From
RCP:
The only way Kerry's calm and measured approach makes any sense from the Kerry campaign's perspective, is if they have a lot more confidence in where this race was strategically before going in to the debate. Maybe they believe the IBD/TIPP poll and the other polls that show this a dead heat or a 1-2 point race. If they honestly felt they were in OK shape, then Kerry's strategy begins to make more sense. The only problem here for the Kerry folks, is that the preponderance of polling evidence, along with the market-based indicators of the race suggest it was not a tie or close race going into last night.
Given that I believe that Kerry was down a solid 4-6 points before the debate, I believe his strategy was terribly shortsighted. Whatever immediate gain he may reap in the initial media coverage, Kerry was not able to draw President Bush into making any gaffes, let alone any major gaffes. And in fact it was President Bush who was able to elicit some Kerry gaffes that the Bush campaign will be able to pound Kerry with in the following days. (Global test, International Criminal Court, bunker-busting bombs).
J. McIntyre's analysis of the debate suggests that Kerry's
"calm and measured approach" was shortsighted, and therefore a mistake. The reasoning is that this approach was one that only someone ahead in the game could have adopted. A candidate, such as Kerry, 4-5 points behind the incubant needed to make more of an impression on undecideds to accomplish something more than an immediate small bounce.
Simon of BOP News has a similar point of view. He states that
"He debated George Bush and lost on the issues."...I saw Kerry stumble and miss every serious chance he got to challenge Bush on his complete divorce from reality".
The suggestion is that a more agressive approach would have made more of a lasting impression on the undecided and have made significant gains in polls as well. One would think both were Republican shills compared to the overwhelming and ecstatic reaction of most Democrats.
So, what if Kerry had been more agressive? It would have changed the context in which Bush's expressions and reactions were perceived. Agression against the Commander in Chief would have provided an excuse for his now-infamous facial contortions and childish petulance. These debates are far more than substance; their success or failure for a candidate depend on perception just as much as understanding of the differences in position.
For the first debate, I think Kerry played it right on the money. He let Bush make the argument for him. However, in the next two debates, a more agressive approach would not only be expected, but essential. Bush is not likely to make the same mistakes twice; he will be coached far more thoroughly to contain his frustration and attack. In the next debate, Kerry must let the country see how deeply the President's illusions run in his vision for the future.