I predict that Kerry kicks Bush's ass. No contest.

Well, I still think Gore kicked Bush's ass as far as issues and positions, but that was proven unimportant. Kerry has to figure out a way to be more personable than Bush, because that's what the masses really seem to care about. Just my (irrelevant) opinion, of course.

For some reason, I'm starting to really think that Bush is going to win this. I will vote otherwise, but I'm questionning the power of the Kerry camp. I'll try to watch tonight.

One word. Dignitude.

I'm watching now, and I am seriously impressed by Kerry. All I've heard is how great of a debator he is, and I'm surprised at how good he has proven to be. OK, wanted to post while it was on my mind.

I think that Kerry made a statement yesterday. Now that I think about it, this may sound like typical media banter, but I purposely have avoided watching any commentary since I had to tape the debate. Kerry told swing voters "You're right. Bush IS a known commodity. And you don't want that commodity." He started with that message early, and kept it through the entire debate, though he didn't just come out and say it, which would have been, I think, similiar to how Gore lost the debates.

I think that early on, Kerry rattled Bush; by the second or third question, Bush started looking quite nervous, less composed, crouching over the podium, banging his fist on the podium, continuously requesting more time for rebuttle (which I had thought to be against the rules) and not having much to say at all besides the typical propoganda slogans. Kerry spanked Bush.

Did anyone else notice that Kerry did the Clinton thumb-trick while speaking? When I saw that I thought about whether he had been coached to do that... maybe to invoke the thought of Clinton? It wouldn't be a bad idea, anyway. But I just noticed he was using a lot of those "Clintonian" maneurisms.

I'm assuming that the rest of the debates will all go this way. These were Bush's topics. This was his strong suit. And his argument failed. What about the debates on his weak points?

Also, if the election were to happen tomorrow, immediately following this debate and all of its coverage, I would be extremely dissapointed with America if we elected Bush.

Ok, now that I've said my piece I get to go read professional commentary.

Oh, and stopforme, Kerry was dressed slightly better.

(Edited by deathscythe257 at 10:51 am on Oct. 1, 2004)

I thought the debate was extrememly well-balanced. Both showed an equal amount of composure, both repeated their respective messages about 16000 times (which I think is a consequence of the 90 minute format), and both attacked the other equally (although the whole debate was essentially "Okay, this is what Bush did about terrorism-- was he right?").

I don't expect the analyses here to be any different than the rest of the campaign in pointing out how assinine Bush is, but I consider myself unbiased and felt the debate was pretty balanced. (Translation: I'm a "closet Republican". Shhhhh... don't tell anyone!)

So, am I biased because Bush stumbled over his words, couldn't find what he wanted to say and made perhaps his largest blunder ever by saying "We went to Iraq because the enemy attacked us?"

He's saying he disagrees with you. Is that okay?

I'm just saying that he's making an implication that I (or anyone else who might post their opinion) ignored what Bush had to say and just thought Kerry was great. I, too, consider myself fair. (noone can be unbiased)

Carl knows I like him.

(Edited by deathscythe257 at 11:57 am on Oct. 1, 2004)

I wasn't directly addressing you. I'm merely saying that I haven't been swept up in the anti-Bush messages enough to think that Kerry is completely right and Bush is completely wrong. I would assume that most people who post here have decided that Bush needs to go and Kerry needs to win. I think most people will see and hear what they want over the course of the debate and their analysis will most likely reflect that.

Oh, and I just wanted to say that I think Kerry made an excellent point towards the end when he said that a smart president is willing to change his mind and his course of action in light of new evidence. I think if properly spun, he could really get away from all the negative "flip-flop" accusations and turn it into a platform of "adaptibility".

As spoken about in the debate....

Is anyone else slightly worried about the 100,000+ people in Iraq that will be receiving military training from the US? Didn't we do something similar in Afghanistan a couple of decades ago? The potential repercussions make me somewhat nervous.

By the way, Bush is going to be reelected. Bank on it. Mind you, he isn't who I would like to win, but he will.

