CNN's Carl Watson calls debate a tie

Here's the story:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate1.analysis/index.html

I guess he didn't watch the same debate we did. To his credit, he's trying to analyze the debate on its substance, rather than on style and image. But he gives Kerry a B+ and Bush a B, and I really don't see how he could think they were that close. The Bush I saw was incoherent and repetitious, though I must admit he did better on substance than I thought he would.

The weird part about the article is that Watson lays out three things that he thinks Kerry needed to do during the debate. And then he says he didn't accomplish them completely, but look how he does it:

The last objective he needed to address was laying out, as the president's father might say, "the vision thing." Kerry did well to reference his Iraq plan and pitch his Web site address, as well as talking about a president's imperative to "get your kids home [from Iraq] and get the job done and win the peace."

But the senator did not summarize his vision neatly, nor did he use two or three anecdotes to drive home a clearer sense of how life might look under a President Kerry. (emphasis mine)

Huh? Anecdotes? Was this the only way he could win? Was this a part of the debate rules that I missed?

And then he does the same for Bush, but he's much more generous in his goals and his judgment of success:

Going in, the president also needed to address Iraq humbly, but confidently. Bush did this well, acknowledging some difficulties, but also noting progress. More important, he tried to explain the rationale for going to war and the post-invasion plan.

I didn't see any of this happen - unless you count repeated references to "it's hard work" - but I grant I missed a few minutes at the beginning. Even so, the fact that he tried to explain his post-invasion plan (or lack thereof) doesn't mean he did a good job of it. And I think the evidence is pretty clear that he didn't do a good job.

There's a double standard here. It's subtler than it could be, but it's still annoying, unfair and bad for our side. Let's send this guy some reasonable, persuasive feedback, shall we?

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form4.html?81

•  Don't bother, he's a whore.

  When John Edwards was announced as VP he said that the only interesting topic was what Hillary would say, because "everyone knows" that "most Democrats" wanted Hillary as VP, and look what they got instead.

  He also likes to brag about the GOP's anti-gay politics and how they're so successful and ooh Bush will win becuase of this.

  by JamesB3 on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 12:45:35 AM PDT

  •  JamesB3

    ... is it just my subjective perception, or are you actually becoming pretty positive about this whole election thingy?

    by mapantsula on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 12:46:56 AM PDT

    •  I have no idea what will happen.

      I'm more worried about Congress than anything else, and we seem to have more problems there every day.

      There's no question that Kerry's campaign has improved drastically over the past month, and there's no question that he was the better man in the debates. The only real question here is how the public will react. I feel like we never get any true grasp of the knowledge of the public, because the media desperately tries to keep anything from hurting the GOP (notice that Watson makes sure that people note Clinton and Reagan both did much better -- implying that they were winners and Kerry will not be a winner), and because many of the polls that will be released this upcoming week are going to be from sources that are GOP shills, overcount GOP voters, and yet are considered nonpartisan and truthful.

      The "spin" on this is that it's all a tie, nothing to see here. The next debate they will spin as a comeback for Bush even if he begins to sniff Kerry's socks and hump his leg. We'll just have to hope that the public is aware of what a big sham this "spin" is. I'm not sure one way or the other if the public is aware.

      by JamesB3 on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 12:52:14 AM PDT

      •  I think I mostly agree

        - for the record, I don't like the knocks you have received for being pessimistic at times.  Pessimism is not defeatism.

        I think the spin is divided between a draw/slight Kerry win and a substantial Kerry win.  I think the latter is the weightier spin, so I think it will stick.  After the second debate everyone will agree that Kerry won the first debate - everyone, even Karl Rove.  They will definitely try to spin the next one as a come-back - "look how the president held his own" etc.  Which means KE04 must a) realise Bush will come out stronger next time, b) prepare to slam him in a more forceful way, c) talk up now about how although Kerry decisively won the first debate, everyone knows Bush will be far more formidable in the second and third debates.  Or rather, talk about how although Bush was clearly petulant and out of touch in the first debate, everyone knows that he will be able to change his mood in time for the second.

        At the end of the day, I wonder how much the post-debate spin about who won matters.  Everyone says that this is what killed Gore.  But what killed Gore was how the post-debate spin focused the public on a particular something that really was in the debates - i.e. Gore's irritation and subsequent catatonia.  Without that something they would have had nothing to work with.  It's what the viewing public remembers seeing that counts.  

        by mapantsula on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 01:03:54 AM PDT

      •  I don't know about the leg hump...

        isn't that scheduled for the 3rd debate? I always thought it was a standard rule of presidential debates that there would be no leg hump until the final debate.
        Actually, if Bush doesn't have a large wet stain on the front of his trousers at the end of the second debate, most of the SCLM will say he won, and if he does, there will be many who still say he won on.... hell I don't know, potty points or something.
        Once again, this was a nice win, but the debates are the cotton candy part of the whole circus. It is there, you wouldn't miss it, but you really bought a ticket to see the trapeze act and the elephants and tigers.
        More...ummm....hard work and one more month of pushing and doorbelling and sign waving and LTE, and phonebankng and never letting up until we bury the bastards, and then we can celebrate.
        At least a little.

        by IsraelHand on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 01:04:45 AM PDT

  •  James, are you trying to ruin my fun?

