives with his failure to even talk about Teresa in his answer about strong women. He cost himself votes tonight.

Bush, on the other hand, performed well. He was more effective at cutting through Kerry's obfuscations - even calling him out when Kerry claimed more success in the Senate than he was due. When you can get in a shot about Ted Kennedy being the conservative senator from Massachusetts and have it go unanswered, you can walk off the stage knowing that you owned the night.

The Liberal Label Sticks...

...according to Rasmussen...

This is not good news for John Kerry. He's fought the "liberal" label with everything in his arsenal, and President Bush is likely to slam it home over and over again in Wednesday's debate. With 55% of the respondents already viewing Kerry as a liberal and previous polls showing that the large majority of voters view him as someone who says whatever is popular, it also shows that the president's campaign themes have been extraordinarily effective in delivering their message.

The president has never shied away from the "conservative" label. He has, in fact, labeled himself as a "compassionate conservative." And herein lies the problem for John Kerry: 61% of conservatives see the president as "one of them" while only 38% of liberals see John Kerry as "one of them." Which one is more likely to turn out his base?

The End Is Near...

...for the national Democratic Party...

The level of self-delusion evident in this article is astounding. These leftists suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of America.

The only reason this election is close is because Kerry has confused enough "moderates" that he would be a reasonable alternative. This is the reason for all his obfuscation and flip-flops. He has to appeal to people on the right and the left in order to build a national majority, so he has to bury his liberal record in order to gain national acceptance.

So the answer according to the Leftists, of course, is to drive hard left after the election and completely abandon the middle to the Republican party. That's definitely a recipe for electoral success, doncha think?

The Day In Pictures

...over at Powerline...

I know he's too modest to use it, but the picture from the theater in Afghanistan should be front and center of every Bush campaign event...

Waiting for the Other Shoe To Drop...

One thing that I think has been noticeable in its absence from the Bush/Cheney campaign rhetoric has been John Kerry's tenure as Lieutenant Governor to Michael Dukakis.

According to a campaign source who talked to CrushKerry.com, the Bush campaign has long planned on saving the "liberal" card for October. What better way to tie Kerry to the liberal label than to bring out his time in service to the Uber-Liberal Dukakis?

Kerry has deliberately hidden this from the electorate, and I'm sure that the vast majority of voters are completely unaware of it. As far as I know, he has never mentioned it in any way during the campaign and so far the Bush campaign has given him a complete pass on it...Considering how much damage this would do to Kerry, I have to confess to being a bit surprised by it.

I did find an article from the Boston Globe where the current Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey does discuss it. But no follow-up from the campaign, could it be because they didn't want to expend their most potent ammunition too early?

Is the Bush campaign planning on making this their "October Surprise" - a full-frontal Dukakis assault as the month winds down to Election Day?

Only time will tell...

AP Fails Test...

...message...

AP published a test message declaring Bush the victor in the November 2nd message...

...on October 7th...

I've linked to the message just for the curiosity value...I wonder how close to the actual results it will turn out to be.

Just for reference, the message says Bush wins in 37 states with 367 electoral votes to Kerry with 13 states' 153 electoral votes. It also notes the Republicans picking up 3 seats in the Senate and winning the House 229-201-3. (Yes, I know the numbers don't match up with totals up for grabs.)

Coalition of Bribed and Coerced Wins...

...in Australia....

Despite Kerry's best efforts, John Howard was re-elected in Australia. I was holding my breath on this one as the loss of Australia from the coalition would have been viewed as a rebuke of Bush's Iraq policy. It's also a strong indicator that Bush will win our own election on November 2nd.

Right up until yesterday, Howard's re-election was in doubt as polls showed a strong possibility of him losing in a tight race. The actual result?

Howard wins 52-47...

That's not even close...and it also happens to be almost identical to the margin which I have been predicting for the Bush victory on November 2nd...

