Okay, maybe we're biased, GUEST. But a LOT of people out there, many of them Bush supporters, thought he stunk up the joint last night. For example, Bush got clobbered by the ultraconservative Jay Nordlinger, who loves him and wants him re-elected. At the National Review.

A sample:

I thought Kerry did very, very well; and I thought Bush did poorly ? much worse than he is capable of doing. Listen: If I were just a normal guy ? not Joe Political Junkie ? I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate, I would. If I were just a normal, fairly conservative, war-supporting guy: I would vote for Kerry. On the basis of that debate.

And I promise you that no one wants this president reelected more than I. I think that he may want it less.

Let me phrase one more time what I wish to say: If I didn't know anything ? were a political naïf, being introduced to the two candidates for the first time ? I would vote for Kerry. Based on that infernal debate.

As I write this column, I have not talked with anyone about the debate, and I have listened to no commentary. I am writing without influence (which is how I try to do my other criticism, by the way). What I say may be absurd in light of the general reaction ? but so be it.


As he began, Kerry spoke clearly, and at a nice pace. He was disciplined about the clock.

Kerry went right to the alliances. He emphasized the importance of such relationships. At least you can't accuse him of succumbing to Republican mockery on the subject, of shucking this core conviction of his.

Kerry was smart to mention all those military bigwigs who support him.

The senator seemed to rattle the president, about 15 minutes in ? and he stayed rattled. Also, the president was on the defensive almost all the time. Rarely did he put Kerry on the defensive. Kerry could relax, and press.

Kerry was effective in talking about parents who have lost sons or daughters in the war. Bush was fairly good, later, too ? but not quite as good, I thought.

Bush said, "We're makin' progress" a hundred times ? that seemed a little desperate. He also said "mixed messages" a hundred times ? I was wishing that he would mix his message. He said, "It's hard work," or, "It's tough," a hundred times. In fact, Bush reminded me of Dan Quayle in the 1988 debate, when the Hoosier repeated a couple of talking points over and over, to some chuckles from the audience (if I recall correctly).

Staying on message is one thing; robotic repetition ? when there are oceans of material available ? is another.

I hate to say it, but often Bush gave the appearance of being what his critics charge he is: callow, jejune, unserious. And remember ? talk about repetition! ? I concede this as someone who loves the man.

Why did Bush keep requesting a special 30 seconds to say the same thing over and over?

I'm thinking that Bush didn't respect Kerry enough. That he didn't prepare enough. That he had kind of a disdain for the assignment ? "For gooness' sake, the American people are with me. They know I'm doin' the necessary. They're not going to dump me for this phony-baloney."

Well, they may opt for the phony-baloney.