The short answer: This race is back on.

With the way the President and his team have largely dominated the campaign season so far, I fully expected W to perform well during this initial debate.

He did not. Especially during the first half of the debate (when one assumes the ratings were the highest) the President was stumbling and bumbling. He looked less presidential than Kerry. In fact, many times he seemed frustrated, irritated and downright pissed.

The President’s entire debate can best be summed up by a single line he delivered:

“The only consistent thing about my opponent’s position is that he’s been inconsistent. He changes positions. And you cannot change positions in this war on terror if you expect to win.”

First of all, this line will not gain Bush or his debate prep team entry into the Lloyd Bentsen Debate Hall of Fame. More importantly, the constant repeating of this refrain quickly drifted from effectiveness to desperation. It was his only ammunition.

Where were the President’s short and certain responses to which we’ve grown accustomed? We could hear his breathing as he pounded the podium, he overmodulated into the mic, squinted, blinked constantly and stumbled over phrases including during one of the moments when he accused Kerry of sending “mixed messages.”

He seemed tired, unsure, irritated and unprepared. Perhaps his isolation in front of friendly crowds with prepared questions on the campaign trail was a poor preparation for this night. But none of Lehrer’s questions were particulary surprising. W even blew the values and character question. He looked like a guy not heading back to the Oval Office, but getting sent up to his room.

Kerry’s performance, given his weak effort so far, was equally surprising. He was just flat-out on. Here are few quick takes (and a list of the best lines offered by Kerry).

- As I advised, Kerry went after Bush for his poor performance on the North Korea question. Kerry even used the same basis for his attack that I suggested – and he referenced the same source, William Perry.

- Bush mentioned Powell a couple of times. Weird. He never mentioned Rummy or Rice or Cheney. Instead he mentioned the name of the one guy who, by all accounts, has been ignored for the last four years.

- Earlier today, I suggested that Kerry use the line: “The American people are smarter than that.” He went with, “The American people know the difference.” Close. (Note to Kerry: Use my line.)

- Someone hurry up and count how many times Kerry said the name bin Laden.

- Bush was good when discussing some aspects of the war on terror (as when he said Osama bin Laden doesn’t decide when we go to war), but even at his best moments, he lost his train of thought and drifted.

- Correct me if I’m wrong here. But I’m getting the idea that: “It’s hard work.”

- Quick request: Can we refer to him as Putin from now on?

- Bush seemed to get rolling when he accused Kerry of having a pre-Sept 10th mentality. I would’ve gone with Sept 11th there.

- The cutaway shots were a killer. No swagger. All smirk.

- Bottom line: Kerry’s skin looked nice (not too orange) and he was sweat free.

And now, some of the best lines from Kerry. These were the lines that defined the debate, framed the discussion and will, I predict, make this race a dead heat over the next few days.

- And I believe President Bush and I both love our country equally. But we just have a different set of convictions about how you make America safe.

- I have a better plan for homeland security. I have a better plan to be able to fight the war on terror by strengthening our military, strengthening our intelligence, by going after the financing more authoritatively, by doing what we need to do to rebuild the alliances, by reaching out to the Muslim world, which the president has almost not done, and beginning to isolate the radical Islamic Muslims, not have them isolate the United States of America.

- Unfortunately, he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn’t use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That’s wrong.

- I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are.

- But we also have to be smart, Jim.

- And it wasn’t until former Secretary of State Jim Baker and General Scowcroft and others pushed publicly and said you’ve got to go to the U.N., that the president finally changed his mind—his campaign has a word for that—and went to the United Nations.

- The president just talked about Iraq as a center of the war on terror. Iraq was not even close to the center of the war on terror before the president invaded it.

- Yes, we have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we’re there. We have to succeed. We can’t leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off of Osama bin Laden. It was.

- This president thought it was more important to give the wealthiest people in America a tax cut rather than invest in homeland security. Those aren’t my values. I believe in protecting America first.

Note: I took my own advice (from the post just below this one) and have posted this perspective without listening to a single pundit or looking at a single poll. My personal take (somewhat colored by my wife’s comment that “Kerry kicked his ass”) is that this was a totally unexpected crushing.

Mark my words. At the worst, this is now a dead heat.

Over at PressThink, Jay Rosen tells the story of a major political reporter who is refusing to allow himself to be spun by the spinners during spin hour in the spin room after the debate.

