Well, that was not fun. The debate that is. I guess I'd give Kerry a slight edge. Though, his strategy seemed to be utter audaciousness. But before I get into that, let me say the format was dreadful. Does anyone think it's a good idea to for a candidate to have 3 and a half minutes at a time to talk? You know it's too much time, when even Kerry has trouble filling it. At one point about thirty minutes in I reached for the remote, not knowing if I could take anymore, but I reminded myself that this was important. Now I wonder.
That debate drained the life force right out of me. Basically, for two reasons. Kerry's willingness to lie on such a stage is amazing. And I think he did it so often and with such "conviction" that it was effective. How could anyone respond to all his misleading statements? Two, Bush didn't take the opportunity to pound him. Kerry's "strategies" are non-sensical at best, and many times I think Bush passed up a chance to point that out. Of course, I think part of the reason for that was because he was having to set straight all of Kerry's misinformation. It was just very frustrating.
Luckily, I think a nominal inspection of Kerry's ideas will reveal them as the jokes that they are. "Better, faster" is not a strategy, and definitely not a new idea.