The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening, I'm Margaret Warner. Jim Lehrer is off. On the NewsHour tonight: Our summary of the news; then, a day-after assessment of last night's presidential debate from the candidates themselves, as well as foreign policy experts, undecided voters in Florida, presidential debate scholars James Fallows and Kathleen Hall Jamieson, and NewsHour regulars Mark Shields and David Brooks.

NEWS SUMMARY

MARGARET WARNER: U.S. And Iraqi forces fought to regain control of a major city in northern Iraq today. The joint military offensive began overnight in Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad. A U.S. military spokesman said some 100 Iraqi insurgents died in the fighting. One U.S. soldier was killed and four others wounded. Iraq's national security minister said the people of Samarra supported the operation.

QASIAM DOWOUD: Most of them show their concern about the security of the city, the torture and the intimidation that they have suffered from these terrorists. They mention it and they say thank you. So our answer came as here we are, we are coming to support you and to clear your city from these terrorists.

MARGARET WARNER: Late today, Iraqi officials reported 80 percent of the city was under U.S. and Iraqi control. Elsewhere, U.S. Warplanes and tanks blasted Shiite rebels overnight in the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad. The U.S. Military said one Iraqi was killed. Hospital officials said 12 Iraqis died. The death of a U.S. soldier in Samarra today came after a spike in casualties during September. For the month, at least 76 U.S. troops were killed, more than 1,050 have died since the war began, and another 7,500 have been wounded. Most of the casualties have been from combat. The presidential candidates were back on the campaign trail today, following last night's televised debate. President Bush went on the attack at rallies in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire. He charged Democrat John Kerry had no real plan for Iraq, except to hold a summit. In Tampa, Florida, Sen. Kerry belittled the president's charge that he would wilt in the face of tough going in Iraq. Kerry said he was intent on winning, but would do the job the right way. We'll have more on the campaign day right after this News Summary. A new audiotape purportedly from al-Qaida's number-two man surfaced today. Al-Jazeera television aired a taped message it said came from Ayman al-Zawahri. The speaker urged young Muslims to strike the U.S. and its allies everywhere. It said: We must not wait more or we will be devoured one country after the other. The voice said the attacks should continue, even if al-Qaida leaders are killed or captured. Israel expanded a major ground offensive in Gaza today. Some 200 Israeli tanks and other vehicles massed near a refugee camp in northern Gaza. Hundreds of Israeli troops were already in the camp. At least five Palestinians were killed and 22 wounded in today's fighting. The Israelis said the operation is an all-out bid to end Palestinian rocket attacks from Gaza. The House Ethics Committee admonished Majority Leader Tom DeLay late last night. The committee said he acted improperly when he tried to persuade Republican Nick Smith of Michigan to change his vote from "no" to "yes" on a Medicare drug-benefit bill last year. The panel found DeLay promised to endorse Smith's son in a primary if Congressman Smith would switch his vote. The congressman did not. Delay said last night he never knowingly violated the House rules. The admonishment was the lightest penalty the ethics committee can impose. Oil prices closed for the first time ever above $50 a barrel today. The price jumped 48 cents in New York trading to finish at $50.12 a barrel. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 112 points to close above 10,192. The NASDAQ rose 45 points, or 2 percent, to close at 1942. For the week: The Dow gained 1.5 percent; the NASDAQ rose 3percent. Famed portrait and fashion photographer Richard Avedon died today. He'd suffered a brain hemorrhage last month during a photo shoot in San Antonio, Texas. Avedon's fashion layouts helped create an era of supermodels. Even more influential were his unsparing black-and-white portraits of the famous and powerful. Richard Avedon was 81 years old. And that's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to reactions to last night's presidential debate from the candidates themselves, foreign policy analysts, undecided voters in Florida, debate scholars, and Shields and Brooks.

FOCUS BATTLE LINES

MARGARET WARNER: The two presidential candidates went their separate ways today, but they talked about the same subjects they discussed last night. Kwame Holman reports.

KWAME HOLMAN: The first campaign stop of the day for President Bush was Allentown, Pennsylvania, and a late-morning rally in the LeHigh Valley. The president was introduced to the sun-drenched crowd by Arizona Sen. John McCain, who had traveled with the president from Miami, site of last night's debate.

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: This president showed last night he has the strength, he has the courage. He has not wavered. He will not waver. We will prevail under his leadership. We will win this war on terror. We will win this war in Iraq. ( Applause )

KWAME HOLMAN: But before leaving Miami this morning with the president, McCain told reporters he also thought John Kerry's performance in the debate was his brightest moment in six weeks, and that he presented himself well. President Bush, however, spent the first ten minutes before his Pennsylvania supporters criticizing what Sen. Kerry had to say during the debate concerning the war on terror, and Iraq.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The cornerstone of Sen. Kerry's plan for Iraq is that he would convene a summit. (Booing) I've been to a lot of summits. I've never seen a meeting that would depose a tyrant or bring a terrorist to justice. Sen. Kerry claims that he can work with our allies, yet he said those who are standing with us are not a part of a genuine coalition. (Boos) He earlier called them a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed"; dismissed their sacrifices as "window dressing." You cannot lead by pushing away the allies who are already with us, or expect any support for a cause you've called a "mistake" or a "grand diversion" or "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." The way to lead this coalition is not to be disdainful or dismissive. The way to lead this coalition to victory is to be clear in our thinking, grateful for the sacrifices, and resolute in our determination to defeat the enemy. (Applause) One other point I want to make about the debate last night: Sen. Kerry last night said that America has to pass some sort of global test before we can use American troops to defend ourselves. He wants our national security decisions subject to the approval of a foreign government. Listen, I'll continue to work with our allies and the international community, but I will never submit America's national security to an international test. The use of troops to defend America must never be subject to a veto by countries like France. The president's job is not to take an international poll, the president's job is to defend America.

