Opinions on the Debate, What did everybody think?

[giggleygirl25]

did anyone watch the debate? i watched some of it, from what i saw of it...kerry did well and bush needs to work on his delivery.

[steph]

Bush got Kennedy'd <gg> IMHO :p
XOXO

[kurchatovium]

Personally looking over the text of the debate I would say Bush held his own and delivered the message that has most voters worried about Kerry even the liberal ones is that you don't know where he stands. This was very effective tatic against Mcgovern a long long time ago. It remains to be seen if it will work here.

[venray]

I thought it was very evenly matched with neither candidate straying far from their positions.

Kerry was very poised, but delivered nothing new.

Bush was calm but also offered nothing very new.

I think it will be status quo as far as the race goes.

Neither candidate did any harm to themselves nor much to each other.


Ray

[Krokus]

kerry handily won this debate. bush came off as impatient, and he seemed very irritated at times. he also had trouble coming up with his answers. kerry was very poised, calmly explained his positions on the issues at hand, and I feel he really delivered his message to the american people. kerry 1 bush 0 ....I also feel that this is something that kerry had to do, and i believe he did it well.


(For the sake of sanity, I'll say it, this is my opinion, not fact)

[venray]

I think the polls over the next few days will prove you wrong Krokus.

But that remains to be seen.

Both the Dems and Republicans analyzing the debate have graded it fairly even with no "homerun" from either of them.


Ray

[Jimblast]

Kerry's delivery was better which was expected as he is known as an excellent debator and showed it.

Bush needs to lose the 'smirk'!

Kerry contradicted himself as to whether or not Saddam was a threat.

I believe Bush won the first half of the debate yet Kerry won the second half when he became less rigid which was good for him.

Kerry should have hit Bush on the 'Mission Accomplished' banner more.

Bush should have hammered Kerry on the 'we'll wait to see the outcome..' comment before the debate.

Although Bush kept repeating the same things over and over again, (being Pres. is hard, and 'you can't keep sending mixed signals with the war on terror') which became a little redundant.

I don't think there was an outright winner and I really didn't expect one. Neither really told us anything new.

Bottom line is...will people buy into Kerry's latest position on the War on Terror in Iraq.

Kerry acquitted himself better with his presence, but Bush didn't seem to come off as a politician. It will be very interesting to see what the results are in the polls. I believe in the short term the polls will narrow even more, but just before election day one or the other will significantly pull away.

:cool:

[kurchatovium]

I doubt that that is true Krokus. At best you can say, as Venray did, the debate was a draw with neither scoring any major blows.

[Krokus]

I'd say that, but I don't believe that, so I am not going to say it. I think kerry handily came out on top with this one, as in my opinion he laid out where he stood on these issues to the american people, which is what he needed to do. Bush on the other hand, said exactly what everyone expected. Kerry was refreshing and I think that the polls will reflect that. Im not saying i expect kerry to take the lead, but I will say that I think it will narrow. I dont pay much attention to polls anyhow, when usually the results are only like, 4,000 people. You can't judge an election on that. Give me a poll with over 20 million voters, and I'll start to consider.

[kurchatovium]

You are entitiled to your opinion as am I. I gave a slight edge to Bush but thats just me. I think Kerry's flip flopping will cost him and in my opinion it already has. That is a good theme for the president to continue on and I agree with it. If I were a total outsider to this race I would be incline to agree with Venray and call it a draw.

[Mitchell]

To me, I think Kerry won the debate hands down, and I'm not saying this as a liberal opinion. I know Venray doesnt believe in "polls" but the inital one I heard on ABC had Kerry winning by nine points. I assert my position that Kerry won for the following reasons.

1. I feel he greatly articulated his point that Bush misled us into war. Bush consistently asserted that Saddam had WMD's, and the 9-11 commission's findings proved him wrong. Bush kept insisting that the reason he went to war was that Saddam had WMD's and he was going to disarm him. Now tonight Bush changed his position by saying that going to war was the "right thing" to liberate Iraq, and claims it will still right even though we found no WMD's. How does a man justify the loss of 1000 American lives when the REASON he took us into war in the first place didnt exist? It is easy for him to justify, because Bush and his loved ones are safe and not fighting in harm's way over in Iraq!

2. Kerry also made sound points that while focusing on Iraq, Bush has ignored other nuclear threats such as Iran and North Korea. I feel Kerry proved well that Bush has streched us so thin in Iraq, that we may not have the resources to deal with other countries that are potential nuclear threats.

