Round 1
Because I don't get home before 6 and I don't have cable (and because I couldn't make it to the special Democrats Abroad Meetup this weekend), I never saw any of the Presidential debate last week. Instead, I've had to rely on a transcript from the NY Times. As I read through 25 A4 pages (that's 8 1/2 x 11 to you Americans), I was at first dismayed. Although Kerry was conveying his points well, so was Bush. Even without body language and tone of voice, however, it became increasingly clear that as the debate wore on Bush was losing steam. His phrasing became more argumentative, more repetitious, and he increasingly began stammering and trying to interpolate himself the instant Kerry finished speaking, even before Jim Lehrer could signal him to begin his rejoinders. Bush's desperation was plain, so I'm glad to say Kerry won that debate well. News reports here, however, are much less sanguine about his outing, suggesting Kerry didn't do well, and that Bush looks to move pretty easily still back into the White House. I'm surprised by this, but they're also touting Howard's chances to re-occupy the Lodge (and Kirribilli House; the PM gets two homes) over Latham's odds of pulling an upset. This is a strange political bias, I think, given that the papers I mainly read here I've generally thought to be pretty small-L liberal. Perhaps the mood of the populace, that of being overwhelmed by uncertainty in the world and so preferring the easy choice of the incumbent, also infects the media.