    Because this is twice tonite you have forced me to agree with you.
    Quick, someone look under James' bed for a pod!
    Man, you are on fire lately, sharp, cogent, lucid posts, some of them even positive in nature.
    Let me reinforce you on this--- We will win!
    Not everywhere, not everything, but enough for a start.
    It is the amazing thing about this country and our history--- we are so driven to better ourselves that our country, sooner or later, gets dragged along with us. Sometimes backward, but mostly forward. We ain't perfect, but damn, we keep trying, and we keep making progress, in spite of ourselves.

    by IsraelHand on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 12:56:38 AM PDT

    •  hurray

      
      I agree, we will win!

      but I think it's really REALLY important for us to win the spin war on this one, which is why I posted about this - it's the most blatant example I've seen of trying to buff the turd that was the president's debate performance.

      by m3 on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 01:00:38 AM PDT

  •  gotta call him on it

    
    Okay, I didn't know of his history of whoredom. But
    if we just roll our eyes, he keeps getting to post this crap - unchallenged! - to a huge audience. If we write in and complain, maybe his editors will at least tell him to try harder. Take a second and tell him he's an idiot.

    by m3 on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 12:58:27 AM PDT

    •  I support your efforts,

      and at least you get to vent your anger at this puppet and his constant horrible grinning (he's all gums and yet he still does that all the time on CNN). I just wanted people to know that he wasn't trying to be fair, he is, like most others on CNN, a whore.

      by JamesB3 on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 01:03:14 AM PDT

•  Shorter Carl Watson:

  "Although Senator Kerry did wipe the floor and toilet with President Bush, he failed to use a nice lemon-scented detergent in the process."

  by mapantsula on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 12:46:05 AM PDT

  •  hee

    n/p

    by m3 on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 12:58:56 AM PDT

•  David Broder's assessment is far more realistic

  Broder at the Washington Post says in his Sunday column that Bush not only failed to do what he needed to do, he barely even tried. He says Bush needed to square his optimistic view of Iraq with what Americans are seeing every day on TV and in their newspapers. And he really didn't even attempt to do that, instead continuing to insist that we're on the right course and making progress -- something even George Will has called delusional.

  by MeanBoneII on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 12:56:07 AM PDT

•  Hard work being a contrarian

  and that's what Carlos Watson is.  He's transparent. It's his modus operandi.  Remember the twins convention speech were not only not bad to Carlos but they were probably a plus.  He's had other doozies throughout this campaign.
  I think he employs an "even a blind squirrel finding an acorn every once in a while" strategy fo distinguishing himself, just being contrarian for the sake of standing out, hoping to get lucky like the blind squirrel by law a averages.

  by Cathy on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 01:18:26 AM PDT

  •  wow

    
    clearly I was missing a lot of context on this one - I thought Carl Watson was just some dude, didn't realize he had a high enough profile that people would already know him. Although, looking at the banner on that story, I guess they do play him as one of their "personalities". My excuse is that I have neither cable nor a television, so all I see of CNN is cnn.com, which is a rather different experience.

    So I guess it's actually a good sign if someone this clearly contrarian is going with the line that it was a tie. It means that the other possible story, which is a big or at least decisive win for Kerry, is what he thinks is the mainstream narrative. woo.

    by m3 on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 01:26:28 AM PDT

•  Carlos Watson Is A Gooper Asshole

  If there was ever any doubt about it, it was clear when he said the skanky Bush twins were the "highlight" of the Gooper convention and said they could be presidential material.

  Nope, no doubt at all.

  by mattman on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 01:30:44 AM PDT

  •  clearly

    
    I was giving him too much credit (see above post). But I encourage you to go tell him he's an idiot in your own words:

    http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form4.html?81

    I told him, in so many words, that his analysis was shallow, insipid and biased, and that the Washington Post did an immeasurably better job even as they parsed what Kerry could have done better. It was kind of cathartic.

    by m3 on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 01:43:10 AM PDT

    •  I hope you don't think people are

      trying to spit on your efforts or anything. A lot of us just really, really cannot stand this man. I'm glad that you're trying to motivate people. You're doing a great job.

      by JamesB3 on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 01:51:45 AM PDT

      •  no problem

        
        No, I get it that he's an asshole - like I said below I was missing a lot of the context on this guy  due to living TV-free.

        And I understand that scorn is (deservedly) being heaped upon him and not me. no worries!

        by m3 on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 02:02:19 AM PDT

        •  I usually boycott the cable news,

          but I watched CNN after Edwards was chosen and I saw more than enough of Watson. Then there's his stupid comments on CNN's website, which I sometimes run into.

          As for living TV-free, I'm closer to that every day, but I just can't give up my reality shows yet. They're easier to take than any of the actual reality we live in...

          by JamesB3 on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 02:13:10 AM PDT

    •  Sent A Comment

      that was a touch less polite than yours. While I doubt that the Gooper shill will read it, it was fun and will give the reader a cheap thrill.

      On a news venue replete with assholes, he is merely another rectal aperture with no credibility.

      BTW, i never forego tellingNN that their ratingsare tanking - down 56%.  Makes them crazy.
      They hate it.  I love reminding them that Fux is better than they are. That makes them even crazier.

      by mattman on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 02:40:18 AM PDT

      •  mojo for you!

        
        Thank you for participating in my tiny crusade. That's a good point about Fux, but I prefer to tell them where I actually take my eyeballs for online news/opinion, which is usually WaPo (and I used to be a regular CNN.com reader). A variant on your strategy - nothing hurts like the truth.

        by m3 on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 12:38:30 PM PDT

        •  Your Crusade is Not So Tiny

          And will be more much effective than you think.  We went after the slimeball Fucker Carlson and it caused him a lot of grief.

          He never, ever used the dirty line about "Jacuzzi lawyer".  Shut him right the hell up.

          Going after CNN can bring results, but going after individual assholes like Carlos Watson is even MORE effective.

          Good work!

          by mattman on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 12:55:52 PM PDT