Last week was a definite turning point in this election. John Kerry proved to Joe American that he would be a strong, mature leader in the war on terror/Iraq insurgency. I'm confident he'll do the same with the other topics in the debate as well.
However, now is not the time to rest on our laurels and assume the second debate will be as easy as the first one. We're going into this one from a totally different point of view, and Kerry's questions will come from a different audience: the American public. (dun dun DUNNNNN!)
The difficulty here? A large part of voters get their news from the media. No, not DKos... that other media. I'm concerned that Fox/CNN/[insert local Repub newpaper name here] will make its subpar brand of journalism felt by audience members asking rougher questions of Kerry than of Bush.
(More analysis and some solutions below the cut)
Undecided voters are in large part undecided by misconceptions they have of Kerry. Most people here have certainly had this particular exchange at some point:
YOU: So, who are you voting for?
CRUCIAL SWING VOTER: I'm not really sure. I mean, on the one hand, Bush seems like he's about halfway done with setting us up for armageddon. On the other hand, I hear Kerry's a flip-flopper, and you know we can't have that.
YOU: (mouth agape, incredulous stare)
To that end, a number of the questions occurring on Friday will be less along the lines of "How will you fix Iraq?" and more like "Why did you vote against the $87 billion?"
This is a challenge, because it does leave Kerry vulnerable. Luckily, though, it's also a big opportunity for him to provide himself as not only a viable alternative but the viable alternative.
How can Kerry get another decisive win? By keeping the burden on Bush for the better part of the debate, while presenting himself as an alternative. This is likely academic to Kerry, he being an experienced prosecutor and all.
Bush, we must remember, didn't put himself in that embarrassing position last Thursday. Kerry put him there. Hughes & Rove are likely to do everything possible to prevent that from happening again, but Bush is far from unflappable. If Kerry can shift the uncomfortable focus onto Bush with his most uncomfortable questions, we'll be golden. It would be ridiculous for me, a totally untrained observer, to presume to offer recommended responses to the Kerry camp. Here are those responses.
With regards to the $87 billion: Here, Kerry would do well to make note of the other $87 billion proposal. The one that wouldn't weigh the economy down with huge debt. Something along the lines of: "There were two versions of that bill. One version would roll back the tax cuts to people making over $200,000 a year to fund the war effort. The other one would turn all $87 billion into debt, to be paid back years later by the American people. I opted to support the first bill, a responsible plan for Iraq reconstruction. You can guess what bill the President supported, and your grandkids will know for sure." I think the last sentence is worded a little cruelly, but it's important to get across that our kids and grandkids are footing the bill for George's irresponsibility.
With regards to the Swift Boat Veterans for Conjecture: This is a great opportunity for Kerry, if he plays his cards right. He can place himself on the right side of history with regards to both Vietnam and Richard Nixon (remember John O'Neill's relationship with Tricky "Dick" Nixon!) By extension, he can remind people which party kept us stuck in Vietnam for too long. And whose party nominated Nixon. The best part is that Bush would be unable to assail him from this angle, because he's already said he honors Kerry's service, and has no military record of his own. I won't make up an example response for this one, though, because my knowledge of the specifics of Kerry's Vietnam actions is definitely inferior to Kerry's.
With regards to the "global test": Alright, if we hear this question, either Gallup's cheating, a Freeper lied their way in, or the President is getting asked about cocaine use at Camp David. (NOTE: I wrote the previous sentence before I saw the Veep debate. Disregard it.) This is a difficult question, because it's diplomacy, and thus requires nuance. The (Al)mighty Wurlitzer has gotten the media to confuse nuance with deadly radon gas, so it's best for Kerry to put this one as simply as possible. Something like "The global test is not the necessary approval of a war by France or Germany. It's an assurance of the support America needs to stand for freedom abroad. If we can't maintain mutual trust and support with our allies, we'll be condemned to fight every battle in the war on terror alone. The Bush administration has betrayed the trust and goodwill of the members of what the President calls "the coalition of the willing" with false pretenses to war. And more importantly, the administration has betrayed the trust and faith of Americans, by isolating them from our friends and allies abroad. There are times when we may need to go to war alone, to protect Americans from harm by terrorists or weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was not one of those times." That may be a bit warlike, but now that the verdicts from the first debate are in, and Kerry's a viable candidate, he can go in for the kill with regards to Iraq. But that's just my two cents.
Those are just a few examples of "fair and balanced"-type questions. Anybody got any others? How about opinions of my responses? Or responses of your own? This is my first diary - please be kind! And remember - when all else fails, the facts have a liberal bias.