3. Kerry discussed adequately that Bush has destroyed our credibility around the world, with Great Britain our only ally, and that we are bearing the brunt of the war effort and casualities in Iraq, 90% of such, according to Kerry. Simply put, from the way this war has gone, Bush has allienated allies, and Kerry showed that countries that were former allies of ours, do not want to work with Bush in this war effort. He made the point that as president, he can and will restore American credibility with our allies and around the world.

In addition to the debate points, I feel Kerry conducted himself professionally, and in a presidential manner. Bush appeared mocking, flustered, annoyed, and at times, unprepared and stumbling. He showed his ineptness as both a public speaker and debater. I tried to look at this debate objectively, and this is what I came away with. My call is that Kerry wins round one, but I know he must win the other two debates to stand a chance to win the election. I realize that right now the polls favor Bush, but if Kerry can demonstrate the kind of effort he did tonight, and get his message across, I feel he can still turn this election around with 4 1-2 weeks to go.


Mitch

[sushi854]

I tend to agree with those who stated that they feel the debate was somewhat of a tie. I think that each candidate had opportunites to really illustrate their points but failed to do so. Kerry has to come up with a way to clearly articulate his position on Iraq. It's there: Saddam was a threat, he had to be dealt with, but with military action as last resort and with a thorough exit plan in place. He mentioned it a few times in the debate, but for reasons unknown he never seemed to drive it home. Bush noticibly eluded several questions concerning Kerry's fitness to be president and his own plans for Iraq, which may come back to haunt him in the weeks ahead. I do think, however, that this debate should prove useful to undecided voters who really wanted to hear each candidates' campaign platform without the interfering spin of opposing campaign attack ads, because there was a considerable amount of good policy discussion by the two candidates.

[Mitchell]

Sushi makes an excellent point that I forgot to mention. When asked certain important questions, Bush tended to be very elusive, and gave roundabout answers to attempt to put his own spin on things, something he has been consistent in doing over the last four years, and especially since the war in Iraq began. It will be interesting to see if he does so again in the next debate, and whether this strategy will haunt him in November.

Mitch

[venray]

I watched the entire debate from the 2 hours of pre-coverage until right now.....


The quickie polls after the debate are worthless Mitch. They are taken from very partisan groups.... one shows Kerry with those 9 points and one shows Bush with 7....

CNN on the other hand had 22 undecided voters watch the debate together and use electronic boxes to rate comments 1-10 as it happened...the results...a tie....interesting coming from the undecided voters...

You have to wait 48-72 hours and then take the poll amongst thousands of registered voters to get more accurate results.

We will see a narrowing of the margin from the 8-9 point lead that Bush had going in to about a 4 point lead for him...with a +/- 4 point error, that will put it even until debate # 2.

Remember you heard it here first....:D

[redway10]

Um, No.

Clearly, the Bush campaign needs to go back to the drawing board (and they will come out a lot stronger next time). They really opened the door on this one. Kerry looked way more Presidential than anybody thought he would.

Bush lost the debate, though far from decisively. If you think that the Democrats did a better job at their Nominating Convention or that Bush did a better job in the Debate, you are too simply too biased to make an accurate call.

But of course the real story is still Bush's blatant use of his religious beliefs to lock up the Christian vote. Bush cares way more about money than the unborn, his Dad was 10 times the man that he is.

Worse, he sent millions of voters $300 and $600 checks that today's children (non-voters) will eventually have to pay - it ain't free. And then he rang up the deficit another half-trillion dollars for a prescription drug plan for seniors (more blatant vote buying). Not a dime of that will go to any kids, they will pay the bill for it instead.

Bush has spent his entire 4-years trying to undo his father's "mistakes" - leaving Saddam in power and failing to win a second term. Do we really want a President who's fighting 10-year old ghosts?

95% of people are too biased to say that there are positives and negatives to both Bush and Kerry. But Bush is wasting boatloads of our hard-earned money, and nobody has any power or will to stop him.

[venray]

Uh.no more biased than ALL of the political guests from both sides of the fence that said exactly the same thing when interviewed after ;)

[tactillianlover]

Ven, Jimblast and Sushi all gave an even stevenish
critique. All slighly different. IMO all fair and
balanced to the best of their knowledge.

I think it was fairly even. I believe that they
showed us the best debating they could muster.

Ideally, Nader would be in on it( Not because he should
win this time, not that he could win the presidency). I
think he's the ultimate example of being over qualified
for that job.

