PRESTOPUNDIT

YOU KNOW the debate didn't go well for George Bush when you get a post-debate phone call from your lefty Yalie sister-in-law. In my estimation, the winner of the debate was Jim Lehrer, who threw soft-balls and curve-balls to the immense advantage of Kerry, while no one noticed. For an example of a biased question, try this last question of the debate:

Mr. President, this is the last question .. It's a new subject, new question and it has to do with President Putin and Russia. Did you misjudge him or are you - do you feel that what he is doing in the name of anti-terrorism by changing some democratic processes is O.K.?

To get a sense of the bias, imagine a parallel question, circa 1940, for FDR -- "Did you misjudge Hitler or do feel its ok to kill Poles by the hundreds of thousands?"

A second example of bias? John Kerry talked again and again of his "plan" for Iraq, but he gave exactly zero specifics. In fact, a big part of the political buzz in recent weeks has been that fact that everyone knows he really has no special plan. As far as anyone can tell it's a Nixonian "secret" plan. But Jim Lehrer -- who stopped several times to ask for clarifications and specifics -- never stopped to ask Kerry to get specific about his constantly referenced "plan".

The bottom line is that a a conservative or a classic liberal would not have given you a debate environment so overwhelmingly favorable to John Kerry -- and a Republican certainly would have asked a very different array of questions than did MSN Democrat Jim Lehrer.

Here's the transcript of the debate.

Blogosphere commentary:

PoliPundit -- excellent and to-the-point analysis from the Poli crew. Quotable:

I’ve been watching the debate for five minutes now. Despite my partisan inclinations, I have to admit that Kerry has won this debate. And not just in the high-school debate-coach sense of the word. Kerry comes off as the prosecutor accusing Bush of incompetence. Bush comes off as his Meet-The-Press, press-conference version - dogged, arrogant and unlikable.

Hugh Hewitt -- he's got a round-by-round analysis of the debate, and nearly flawless pro-Bush spin. Quotable:

Bush gets a big win, by hitting all his messages over and over again. He wins on substance. Biggest mistake by Kerry: "The Global Test."

UPDATE: N.Z. Bear sees it the way I did:

I'm not hypersensitive about such things. But these questions are turning out to be extraordinarily biased. Every question seems to be "so, let's talk about the mistakes Bush has made...".

And Jim Geraghty puts words to my thoughts:

Every time Kerry opened his mouth, conservatives thought of the eight different responses and attacks that they wanted to see, and Bush mostly didn't use them.

Bush's slow, mostly fact-empty and halting speaking was aggravating. The President was emoting and repeating "core principle" talking points, but he wasn't engaging the detailed substance of the debate. Compared to this, Ronald Reagan in '80 and '84 was a think tank wonk brimming with facts, arguments, details and specifics.

John Derbyshire got it right: "The President is a dismally poor public speaker."

But don't get too excited about John Kerry -- more people than you imagine will have noticed things like this.

The post-debate verdict is in -- Jim Lehrer did turn in a more biased even than expected performance last night. N.Z. Bear has a blow-by-blow account.

(Note to INDC -- next time read PrestoPundit before you write something like this.)

Wish I'd know about this drinking game before the debate.

Smash goes multi-tasking while live-blogging last night.

AND FINALLY, don't miss Hugh Hewitt's "MEMO TO PRODUCER DUANE". Kerry may have won the debate, but he's going to get his ass kicked in the all-importnat post-debate round. Posted by Greg Ransom