You think Mike Allen might have written some of this piece, or at least the title, before the debate started? Or did he just feel bad about titling it Bush v. Temper? Because there really was no "Kerry v. Rules" tension that I noticed during the debate -- it was Bush who was consistantly going over the alotted time -- and there's no mention of such tension in the piece as it's written now (first graf included, link above for the rest):
"Kerry vs. the Rules, Bush vs. His Temper
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 1, 2004; Page A08
CORAL GABLES, Fla., Sept. 30 -- President Bush has thrown Sen. John F. Kerry's words back on him during nearly every speech of the campaign, but he rocked back in irritation during the first presidential debate Thursday night when the Massachusetts senator did the same thing to him."
EDIT: The name has changed on the site to "Kerry v. the format...." but that's still a lame name for a story that's all about how bush was flustered. Now, in fairness to Mike Allen, it's usually copy editors, not reporters, who title pieces. And the Post's copy editor must be wed to some notion of he-said, she-said fairness over accuracy. Because, if you don't actually read the story, just the headline, it looks like the story said it was a tie. If you don't get past the fold, or the jump, you assume that the section on Kerry's wrangling with the format comes later, and maybe we'll get there, but let's read about the Expos (soon to be Washington Grays) first. Actually, the jump's not a problem here, since the story's buried on A8, but still.