The first debate was certainly interesting, mainly because it showed that the substantive policy differences between the candidates were so tiny. It came down to “I could have done everything better” and “No, you couldn’t have — it’s hard work.” The only substantive difference was unsettling: whether A) to continue multilateral talks with North Korea or B) do what the North Koreans want and start bilateral talks. It seemed that since Bush supports A, Kerry had to differentiate himself by promoting B. (I cannot imagine a good reason for unilateralism in that case, and it’s bizarre coming from Mr. Multilateralist on everything else.) And now Kerry has said that he would consider a first strike against North Korea, possibly initiating a nuclear war and an invasion of South Korea, with millions of casualties. As Morton Kondracke put it on the tube the other day, every time you think it would be a great idea to fire George Bush, you’re struck with the reality that that would mean hiring John Kerry. What a choice.
(I’m also not sure which candidate would be more likely to get us out of Iraq. Kerry thinks that the French are going to send troops because of his command of the language, but it’s more likely that the French would all abandon the language of Voltaire for German. So his “more troops/fewer troops,” “bring in more allies/belittle the allies you have and encourage them to leave” strategy may generate a longer and much more costly and dangerous commitment.)