From The Diplomad:
"As we see it from the Far Abroad, Kerry was better on his style than he has been, but not too much better on substance; Bush was the reverse, not good on style (e.g., humming, slouching, smirking) but much better on the substance than his opponent and showed a good mastery of both detail and overall policy. Kerry needed a knock-out; he didn't get it. Bush needed a tie, he certainly got that and probably even got a win on points.
UPDATE (3:30 PM; Oct. 01 2004): On reading the transcript of the debate, we picked up a Kerry line we missed while watching on our puny TV set with the crappy reception here. He is opposed to the US having 'bunker buster bombs' and would immediately cancel their development? That joined up with Kerry's remark about a 'global test' in order to defend America, should give the Bush campaign lots of ammo over the next few weeks. Once again, Kerry is opposed to America having modern weapon systems; once again, Kerry wants the rest of the world to have a veto on the US ability to defend itself. We must now revise our initial view of the debate; if the Bush campaign exploits these Kerryisms, then we agree with Hugh Hewitt that the debate could prove a disaster for Kerry."