KWAME HOLMAN: Meanwhile, John Kerry remained in Florida, traveling to Tampa on the gulf coast for an early-afternoon rally at the University of South Florida. There, he fired back at the president on the Iraq issue.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: My friends, I laid out a policy last night, and the president keeps trying to debate himself on this. He keeps trying... he keeps trying to say, "well, we don't want somebody who wants to leave. We don't want somebody..." you know, he says "we don't want to wilt or waver." I don't know how many times I heard that. Well, Mr. President, nobody is talking about leaving. Nobody's talking about wilting and wavering. We're talking about winning and getting the job done right. That's what we're talking about. (Applause) Now, this is actually even more incredible. Just today on the front page of some of the newspapers in America, there's a story of how the inspector-general of the Homeland Security Department issued a scathing report of what the administration has not done to unite the watch lists, so that when you get off an airplane or come into the country we're operating off of one watch list. This is the single biggest task of the Homeland Security Department. It's a complete failure. And yet, this president stands there and pretends to America we're doing all that we can. So I raised the subject last night. I said, Mr. President -- and you know about this because you have 14 ports here in Florida-- 95percent of the containers coming into America don't get inspected. And what does the president say in response? He says, "I don't know how you are going to pay for all of that. You're going to have a tax gap." My friends, this is the president who created a tax gap by providing a tax cut to the wealthiest Americans, instead of investing it in the homeland security of the United States. Let's get real. ( Cheers and applause )

KWAME HOLMAN: John Kerry scheduled a second Florida rally this evening near Orlando. President Bush moved on to campaign in New Hampshire.

FOCUS HOW IT PLAYED

MARGARET WARNER: Now, how the debate played to a group of likely voters in North Miami, Florida. They included three registered Democrats, two Republicans and two independents. One Republican expected to attend didn't show up. All said they were all undecided before last night. The NewsHour invited them to watch, and Spencer Michels collected their impressions afterwards.

SPENCER MICHELS: Thank you all very much for being here. Let's start with Karen Unger. You wanted to hear more from Sen. Kerry on Iraq. Did you hear anything that you wanted to hear?

KAREN UNGER: I heard a lot of "I have a plan," but I didn't hear a lot of specifics. I do have a son who is military age. I'm concernedabout the war.

SPENCER MICHELS: Jeff Davidson, you have said that you were concerned the country might be more at risk if we changed presidents at this time. Did you get any sense about that tonight?

JEFF DAVIDSON: Not as yet, no. One of the things that Sen. Kerry said is that he has made some mistakes. And I think is okay to do that. And I would like to have heard that from President Bush as well, and I didn't. I felt that Kerry came across to me a little more believable. I think President Bush fumbled a little bit on a few topics, and he chuckled a little bit, which is a characteristic of his. Not to question what he was going to answer, but I think it's a pause gesture to give him a chance to think.

SPENCER MICHELS: Is that gesture, that chuckling or whatever you call it, is that something you like or you don't like?

JEFF DAVIDSON: I don't like.

SPENCER MICHELS: You don't like. Elizabeth Peterson, you're a social worker. How did you react to tonight's debate?

ELIZABETH PETERSON: I think both candidates did not seem to have a good grasp on a plan to get out of Iraq or what we are doing there. They were kind of vague about if we need to train people some more, or that they need to be free and this will help everyone else. So I think I need to hear more specifics on their plan to get out of Iraq, and what exactly their future endeavors are.

SPENCER MICHELS: Jeff was talking about the demeanor of President Bush. How do you feel about that with both or either candidate?

ELIZABETH PETERSON: I actually liked President Bush's demeanor. I thought it made it like an everyday kind of person, and he seemed so sincere. And like I thought Kerry was a little bit too glib for me. But it's like, I felt like, what President Bush was saying, he stands by what he believes and he has a firm grasp.

SPENCER MICHELS: Reah Reeves, this debate tonight was on foreign policy. How important was foreign policy to you?

REAH REEVES: To me, it is important. But I also think that our policies at home need to be worked on. Like, when I hear about how we're going to change the war, I think that they both are pretty much going for the same plan.

SPENCER MICHELS: Are you still pretty much on the fence or are you leaning one way or the other?

REAH REEVES: I am still on the fence. But I will say that I think that Kerry did pretty good tonight. He was a lot more concrete in his views, and Bush was very concrete in saying the same thing over and over again.

SPENCER MICHELS: Okay. Louis Ruiz, you work for a cruise line here in Miami, and you have said you thought that the debate would be a good place for Sen. Kerry to explain his plan for the war. Do you think he did it?

LOUIS RUIZ, JR.: I think John Kerry did a good job in the beginning of setting the tone. But when it comes to substance and numbers, I think the president did a very good job of stating that 75 percent of the al-Qaida leadership has been either captured or killed. At the same time, the senator had a very good rate of speaking. It was almost like he was having a conversation with Jim Lehrer.

SPENCER MICHELS: Edgar Shriver, you are a retired psychologist, but without analyzing the election tell us how you reacted to this debate tonight. Did you hear anything that would help you make up your mind?

