Kerry destroyed Bush in the first debate, and so it's excruciatingly painful watching all the Republicans trying to convince me that Bush came out on top despite his verbal meltdowns, inability to remember the questions, and general inepitute. I'd really like to believe that if Kerry had performed poorly, I'd be objective enough to say so, but then I guess that wouldn't fit Karl Rove's campaign strategy of never showing weakness and beating unsubstantiated messages into the minds of the American public until they're accepted as true.

Kerry won. Hands down. He actually looked presidential. He was eloquent, knowledgable of the topics, and demonstrated a real intelligence that his opponent clearly lacked. (Bush was worn out at the end, obviously unable to follow what Jim Lehrer and John Kerry were saying, resembling the true fool he is.) If Kerry's performance doesn't sway the majority of swing-voters observing his TKO of W., then I'm not sure what it will take to convince intelligent voters that he's the right choice in November.

One thing you have to give Bush, though -- he's consistent and (when he doesn't know what else to say) will fall back on his record of consistency and certaity time and time again. Kerry, however, finally said what intelligent people have known all along -- that CERTAINTY DOESN'T NECESSARILY MAKE ONE RIGHT.

(Still, I feel pretty certain that Kerry won this one, and I expect he'll have similar success in the next two.)

Oh, and I'm betting there'll be fireworks (probably provided by Haliburton)at Tuesday night's VP throw-down.