John Rapley THE GENERAL consensus after Thursday's debate was that John Kerry emerged the victor from a hard-fought match.
For those with long memories and a love for boxing, it was reminiscent of the first Tyson-Holyfield match John Kerry came out swinging but George W. Bush counter-punched effectively, preventing his Democratic opponent from gaining the initiative.
So it continued for an hour.
Around then, though, President Bush, never one for late nights, began to tire. His responses slowed and he began to look frustrated and, at times, exasperated by his opponent.
Meanwhile, Senator Kerry fought until the end, and landed some of his best punches in the closing minutes of the debate.
Senator Kerry won the battle. Nevertheless, there is now a risk that in so doing, he might have jeopardised his chance for victory in the war.
By clarifying his position on the Iraq war and, moreover, by doing it concisely he should have put paid to the Bush camp's depiction of him as a flip-flopper. However, his position is a weak one to defend, and Senator Kerry has revealed a new vulnerability.
In a nutshell, the Democratic nominee's stand is that the Iraq campaign is the right war done the wrong way.
While he supported military action to oust Saddam Hussein, he would have done it differently from the way George W. Bush did. In particular, he said, he would have built an effective coalition prior to an invasion.
The differences between Messrs. Bush and Kerry are thus now clear for all to see. Moreover, Senator Kerry can rightly claim that he has stuck to his position consistently.
PLAYING RIGHT CARDS
The problem, though, is that such a coalition would likely never have emerged for the simple reason that little of the international community ever shared the American preoccupation with removing Saddam Hussein.
Had Mr. Kerry been president, therefore, he would have likely faced a choice in pursuing his proposed policy. Either he would have had to go it alone and invade Iraq, or he would have bowed to the will of the international community.
The first option is what Mr. Bush chose, the second is what Mr. Bush has always said he would never choose. The Republican campaign may overlook this nicety, but I doubt it.
If they decide to revive the issue and press Mr. Kerry hard on the matter, he may find himself backed into a situation of defending a position with a lot of prevarication. That will play into the hands of the Bush campaign, which will keep stressing that if nothing else, Mr. Bush has been consistent and resolute.
In the end, Mr. Kerry may suffer for his failure to oppose the war as unambiguously as I, for one, think he should have done.
The Democratic establishment, with its eye on swing voters, did not want a strong anti-war candidate. But the decision to go with John Kerry may yet alienate some of the party's core supporters on the left. That is, if the Republicans play their cards right.
John Rapley is a senior lecturer in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona.
