Presidential catfight

09.30.2004

First, I think Kerry won the debate. This isn't a statement about his message — or whether anyone should or shouldn't vote for him — but about composure. Bush was more passionate, perhaps, but often bordered on ranting. And. Despite the obligatory mid-debate "we both like each other personally" moment. Both candidates really tore into each other. Ironically, they tore into each other over petty differences. At least that's how I see it. Let's see:

Both candidates pointed out — over & over & over — that Saddam was a threat, that he needed to be removed, that it probably would've taken force to do it, and that we needed allies to do it. So. Essentially. This boiled down to a 90 minute debate over the number of allies. Kerry, obviously, wanted more. Of course, wanting & getting aren't always the same thing. So the question of whether we did enough diplomacy prior to the war is, essentially, a subjective question. If you think we did enough diplomacy, Bush is your man. If you think we didn't, Kerry's your man. If you think the war was unnecessary & wrong ... well, um, I guess there's some third party candidates you could think about.

Both candidates defended the US president's right to act unilaterally — and preemptively at that — to secure American security. Both made it clear they'd work to build alliances, but wouldn't let other countries or the UN dictate American security strategy.

Both candidates avoided the issue of a timetable for w/drawing form Iraq. Bush wants to stay as long as it takes to "get the job done" but leave Iraq as soon as possible. Kerry wants to get out of Iraq as soon as possible, but only after we get the job done. And both argued they'd do whatever it takes to win. OK. So the troops stay in Iraq until total victory. Check.

Both candidates made sure to be as militantly hawkish as possible on the war on terror. Kerry went so far as to announce (twice) that he'd concentrate on "hunting down & killing" the terrorists. And just to make sure he's not out-hawked, Kerry announced he'd increase the size of the US military by at least two divisions (that translates to about 30,000 ground troops).

The night's interesting twist was North Korea. Bush insisted on no bilateral negotiations w/ the Kim Jong Il regime, but rather a multilateral approach involving Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan. Kerry insisted that the US should negotiate alone w/ North Korea. Wait. Who's the unilateralist candidate again?

Other than that, a pretty boring debate. I came away w/ the impression that both candidates would do about the same as the other on foreign policy, w/ minor exceptions. Now I'm off to watch the Daily Show post-debate analysis, which should prove much more interesting.

-----
NOTE: Both candidates were so similar (except for their "I'm better at making friends than you" catfight), that not only did they wear matching suits, so did their wives. Check the last minutes: both wives walk out on stage w/ the same haircut & white dress suit. Eerie.

Posted by Miguel at 11:02 PM

Comments

"Kerry insisted that the US should negotiate alone w/ North Korea. Wait. Who's the unilateralist candidate again."

>> Kerry actually said that he'd pursue both: a multilateral approach as well as direct negotiations. Although I suppose that boils down to a multilateral approach, provided that a multilateral approach includes direct negotiation between the US & NK.

Posted by: tom at September 30, 2004 11:36 PM

I think Kerry won it too, especially on composure. Bush's cutting in and obvious annoyance was turning me off. Furthermore his speaking style - jumping in topics, loosing concentration seemingly, studder and trembling. Not that confident look.

Sen Biden just said in a post-debate special that the US had been asked by the members of the multilateral round on talks with North Korea that the US should also hold bi-lateral talks with North Korea. So maybe that is why Kerry prefers bi-lateral talks - as a supplement to multilateral talks involving China, South Korean and Japan.

Posted by: Melli at September 30, 2004 11:36 PM

That's not actually what I heard. Although I was watching in a public place, w/ fuzzy analog reception. So I might've missed some of Kerry's nuance. But it seemed to me that Kerry hammered the point about wanting bilateral talks w/ North Korea -- which was the Clinton strategy, and didn't work.

Personally, I've no opposition to bilateral talks. I just find it ironic that Kerry opposes Bush going it alone in Iraq as a matter of principle -- but support it in the context of North Korea.

Posted by: Miguel at September 30, 2004 11:45 PM