I guess sending Diana Kerry to undermine our Australian ally wasn't such a winning strategy for the Johns after all...

Thank God.

ABC Meets CBS...

...at Bias Central....

Dan Rather, et al meets Mark Halperin for coffee and doughnuts to discuss how to help Kerry win...

This is ridiculous. Flat. Out. Ridiculous.

I've been noticing the increasing snarky tones at "The Note" (no link because they don't deserve one) as I've read it over the past few weeks. But now there's a smoking gun that clearly says they have no plans to hold Kerry accountable.

I don't mind if they hold Bush accountable. But that's a two-way street. You don't get to give "your guy" a pass if you're a media organization. Media organizations are exempted from campaign finance reform under the farcical assumption that they are dispassionate observers of events. What is becoming increasingly clear in the ever increasing desperation of Democrats everywhere is that they no longer care if people know how biased they are: they just want to beat Bush.

Even if I wasn't going to vote for Bush before, I would be now just to teach these sanctimonious SOBs that we're tired of the lies and double standards. As it is, I think I'll be calling the Bush/Cheney campaign and volunteering to help GOTV and when Kerry loses on November 2nd he can thank Dan Rather and Mark Helperin for all the help they provided.

My Take on Tonight's Debate...

...A clear Bush win...

It wasn't knockout, but it was a big win on points...

If the criticism of Bush during the first debate was that he was repetitive, then Kerry should have avoided that trap and not repeated the word "plan" 33 times and "the president" 68 times.

Let's see the debate lasted approximately 90 minutes. Of that, half the time was the president's and half was Kerry's - so let's give him 45 minutes. That means Kerry said the word "plan" every 82 seconds and said "the president" every 40 seconds. It doesn't get more repetitive than that.

Kerry spent a lot of the time on the defensive tonight - a product of a more evenly balanced set of questions. He clearly fumbled the "right to life/culture of life" questions by trying to straddle the issues and failing - that's not going to play well in the battleground states when put up against the president's clear advocacy.

Most surpising to me was the question on the environment. The question went to Bush and he went through a long laundry list of moves his administration has made on the environment. Kerry's response was weak and non-specific, and I thought that Bush was actually the winner on the question.

The president missed some opportunities to slap Kerry down, but overall did a very effective job tonight.

Some of the more effective verbal jabs from the president:

"You should have shown up on the floor to vote for it."

"He's been in the Senate for 20 years and hasn't done anything about it."

"...Trying to decipher what that meant"

"Want to buy some wood?"

People will remember those jabs, but Kerry said nothing that left an indelible impression...

Afghanistan...

...on the brink of democracy...

Despite all the conspiracy theories about mythical pipelines in Afghanistan, Saturday is going to be a cause for celebration.

Are there opium fields? Yes. Is security perfect? No. It's not a perfect world, but the wilds of Afghanistan that were supposed to be another Vietnam are most certainly not. Afghanistan is not Vermont and likely never will be. But that's not an excuse to naysay, it's just the last refuge of the ideologically blind.

Are ancient statues being blown up by religious zealots? No. Are women enjoying rights they have never had? Yes. Is America losing massive numbers of our young people there? No. Are the Afghanis learning the ways of capitalism and democracy? Yes. Are the people there ready to launch another strike on American soil? No.

By any reasonable test, our experience in Afghanistan is a success. Don't forget when our own elections come around in November.

Score Another Voter for Bush...

...and I'm glad she's on our side...

Stern Gets Sirius...

...he's moving to satellite radio...

I've argued with Jeff Jarvis over the whole Howard Stern issue. We both agreed that Howard should move to satellite but for different reasons, and the move has been telegraphed well in advance so it's hardly a surprise.

It's a great coup for Sirius over XM and will no doubt lead to a huge increase in Sirius' listenership. Satellite radio has been the wave of the future, but I don't think it will kill broadcast radio any more than FM killed AM or than cable TV killed broadcast. Broadcast and AM lost influence because there were other choices. It will further segment the market, but it's not going to be the death knell that many are predicting.

