Il dibattito sul dibattito presidenziale ha agitato molti che non tollerano che le cose siano più complesse e articolate e contraddittorie di un semplice “ha vinto lui”. La mia ultima parola (boh?) è che sono allineato sull’editoriale di Joe Klein:

“Spin alley is one of the weirder venues of modern U.S. politics. It is the room where reporters gather after a debate to be serenaded by the respective candidates’ handlers and allies”
“
They knew their man (Bush) had been beaten, and on his home turf. Not on foreign policy. And certainly not on substance – Kerry’s arguments against Bush’s policies, especially on an Iraq exit strategy, were nearly as thin as the President’s defense of them. No, Kerry won the debate on Bush’s favorite intangible: the appearance of strength.”
“Of course, Kerry doesn’t really have a plan, certainly not one that differs in any significant detail from the President’s lack-of-a-plan. And neither man confronted the most painful truth about Iraq: more American troops are needed—now—if we are to have any chance of averting disaster. Kerry’s performance was deficient in other ways. It is probably not wise to use the words United and Nations in tandem as frequently as he did. He didn’t hammer home his basic formulation: Going to war in Iraq was a mistake, but it would be an even greater mistake to allow chaos to prevail there—and that is why the fighting is, sadly, necessary. He made a few factual errors. The New York City subway was not closed during the Republican Convention.”
“The challenger seemed quite strong in the first debate, more in command than the Commander in Chief.”
Time