The First Debate

Kerry and Bush had their first of three debates last night, this one focused on foreign policy. The first debate is crucial since it is the one most people watch, and this year because it is on foreign policy which both candidates have elevated to the top of the campaign strategies. The debate came off about as one would expect, both sides repeatedly expressing their canned phrases and themes.

Bush did not come off as well as he could have. He so repeated the same things over and over and in such an obvious way that it did not look good. He was more defensive in his comments than Kerry, but the president did not need to do as much. On those occasions where Kerry gave him an opening, he took it but did not get too aggressive with it. For example, in explaining his approach to pre-emption, Kerry talked about a "global test," an unfortunate choice of words that allowed Bush to fire back that he would defend the United States, and not hand decision making power regarding defense to foreign countries. Commenting on what should have been done in Iraq, Kerry mentioned another round of sanctions, giving Bush the opening to repeat how foolish that would have been. If I may mix metaphors, all Bush needed to do was play a prevent defense, and when the openings came he hit singles.

Kerry landed no major blows against Bush. There were a couple of times I thought the president just lobbed up a pitch to Kerry that begged to smacked over the fence, but Kerry missed all opportunities in order to stick to his script. One of Bush's favorite points was to question Kerry on comments like "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time," asking if that is how a commander in chief should talk. "What message does that send to the troops?" was Bush's favored refrain. Kerry could have retorted something along the lines that a president who has inherited a mess should be honest about it. (Admittedly, he tried. "I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam.") Another point was about the inspections regime against Saddam Hussein, with Bush repeatedly using that as an example of the failures of pre-9/11 diplomacy. Here's a simple response: Mr. President, IT WORKED! In a spat about Kerry slighting the coalition Bush assembled, the president specifically mentioned Poland. Kerry could have responded by reminding the audience that the Polish president felt Bush had misled him regarding WMD intelligence before the war.

This was Kerry's one big opportunity to explain his foreign policy views, especially regarding Iraq and the so-called war on terror. He did a good job explaining himself, and addressing some of the soundbites the Bush campaign has used over and over to support the flip-flop theme. But I don't think he took the next step of making a compelling argument for himself. The strongest part of Kerry's performance was in enumerating the examples of the president's failed leadership. Examples included

• poorly equipped troops in Iraq, where some parents are privately buying Kevlar jackets and sending them to their kids in Iraq "as Christmas presents,"
• poor security in harbors, where "ninety-five percent of the containers that come into the ports, right here in Florida, are not inspected,"
• poor security at airports, where "civilians get onto aircraft and their luggage is X-rayed, but the cargo hold is not X-rayed."

Those themes should be hit much harder in the remainder of the campaign. But having opened that door, Kerry walked away.

In the end, Kerry came off well and probably "won" the debate. He had the chance to explain his differences with Bush, and to address those soundbites, and he did. But he still didn't make a compelling argument for what he would have done and how he could do better. Viewers will come away impressed with Kerry, but with their minds unchanged. Therefore, Bush actually won.