On a political science level ergo pure debate, for
the most part, he'd shred those fellows. Well maybe not
on war issues. Might be a three way tie.

The next debate?!!! Please...

Tonight he tried to enter as spectator...

They refused to let him into the building, having
been given a ticket supposedly by a local student
(GO CANES!!!)

Fear was the factor to not let him sit and quietly
watch merely as an american spectator!

Disdain for the disdaining.

[venray]

I agree with you that Nader should have been a part of the debate process. As a candidate he should be extended that courtesy.

here's an interesting note on the over night polls....

Who won the debate?
John Kerry 54%
George Bush 46%
Total Votes: 559,831

Giving the win to Kerry...yet.........

Who would do a better job handling Iraq?
George Bush 53%
John Kerry 47%
Total Votes: 340,273


Who would keep America safer?
George Bush 54%
John Kerry 46%
Total Votes: 333,190


Who would do a better job with foreign policy overall?
George Bush 52%
John Kerry 48%
Total Votes: 335,753


Giving the vote to Bush if the election comes down to National security and foreign policy.

This is why I place no credence on polls. Totally mixed messages at best.


Ray

[Shem the Penman]

Funny, the only place I'm hearing "it was a draw" from is ... Bush supporters. And you KNOW that if it was actually a draw, the Bushistas would claim it was a win.

Kerry could have done better, but I appreciate him hitting Bush hard on his incompetent handling of North Korea, his lying about exhausting every resource before going to war in Iraq, and his total lack of planning for the postwar. And, of course, letting Osama go.

As for Dubya, what we saw last night was the real George W. Bush: smirky, whiny, petulant, rattling through his slogans one after another with no evidence of actual thought behind them. That's what you get when you take him away from his handlers and force him to answer questions that he hasn't prepared for in advance.

And if Nader had been included in the debate, then why not give a spot to Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate, too?

[Cosmo_ac]

I'nm watching CNN, and we go to the president giving his speech..Once again, not surprisingly, he's taking Kerry's words, and putting them out of context, while the peolpe around him cheer ignorantly. Now, perhaps they didn't watch the debate, though you imagine if the presdident was coming to yuor state you would,however, Kerry pretty much explained himself perfecty in his speech. It just amazes me how people can swallow this.

[Jimblast]

It just amazes me how people can swallow Kerry's rhetoric! I think in looking at the context of the debate, Bush did a very good job of showing how what you say can influence the moral of the troops overseas. After all, how can you garner support from France, Germany, and Russia if you say the war was in the 'wrong place and the wrong time'? Kerry basically contrdicted himself again in terms of whether or not he supported the war in Iraq, taking both sides in the debate. I think Kerry presented himself better, Bush stumbled at times and seemed redundant, however overall I do think it was a draw. I was amazed that Bush was able to quote many of Kerry's different positions on the war. It had to be tough to memorize all those positions! Kerry also discussed the lack of bullet proof vests in Iraq....didn't he vote against the 87 billion (or did he vote for it...I get dizzy trying to remember!). LOL!

:D

[New2u]

Kerry was the winner in last night's debate. A Gallup poll taken right after the debate showed Kerry the winner at 45% with Bush at 31%, apparently the other polls taken are pretty reasonably in agreement with the first poll last night. Kerry presented a pretty good impression while Bush at first,looked, "angry", "flabbergasted", "jittery" and was very "repetitive with the words, "It'll take a lot of work, work, work", "My opponent changes his opinions all the time, we're fighting for freedom, I am consistant, consistant,consistant, etc, etc, etc. Bush spewed rehtoric all over the stage with his campaign sloganisms. However, towards the end of the debates Bush started getting into the "Swing" of things and improved. I'm sure he'll probably do better in the next round of debates...but Kerry won this one hands down. Venray, I have to disagree with you, there was no "tie", there was a "clear" winner last night and it was Kerry.

[Cosmo_ac]

Jim, in what way are you agreeing with me? I'm saying that Kerry made very clear his intentions, and views, and once again, Bush is twisting them, even though Kerry explained them fairly well the other night. And if i remember, correct me if i'm wrong i didn't watch the debate till late last nighgt, wasn't it Bush Who made the "wrong war wrong time" comment? Far as i can tell, Kerry supports the war, but not how it's been handled, or how it was handled in the beginning.

[Shem the Penman]

Originally posted by cosmo_ac
Jim, in what way are you agreeing with me? I'm saying that Kerry made very clear his intentions, and views, and once again, Bush is twisting them, even though Kerry explained them fairly well the other night. And if i remember, correct me if i'm wrong i didn't watch the debate till late last nighgt, wasn't it Bush Who made the "wrong war wrong time" comment? Far as i can tell, Kerry supports the war, but not how it's been handled, or how it was handled in the beginning.

