On the Morning After, Most Big-City Editorials Give Nod to Kerry

By: Joe Strupp Friday morning editorials in major newspapers gave the edge in Thursday night's debate to Sen. John Kerry, for the most part. Although few declared Kerry a winner by knockout, and many critiqued elements of both candidates, the consensus appeared to be that the Democratic challenger had the decided advantage with two more debates to go and more than a month of campaigning ahead.

Even the New York Post -- typically a Republican supporter -- commended Kerry's effort, although it focused mostly on the candidates' differences rather than a specific winner and loser. "John Kerry has reason to feel good about his performance; his much-vaunted debating skills were on full display last night. In contrast, President Bush too often rambled," the paper admitted.

The Los Angeles Times editorial said, "Kerry won Thursday night's debate on foreign policy by a comfortable margin, but Americans may yet decide that President Bush is better able to clean up the mess he created in Iraq." In addition, the editorial declared that Bush "seemed tired and annoyed at having to share the stage" and that "Kerry's command of the facts didn't get in the way of his being lucid and direct. The senator and former prosecutor delivered a powerful indictment of Bush's foreign policy record."

According to Denver's Rocky Mountain News, "Kerry turned in his strongest performance of the campaign in Thursday's debate. He was calm, assured, clear, forceful and articulate. His supporters must be ecstatic."

The Sacramento Bee observed that "Kerry's debating skills surpassed Bush's presentation and may have appealed to undecided voters. But a concerned citizen might have hoped the candidates had offered them more, in detail and substance, about plans for the next four years."

At the San Francisco Chronicle, an editorial stated, "Sen. John Kerry shifted from defense to offense last night, and not a moment too soon. Kerry, slumping in the polls, aggressively challenged President Bush's administration of the war in Iraq and its aftermath." The Chronicle also gave Bush some credit, saying the president "put up a spirited defense of his Iraq policy," but added, "his grimaces and twitches during Kerry's criticisms seemed to convey uneasiness."

One of the most praising editorials appeared in Kerry's hometown Boston Globe, which has often had an antagonist relationship with the senator. "Kerry painted a stinging picture of the American effort in Iraq," the Globe wrote, under the headline "Kerry Turnaround." "Meanwhile, the president's much vaunted ability to stay on message seemed more like a life raft he was grabbing as tough questioning in the 90-minute debate bore in on him and the essential thinness of his message was revealed."

The Washington Post editorial page gave both sides high marks, but seemed to avoid declaring an outright winner. "Mr. Bush stoutly defended his decision to go to war and its results; Mr. Kerry forcefully criticized that decision and the war's management and offered himself as a more competent commander in chief," the paper said. "But Mr. Kerry had a more complicated position to defend, and it showed at times. He called the war a mistake and a diversion, but later said that American soldiers were not dying for a mistake. He implied that money being spent in Iraq could be better spent on prescription drugs for seniors, but insisted, 'I'm not talking about leaving. I'm talking about winning.'"

In the Chicago Tribune, a similar mixed bag of reaction came through, noting that "Kerry flicked at, but inexplicably didn't press, his recent charges that Bush has too rosy a view of today's Iraq. This was a potential vulnerability for Bush. Kerry didn't exploit it. ... Bush seemed to catch Kerry off guard when he noted that the influx of militant jihadists to Iraq proves just how central that country really is to the global effort against terrorism."

But The New York Times was forthright in declaring that "Kerry delivered the goods" while noting that Bush's "body and facial language sometimes seemed downright petulant."

The Detroit Free Press was a dissenter, however, declaring: "Kerry did not succeed in knocking Bush off-stride on a central theme of the Democratic challenger's campaign, that the war in Iraq has taken America's eye off the more important war on terrorism. ... With recent polls showing that Kerry has lost some ground to Bush, the Massachusetts senator did not make great strides in the debate while Bush did what he does best: make his basic points time and again."

Many papers seemed overjoyed that the debate turned out to be far more exciting than some political pundits anticipated, particularly in light of the 32 pages of rules carefully mapped out by members of both candidates' campaigns.

The Tampa Tribune editorial remarked, "The political skeptics were wrong. The first meeting of President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry was far more enlightening than canned sound bites.... You could argue that either man won. But there can be no doubt that voters were the real winners, because anyone who listened saw a reality Thursday night that campaign advertisements can never duplicate."

The Washington Post concurred, with an editorial that stated, "Despite rules designed to curtail direct exchanges, there were, under Jim Lehrer's skillful moderation, pointed and serious arguments about Iraq, the threats from Iran and North Korea, U.S. alliances, and the meaning of the war on terrorism."

The Seattle Times wrote in an editorial, "Given the leaden expectations before another heavily scripted presidential debate, the country was well-served by the intense give-and-take last night. Kerry is not mush; Bush is not dumb."

The St. Petersburg Times admitted that there were "no memorable sound-bites, no knockout punches," but said the debate was "anything but boring. Finally, they said to each other's face what they've been saying on the campaign trail."

Other editorial snippets:

USA Today: "The view here is that Kerry's analysis of Iraq is on the mark. But it is an observation made in hindsight, a fact Bush jumped on repeatedly Thursday by charging Kerry had shifted his opinion for political advantage."

The Dallas Morning News: "The only truly surprising thing about last night's presidential debate was how good it was. Crisp, authoritative and articulate, both George W. Bush and John Kerry were at the top of their respective games. We call it a draw. But because Mr. Kerry did not get the breakout performance that he needs to turn this race around heading into the homestretch, the president won by not losing."

The San Diego Union-Tribune: "Our guess is that the event did little to change the dynamics of the campaign. The straightforward, no-surprises performance of both candidates probably only solidified the views of the vast majority of voters who already have made up their minds. The thin slice of attentive voters who remain undecided probably learned little they didn't already know."

The Philadelphia Daily News: "OK, given that we've already endorsed John Kerry, it would be fair to think we would view the senator's performance during last night's presidential debate with some positive bias. But the man smoked President Bush.... Bush was like a doll with a pull string. Ask him about Iraq, pull the string and the same words came out: 'It's hard work, it's hard work, it's hard work.'"

St. Petersburg Times: "For the most part, the president and his Democratic challenger spent 90 minutes recycling familiar campaign rhetoric that shed little new light on how they would protect America's interests in the world. But the exchange was anything but boring. Finally, they said to each other's face what they've been saying on the campaign trail."

The Denver Post: "Bush seemed almost surprised by Kerry's focused jabs, as if he had expected the Democrat to flip-flop before his very eyes. He was back on his heels more than once, but constantly found his North Star: that his leadership is firm, his core values sure, and he would lead Iraq to freedom and terrorists to defeat."

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "The senator, who appeared cool during the debate, zinged the president for having 'outsourced' to feudal warlords the job of capturing bin Laden -- a clever turn of phrase with echoes in the domestic debates to come. But Mr. Bush effectively exploited the box that Mr. Kerry is in having argued the war was a mistake but still must be won. The president, showing his vaunted ability to stay on message, hammered Mr. Kerry on his changing views on Iraq."