EDGAR SHRIVER: There was one thing I wanted to hear, and that was how to get out of Iraq in four months instead of four years, because I don't think a war of occupation can be won -- that people resent occupation and what we need to do is get out.

SPENCER MICHELS: Sen. Kerry did say he would like to try, if things go well, to start getting out in six months or so.

EDGAR SHRIVER: He was closer.

SPENCER MICHELS: He was closer.

EDGAR SHRIVER: Yeah.

SPENCER MICHELS: Okay. Lisa Becker-Bisheak, you got a couple of kids, and are they of military age?

LISA BECKER-BIZJAK: They will be in a few years.

SPENCER MICHELS: How does that play into the way you watch this debate tonight?

LISA BECKER-BIZJAK: Well, we are very sensitive to that. We've been a military family. Their father actually was called back to duty after 9/11, so this is very near and dear to our hearts, and we were very supportive of the president after 9/11. I thought he did a fabulous job and his commandeering of the situation was necessary. And the fact that he does not want to change that course is understandable, because if he does, he will be seen as somebody who is going back on what he has done before. But it sounds as if both the candidates have the same perspective: They want to stay in Iraq long enough to train Iraqis and then they would leave.

SPENCER MICHELS: So, if they are fairly equivalent on that issue, then what do you use to make your decision?

LISA BECKER-BIZJAK: To me, this is the primary issue. This is the primary area of responsibility this person has as they sit in that presidential seat.

SPENCER MICHELS: Edgar, at one point, at several points in fact, the president chastised Sen. Kerry for saying over "this is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." "You can not say that kind of thing and inspire our troops."

EDGAR SHRIVER: I don t think it hurts troop moral at all. I think you are supposed to be able to talk about such things, not hide them under the rug.

SPENCER MICHELS: Is that an issue then, this not being able to talk about something?

EDGAR SHRIVER: Yes, sure.

SPENCER MICHELS: Why is that an issue?

EDGAR SHRIVER: Sure you should be able to talk about it. I go back to Vietnam so often and hear presidents saying the same things that Bush is now saying, that we got to keep it up, we got to win this war, when obviously it can't be won.

LOUIS RUIZ, JR.: The bottom line is that is time to take an offensive on the war on terror. We are at the point were an offense is the best defense in our country and I think our president understands that. He understands that this war... terrorism has global ramifications and at this point we need to take action globally.

SPENCER MICHELS: Lisa, how do you feel about this?

LISA BECKER-BIZJAK: Well, the president does have more experience, and clearly that helps. The question is, do we want that consistency that he has brought to the table or do we want a sort of refreshing from Kerry that things need to change and we need to have a new way of doing things.

GUEST: There is the war on terror and there is the war in Iraq. There're two different things.

GUEST: Um-um.

GUEST: I think there is no question that there is a war on terror, but I think there is a question that we should not be fighting it by ourselves.

SPENCER MICHELS: Reah, what are you waiting to hear before you make a decision, or do you know?

REAH REEVES: Both candidates brought up nuclear proliferation, and something that I picked on was that Kerry said, "I want to able to go to the Soviet Union, I want to clean out the nuclear proliferation," where as Bush said, "well, I want to get it out of the hands of the terrorists," and I thought, "okay." So if it is getting sold in the Soviet Union to terrorists, don't we want to take care of it while it's in the Soviet Union before it gets to the terrorists? That is just something that keeps going around in my head over and over again.

SPENCER MICHELS: Louis, for example, is nuclear proliferation one of the issues that you are going to make your decision on in this election or is that...

LOUIS RUIZ, JR.: Absolutely.

SPENCER MICHELS: It is?

LOUIS RUIZ, JR.: Absolutely, because you can not have these weapons around all over the place. John Kerry says he can do it in four years what will take George Bush thirteen years to accomplish. My question is: How?

SPENCER MICHELS: Could both of these men handle the toughness of being the president of the United States? Edgar?

EDGAR SHRIVER: I came into this thinking we have one bumbler and that was Kerry and one bungler and that's bush, and after looking at it I said, "oh, Kerry is not the bumbler I thought, he is doing pretty well," but I still saw the bungler there saying "we are going to continue our bungling course."

SPENCER MICHELS: Karen?

KAREN UNGER: This is a toughie. I'm not sure we have a good choice.

SPENCER MICHELS: One of the things that the president said towards the end of the debate was that if America shows weakness to the world, it will be a great tragedy. Is that an issue in this campaign?

GUEST: Absolutely. It would be a tragedy, but I do not know if pulling out of Iraq is showing weakness.

GUEST: Weakness comes in the form of indecisiveness.

LISA BECKER-BIZJAK: That does not mean we can not pull out of Iraq and is not going to show a sense of indecisiveness to do so, and I think we need to do so quickly. The question is which man is more fit to be in that position when that time comes.

SPENCER MICHELS:: And that is just were we started and that is how we are going to end. I want to thank you all very much for being here.

GUESTS: Thank you.

GUEST: Thank you, Spencer.

FOCUS DEBATING POINTS

MARGARET WARNER: Now, a closer look at the candidates' debating skills and styles. Jeffrey Brown has that.

JEFFREY BROWN: Earlier this week we got a debate preview from two students of the form. They join us once again. James Fallows is a national correspondent for the Atlantic Monthly, where he wrote a recent article on the candidates' debating styles. Kathleen Hall Jamieson is director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. And welcome both back again.

