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