A CLEAR CUT CHOICE:

Battle Lines on Foreign Policy Clearly Drawn (Dan Balz, October 1, 2004, Washington Post)

This was a debate shorn of gimmicks, gaffes, canned one-liners, gotcha moments or even many light-hearted asides. It was as serious as the times in which this campaign is being waged. Bush and Kerry gave as good as they got and laid out for the country a choice between Bush's determination to stay on the course he has been following in Iraq or what Kerry said would be a genuine change in the direction of policy there.

Bush appeared defensive at the start of the 90-minute debate, and at times the camera caught him scowling or frowning as Kerry relentlessly attacked his record on Iraq. But as the debate continued, he made a passionate defense of the values that are at the foundation of his foreign policy: taking the fight to terrorists and spreading freedom across the planet.

Kerry, who was under great pressure to perform well, repeatedly presented his case that the president has led the country astray and that only a change in leadership can alter the equation in Iraq and attract the support of other countries in sharing more of the burden. He also sought to answer doubts about himself by trying to show that he would be resolute in fighting terrorists, albeit in a different way.

Instant polls judged Kerry the clear winner, but Kerry came into the debate knowing he had to begin to undo the damage the Bush campaign has inflicted on him and reverse public perceptions that Bush is better equipped to deal with Iraq and to fight terrorists -- and that the president is far more likable personally.

Whether he began to reverse those perceptions will not be clear immediately. His demeanor may have helped to counter the image Bush's ads have tried to create, but he spent little time explaining apparent contradictions in his positions on Iraq and may have more work to do on that front in the next two debates.

Even one who hates the debates and thinks they should be done away with, has to admit that last night's was about as good as they get and probably useful in differentiating the two men. If nothing else, by the end of the night you knew that the President thinks the response to 9-11 has to be global and requires the extension of liberty across the Islamic world while the Senator thinks it should focus in Eastern Afghanistan and finding Osama. Those visions could hardly be less similar.

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 1, 2004 10:57 AM