Apparently the White House feels like Bush lost the debate, since they're claiming that he was emotionally drained from visiting with hurricane victims

LAME!

As far as I am concerned, John Kerry brutalized George Bush on Bush's own turf. If I were Bush, I would try to get Coco the gorilla to take my place in the town-hall style debate that comes next

Well I thought Kerry did a little bit better. I don't think it was a landslide win, and I don't think that the polls will suddenly swing back to Kerry. BUT... this was the debate that Bush was suppose to shine in. This was his "strength" and Kerry's weakness. Kerry coming out looking stronger and, in my opinion, more presidential. In the cutaway shots Kerry always seemed more composed, more alert, etc. Maybe Bush was tired from spending the day with hurricane victims, but also it was past his bedtime. I'm not kididng. He reportedly goes to bed every night around 9:30 pm, so the debate ending an hour past his bedtime caused his staff to literally change his sleeping patterns the days before the debate.

Anyway, this bolds well for Kerry for the next debate as it moves to domestic issues. We'll see how it changes things overall in the polls.

I think we'll see a little bit of a bounce. Nothing worth attributing to anything really, but a little bit of one. But I think if the rest of the debates go this way, it'll definitely sway the election.

I would like to think that a good showing in the debates would swing the election toward kerry, but i don't have that much faith in the sheep of america.

Yeah, I would assume that a debate like last night would only reinforce one's convictions to vote for one or the other-- not help them decide which one they like better.

I am. Not only did we train Bin Laden and his rebels, but we trained Hussein, Noriega, the Arena Party in El Salvador, the Contras AND the Sandinistas in Nicaragua (why not play both sides?), the list goes on and on.

The International War College in Ft. Benning, GA is a venerable rogue's gallery at any given time of nere-do-wells and skulldrudgery. We train them to do our dirty work and they rise up to bite us in the ass when we cut them loose after they have served our purpose. I'm sure we'll be hearing about some Kurd in 5-6 years that we trained in the late 90's.

As for the debate. Kerry clearly won. He had Bush on the ropes from the first question. Hell, Bush couldn't even compliment Kerry on being a good Dad without walking into a landmine ("I try to keep them on a short leash"- Bush, "I've learned to let them be themselves."- Kerry)

It was a classic Ali Rope-A-Dope all night. Kerry calmly stated his positions (he now has positions!!!!) and Bush would get mad and roll his eyes like the class bully that got challenged. Kerry consistently wrapped up his points as the red light was going on while Bush would finish before the green, look bewildered, then repeat himself until his time was out. Bush came across as a very monarchial. "How dare you question the King!!!" was his general posture and attitude all night.

I heard on NPR 65 million people tuned in. That's a great thing. True both camps are now even more solidified. But the elusive independents and swing voters have got to be taking a closer look at Kerry. I thought it was brilliant the way Kerry complimented Bush 41 and Reagan. How do you argue a compliment on your Father's policy? Genius.

(Edited by Peace Frog at 6:22 pm on Oct. 1, 2004)

Bush is a terrible debater and a terrible public speaker. I have no doubt that he will get smeared in all three debates.

I thought it was brilliant the way you said "Bush 41."

Anyone who looks at kerry's record Knows that even in the debates last night, he flopped and flipped. but, he did do a better job in my opinion in the debates. Bush had plenty of times to bring up Kerry's voting stance, but it seemed like he got flustered and stammered over his words. I stutter sometimes, though, and I know I would make a great president.



One example-- Kerry questioned how Bush could send troops to war without the proper armor needed. kerry voted against the money that would give the troops what they needed. maybe Bush was coached not to make it look like he was attacking Kerry, and he did what he could to allude to Kerry's indecisiveness, but the point was not made in a clear way. (much like my posts)

He voted against that particular bill precisely because it didn't give the troops what they needed and spent money frivolously.

Bush did get spanked and I wasn't shocked at all, but unfortunately for all of us, he probably will be re-elected. I'm not voting for him, but this country embraces the idiot, instead of the intellectual.