Witness this: Rush Limbaugh reaches 20 million listeners on AM radio every day despite the fact that FM has been around for seemingly ever. This year it was newsworthy enough to make headlines that a cable news channel (Fox News) beat a broadcast network, and cable has been around for almost 30 years. Subscription-only formats will simply never draw the numbers that a free medium provides until the free medium goes away.

There won't be any more headline-making confrontations with the FCC which is pretty much Stern's major shtick, and many listeners who either won't or can't make an investment in a subscription-only satellite radio will simply find other sources for the daily entertainment.

I predict that this move will actually diminish Stern. The reason Stern is popular is that his audience is listening for that "shock moment" that crosses the boundary of what is acceptable on the public airwaves. On satellite, there is no boundary so the shock value will be gone.

Beaten Like A Drum...

...That was the fate of John Edwards tonight...

Dick Cheney won that debate going away on both style and substance.

The reasons Edwards would have been a huge mistake at the top of the ticket and has been kept on the sidelines for the better part of this campaign. To put it simply: he's a lightweight.

He was asked point-blank about his qualifications for the office and couldn't answer it. He was asked to differentiate between himself and Dick Cheney without mentioning John Kerry and fumbled...twice...

Halliburton might sell to the Michael Moore crowd, but it doesn't sell to undecided and swing voters: they care about his service as vice-president for the last four years. Cheney got the URL wrong, but citing factcheck.org was a good move.

Edwards tried, but never really got off a good stinging rebuke. On the other hand, Cheney slapped Edwards down several times. "The first time I met you was today" was perhaps the most effective slapdown of the entire debate.

I'll leave it the other bloggers for a line-by-line analysis of the debate, but overall my impression is that Mort Kondracke's comments on Fox News had it about right: Edwards looked like a puppy dog yapping at Cheney's heels.

Favorable News...

...is on the way...

This story is one more example of why the latest Pew, WaPo/ABC, and Zogby polls showing Kerry still trailing Bush by 3-5 points even in the immediate afterglow of the first debate is such a huge problem for Kerry specifically and Democrats in general.

Let's look at the upcoming schedule:

- Friday's Employment Report: Any reports that show improvements in jobs are going to benefit the president. John Kerry and Old Media can complain how there aren't enough new jobs, but to the average voter there isn't a hill of beans of difference between 100,000 new jobs and 300,000 new jobs if he already has a job or he wasn't one of those people with new jobs. All the average voter hears is "new jobs created" and can equate that pretty readily with a growing economy.

The upcoming report is special though because there will be revisions, no doubt upward revisions, in the employment numbers over the past year. Again, Old Media and lefty bloggers can bitch all they want about the numbers but all the average voter is going to hear is "more jobs created than originally reported."

Trying to paint this economy as some sort of Depression-redux is going to sound ridiculous on a day filled with the news of how many new jobs are being created. I can hear the ammunition being loaded over at Bush-Cheney Central as we speak...

- Saturday's Afghan Election and the offensive in Iraq: The elections in Afghanistan on Saturday - even if they are marred by violence - will remind people that it was the president who led us to free that country, and nothing Kerry can say will change that.

On the offensive in Iraq, I'm of the firm belief that a significant portion of the criticism of our policy there has been the failure to deal strongly with the "insurgency" there. The recent moves in Samarra and Sadr City will change that dynamic decisively in the president's favor provided there is follow-through to Fallujah and other terrorist strongholds.

- John and Teresa: The stream of nonsense coming from these two never ceases to amaze me.

When attempting to defend his "global test" comment in the debate, he makes it worse by expanding it "elsewhere," (I'm assuming he means Martians because the folks from Alpha Centauri are reliably part of the "coalition of the bribed and coerced.") and Teresa is either a complete idiot or completely off her meds - take your pick. They can't keep them silent for another 29 days, and they will continue to give voters reasons not to give them four years on the world stage to continue embarrassing themselves (and us).

