So I'm going to jump in as well: I say Kerry won.
- Kerry repeatedly reminded the audience that the so-called war on terrorism was originally intended a campaign against terrorists, and not against merely oppressive governments. Bush was unfortunately stuck with his own record as an incumbent, and couldn't, even if he wanted to, have agreed.
- Kerry did much to dispel the notions of flip-floppery over Iraq, by stating clearly that he believed Saddam Hussein to be a threat, but disagreed with the actions taken by the current administration.
- Kerry also firmly argued that he prefers that a "strong coalition", with a balanced commitment from several nations, working together in fighting terrorism (and the like)--this in contrast to Bush's (in my opinion, hollow and unjustified) contention that the coalition of America, Great Britain and Australia (and later Poland) was just as effective.
- Kerry made a commitment to work against nuclear proliferation everywhere, noting American hypocrisy regarding anti-bunker munitions (tactical nuclear devices, not strictly WMDs!); Bush restricted that to nucular [sic
] devices in the hands of terrorists (and presumably "rogue states")--he did not encourage nuclear disarmament in general. - Bush's statements about the International Criminal Court were practically criminal themselves, in their insensitivity and gross disregard for the opinions of non-Americans. To claim that the courts are a sham and that the officers of the court are not held accountable for their actions sends an intolerable message--that Americans are the only arbiters of justice, in his view. (This was a minor issue, but from a non-American's perspective, it reveals much about the underlying bias against the involvement of the world in American affairs.)
- Bush's diction was more stilted than Kerry's, and he was responsible for a number of awkward pauses. Though his abilities as a leader aren't affected by awkward pauses, his image as a public speaker was tarnished.
- Bush's repetitious nature has been wearing on me (less so Kerry, but that could be bias talking), and this debate seemed to introduce no new ideas from the Republican camp. This could have something to do with their "stay the course" policies.
- On a related note, Bush said that he was steadfast and unshakable in his core beliefs; Kerry said that his opinion changed as his knowledge and experience changed. Isn't it funny that this in some fashion parallels the difference in opinion between religious fundamentalism and secular humanism (in that one has everlasting, unimpeachable beliefs and the other has everchanging and inherently imperfect beliefs)....In any event, I'm not insinuating anything--it's just an observation.
- Kerry repeatedly pushed the idea that Bush made wrong decisions. I think that this makes for a very compelling strategy on the part of the Kerry campaign--show that Bush made (in his opinion) the wrong decision, with the same evidence available to him (as Bush repeatedly pointed out, to his own detriment, I'd say).
- Kerry, on several points, got a "free pass" when Bush was seemingly caught off guard by Lehrer (the moderator) telling him to take 30 seconds to make another statement; Bush was often reduced to repeating himself, while Kerry usually (but not always) managed to get in some further content. Bush also rambled incoherently when he brought up the anecdote about the lady whose son had been to war--it may have been sentimental, but it allowed Kerry to capitalize on that point.
To Kerry's disadvantage, however:
- Kerry did not speak clearly about his "global test". I think (and would hope that) he meant that Americans would allow the needs of other nations' peoples to influence his decisions--but at least it was clear that domestic matters would be primarily decided by domestic needs; that's fair enough. In any event, Bush ridiculed it, and because of the shaky support by Kerry, this issue could find itself sticking around.
- Kerry couldn't provide an exact synopsis of his plans in Iraq. To be fair, two minutes to explain a totally new policy is next-to-impossible, but he will still be dogged endlessly by this point unless he clarifies it at the earliest opportunity. To his credit, he did clarify that it was, in his opinion, possible to withdraw from Iraq, starting in 6 months; he did not make a firm commitment--interpret that as you will.
So as a practical matter, why was a Canadian watching an American debate? How many Americans can even name the Canadian Prime Minister? (To use an oft-repeated--in Canada, at least--but slightly disingenuous question.) It's because the rest of the world (including the U.S.A.) matters; it ought to concern more Americans what's going on in the world, and I don't think Bush has covered that issue adequately. Kerry has done better, but the current exclusivist mentality in much of America doesn't lend itself to earning votes through appeals to the world community.
The debate which was allegedly devoted to foreign policy had much to do with inherently domestic issues. This brand of terrorism isn't so much a foreign policy issue, for it's clear that terrorism against Americans is the only terrorism that was dealt with in the debate (excepting the very last question, in which Russia was briefly mentioned). Though that terrorism occurs primarily in foreign areas occupied by Americans, a proper "leader of the free world" (self-styled as that may be) would likely be expected to address terrorism wherever it exists, and not merely against those places that are politically expedient. This is a bitter pill for Americans (and likely everyone involved), but anything less makes it painfully obvious to those who observe world events that much of the "good fight" is bravado and posturing for the domestic market. I would say that Bush is guilty of it, and he is not alone among American presidents in that judgement. Neither is America alone in that situation--even Canada has been known to put its selfish interests above humanitarian needs. Even so, in whatever small ideological measure it represents, it would be a moral (and probably Pyrrhic) victory for Kerry if he were to choose to work with the world to solve its problems and earn the "leader of the free world" title. It's a slightly naïve wish, but given time, that's the direction that America should be heading. The current America-first policy is appalling, and undermines everything that the United Nations (and the League before it) did for the world--America renders them irrelevant by simply ignoring them, and in so doing, harms the citizenry of the world, and earns the adulation of around 50% of the American population. What a strange country America can be, sometimes.
In the interests of disclosure, it is probably obvious that my political opinions are more closely aligned with Kerry than with Bush--nevertheless, I have no party line to maintain, and have made an effort to remain lucid and fair in my assessments. Even so, one must always remember that bias is everywhere--discovering and interpreting bias is therefore a most critical skill.
(And as an administrative matter, I noticed that there was at least one similar response in the
other debate thread--it wasn't a poll, so I think it's fair to create a new thread for that purpose, and to discuss this debate specifically).