Well, he's gotta represent the people...

Ha!

Absolutely. C'mon Carl, what debate were you watching? I'm totally and completely biased, but Bush's inability to articulate anything beyond the same handful of speaking points we've been hearing from him the past 6 months shocked even me. He was flustered, he was defensive, he did not answer many questions directly, he came across as nothing more than a confused man who was pissed because his 2 or 3 catchphrases were not adequate to sustain a 90 minute debate. He was so pathetic I actually felt bad for him once or twice. Really, I've not seen anyone but the most insanely right wing claim that Bush matched Kerry.

I think what foldsfan said can be true- public speaking ability and poise are maybe not the top two characteristics needed to be a president. But having enough brains to respond intelligently to challenges is pretty important, as well as having a real understanding of a diverse range of policy issues. Bush was bad in both those respects.

I did think the VP debate I just watched was more well-matched. And I was surprised to see Dick Cheney behave like a thoughtful human occasionally (although perhaps a pathologically lying human). Each candidate's strengths & weaknesses were pretty apparent, but nobody stomped anyone else. I think the Pres. debate could've changed a few people's minds; tonight's probably wouldn't.

From the 3 minutes I caught of it (I'm swamped with work), I could instantly tell that the mood of this debate was far different. Cheney seemed at ease - even chuckled about something and thanked Edwards for his remarks about his daughter. Edwards seemed confident and cordial. I know I missed about 99% of the content, but body language can speak volumes.

I listened to it on the radio. I thought Cheney got his ass kicked.

You know what? It's too bad (for them) that the Democrats didn't pick Edwards for president. I like him ALOT better than Kerry. I'd be much more likely to vote Democrat if Edwards was the man.

(Edited by jamiecarroll at 11:50 pm on Oct. 5, 2004)

i caught the last few minutes of the VP debate... cheney came off as pissed off that a youngster like edwards was even talking to him, and edwards seemed... kinda smarmy, greasy. something. i don't know.

anyone else notice that in the closing comments, edwards thanked the host and cheney, whereas cheney just thanked the host and ignored edwards?

I saw about a half hour of the VP debate, and I'd say that Edwards and Cheney both held their ground. Neither won seemed superior to the other, though I agree with Edwards' views more.

I do think that both Cheney and Bush like to twist words a lot more than Edwards/Kerry and it bothers me to think of how many people could come away from their speaches with a twisted sense of the 'truth.'

(Edited by deathscythe257 at 11:19 am on Oct. 6, 2004)

I watched the whole thing... I must admit, I think Cheney won... but slightly. Nothing that will sway any voters, but he had Edwards on the defensive. He came more prepeared and seemed to have more factual evidence (although sometimes wrong). Edwards came off looking like Kerry's mouthpiece, as evidenced in the "don't use your presidential candidate's name" question. He spent half his time refuting Cheney's last statement, sometimes they needed it, other times he came off looking like the guy that has to get the last word in no matter what.

I thought he held is own during the Iraq portion, and was optimistic for the kill once things shifted domestically. But he couldn't get a point in. Cheney had him running. Edwards has to do better than "We have a plan" I wanna see it.

Cheney seemed to set the tone when he said that in this phase of his career he had no other political aspirations, and he's there to help and serve the president. Something Edwards can't say. You know that somewhere back in his head he's thinking, "If we lose this one, I run again in '08"

For full disclosure I am voting fro Kerry/Edwards... but I'm not a drink the Kool-Aid guy. Cheney won.

(Edited by Peace Frog at 12:01 pm on Oct. 6, 2004)

I agree with Peace Frog's analysis, except I don't think Cheney's win was "slight". He just seemed more in his element. I think the way he made a few 5 second statements during his 30 second rebuttal time was pretty effective. Mean, but effective.

Both came off as personable and slimy at the same time.

Edward's "answer" to his poor attendance record was embarrassing:
Q: "What do you have to say about you attendance record, Senator?"
A: "Did you see the way Cheney voted on bills X, Y, and Z?"