Kerry 2, Bush 0

TELEVISION NEWS coverage has become so twisted that CNN commentators are not only withholding judgment on who won each debate, waiting to get spun by the campaigns-they're admitting that they're doing so. Meanwhile, Fox News' pundits have been immediately straightforward and honest, defying the spin.

"I think Kerry won this debate as he won the first debate," Fox news commentator Mort Kondracke said directly after Friday's debate in St. Louis. "I thought that Kerry was much more aggressive and the president was basically on the defense and didn't have new arguments."

What gives? I'll get to that later. First, some words on why Kondracke is absolutely correct. George W. Bush was as off his game on Friday as he was on the Thursday prior. He managed to hold back the scowls and grimaces, mostly, but the anger and petulance were unleashed through his darting around the stage, screaming and shouting his answers to the audience and cutting in on Charlie Gibson, at one point taking control of the debate from the moderator. If, in the first debate, Bush looked like a first-grader making faces while in class, in the second debate he came off as the same child on Ritalin. (Or perhaps presidential-grade meta-amphetamine?)

The faux confidence and over-exuberance, which was more over-the-top than any other time in his four years as president, might play to a part of Bush's base, but it was off-putting for many people, including many undecided voters and women who view Bush as too arrogant and aggressive, with whom Kerry is now gaining. Kerry was in command of the facts and more resolute than he was in the first debate. He also had a lot more with which to hit Bush, including last week's report from U.S. arms inspector Charles Duelfer on the lack of WMDs in Iraq, and the charge by former occupation administrator L. Paul Bremer, who admitted that we didn't go into Iraq with enough troops. Just like Dick Cheney in the debate with John Edwards, Bush's defense of his conduct regarding Iraq appeared delusional and desperate.

On domestic issues, Bush rarely seemed credible. Does anyone really believe he's an environmentalist? He didn't answer any of the questions with passion, except the one that dealt with abortion. Since most Americans, including those undecided voters and women, believe in a woman's right to choose, this did him little good except, again, to energize his base while underscoring how much he tilts to the right. Bush belittled a questioner who offered valid concerns-concerns polls show most Americans share-about the Patriot Act by saying he doesn't "think" it takes away civil liberties and then asking the man if he really believes that. Then, when asked to name three mistakes he has made while in office, Bush refused, rambling back into a defense of Iraq.

All of which is why it has been pitiful to watch tv commentators pander to Bush in the post-debate analysis. The Hardball panel on MSNBC went out of its way to compliment Bush after both debates-Salon noted that they seemed to have watched some other debate on another planet the first time around-while Tim Russert and Tom Brokaw punted, pining on with sentimental crap about how debates show the true spirit of democracy. On CNN on Friday night, Jeff Greenfield blurted out a wish-washy analysis that basically amounted to saying the debate was a draw-though he didn't even want to be that definitive-while Wolf Blitzer waited until Judy Woodruff offered up a report from the "spin room."

"Are you dizzy yet with the spin," he asked Woodruff. She rambled on and then, like someone suffering from constipation, winced and slowly admitted that most reporters agreed Kerry did better than Bush, though this got lost in the rest of the coverage on the network. There's an outright acknowledgement in the media of the total domination of "spin," with reporters and commentators on CNN withholding judgment until they decide who does a better job of persuading them of what they just saw. With most of the press's constant fear of appearing liberal, that means the Republicans have a built-in advantage.

While waiting for the spin, CNN brings in its resident soothsayer and fortune teller, political analyst Bill Schneider, who reads the tea leaves of a "flash" poll. Was there a clear winner as there was last Thursday?" he asked rhetorically when Aaron Brown asked the swami what he'd divined. "No. But Americans did think one candidate did very well."

Duh! The candidate turned out, of course, to be John Kerry, whom Schneider would later tell us scored high in the poll on various issues and was preferred by a slim majority of people (47-45), even though Republicans were over-sampled in the poll. Of course, by admitting that Kerry's win in the first debate was clear, Schneider was saying something his network refused to say for days and certainly not in the first hours after that debate.

Meanwhile, back on Fox, Brit Hume agreed with Mort Kondracke immediately after the Friday night debate, and patted Kerry on the back: "It is now fair to say that in each of these debates in terms of marshaling arguments, and remembering them and presenting them that this is something John Kerry has proved he is very good at."

It might seem odd that we're getting more forthrightness from the commentators at Fox. This, after all, is a network whose chief political reporter, Carl Cameron, admitted to making up damning quotes from Kerry after the first debate, and only got a "reprimand." But the Fox crowd has less to lose by criticizing Bush. They're shameless shills for the Republicans, and will back Bush in the end no matter what. And they haven't been covered with the patina of the "liberal media," so no one will ever accuse them of slanting coverage toward Kerry. People like Jeff Greenfield on CNN, on the other hand, seem so worried that they'll be tarred as liberals stumping for Kerry that they go out of their way not to appear that way, to the point of seeming completely out of touch.

Another reason for the disparity is that many liberal commentators in the media bought into the Iraq war rationale and now feel like utter fools. The more they criticize Bush on the one issue central to the campaigns and the debates, the more they are admitting their own stupidity at having been suckered by him. The Washington Post editorial page, which often pummels Bush for conservative positions on same-sex marriage, signed on early to the war in Iraq and not only refuses to admit its folly now, but still supports Bush's rationale for war. Not surprisingly, the Post was one of the few editorial pages (even among conservative papers) that actually opined that Bush held his own during the first debate, a position that seems laughable now. Like Bush, these commentators are loath to admit they ever made a mistake. o