My two cents on last night

For the first time, Thursday's debate revealed the extent of Bush's weakness. (This shouldn't be surprising; it's easy to forget in the wake of 9/11, but the man wasn't popular enough to win straight up in 2000.) Since the towers fell, pumping up Bush has been considered a handy substitute for authentic patriotism. But he's never been assured of winning reelection, because he's simply not that good at convincing people who don't already agree with him that he's right. His only defense has been "don't change horses in midstream"; last night, it was clear that this horse is drowning!



In the words of that great political thinker Michael Douglas, "The Presidency is the greatest home-field advantage in the world." That didn't help Bush Thursday. Incumbency didn't help him; being a wartime President didn't help him; having a taller podium didn't help him; talking about foreign policy didn't help him. With all these advantages, a reasonable candidate would've steamrolled John Kerry. Not only did Bush not win, he actually LOST. This is the biggest debate debacle since Reagan took Carter out behind the woodshed in 1980. Anybody who tells you different is sweating and spinning.



Don't get distracted by the horserace that the media will use to keep selling ads and making money. President Bush's performance Thursday showed more than ever why he needs to go. This is not a partisan issue, or even a question of style--the debate demonstrated that Mr. Kerry is simply more qualified for the job, and more worthy of our trust.



This morning, The New York Times says that Bush is attacking John Kerry on Iraq; he can attack all his likes, but the truth is, there's only one person responsible for the continuing bloodshed over there, and it isn't John Kerry. Could Kerry still lose? Sure--but only if we let him, by not showing up to vote.