Republican logic: If I give you my keys, and you proceed to ram my car into a wall, I'm not allowed to criticize your driving skills because that would be a flip-flop.

[BOFH666]

Incoming Brain Dump.

What follows is a whole load of stuff that went through my mind while watching the debate (twice) and reading the transcript.

Debate thoughts:

* This debate on foreign policy was supposed to be Bush's strong suit, something that was helped further by not getting into any serious discussions on topics such as energy independence or Korea or Africa. Yet Bush came across as defensive and frankly Kerry didn't have to try hard to find holes in the arguments.
* I seem to remember a lot of media attention on Al Gore sighing during the 2000 debates, if Bush isn't careful eye rolling is going to be this seasons sighing
* Kerry missed a few sitters, especially in the opening half-hour, that he should have knocked out of the park.
* Bush managing to get Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden mixed up was most definitely a D'OH! moment for Karl Rove.
* Especially considering what came later. Kerry went for the jugular over going from bin-Laden to Hussein before the former was caught or killed.
* The split screen view did Bush no favours whatsoever, smirking when your opponent is talking about American deaths probably isn't a great PR image.
* The format, neither of them being able to directly address the other, sucks. Just saying
* The amazing double-height podiums on split screen were funny. Had to be done of course thanks to the half-foot height difference between them, but still funny.
* Bush, and I really don't want to say this because I don't honestly believe it but... Bush seemed to be winging it! Look at the amount of times that, on pretty basic points, he fell back on generalisations and repetition not to mention a LOT of long silences and stuttering.
* Simpsons flash back! Kerry thanking Florida and Bush following in with 'I too would like to thank the state of Florida"... Nixon: "I too would like to express my fondness for that particular beer". No relevance just funny
* Bush: "And that's what people are seeing now is happening in Afghanistan. Ten million citizens have registered to vote. It's a phenomenal statistic." He's right it IS an amazing statistic... considering there are only, what, 9.8 million people eligable to vote in the whole country and we KNOW that there are substantial portions of Afghanistan that are no-go areas.
* Kerry went too far towards message, not enough towards reacting at times, again most obvious during the first half-hour.
* "That's for a different debate" from Bush on deficit spending. Factually true (uh, kinda, I'd have thought spending was both a domestic and foreign policy issue but I'll let it past on a technicality) but hardly the Ye-Haw, take 'em head on cowboy image is it? Plus it gives a HELL of a big opening in the next debate for Kerry.
* "America didn't need that tax cut. America needed to be safe." - OUCH!
* Kerry's note taking was a DAMN good idea for the Democrats. Wonder if they knew about the split screen in advance? Whatever, you can be writing your grocery list and still come off as incredibly well prepared doing that. Unless of course you decide to copy the idea after your opponent has started it...
* Kerry screwed up on the $87 billion question.
* "I made a mistake when I spoke of Iraq, President Bush made a mistake when he invaded Iraq" - DOUBLE OUCH!
* "I've worked with the same leaders as the President. I've worked with them for 20 years, longer than this president has. And I know how to bring them back to the table." - Here Kerry has a problem. No-one will publicly endorse him unless he wins the white house (obviously) but at the same time he can't say what he'll do to get them in because, basically, it's gonna involve political and economic favours (as does all world politics). This though is Kerry FINALLY figuring out a decent soundbyte on this, and it's one that rings true, he's got a better chance at getting other world leaders back on Americas side than Bush does.
* Bush overusing the stump speech tactics of "mixed messages", "hard work" and so on. Kerry is dealing with the issues and record, Bush is attacking his opponent with factually dubious claims, plays well to the base but not good when it comes to anyone else.
* Kerry is appearing as the better Statesman. Considering what America is facing in the next 4 years that's probably a plus.
* Wise man say, maketh not jokes about putting people on leashes when Abu Ghraib happened on your watch. Also, that whole leash thing might not play too well to the family values crowd. Or young people for that matter.
* "We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace." This on the same day that 40+ people, including 35 children lost their lives in Iraq. It's also a really bad analogy as it's easy to come back with "we've climbed the mighty mountain and found it's only a foothill. Time to eat the sherpa". Or as one mate e-mailed to me earlier today: We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace... let's bomb the shiat out of it!
* "The military will be an all-volunteer army." Interesting, I didn't spot Kerry bring this up (back door draft is a different issue) so why mention it? Also leaves a very big hole for the townhall meeting about the so-called "back door draft" of extended tours, the IRR being called up etc and the treatment of the men in that all-volunteer army (pay cuts, health care etc). Risky tactic and it can plant the seeds of doubt in the minds of those who had written off the draft rumours, after all if it isn't an issue why is the president talking about it?
* Interesting point, Bush never used the phrase "my fellow Americans", Kerry did. Odd slip as this is surely the phrase most commonly associated with the office of the president.
