Now Bush has been up over Kerry on electoral-vote.com for a couple of weeks, and whatever debate bounce has yet to manifest itself. Yet the press is all about how bad Bush was in the first debate, how Kerry was on the rebound, etc.
A cynical person might think that the media are all working from the same script, and don't really pay much attention to the actual facts on the ground. Is there no media outlet that does actual reporting and tries to get to the bottom of things?
The debate was a boon for Kerry, in my opinion, not because he had any special mojo that trumped Bush, but that it was the first time he was on national TV and got to state his case without being edited down to a 2 second shot. Sure he did a good job, but my contention is that he's been doing a pretty good job all along -- but no one was reporting it. I've gone to campaign events to see candidates in person because I wanted to check them out in real time, and Kerry is a lot more personable and confidence-inspiring in person than you'd ever know from TV.
I'm really looking forward to the Cheney/Edwards debate. Edwards is pretty hard not to like. He's photogenic, smart, and has prodigous skills as a public speaker. Cheney is at best like that quiet uncle no one wants to sit by at the family picnic, and at worst, Darth Vader without the fashion sense. He has a temper too, and I'd love to see Edwards goad him into melting down. Maybe Cheney will tell him to go fuck himself.