- Debate expectations: Bush's lackluster performance in the first debate will inevitably lower expectations for the upcoming debates. In addition, the Old Media considered foreign policy his strongest point while the economy generally favors Democrats and the town hall format was never supposed to be good for Bush. (I would argue to the contrary that Iraq was the president's biggest vulnerability, and Kerry was unable to make his case persuasively enough to move the poll numbers.) But this Friday is going to find Kerry having to make the case for higher taxes and defending over $2 trillion in new spending for which he will have to find additional taxes to cover his campaign promises. I would argue this is Kerry's biggest vulnerability: just ask Walter Mondale how far promises to raise taxes get you on Election Day.

On my hiatus...

...for those of you who are visiting regularly you may have noticed that I took about a week off and have only been blogging lightly of late...

First, I needed a little break...I was suffering from a bit of "blog overload" after the furious activity of Rathergate and the Swift Vets, and the runup to the debate provided a nice opportunity to take a break myself.

Second, work has picked up...lots of stuff happening there, so I've been busier there as well...

Third, I just didn't have a lot to add to what those on my blogroll were already saying. There's an old saying "If you can't improve the silence, don't speak."

At any rate, I should be ready to go for the stretch run through the election now...

First Rule: When You're In a Hole...

...stop digging...

This is why John Kerry has always been doomed to lose. I, and others, pointed out immediately after the debate that the "global test" comment was going to wind up hurting him. I joined Hugh Hewitt in saying that although Kerry scored short-term points with his debate style, the debate was going to wind up being a net negative for him because of the "global test" and other blunders he made.

So how does Kerry repair the damage? By digging in deeper, of course! Now it's not enough to meet the "global test" now we have to meet the test not only "in the globe, but elsewhere."

Stop and soak that in for a moment...."elsewhere"...

Ahhh....smells like victory to me....

"A President for the 21st Century"

I was thinking today about a campaign ad that the Bush/Cheney campaign could run that would absolutely destroy Kerry/Edwards and here's the script I came up with:

John Kerry is living in the past...

He confuses Iraq as a "mistake" and a "quagmire" with his 1960's thinking about Vietnam...

His call for raising taxes and more regulation is pure 1970's stagflation economics...

His call for unilaterally ceasing research into nuclear "bunker busters" is straight out of his nuclear freeze playbook from the 1980's...

His healthcare plan is warmed-over Hillarycare from the 1990's...

His obsession with Enron and awarding of the Halliburton contract under the Clinton administration from the 1990s is more of the same...

In a time of war, is bringing back the failed liberal policies of the past 40 years what the country needs to move ahead?

Our administration has focused on cleaning up the messes left for us from the past and addressing the problems of today with solutions to move the country into the future...

We cut taxes 4 times, freed 50 million people from totalitarianism, prosecuted boardroom misconduct, added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, and we have a plan to continue the progress for the next four years...

Reject the "Back to the Future" thinking of Kerry/Edwards and vote Bush/Cheney on November 2nd...

Tell me what you think...

"We Call That a Target"

...more good news from Iraq...

This is the fundamental problem with being John Kerry: you can't stop things from getting better in Iraq. There is a fundamental misreading (or misleading?) about the right track/wrong track numbers in this country.

It's true that less than 50% think this country is on the "right track," but a good number of those people - and of those people who in some way express disapproval of the job Bush is doing - are criticizing from the right, not the left.

If Kerry thinks that he's on the right side of the issue by dodging left, he's getting some really bad advice. The best criticism of Bush vis a vis Iraq is that he hasn't been tough enough, that he hasn't insisted on cleaning out those rat's nests like Samarra. Kerry's plan to hold a summit is worse than irrelevant to solve this problem.