Professor Jamieson, I wanted to start with you. On Wednesday you said you expected a classic rhetorical clash between two men who have very different debating styles. Is that what you saw last night?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Yes. And let me give you an illustration. In the debate, the president says that we've changed the culture of the FBI the senator moves by recapping that "the president just said the FBI changed its culture" and then he moves to fact and specifics. He says "we just read in the front pages of America's papers that there are over 100,000 hours of tapes unlistened to. On one of those tapes may be the enemy being right the next time." Now what did President Bush do? President Bush hears Sen. Kerry moving toward a concept that sounds a little strange to President Bush, who is much more comfortable with plain-spoken English. He hears the senator saying there will be a global test applied to preemptive I have action where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons. The president then says "I'm not exactly sure what 'passes the global test' means." And then he moves to theme, principle. "My attitude is you take the preemptive action in order to protect the American people." Then remark wrist I can of bush, he says it in other words.

JEFFREY BROWN: James Fallows, what did you hear in the contrasting styles?

JAMES FALLOWS: I thought there were a lot of substantive issues on the table. I was looking at the way each of these debaters performed relative to his experience in this mode. I think John Kerry was a logical extension of what he'd done over the years as a debater where he became more relaxed under the ongoing pressure of the debate and was sort of in a prosecutorial mode, just bearing down on the president. The president, to my surprise, just in comparison with his own experience was... this was probably his weakest debate performance of all, just in a technical sense. There are two technical problems I think he had. One is at his best in debate he's been able to use his two or three main points which he insists on again and again and again, but to do it with some elegance.

JEFFREY BROWN: You said the other day that he's able to take a question and quickly get back to these two or three other points that he wants to make.

JAMES FALLOWS: Yes. And this time he didn't even bother with the getting back to. He just read off the points. And the way he's performed in recent press conferences, it's not the way he's done in his previous debates. The other thing that was surprising and a contrast to his past debating appearance was his simple physical bearing. Where in past debates he seemed confident, upright, relaxed. And I think the cutaway shots, which appeared to take him by surprise, although realistically he should have known he was on stage, you know, every moment, they did not convey this air of confidence that a president in a debate would like to get across.

JEFFREY BROWN: Well, you have written that debates are about projecting personality. So what came through?

JAMES FALLOWS: Well, I think debates between an incumbent president and a challenger for reelection are about a particular kind of personality. The analogy is very powerfully with the 1980 debate between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Reagan then challenging him for reelection, where Reagan had been dismissed as an extremist, a movie actor, but simply by being on the same stage with Jimmy Carter, he was considered a plausible other president. I think John Kerry, that was the test for him just in a physical sense. Being up there on the stage with the president, by his physical bearing, by looking more relaxed, by standing more upright, I think he had a more successful physical presentation.

JEFFREY BROWN: Kathleen Hall Jamieson, about his body language, what struck you?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: I remember moments in the Kennedy/Nixon debates where Nixon is taking an important point and Kennedy responds by taking notes, thereby distracting the audience from an important point. Last evening, Sen. Kerry took notes at important points when President Bush was making his arguments and when those were shown in juxtaposition, the audience was distracted somewhat by the note-taking and the note- taking is an implied rebuttal. In those moments Sen. Kerry gained some advantage.

JEFFREY BROWN: Another thing that was noticeable, it seemed as though Sen. Kerry would be looking at Jim Lehrer when he was responding, whereas the president stared right at the camera. What did you make of that, Professor Jamieson?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: I don't know whether the audience responds to that by understanding the conventions of news in which you sometimes are talking off camera to someone and other times you're talking into camera. I mean, for the moment, I'm looking into a camera but I don't see you, you're off in Washington. Audiences are pretty sophisticated about understanding that there is both the physical presence in a debate and there's an audience through the camera. I didn't think either one of them was inappropriate. I thought they both worked.

JEFFREY BROWN: How did you read that?

JAMES FALLOWS: I thought that was a technical plus for the president that he knew to address the larger audience in the country side rather than just... with all respect to the moderator in that room. The matter of Sen. Kerry writing notes is interesting because that may have been distracting, as Professor Jamieson is saying, but what the president was doing by counterpoint was acting often distressed, alarmed, peeved and occasionally confused whenever Sen. Kerry was making a challenging point to him. And I, so I think that served not to undercut Sen. Kerry but instead to have an unwelcome kind of attention on the president himself.

JEFFREY BROWN: Professor Jamieson, there was so much talk beforehand about the constraints of this kind of a debate, the time limits, etcetera. How did it feel to you in the end? Did it feel like a debate?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Yes, it did. There was a lot of engagement between the candidates. There was the possibility for follow-up when it was required and sometimes President Bush pushed and got extra follow-up and that helped. I thought the time constraints actually helped Sen. Kerry because he was at his most focused and most precise. Remember, we said the other night that the Sen. Kerry you see on the stump is not the Sen. Kerry in past debates. He tends to be focused and more precise. Those blinking lights didn't catch him at all. He stayed within his time limits.

JEFFREY BROWN: How do you feel about that?

JAMES FALLOWS: I agree. I was impressed the senator had sort of honed his presentation to fit the time. And I think as we were saying earlier, this was a constraint that might actually do him well. Am I allowed to say this on these airwaves, the moderator, Mr. Lehrer also did a very good job in asking respectful but tough questions and following them up.

JEFFREY BROWN: We're biased on that one. We'll agree. Go ahead.

JAMES FALLOWS: So I think the main... again, the good side of this debate for the public is at a time it brought up the issue on which the election will, in fact, turn and we did get to see at some length the positions of both the candidates and their parties. I think, again, as a technical matter, the Bush team will be going back to, you know, sort of reconsider its plans for the next debate more than the Kerry team will.