* Bush - "And if I were to ever say, This is the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place, the troops would wonder, how can I follow this guy?" Kerry - "Now, if you break it, you made a mistake. It's the wrong thing to do. But you own it. And then you've got to fix it and do something with it. Now that's what we have to do. There's no inconsistency. Soldiers know over there that this isn't being done right yet. I'm going to get it right for those soldiers, because it's important to Israel, it's important to America, it's important to the world, it's important to the fight on terror. But I have a plan to do it. He doesn't. " Interesting. Kerry is right here, the soldiers, better than anyone, know things aren't going right and how does it sound when their CIC denies there's anything wrong?
* The more I see and read (video and transcript) the more I'm convinced someone dropped the ball on the Republican side. Bush was sent into a gunfight with a knife. You don't engage in rhetoric about Iraq when you're addressing a wider audience just hours after a major attack. You don't claim America is safer without figures to back it up. You don't defend the Patriot Act without the other side mentioning it the day after part of it got struck as unconstitutional. You don't say the FBI changed its culture when the same day there's reports of 100,000 hours of tapes backlogged. Uh, forget the last one, Kerry just mentioned it.
* "What's he say to Tony Blair?” Blair has recently had to face down a vote at his own party conference to bring the troops home ASAP and is facing massive opposition from his electorate.
* "But the enemy attacked us" - Biggest blunder of the night in my opinion by either man. It's been proved repeatedly that 9/11 had no Iraq connection and it's fine to play this sort of card on a stump speech to the faithful but you do NOT do it when there's someone to call you on it in front of the world.
* Nuclear proliferation was a real nice bit of Kung Fu by Kerry, caught Bush flat footed and left him the option of ignoring it or asking for an extension on a topic he didn't seem to know much about.
* Thought. Image really does matter on these debates. For many it will be the first time they've seen Kerry at all, or at least in a more, uh, presidential situation than a photo op. Last night Bush did not come off at all well in comparison.
* "It's hard for me to love her", uh, WTF? Did ANYONE get what Bush meant by that? President Gigolo offering sympathy and sweet luvin' to widows or what?
* Nice distinction between having a "personal" relationship and a "working" relationship with Russia that sums up the difference between the two rather well.
* If a September 10th mentality results in attacks on America then does that mean the administration that was in the drivers seat on September 10th takes the blame?
* Bush playing the tax and spend card against Kerry is farking hilarious considering the record deficit his government has racked up and WILL have to pay back at some point (check next years budget for the first cuts folks).
* Bush: "Let me finish" Green light still on, pointing and threatening the 'audience' (camera).Oops.
* Kerry not looking at the camera but at the moderator is odd and a bit of a gamble (trade non-threatening / more comfortable for the audience versus the chance to 'connect' with them).
* God help anyone doing a drinking game on this, there's gonna be a run on stomach pumps come nights end.
* Bush: "I won't hold it against him that he went to Yale. There's nothing wrong with that." Uh, I'd hope not as you went there as well sir. Also jokes should only be used if they're knockout, anyone who's done ANY presentation work before knows that. If there's even the slightest chance they'll tank, don't use them.
* Kerry finding time to plug his book on Nuclear Proliferation was giggle worthy and a serious point at the same time, another comparison of how much background knowledge each candidate has, albeit a subtle one.
* Bush: "Actually, we've increased funding for dealing with nuclear proliferation about 35 percent since I've been the president." Why is this something to be proud of when you've done less work? Or if you've done more work then use THAT statistic, not the money.
* Inspections weren't going to work? Funny, that's not what the inspectors were saying. And guess what, they DID work. If there'd been a stockpile or two found this would have legs, there were none, it's looking more likely with every day that passes that they NEVER had them after inspectors left in 1998.
* Kerry: "The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too" *snicker*
* Mass podium thumping is farking annoying and looks less than presidental when done on every *thunp* single *thump* point *thump*.
* Paying three times the money does not mean the job's getting done in regards to Homeland Security or any other area.
* Bush really does sound like he's about to burst into tears at some points.
* Bush: " And I don't appreciate it when candidate for president denigrates the contributions of these brave soldiers." Uh, there's a difference between country and its soldiers. We in the UK for example won't say a word against our troops (unless they do an Abu Ghraib) but that doesn't mean we don't hold our political leaders to account for ignoring the will of the people and screwing up.
* Who knew being President was hard work? ;)
* Kerry outright laughing at some of his opponents attempts to reply was classic, especially as it became obvious that Bush didn't have anything to back up some of the more repeated claims. In fact that's a good point, Kerry looked like he was enjoying himself, Bush didn't.
* When did Freedom start to have 5 f's?
* International Criminal Court: If America is a great moral force why is President Bush so afraid of prosecution. Also, why bring up a controversial subject without having too?

