In the WaPo editorial,
The First Debate, there's good news and bad news. Here's the part we like to hear:
Yet Mr. Bush's clarity in defining goals was not matched with candor about conditions on the ground in Iraq. Mr. Kerry pointed to the president's failure to adequately deploy and supply troops, to plan for the postwar period, and to correct his mistakes. "It's one thing to be certain -- but you can be certain and be wrong," he said of Mr. Bush.The Democrat was effective in pointing out how nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea had increased while the administration pursued Saddam Hussein.
Wait a second, Bush exhibited some form of "clarity?" Was this the same debate?
Just so we don't get too excited, they conclude:
In the end the candidates drew sharply distinct portraits of themselves and each other. Mr. Bush stressed his own resoluteness, which Mr. Kerry suggested included a dangerous tendency to be divorced from reality. Mr. Kerry stressed his commitment to alliances and patient leadership, which Mr. Bush suggested could mean weakness. Both performed credibly enough to keep voters tuned in for the next debate.
I guess that according to the standards these WaPo editors have for performance, completeing a coherent complex sentence is not a quality that a president needs to be an effective communicator.
Any thoughts?