Kerry's ojective in the foreign policy debate wasn't, or shouldn't have been, to convince people to agree with him or think that he is stronger on national security. He likely will not make headway with those issues.
Instead, he made himself a viable alternative and helped his favorable-unfavorable ratings, while Bush stumbled a bit.
Kerry's best window of oppurtunity comes in the domestic debate, where he can: 1) Help his Fav/UnFav ratings, 2) Get people to agree with him, 3) Make empty promises that woudl make America sound like Candyland.
Good analysis.
Kerry didn't beat Bush on foreign policy, and it's highly unlikely that he can. That's Bush's strength. However, Kerry does have to pass a minimal test of acceptability..even if swing voters think Bush would be better than Kerry on foreign policy, as long as they think that Kerry would be acceptable and the USA would be safe with Kerry as President, then he can shift the debate to the domestic issues where he has the advantage.
Kerry won over a lot of voters who want to replace Bush, but were unsure of Kerry. Improving his favorables makes him more acceptable to swing voters who are uneasy with Bush's performance.
Bush, to me, really gave off the impression of being out of touch with reality. He keeps saying "stay the course, stay the course" but most objective people would agree that things aren't going perfectly in Iraq.
Obviously there are some things that have to change, and Bush gives the impression that he is totally unwilling to even consider the possibility that he hasn't done things 100% correctly at all times. He does not acknowledge the difficulties or the problems at all. That's one trait that he has inherited from his father, whose inability to even acknowledge that there was anything wrong with the economy in 1992 was largely his downfall.
That's what I dislike about Bush the most--he will never in a million years admit to making a mistake or doing anything wrong. Confidence is good, but arrogance and stubbornness are not.
