October 1

One down, two more to go.

So the general consensus was that John Kerry "won", whatever that really means. There doesn't seem much doubt that the Senator was the more accomplished debater - we knew that to an extent going in.

There was no knockout punch from either man. Kerry didn't have a "Bentsen moment" and Bush didn't blow it. If anything, last night will just make anyone who might be wavering take a closer look, and Kerry at least succeeded in appearing presidential.

There seemed clear differences in poise and confidence - exacerbated by television's side-by-side and cutaway shots, which left a visual impression of Kerry as at ease, and Bush as discomforted and occasionally floundering, even more than his actual answers indicated.

However, to the president's advantage, the splitscreen often showed Kerry nodding in agreement to Bush's comments. Kerry appeared much more serious when he was making notes, or looking straight at moderator Jim Lehrer.

The audience for the second debate will now likely go up, whereas in 2000 it went down after the opening Bush-Gore salvo. Anyone who was already a Bush supporter would probably not have been motivated to switch, but Kerry may have picked up a few undecideds.

The ink-stained press, as Howard Kurtz observes, gave the nod to the challenger, while many of the now mainstream political blogs like the Daily Kos gave varied takes - often focusing in on specific questions or statements by either candidate - while there was much analysis of how the performances played with various demographic sections.

But, really, sometimes you just have to wonder at some focus groups. (Maybe seemed like a good idea at the time, great headline though...)

In all, though, it was occasionally reminiscent of that classic SNL image where Jon Lovitz looks at Dana Carvey and says: "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy!" (also cited here in an Al Franken transcript that's worth revisiting...)

And finally, try this debate montage from the Democratic National Committee, or this bizarre, almost terrifyingly surreal nonsense from the GOP.

September 29

Twenty-four hours to the opening debate.

Here's some of the questions that should be asked.

Howard Kurtz in The Post talks about how voters will likely perceive the debates and the spin that surrounds them. It'll be an ongoing theme in the next 24 hours, as there's much debate over the true importance of such stage-managed events.

The Post also seems to think that Kerry will press the President hard on Iraq, even to the extent of adopting some of his opponent's tactics.

Interesting piece in The New York Times on potential problems for absentee voters, together with a poll number - and an interesting demographic slice - that shows that Americans with passports favoured Kerry over Bush by 58 to 35 per cent.

Times also has an op-ed by Al Gore on how to debate Bush.... Oh, let's not go there.

But the former VP sums it up thus:

The debate tomorrow should not seek to discover which candidate would be more fun to have a beer with. As Jon Stewart of the "The Daily Show" nicely put in 2000, "I want my president to be the designated driver."

Finally, a story from South Carolina that somehow you just knew would wind up with the candidate stressing he was "running a positive campaign of ideas... blah blah blah...".

September 27

The opening debate looms, with the rumblings already starting to make it look like a possible must-win for John Kerry.

Nice piece in the Times about Rollin G Osterweis (who he? read the piece)

The Times also revisits Joe McGinniss's seminal look at Nixon's 1968 campaign, while Adam Clymer looks at why this year's debates and coverage of them are as crucial for the press as they are for the candidates.

He writes:

This is ultimately a challenge for newspapers because television isn't interested, not even the cable networks with their longer political broadcasts. Indeed after watching the coverage of the Swift Boat story, it is easy to imagine an evenhanded cable exchange revolving around a political ad saying one candidate thought the earth was round. Its sponsor would be challenged on cable by someone who said the earth was flat. In an effort to seem fair to both sides, journalists can forget to be fair to the public.

On a related note, the Columbia Journalism Review lists what it thinks are the top political reporters. Who's the most interesting name on the list? The answer will come as no surprise to anyone who reads this column regularly....

Still on the media, the chatter continues around Rathergate, while there's some interesting signals that the blogosphere is riding its wave pretty nicely thank you.

And just to illustrate how tight both sides believe the race stil is, despite some of the recent polls, particularly in swing states, every potential voting group is being targeted in one way or another.