Pundits See No Clear Winner, but Say Bush Improved

By consensus of television pundits, the first presidential debate went to Sen. John F. Kerry. But several of them said Friday that President Bush seemed more comfortable against the Democratic challenger in Round 2.

Gone, they noted, were the Bush scowls so evident in their first encounter last week on split-screen TV cutaways. Instead, the president joked about his facial expressions as he roamed the stage and pressed his case against Kerry.

Reluctant to pick winners this time, many analysts simply described the clash as aggressive and intense. They noted that Kerry kept his poise and scored several points against Bush.

“A heated debate rematch,” said CBS anchor Dan Rather. “The two candidates sparred aggressively over the war in Iraq, jobs, education, healthcare, the environment.”

Bob Schieffer, also of CBS, said: “I thought the president did a little better tonight than he did in the first debate, but John Kerry is a very good debater.”

On ABC, George Will said: “I think it was a draw. Both men did well.” Anchor Peter Jennings said both Kerry and Bush were “certainly looking more at home on stage.”

But ABC’s Mark Halperin cautioned that the election dynamic still seemed amazingly tight with about three weeks to go. “I really don’t think either man changed the trajectory ... going forward,” Halperin said.

Some analysts said the debate crystallized the choices voters face on matters of war and peace, taxes and spending, science and faith.

“This race is so engaged now,” said NBC’s Tim Russert. “People have to make a big decision.” NBC anchor Tom Brokaw said: “We saw tonight that there are sharp differences between these two candidates on big, big issues.”

On CNN, Jeff Greenfield reminded viewers that the president had weathered a tough week on Iraq. “The news of the last few days may push the debate more than what either said,” Greenfield said, referring to reports on the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the war -- which undercut one of Bush’s rationales for the invasion -- and criticism over the number of troops needed to secure the country.

Still, CNN’s John King said the GOP would take heart that Bush had not lost two in a row. “Republicans will be happy,” he said. “They will be encouraged here.”

“The overwhelming reaction is that George W. Bush came to play,” said Fox News Channel’s Chris Wallace. He “did a very vigorous job, certainly held Kerry even at the very least.”

But Fox analyst Morton Kondracke ventured: “I think Kerry won this debate as he won the first debate. I thought that Kerry was much more aggressive, and that Bush was basically on the defense, didn’t have new arguments.”

Post-debate commentary is a potentially significant force in shaping public perceptions, especially for people who do not tune in to the events.

After the first encounter between Bush and Kerry on Sept. 30, several prominent network analysts quickly concluded that the Democrat had the better night. That judgment took root and became a national consensus in the ensuing days; even Republicans did not dispute it.

After Vice President Dick Cheney debated Kerry’s running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, on Tuesday, many analysts simply called it a close-fought encounter and shied away from declaring a winner.

Eventually, the running-mate duel was perceived as a draw, although some experts gave a slight edge to one candidate or the other. Some of the points Cheney scored were offset somewhat by heavy TV coverage of one of his misstatements -- that he had never met Edwards before. The vice president’s assertion was belied by video footage that showed Cheney and Edwards together at a podium in 2001; the image was shown repeatedly on cable TV news the next day.

On Friday, Democrats and Republicans were straining to influence news coverage even during the debate. The Bush-Cheney campaign peppered reporters every few minutes with “breaking debate facts,” dissecting Kerry’s words. The Kerry-Edwards camp did the same with a barrage of e-mails on “Bush vs. Reality.”

Times staff writers Emma Schwartz and Richard Rainey contributed to this report.