I think it speaks both to Bush's performance (B imho), and the constraints with which he is forced to work, that I cannot conceive that he could have possibly done any better than he did. After all, his two imperatives were
1. Appear composed and presidential
2. Knock Kerry back on his heels.
and those two goals cannot but conflict. For Bush to have done better, he would have to have a better record to run on, and not to have done so poorly in the first debate.
Prime Minister John Howard has thanked the Australian people for his historic fourth federal election victory.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1216569.htm
Well, maybe I'm predisposed to dislike him, and it was three o'clock in the morning where I was, but I couldn't see Bush as anything other than shrill and disjointed in his arguments. Granted, he calmed down in the last half of the debate, but he was still incapable of joining his sentences up to make a coherent argument.
Even if I try to think down to the level of a parody of a stereotypical voter, his sound-bites were just lame. "You can run, but you can't hide"? When Kerry's sitting there quite calmly, hardly even perturbed, let alone running and hiding.
And his three biggest mistakes? Nada, zero and none, seemed to be his reply. Puh-leeze. I don't know how that sells in Peoria, but I wouldn't buy that with a wooden nickel.