0-1 and undefeated

I've been having technical difficulties on my end, so I'll keep this short.

I'm still having trouble understanding how Bush won the debate by losing it. His lead in most polls has narrowed or evaporated. The response apparently goes that Kerry's mistakes will hurt him in the long run. I got news for you--the run ain't much longer, we got four weeks left. If Bush "wins" two more debates like this....

Pajama Guy reponds: Well.... The idea was this: Kerry was smoother and more articulate -- but he also positioned himself more emphatically than ever as the anti-war guy. Like David Frum, I thought "Kerry [had] locked himself in a strategic box," and that would cost him votes.

Remember, Mondale wiped the floor with Reagan in the first 1984 debate -- by arguing for a big tax hike.

Bush, the flip side of my argument goes, was clumsy and repetitve, but left no doubt that he was in the war to win it. According to yesterday's New York Times (hat tip: Taranto) even former Clinton lawyer Greg Craig -- who played Bush in Kerry's preps -- saw virtue in Bush's style:

"I've learned to admire, more than I would have, his compulsion for simplicity," Mr. Craig said. "I understand there's some content to it, and I understand the power of the simple phrase. Prior to this, I would have just shrugged it off as an empty slogan."

That said, it is getting harder argue Bush won the debate. Frum now says that at the very least Kerry has won the post-debate debate, and this morning John Podhoretz belatedly concedes that "Bush stunk up the place."

But I'm standing pat -- for now -- until I see some polls that don't include weekend repondents.