Reply #2: It doesn't matter if he does.

[Rageneau]

It ain't winning, it's spinning that counts.

Gore completely demolished Smirk in the first debate. It was obvious to everyone -- even the Freepers. I monitored a 1000+ post thread of theirs that night and they were almost univerally wailing in despair. They thought the election was already over; that Bush was hopeless.

(To any Freeper trolling here) All you have to do to verify that I'm telling the truth is to go dig up the thread on that debate. Personally, I'd love to see it again.)

Anyway, it didn't matter how conclusively Gore had gored Bush. Starting that night and continuing for the next weeks, the Russerts and Matthews and Limbaughs and Jeff Gerths of the media began spinning that Gore had been too smarmy and boring and superor-acting and aggressive in the debates; about how he had 'lied' about a FEMA trip to Florida and about how many seats he said there were in a classroom, or how annoying his repeated 'sighing' was. They criticized everything they could think of to criticize.

Meanwhile the media almost unanimously stressed how sincere and straightforward they thought Bush was -- the kind of guy who, when he doesn't know the answer, doesn't pretend (or care) as if he does; a no-nonsense, plain-speaking man who will make a great president one day.

THAT was what happened after Gore cleaned Bush's clock in the first debate. Why should we expect anything different with the first Kerry-Bush one?