In fact, Adam Nagourney of the NY Times will not even be in Florida for the debate. Instead, he’s going to watch it on television from his D.C office. Nagourney explains that he can’t get far enough away from the spin cycle: “’I avoid Spin Alley at all costs. I think it’s degrading for reporters and degrading for political operatives.” Rosen adds: “Degrading is exactly right. He might have added that it’s degrading to the listeners, and to voters, who are ultimately supposed to be spun.”

As a guy who spends much of his time watching politicians and political operatives on the tube, I must admit that I’ve become somewhat addicted to the degradation. If I can’t get it there, I’ll need to look for it somewhere else. I need. I need.

Nagourney is right to avoid the spin room. He’s also right to avoid the venue in Florida altogether. Just as was the case with the conventions, these debates (or the dueling press conferences which they’ve been reduced to) are made for television events. And the only thing that matters is how they play on television. Being in the venue means missing the story.

Of course, for voters, the spin doesn’t stop at the spin room door. Politics is one of the few sports where you need to wait around for a so-called expert to tell you who won the match. First you’ll hear from the television pundits and the spinners. Then radio talkshows and newspapers. So when will you decide who got the better of things?

Well, here’s an idea. If Adam Nagourney can cover the debate from Washington, maybe we can all form an opinion in the privacy of our own living rooms. Try this. Once the debate is over, turn off the television. Pause. Think. Decide who you think did a more effective job in the debate. Consider the best lines and the most important moments.

Then, if you must, turn the television back on and see how your opinion matches up with those of others. And don’t let yourself be too easily swayed. When it comes to picking a winner in politics, if you’ve got a vote, then you’re an expert.

Or, forget all that and just come check out my takes here at electablog. I’ll be degrading throughout the night.

I’ve been trying to come up with one line that John Kerry can repeat over and over during Thursday’s debate on onwards. With just a few hours to go, I’m ready to share the line with Kerry and the world. Here it is:

The American people are smarter than that.

How does he use the line? Something like this:

You want us to believe that Saddam had something to do with 9-11 even though there is no evidence of any link. The American people are smarter than that.

You’ve tried to convince us, against all of the evidence, that Saddam posed an imminent threat and that Iraq is not a distraction from the war on terror. But the American people are smarter than that.

You want middle class families to believe that tax breaks for your cronies will somehow result in more money in their pockets. But the American people are smarter than that.

You think you can convince us that you’ve been good for the economy, good for healthcare and good for the environment. The American people are smarter than that.

You want us to believe that the mission is accomplished in Iraq and that the economy and job growth are on the right track here at home. The American people have their own eyes and they are smarter than that.

Now I’ll admit that there is one somewhat obvious flaw in this line. What is it? Well, if polling on the issues is any indicator, the American people may not in fact be smarter than that.

But if Kerry repeats the line enough, we’ll come around.

It turns out that a few years ago, Dick Cheney may have been lateralizing out of the other side of his mouth.

Taegan Goddard offers up this quote from the Seattle Post:

In an assessment that differs sharply with his view today, Dick Cheney more than a decade ago defended the decision to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War, telling a Seattle audience that capturing Saddam wouldn’t be worth additional U.S. casualties or the risk of getting “bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.”

The story got picked up by more outlets as John Edwards took the ball and ran with it during an interview with Imus.

One does wonder though, in an election season that has been so focused on the false notion of Kerry as a flip flopper, why this attack on Cheney didn’t come earlier and often; and why it didn’t come from the Kerry-Edwards advance team as opposed to a newspaper report.

Now, you can ask whether or not the attack is entirely fair. But you could ask the same thing about nearly every attack on John Kerry (he’s been attacked for everything from agreeing with Cheney on weapons reductions to serving with valor in Vietnam).

If he had been forced to deal with this quote endlessly, Cheney could certainly have explained that the risk of getting “bogged down” in Iraq became worth it in the post 9-11 world. But to explain the nuances of this change of heart would have taken at least two sentences. And in this political age, that’s about a sentence and a half too much.

It was for many members of the American public the anyone but Bush era. Democrats will recall what they were looking for in a candidate and why they pushed Kerry over the top even at a moment when it looked like the straight-talking Dean or the fresh, talented Edwards might still have a shot.

The truth is that more Democrats agreed with more of Dean’s positions than any of the other candidates. That’s why his rep has remained intact and he still has a major voice in the Party. Everyone at the convention in Boston wanted a Dean handshake. And the other truth is that the political junkies among the Dems couldn’t get enough of the late night C-Span repeats of Edwards stump speeches from earlier in the day. For several weeks, we couldn’t turn the channel. Dems sat on their couches holding a lighter in their outstretched hand as they chanted, “Yeah, two Americas, dude. Two Americas.”

