Sober Analysis: First of all, you two complain of Kerry's snobbishness while you both swill English concoctions that the American People can't afford. You obviously have benefited from the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Either that or you really are part of our broad, international alliance against terror. Still, doesn't Rolling Rock do it for you anymore? God, how you've both changed.

I don't know if this is possible, but either you score it as a debate, or you score it as two opposing commercials. If it's a debate, I don't know how you call it a draw or a weak win for Kerry. If it's a debate, Kerry fucking wiped the floor with Bush. I mean, a debate is about a) elocution, b) preparedness, and c) persuasion.

On elocution (and using the 10 point must system), it's Kerry 9, Bush 5 (note his use of "vociferously" early on; mixing up Bin Laden and Hussein; "loving" the widow of a soldier, etc.). Kerry had a couple of stumbles, but all-in-all, the man is a good speaker, and he doesn't squirm like Bushie.

On preparedness, it's Kerry 8, Bush 6. Kerry had a lot of good stats to throw out, and a couple stuck (90% of costs and casualties; other countries that were more dangerous than Iraq when invaded). Kerry also was decent on offering specifics, although clearly, not too specific. He is not very good on his Iraq plan, but with such a fluid situation, what is there to offer? Bush kept falling back on the conclusory statement of "we're making progress". How? Tell me? Other than training 100,00 Iraqis (in what capacity we're never told exactly), what progess have we made? Yes, we have 10 MM registering to vote in Afghanistan, with nearly half women, but when you start at nearly 0, it's hard not to improve. The January elections aren't fooling anybody either. He talked about "hard choices" repeatedly, but that's a throwaway. More meat, please.

On persuasion, it was closer I'll admit. It's clear Bush is content with staying-the-course and hoping for the best. Don't admit mistakes, talk about how the world has changed. Kerry scored with Bush shifting focus from Afghanistan before being done, but he really, really dropped the ball on his voting for the funding. He failed to persuade me that in voting for the $87B, he wasn't voting for the War Bush created. I think there were ways to do it. I also think he could have done more on the N. Korea comparisons. In every measurable way, N. Korea is more of a threat than Iraq ever was, yet we do nothing - literally nothing. Bush was good on pointing out the Kerry inconsistencies, but he fails to justify his stalwart decisions (Kerry tried to take advantage of this by saying just b/c you're sure, doesn't mean you're right - not bad, but not great). I score it 7 Kerry, 6 Bush.

This was more a debate of not hurting yourself, rather than drawing opposing blood. Again, scoring like a debate, Kerry is the clear winner, only if because his opponent is so bad. There was little real logical argument. Neither side acknowledged mistakes, which helps you avoid catastrophe, but prevents you from being entirely credible. Not that I expect that mind you.

I can't help myself: I want Clinton back, if only for the same reasons Eno wants Bush to win - to wipe the smug smiles away.