The biggest problem for the Kerry campaign is that both Allawi and Bush have realized this, and now they're taking steps to fix it. Major offensives in Fallujah, Samarra and Baghdad are systematically wiping out large numbers of insurgents. The only question that remains is can it be done quickly enough to satisfy the American public before the election.

Debate Impressions

On North Korea: Kerry was entirely unconvincing on his call for bilateral talks. I thought Bush was effective in explaining the need for multilateral talks with his emphasis on China's influence with North Korea. Bush could have hit him harder on Kerry's call for unilateralism when it came to North Korea.

On Iran: Kerry fumbled this one badly. Bush nailed him on his call for sanctions - we've had them for a while. Then when Kerry tried to rebut with his explanation that he would have gone about it differently, Bush pointed out that it was the Clinton administration who put them in place. Evidently Kerry either screwed up on his Iran preparation or figured that Bush wouldn't call him on it - either way, he lost.

On Homeland Security: Kerry pulled out a whopper - that the NYC subway was closed during the RNC convention. It wasn't. Unfortunately Bush didn't call him on it, but Drudge and the bloggers are all over it and it will be common knowledge soon. So any temporary advantage he gained on the issue will be nullified.

On Russia: Kerry had a "Quayle moment" for which, if we had a fair and impartial press, he'd be rightly crucified. Treblinka Square, Senator Kerry? Confusing the Russians with Nazis? Not exactly diplomatic. He also failed the "Breslan test" of recognizing the deep impact that had on parents of schoolage children everywhere.

Now to the elephant in the room - Iraq: Kerry had absolutely no response to Bush pointing out how ineffective Kerry would be. Bush chastised Kerry for criticizing Allawi, for calling our allies the coalition of the bribed and coerced, and pointed out the unlikelihood of convincing other nations to participate in the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. Bush also added a couple of rejoinders about Kerry's claim to support the troops being undermined by his vote against the $87 billion and his statement that those who think the world isn't a safer place with Saddam in jail don't have the judgment to be president.

On pre-emptive action: Kerry's "global test" is going to get lots of play - and none of it will be positive for Kerry. Cheney already started last night at his event, and this is probably going to be the memorable line of the debate. Bush's response wasn't as strong as I would have liked, but Karl Rove's ears certainly perked up when Kerry uttered those words and will make Kerry pay dearly for them.

Overall: I think that any number of bloggers could have absolutely decimated Kerry last night. Bush failed to bring up many of the points that are bandied about on the internet and let Kerry escape relatively unscathed. Kerry had a strong performance, but didn't say anything new. For that matter, neither did Bush. I don't think there is going to be any real shifting in the polls because there wasn't any new information added.

I was disappointed in the president's performance: not because I thought he did particularly badly, but because I knew how easily Kerry's debate performance could have been skewered had the president been on top of his game.

This isn't 2000 - style over substance isn't going to win this time. Gore destroyed himself in 2000, and Kerry clearly didn't do that. But people are paying attention to foreign policy this year, and Kerry didn't provide them with enough to significantly move the "who do you trust on Iraq/WoT" questions that would have been necessary to make a real change in the dynamics of the race.

Kerry provided the Bush campaign with some choice cuts: "global test," "Treblinka Square," "NYC subway shut down," "I never said Bush lied," etc. that will come back to haunt him. So I think in the longer run the debate performance will end up being a net negative for him.

Bush's people need to let him have a down day before the next debate. Going to visit the hurricane victims was a nice human touch, but it clearly tired him and negatively impacted his performance. They need to clear his schedule for the day of the next two debates. Granted, he only needs to avoid major mistakes in the next two in order to win, but fatigue can lead to gaffes and a few more hours of campaigning aren't worth the risk of making one.

UPDATE: Check out Hugh's memo. The DNC's response to the debate is a videotape showing Bush reactions. The response from the right is to absolutely destroy Kerry's credibility by comparing/contrasting with previous statements and positions. Which do you think is more likely to change opinions?