JEFFREY BROWN: Professor Jamieson, what about the rhetorical use of language that the two candidates presented with President Bush, you had him repeating certain lines. We heard one in the Florida group, the person referring to "the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time," that kind of thing.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: If you listen to the 90 minutes and watch the 90 minutes of debate and you couldn't repeat mixed messages are bad, "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" or "not good for our troops, our allies, and the Iraqi people" then redundancy wasn't correlated to retention, and academic research suggests that it is. The president pushed that message throughout the debate and it is his strength. At the end of the debate, he got that message through. On the other hand, Sen. Kerry was trying to make more different points. The point I think he made the most clearly was that this was not a war of last resort and the president had promised that it would be. But in terms of sheer redundancy, the president got an advantage on that message.

JEFFREY BROWN: What do you think this is about, rhetorical artistic merit?

JAMES FALLOWS: I think there were three phrases that caught my mind. One was, the president said 12 times "this is hard work." And I think that may have the impression of sort of a Freudian message. That might not have been on- message the way other things were. Sen. Kerry introduced two phrases he hadn't used before this extensively. One was that the president's policies had boiled down to four words, "more of the same." And so putting the president on the test to say what will you do differently and saying in response to this mixed messages, that you can be certain and wrong. And so that's his way to respond to the flip-flop language.

JEFFREY BROWN: Jim Fallows and Kathleen Hall Jamieson, thanks again.

JAMES FALLOWS: Thank you.

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: You're welcome.

FOCUS WORLD VIEWS

MARGARET WARNER: Now, how the two candidates dealt with the primary subject of their debate, Iraq. Ray Suarez has that.

RAY SUAREZ: And we start with two excerpts. First, President Bush responding to Jim Lehrer's question: "What criteria would you use to determine when to start bringing U.S. Troops home?"

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Let me first tell you that the best way to... for Iraq to be safe and secure is for Iraqi citizens to be trained to do the job. And that's what we're doing. We've got 100,000 trained now, 125,000 by the end of this year, over 200,000 by the end of next year. That is the best way. We'll never succeed in Iraq if the Iraqi citizens do not want to take matters in their own hands and protect themselves. I believe they want to. Prime Minister Allawi believes they want to. And so the answer to your question is when our generals on the ground and Ambassador Negroponte tells me that Iraq is ready to defend herself from these terrorists, that elections will have been held by then, that there's stability and that they're on their way to, you know, a nation of... that's free, that's when. And I hope it's as soon as possible. But I know putting artificial deadlines won't work. My opponent at one time said "well, get me elected, I'll have them out of there in six months." That's... you can't do that and expect to win the war on terror.

RAY SUAREZ: Later, Jim asked Sen. Kerry for specifics on a scenario or a timeline for ending major U.S. military involvement in Iraq.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: I didn't say I would bring troops out in six months, I said "if we do the things that I've set out and we are successful, we could begin to draw the troops down in six months." What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of Fallujahs and other places and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders. You've got to show you're serious in that regard. But you've also got to show that you're prepared to bring the rest of the world in and share the stakes. I will make a flat statement. The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq. And our goal, n my administration would be to get all of the troops out of there with the minimal amount you need for training and logistics as we do in some other countries in the world after a war to be able to sustain the peace. But that's how we're going to win the peace, by rapidly training the Iraqis themselves. Even the administration has admitted they haven't done the training, because they came back to Congress a few weeks ago and asked for a complete reprogramming of the money.

RAY SUAREZ: Two views now on how the candidates advanced their ideas on Iraq last night. P.J. Crowley is director of national defense and homeland security at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. He was the director of public affairs for the National Security Council during the Clinton administration. And Kenneth Adelman served in the Pentagon and State Department during the Ford and Reagan administrations. He is now a member of the defense policy board that advises Secretary Rumsfeld.

And P.J. Crowley, the hit on Kerry has been variously that he has no plan or that his plan is not clear and understandable. Did he help clear that up last night, help himself by clearing it up last night?

P. J. CROWLEY: Certainly. He drew clear distinctions between himself and the president, both in terms of the status of where we are in Iraq right now and where we go. In particular, both the president and Sen. Kerry talked about the critical importance of training Iraqi security forces. I think Sen. Kerry drew a clear distinction; under the president's plan you have growing numbers of forces and more or less coming together into a meaningful security force in the early to mid-2006 time frame. Sen. Kerry clearly wants to bring international support, you know, a new dynamic on the ground, as he said. And in doing so you could accelerate the training programs, expand them with international cooperation. That way you could advance the time where Iraq is able to secure itself. And at that point you both are able to make clearer progress on reconstruction and also look at the possibility then of starting to draw down the U.S. force presence.

RAY SUAREZ: Ken Adelman, did you leave the television last night feeling like you had a better handle on John Kerry's plan?

KENNETH ADELMAN: Yes. I thought it was... he delivered it very nicely. He did a nice job. He was succinct in everything. I thought the whole debate was good. I thought it elevated the whole tenor of the campaign in a very effective way.

RAY SUAREZ: And what about the Kerry repast-that the Bush plan could be summed up in four words "more of the same." Did the senator make that charge stick?

