It's not that Kerry pulled off any great coup. He made his points just as the President did. But for Kerry, who voters regularly judge less qualified than Bush on the issues debated Thursday night, fighting to an even score may be a win in the short term. Kerry was able to make a case that Bush's certainty "can get you into trouble." The president made his case too, but he's had less trouble doing that than Kerry has. The Bush team would like to paint Kerry as incapable of handling serious issues of national security. Did they succeed? A Bush adviser put it bluntly: "We are on defense. We were counting on Kerry being Kerry and he came to play. We didn't expect that."

Still, the flip-flopping issue is still alive in the coming days for Kerry as he tries to square his positions on Iraq. Kerry seemed to say the Iraq war was a mistake but then said that soldiers there were not dying for a mistake. He criticized Bush's stewardship of the war more clearly than he has before, but the question remains whether voters will judge that as at odds with Kerry's vote for removing Saddam. Intellectually there is a thread to Kerry's views, but can voters follow the nuance? It does also seem hard to square how Kerry can say the war was a mistake but then make promises about bringing other countries in to help solve that mistake. "He had difficulty still in maintaining the same position," said John McCain after the debate.

	ANALYSIS A Debate in Spite of Itself James Poniewozik: Bush v. Kerry, Round One came off as spirited and substantial despite rules designed to tone it down The Iraq Debate We Deserved Matt Cooper: Both Bush and Kerry scored points in a smart, rousing debate Reality Check Tony Karon takes a look at the facts behind the candidates' claims: Bush | Kerry GRAPHICS Past Debates: Turning Points The moments that won and lost the contests between presidential candidates POLL Who won the first presidential debate? George W. Bush John Kerry Draw CNN.com America Votes 2004 Complete coverage of the debates and the presidential election

President Bush clearly came into the evening with an overriding goal: reminding voters about Kerry's constancy and making the case that was dangerous. Kerry's message was also simple: Bush fumbled in Iraq and lacks the nimbleness to change when circumstances warrant. Was Kerry's message as politically effective? Bush's is more prospective, raising doubts about how Kerry will behave facing the next challenge. Kerry's attacks, as effective as they might be, are largely about what has happened in the past and may not raise equally significant fears about how Bush would handle another four years.

Have voters moved beyond the flip-flop question? When you skate over the same pattern you can fall through the ice. Being repetitive is usually considered a Bush strength but hitting the same note always leaves the possibility that voters can think a candidate lacks new ideas or can't make a genuine response beyond the talking points. Voters listen carefully and get annoyed when they get the same canned answer. If they were put off by John Kerry's regular tours back to Vietnam (I counted at least four), they also get angry when the President constantly repeats that Kerry's mixed signals will not win the war on terror.

Bush also seemed to make the most overt case that Kerry's comments on the stump have an effect on the battlefield, sapping troop morale and sending a positive signal to the terrorists. This has been a charge the campaign has always hinted at but been reluctant to make so bluntly.

Before the debate Bush's advisers said the President was in the zone. "He's a big game player," said a top aide. "That means he may miss the little stuff, but when it comes to the fourth quarter, he's the guy you want to have in the game." But Bush did not seem as passionate and alive as he can when talking about these issues on the stump. Kerry wasn't particularly zesty as a performer either, but no one expected him to be.

Then there were the things the candidates didn't say with words. There was a lot of talk in the press corps about Bush's smirks. Will they damage him the way the sighs did for Al Gore in 2000? The Bush team knew going into the debate that the biggest problem for the President would be that he couldn't hide when he is in proximity of those he judges highly pompous. Clearly Bush voted with his face tonight. He thought Kerry a windbag and his advisers are worried about what messages that sends.

Do the smirks matter? One difference between Bush's visible irritation and Al Gore's during the last race is that most Americans already know about the smirk. Al Gore's behavior was a new manifestation that fed an existing narrative. Bush's behavioral attributes are well known. If voters didn't like it they've probably already moved past Bush and are planning to vote for Kerry. To the extent that Kerry looked more reasonable and therefore not smirk-worthy, perhaps Bush's mannerisms might have looked petty. For a debate that was more substantive than any might have predicted, the smirk might also dissipate as voters focus on the so many more serious issues discussed and on which there are real and clear differences.

BACK TO TOP