Kerry was the underdog and many people did not know enough about him to be willing to trust him with the presidency during the time of war, a war that has reached our shores. They had tuned in to see if he would measure up.

Kerry measured up. He seemed Presidential and skillfully defended the "flip-flop" and "twisting in the wind" accusations. He also spoke about his own plan. The momentum from the debate will be on his side.

However Kerry failed to win a knock out victory. If he had at least knocked the President down even for a few moments on the battle ground of "war on terror" where the President is considered very strong, it would have been considered a technical knock out. But he did not. He came out with some great combination punches but seemed to hold back the knock out blows. He continuously attacked the President's judgment and Bush's own "flip flops", but he shied away from speaking of the ground realities on Iraq. The mounting casualties, the daily car bombings, the no-go areas and the lack of clear and consistent strategy about those areas. He failed to highlight the extremist agenda of the President's neo-con advisers or draw attention to the hiding of the once highly visible Rumsfeld and Cheney. He did not dwell upon Halliburton and Cheney's influence on the President.

In elections held during times of war, if anything is more important than winning the trust of the people, it is winning the fear mongering. Fear is linked to the survival instinct. As for winning or retaining the trust nothing is as important as owning up to ones mistakes. Here too Kerry won by owning up to his.

Had Bush stressed more on Kerry's vote against the funding for war, Kerry would have had to resort to a long winding and confusing explanation. The one time Bush did mention it Kerry owned up to his "mistake" of offering a "wrong explanation."

It is the owning of mistake that would help people identify with a politician. Everyone makes mistake and everyone goes through an evolution of his position with changing circumstances. Americans know that the war in Iraq was a mistake and is going bad. If Bush had said I made an honest mistake because of the intelligence provided just as Kerry did but having succeeded in getting rid of Saddam staying the course is the best option, people would have understood and applauded. He should have also acknowledged his failure in getting a substantial coalition and should have said that he is trying to build a better one. "We are wiser because we are learning from our mistakes just as Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt did," he should have claimed. 

The President had his own moments to deliver the knock out blows but he failed to deliver them. Bush came into the debate with the momentum on his side and the crucial first debate was about the war on terror where he held a substantial lead in the polls. His campaign which has harnessed the art of fear mongering had Kerry on the defensive about his "flip flops". They were able to paint him as an "untrustworthy politician." By relying too much on reiterating the "scripted reply" of "a great diversion" and "a wrong war at the wrong time in a wrong place" he came out looking as a "politician" himself and not as a "commander in-chief." or "presidential".

Bush should have anticipated Kerry's mentioning his father, Bush's senior's stand on the folly of trying to occupy Iraq and his success in building a real coalition. Bush the son should have been ready with a reply such as "Senator thank you for acknowledging the wisdom of my father, but Senator you voted against that war. Another proof of remaining consistent about your inconsistencies."

It is not only the undecided voters that Kerry was able to address more effectively but also to two other influential voting blocks - the Muslim and the Jewish vote. Kerry mentioned the security of Israel more effectively and then addressed the need to reaching out to the Muslim world. Bush relied on the patronizing stand of the neo-cons that Muslims also prefer freedom. If Kerry takes the next step and just meets with the Muslim leadership, the Muslim vote will be his for the taking and may win him the crucial states of New Jersey, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Florida and Missouri; thus leaving only Iowa among the closely contested state.. Bush had done precisely that in 2000 while Gore in spite of having the Jewish vote almost guaranteed refused to meet with the Muslim leadership. An overwhelming majority of the Jews support the Democratic Party and being the most mature voting block would not feel threatened by a candidate meting with the Muslims.