KENNETH ADELMAN: I thought Kerry was -- had a lot of facts and figures, Bush had few facts and figures, Bush had a clear message of stay the course and I'm tough and I'm not going to take it and I don't need to deal with international summits and all that. But I found lacking in both of them, to tell you the truth, some kind of overall concept to take away that you're going to remember in a few days. I think it could have been with Sen. Kerry that there was a question of confidence, especially after the fall of Saddam Hussein. There is a whole disappointment in the accuracy of the predictions -- you know, overall concept that he comes back to and back to and back to. Likewise, with President Bush, there was no overall takeaway concept. He said a lot of things, he said it's hard work and you have to stay the course and all that, but, you know, they both missed opportunities. I think, frankly, they were both too cautious, and they have all these advisors and they have 32 rules of something. Jim Lehrer, of course, did a great job. But it showed that the way he conducted it that you should let the debates rip; that they should ask each other questions, that they're big boys and they can conduct themselves without 32 pages of rules.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, let's take that note that they were both too cautious, that Kenneth Adelman suggests. Last night Jim Lehrer, P.J. Crowley, tried to challenge John Kerry with his statement of 1971 "How do you ask a man to be the last person to die for a mistake" and tried to back him up against that rhetoric in his view of Iraq and he wouldn't take the bait. A note of caution? Because that left an opening for the president.

P. J. CROWLEY: Well, I thought that within the tight constraints of the debate itself, there were real differences that came forward. I think clearly these are two men that look at the world dramatically differently -- not only in terms of drawing international support back into Iraq but in the larger context there was a clear difference of a view on treaties, in particular the exchange regarding the international criminal court. The president said, you know, this doesn't make sense. John Kerry has a much different view about the U.S. role in the world. Likewise, going back to the front end, it's quite interesting. John Kerry spent the evening trying to draw a clear line between Saddam Hussein on the one hand and Osama bin Laden on the other hand, even chiding the president "remember it was bin Laden that attacked on us Sept. 11." The president drew an even further line last night in his answer on Russia by saying that this is a much more amorphous threat. It's not just Saddam, it's not just bin Laden but it's Chechen rebels. So in a sense part of this question over what is the central front in the war on terrorism, is it Iraq, is it Afghanistan, and whether Iraq is diversion, you know, stems primarily from a different point of view as to, you know, what we are confronting in terms of this broader war on terrorism. It actually came through last night despite some of the constraints.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, Ken Adelman since the NYU speech, the Bush campaign has been saying, well, there's nothing new there, that's stuff we're all doing. Last night the president said that John Kerry's plan wouldn't work. If it's the same plan, how could it be a plan that won work?

KENNETH ADELMAN: I think it is easier for Kerry to attack Bush because Bush had the four years in office and as an opponent he should have just develop after him more, if you ask me. But I'm glad he didn't, to tell you the truth. But the fact is that President Bush has accused Kerry of flip-flopping, that's getting a little tiring by now. But I thought there was a very good point that was raised and that is that Kerry says going into Iraq was a colossal mistake, that going into Iraq was, you know, a diversion from the war on terrorism, all of which you can make a logical point for. I don't agree with but you make a logical argument for. But then he says "so let's internationalize it. Let's say that the water is lousy, it's poisonous, it's muddy but jump in for everybody in the allies around the world." Well, you know, if you say it's a lousy... the water is lousy, not many people are going to jump in. That's a good contradiction and there's no way to really answer that charge.

RAY SUAREZ: And P.J. Crowley, the president tried to make that point in response to Sen. Kerry's ideas about internationalizing the conflict. He was unclear how he was going to do it.

P. J. CROWLEY: Sure. There's no silver bullet here. Clearly the best opportunity to internationalize Iraq was when we entered 18 months ago. We didn't do it that way. I think the point that John Kerry is making is the world is not going to follow George Bush back into Iraq. And I think, you know, John Kerry is saying that with a new administration, there's an opportunity to come back to the table and see if you can't... not necessarily get troops for combat operations, I think that's beyond the pale. I think Kerry was very careful about saying you could have additional training opportunities. You could have regional countries that are able to secure borders so at least you can seal the borders and then be able to deal with the insurgency as you have it. Right now we're 18 month into this, we have insurgency; we haven't broken the back of the insurgency. As the president admitted last night, we're actually still fighting these guys. It's far from mission accomplished. It's far from the cakewalk that some people said. So, you know, is that a guarantee that you can effectively internationalize this? No. But I think as both candidates mentioned, the fact that NATO now has a toe hold and has agreed to do training in Iraq gives you something that you can possibly expand under a different set of circumstances.

RAY SUAREZ: Ken Adelman. Quickly. Go ahead.

KENNETH ADELMAN: But you just can't have it both ways and say, you know, it was a colossal mistake, we shouldn t have done it, it's a diversion on the war and terrorism and therefore everybody should now join us. Plus, the idea of throwing a summit at the problem is kind of ridiculous.

P. J. CROWLEY: By the same token...

KENNETH ADELMAN: We've all had 50 summits a year and we know what summits do. Not much.

P. J. CROWLEY: But the key here is to accelerate the training program. They both agree on the exit strategy

KENNETH ADELMAN: Right.

P. J. CROWLEY: They both agree on where we have to go. The faster you can get there, it is going to be more effective for Iraq in the long term. It adds to the legitimacy that allows you to get back to reconstruction quickly. Right now reconstruction is dead. And that is an essential element to creating conditions that turns the corner in Iraq.

RAY SUAREZ: P.J. Crowley, Ken Adelman --

KENNETH ADELMAN: Yeah. But there's no evidence that....

RAY SUAREZ: Gentlemen, thank you both.

KENNETH ADELMAN: .Kerry can do that quicker.

