Some more NYTimes (Wilgoren) debate analysis

[No Mandate Here.]

<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/02/politics/campaign/02strategy.html?oref=login>

This is actually reasonably fair reporting, but one line struck me, especially when taken in the context of the post debate tantrum that * is reported to have had.


<snip>


Among Mr. Bush's advisers, the verdict was not entirely different as both campaigns spent the day after assessing how they fared in Thursday's debate. Although the White House said the president had performed well against a skilled opponent and had exploited Mr. Kerry's weaknesses, some Republicans working with the campaign acknowledged that Mr. Bush had not hammered home with sufficient vigor some of the points he set out to make.

Mr. Bush, for example, had been prepped to cast his opponent as deeply inconsistent for calling on the one hand for an international coalition to help in Iraq and on the other to label the conflict the "wrong war at the wrong time." He made his case on that score explicitly once, and by implication at other times, but never fully developed it in the way some of his advisers had hoped he would.

"While he made the points, he didn't draw the picture as clearly as he wanted to," said one prominent Republican adviser, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of appearing critical of the president.

As the Bush campaign insisted that nothing in the race had really changed, Mr. Kerry's strategists were relieved to find the first of this season's three presidential face-offs proceed largely as they had planned.

<more>

It reminds me of the K Chronicle cartoon that has every other panel written upside down... The first panel has * saying he is a uniter, not a divider, and the upside down second panel quotes him "You're either with us or against us" We knew he meant this about anyone who isn't lockstep with him on Terra, but it is through the ReThug party, as well. Even his advisors cannot disagree with him and his puppeteers.

[Tamyrlin79]

1. Tantrum? What tantrum?

I don't doubt it, but where is this report from? Is there a link? If not, what's the supposed scoop?

[No Mandate Here.]

2. I saw it on a blog, and have been looking

for it since I saw your post.

The report said that the language was rather colorful.

I couldn't be the only one who saw this. Anyone else?

I will post a question in GD2004 and ask.

[No Mandate Here.]

3. It wasn't on a blog, it was here...

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=948384&mesg_id=948384>