But in the end, the Party happily abandoned Dean’s fire and Edwards’ charm. Why?

Kerry had a national reputation. Kerry had military experience. Kerry had gravitas. All these played a role. But there was really only one reason that mattered to anyone in the Democratic Party in those days of small town bus rides and gymnasium stump speeches.

Kerry could win.

That was, beneath all of the placards and beyond all of the campaign promises and jabs, the core of it.

So here we are. Months later. Things on the ground (Iraq, jobs, the economy, gas prices, bad weather in swing states) couldn’t be going that much worse for the President. Even though he leads in most polls, those same polls indicate that people from both parties are desperate for a change of direction.

So why hasn’t Kerry surged? Maybe he has been too slow to counter the attacks of the Bush team. Maybe he hasn’t been aggressive enough in identifiying the key differences between himself and his opponent. Maybe a lack of charisma has been his undoing (it may not matter who you want to have a beer with, but it sure matters whose speeches and comments get face time on the tube).

All of these may be factors, but the major element missing from the Kerry campaign is the one core element that launched it.

His ultimate challenge on Thursday night (I think the other debates may be too late to stem the momentum if it’s not changed now) is to convince viewers (and unfortunate as it is, commentators) of one thing:

That he can win.

I know they’ve done Arsenio and Leno and Letterman and Oprah. But I’m still convinced that the upcoming appearance of the presidential candidates and their wives on Dr. Phil marks a new low point for American politics and maybe for American culture.

It’s bad enough that John and Theresa will appear next week. It’s even worse that the President and the First Lady are on tap this week. This isn’t just because the President has made it pretty clear that he and his are not major fans of psychology (apparently he prefers a fake shrink to a real one – at least there will be no charges that he’s mingling with the intellectual elite). W should avoid Phil’s couch because an appearance with this quack soils the office of the president more than any Oval Office oral indiscretion possibly could.

I would rather see my candidate make a green and grainy videotape with Paris Hilton than appear on the same stage as Dr. Phil. I would rather see Kerry get punk’d by Ashton Kutcher or see George W. Bush reacting to the verbal jabs from the dudes from Jackass as he dangles from a tree branch by his snuggied underpants. Anything would beat seeing either one of these men debase our nation with a visit to a psycho-hack who is so oddly effective as a communicator that he has managed to give advice on losing weight even though he’s sort of fat.

Oh, I know that it would be difficult for any candidate to pass up on a free hour of television time in front of millions of mostly women voters. But when is low just too damn low?

Answer: Dr. Phil.

Let’s figure out another way for the candidates to target undecided voters who may not be watching the evening news. How about a two man runoff on a special episode of Elimidate? A former bikini model has had too much to drink and wants to see which contestant can give a better lapdance. Now that’s politics. Whichever man can impress us in that situation can certainly handle something as relatively simple as, say, negotiating an end to Kim-Jung-Il’s nuclear testing.

Let’s get these guys on a speed round of Wheel of Fortune (nothing warns of bad fiscal policies like the poorly timed and wholly unnecessary buying of a vowel).

They could both appear in Trump’s boardroom or go head to head with Ken Jennings on a special edition of Jeopardy. W could have his Crawford pickup cherried out on Pimp My Ride while John Kerry shows his more human side as he interacts with Brigitte Nielsen, Flavor Flav and Charo on a special episode of The Surreal Life. Trust me, nothing can humanize a candidate faster than his being coaxed into saying “Cuchi, Cuchi, Cuchi” while sipping Costco margaritas and floating among the suds in a reality television hot tub.

I would rather see these guys on Springer than on Dr. Phil. At least Jerry and his audience all know they are participating in total nonsense. Dr. Phil has actually duped his audience into believing that they are really being guided along the path towards overcoming life’s many difficulties.

And it’s not just the candidates and the voters who will come out the losers in this scenario. It’s Dr. Phil’s regular viewers. Are you feeling depressed? Feeling like there is an absence of truth and meaning in your slife? Well, take it from me. The last thing you want to do is to start paying closer attention to national politics.

So the candidates want to reach millions of undecided women voters, many of whom are mothers. But presidential appearances on Dr. Phil are clearly wrong for America. How do we solve this dilemma?

I’ve got one word for you.

Barney.