FOCUS SHIELDS & BROOKS

MARGARET WARNER: And that brings us finally to the analysis of Shields and Brooks, syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks. Well, gentlemen. We were all together last night but after nearly 24 hours, Mark, what is your verdict on the debate?

MARK SHIELDS: Entirely different. (Laughs) no, before last night, Margaret, overwhelmingly every measurement of public opinion showed the support for John Kerry... were people who were against George Bush. And last night I think because of his performance in debate where he was more impassioned than he was patrician, maybe more commanding than continental he gave people a comfort level. He raised the comfort level of his own supporters that they could be for him. And I think he energized. And secondly, he moved from the very dangerous political position where I don't think he was really, but there was the perception that the campaign was just going nowhere and if anything going backwards -- of being a loser and now I don't think there's any question -- everybody regards him clearly as the underdog. And Americans love underdogs. They're not very big on losers. And I think that was an important change for Kerry. It's not a seismic change in the campaign, but I think it's a real change.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you think it changed the dynamic for Kerry in that way?

DAVID BROOKS: Exactly in that way just in conversations with people around town. The people who are Democrats who were for him, and now their morale is much lifted, whereas, you know, you're down six or eight points week after week, your morale gets down. Today they're walking a little higher, a little prettier.

MARGARET WARNER: Also, going into the debate, wasn't there the view that if President Bush... he could almost seal, cement his lead last night if he could absolutely put Kerry away and keep Kerry from reaching that threshold of commander in chief he could pretty much coast.

DAVID BROOKS: He could absolutely have coasted.

MARGARET WARNER: That didn't happen.

DAVID BROOKS: I would say for a lot of people who you talked to on the Republican side, they saw George Bush in front of Tim Russert the other week or the other month now, and they thought a performance like that... and Bush is more likely to blow it because Kerry really is a good debater. And there were little insecurities about Bush so I would say they're a little relieved, too. I think the bottom line I thought on the merits a draw, but as I thought, if you went into the debate thinking that John Kerry was a Swiss flip-flopper, well, you see he's better than that. So I thought all along he'd rise a little in until the polls, not transform the race but rise a little and I still think that's basically what s going to happen.

MARGARET WARNER: David said that last night when we were previewing it that in a way... he didn't use the word caricature, but Kerry had been so caricatured in all these ads and so on, that just standing on the stage in an equal fashion and perform performing adequately, he would probably....

MARK SHIELDS: Kerry was better than his campaign and he was better, certainly, than Kerry that had been presented by the Bush campaign. And I think he made the race a lot more about President Bush last night than it had been. It had been almost exclusively about Kerry. Just one point, Margaret, and that was David's touching on the perception of the two of them and how they... how President Bush handled himself compared to Tim Russert. I think one of the problems the president had is that he... since Tim Russert, he had been before only adulatory crowds -- uncritical crowds, undemanding crowds. And I think you saw it last night not simply in the caliber of his response but he's the used to just tossing out lines and getting guffaws and getting, you know, raucous applause. That's one of the reasons he kept returning to those buzz words last night. My God, it worked in Duluth, it worked in Lorraine, Ohio. Why aren't I getting the same response here? And it's just bad habits, I think you get into that rhetorically.

DAVID BROOKS: I have a slightly different view; if you look at the Bush events, the way they structure them, they re very different from up on the podium with the audience in front of you. They're all around. There's usually a couple stools, people on stage; he's buddy, buddy with the people; that s where he excels -- the guy does not excel in straight oratory.

MARGARET WARNER: That s right. In a way, the format, which was to so stiff, he would be better served if he could walk around as he did with the mike kind of Oprah style.

DAVID BROOKS: I absolutely agree. He's just not he s not a formal speaker. He's a casual belly-to-belly guffawer, you know, towel snapper. That s who he is.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, let s put in a note of caution here. There were all these overnight instant polls and instant focus groups

MARK SHIELDS: Sure.

MARGARET WARNER: - and people said they thought Kerry quote/unquote won the debate more than they thought President Bush did. Mark, those have often not been very good predictors of who wins the election.

MARK SHIELDS: No, I mean, people thought that Al Gore won.

MARGARET WARNER: In 2000.

MARK SHIELDS: In 2000. There are two things that happen Margaret. First of all, the person is less known usually if he puts himself well, he does well. The biggest gainer ever in the debates was Ross Perot in 1992. But I thought what was interesting was they saw John Kerry as much, much more positive towards John Kerry as a consequence of last evening than they had been.

MARGARET WARNER: The people in these groups?

MARK SHIELDS: The people in these groups.. that's right. People polled who actually watched the national poll, Gallup by almost close to 4-1 they saw it; whereas the president was just awash. I mean, they didn't see him more favorably or less favorably. So I think that has to be seen as good for Kerry. But no, those are not... then the perception, again, as they energize his own supporters are terribly important. I'd be interested to see the crowds he gets. You know, whether, in fact, those crowds become bigger and more enthusiastic. The great story is told after the first debate between Kennedy and Nixon in 1960, Richard Nixon flew into Nashville, Tennessee, and there Dick Tucta noted....

MARGARET WARNER: Frank Stir.

MARK SHIELDS: Showed up and when security was less secure and backed up to him and had a little old lady present him flowers and said "honey, we don't care if he killed you last night, we're still with you." Perceptions change.

DAVID BROOKS: Well, if Bush is up by six in a week we'll be saying what a disaster the debate was for Kerry.

MARGARET WARNER: And how ridiculous and I noticed, David, even in the instant polls and the focus groups, the same people who said they thought Kerry won the debate didn't necessarily change their vote.

DAVID BROOKS: And the particulars they thought Bush was stronger and more likable and they didn't change their vote. So you can see a lot of Bush people saying "my guy got beat but still I'm going to vote for this guy."

MARGARET WARNER: Going into the next... we've got twelve days with two more presidential debates and a vice presidential debate. What does, first of all, Sen. Kerry have to do to try to capitalize at least on this perception?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, obviously stay on offense. But I would say there was a tonal difference between the two. Reading the transcript you learn... after seeing it then when you read it you learn more. One of the things I noticed reading it, I lost my pages on the floor of my study, and I couldn't tell who said what. But if you read one sentence, it's clear. You know immediately. If somebody's saying "I have a four-point plan" or "I have a series of things we should do" that's Kerry. Sort of technocrat I can, managerial, here's what we should do, bing, bing, bing, bing. If somebody's talking about honor or duty, we have to stick up for what we believe in, personal morality, that's Bush. I think they could both use some of the other. Although I would counsel Bush to go even more Reaganesque, you might say, more person-to-person, more talking about the war widow, which he did which I thought was a good moment for him. Not try to compete on wonky terms but go more "I'm relating to you person to person."

MARK SHIELDS: I didn't think Kerry was wonky. I mean, I thought he was a lot more concise than he had been in all the charges and characters about him being... a great advantage for Kerry was the time limits. There s no doubt about it.

MARGARET WARNER: Looking ahead, I mean, you said it will be interesting to see if the crowd swells, but in the end now we're going to have, what, I don't know how many days before we have another presidential debate. He's out there campaigning.

MARK SHIELDS: One week from today.

MARGARET WARNER: Does any dynamic shift or does it just stay frozen until the next presidential debate?

MARK SHIELDS: I think, Margaret, it's no accident the campaigns cut back on their advertising this period because this is a time when voters take over the campaign. Damn it. They're doing it. So they're making decisions. The vice presidential is a decision-making point. It's probably not decisive but it's a point in which people get further information and I think that what George Bush has to do is he has to look at those game films. And George Bush, the irony is, was great beneficiary in 2000 from the fact that his opponent, Al Gore, just failed totally in non-verbal communication with his sighs. And his father suffered from looking at his watch and appearing indifferent. George Bush last night appeared like he was put upon. I mean, what... you know, that is not the George Bush who's the more likable of the two in every measurement. He just seemed like a very unpleasant and petulant guy last night and he can't do that again. I mean, I think he saw him as a great advantage that he has in the whole likeability in the sense that he is and I think in fairness to him, you have to understand, this is the first president in 35 years, 30 years, who's been there while Americans are in combat and dying. And I think maybe he does feel put upon.

DAVID BROOKS: I'd just like to point out my reaction shot during that was just disgust and contempt.

MARGARET WARNER: We got it on the air.

DAVID BROOKS: Split screen. One thing I think we talked about before was people who watched the debate on split screen had a much more pro-Kerry than those who watched without the split screen.

MARGARET WARNER: That is important because we showed some cutaways but we didn't have the split screen. Even C Span did a split screen.

DAVID BROOKS: You think TV is a weird medium, you think expressiveness is supposed to be good but in every case minimalist non-expressiveness is good.

MARGARET WARNER: But are you both agreeing that essentially for the next two weeks the only thing that counts are these next debates?

DAVID BROOKS: Also and what happens in Iraq.

MARK SHIELDS: The reality of Iraq trumps all the great rallies and events and visuals that either campaign has.

DAVID BROOKS: And one other crucial event is the Oct. 9 Afghan vote. If there are happy Afghans voting, that's just a big event. If it goes terribly, that's also a big event.

MARGARET WARNER: But do you agree with Jim Fallows who said that he thinks it will be the Bush camp that will be back... well, you said he should be looking at the films.

MARK SHIELDS: He really should. You don't want to have two back-to-back performances where the president appears to be just there out of some duty and getting a root canal and cold showers.

DAVID BROOKS: I want to push back a little there; this was not a slaughter by any mean a debate where they both did well.

MARK SHIELDS: That's what I meant.

MARGARET WARNER: You mean body language?

MARK SHIELDS: His body language hurt him. I think if you read it, if you read the transcript, you might not think that it was a clear-cut Kerry victory. But if you saw the split screen and watched it, I mean, people I think came away if w a far more positive attitude toward Kerry than they did toward the president.

MARGARET WARNER: Last quick question and it picks up on Spencer Michel s group. A lot of these people want an exit plan from Iraq. You heard Jim Fallows say he didn't think either one of them were bold enough. Is there something to that?

DAVID BROOKS: There is no exit plan. They both have the same exit plan which is to train the Iraqis and then eventually get out. Realistically it's just going to take a long time and I think they both secretly know that; insurgency wars are not won overnight.

MARGARET WARNER: So voters were looking for that will wait in vain?

MARK SHIELDS: Whoever wins will be out of Iraq within a year and neither one of them has the gusts to say it.

DAVID BROOKS: I'll buy you dinner if that's true.

MARGARET WARNER: Mark Shields, David Brooks, thank you both.

RECAP

MARGARET WARNER: Again, the major developments of the day: U.S. and Iraqi forces fought to regain control of the city of Samarra in northern Iraq. And President Bush and Democrat John Kerry returned to campaigning following their first debate last night. A reminder, that Washington Week can be seen on most PBS stations later this evening. We'll see you online and again here Monday evening. I'm Margaret Warner, thanks for being with us. Good night.