The aftermath

One quick thought before I jump into the aftermath analysis. I really genuinely feel sorry for Kerry. Leaving politics aside, he's BEEN in a situation very much like Iraq and it's got to be hurting him on a personal level to see what's happened over there to the US troops.

Immediate impression, Kerry did well but a lot of the damage to Bush was self-inflicted. Mixing up Saddam and Osam was just unbelievable in this sort of setting and he seemed more flustered than usual. The Democrats seem to have FINALLY figured out how to play the soundbytes game as well as the Republicans and that's going to be a big leveller in this race. The content of this debate should have been Bush's strong suit, his domestic record isn't exactly wonderful and is certainly a lot more vulnerable to quick and easy dismemberment than the 'war on terror' and they've GOT to turn this round for the second and third debates... could be interesting.

First thing to hit me doing the rounds of the more right wing web sites including *shudder* Free Republic was wondering when I'd strayed into Democrat territory. The usual swagger was gone and the mood was very sombre indeed, the sort of thing I tend to picture the left doing when polls go away from them for a week or so. Very unusual. Falling into the "sign of the apocalypse" category was seeing some of the Freeper crowd admit their boy got beat last night.

Kerry's experience shone through, mainly in knowing when NOT to try to tackle a weak argument and in his ability to respond to the unexpected. I said this above in my notes but it's worth repeating, Bush came off as winging it. Not a good image if you're the President of the USA. Worse though was the comparison in attitude, the "aw shucks" image worked against Gore in 2000, but as we hear so often, the world has changed since then and Kerry simply looked the stronger, more focused and more statesman like of the two.

The Vietnam stuff came good for the democrats last night. I've thought since the Swift Boat attack ads came along Kerry was playing a very clever, and very dangerous, game but it paid off here. The lies that have now been thoroughly debunked about Kerry in Vietnam have removed (or at least significantly damaged) any chance of attacking him over those issues in the run up to the election date. Result, while he doesn't have to shout about it, he can use it just as he did here tonight, that out of the two he's the guy who's seen combat and has the scars to prove it. He's careful in its use but it's there and it's a BIG plus point when dealing with questions about the military.

Bush may have overplayed the flip-flop / mixed messages card badly. He pulled that one out what seemed like a dozen times in various forms (anyone want to give an exact figure?) and virtually every time Kerry ignored him and got to the point. Smart thing to do for Kerry, while most of those 'flip flops' aren't anything of the sort the average American ain't gonna get it from the detail you can give in 60 seconds and after the ""I supported confronting Saddam, but there was a right way and a wrong way..." statement it was probably a big mistake to go back to that same 'flip flop' message. Nice way of getting the point across.

Here's my biggest problem with Bush and his entire first term and it's something that came through clear as a bell in this debate. He was talking like he was the challenger, not the incumbent. Why? Well in all seriousness what does he have to brag about? He pulled out the usual talking points and they got shot down PDQ outside of the loyalty pledge environment he's used to. Surely a President in a debate on foreign policy who's based his whole term on the 'war on terror' should not be on the defensive? Yet that's what we saw and I'm really believe its because the facts do not support his version of events and the world. He knows it, his handlers know it and they haven't figured out a way to sort it out yet. That needs to be sorted out ASAP or it's gonna get ugly on domestic policy.

For that matter, I wonder if the decision to ensure that all the Presidents events these last few months were stocked with loyal Republicans was such a bright one? Maybe it would have helped to experience an environment that wasn't 100% tailored to him.

'Official' line according to Drudge was that Bush was tired from visiting Hurricane Victims. Uh, just a thought, but if you had what was probably the most important event of your presidency coming up, would you take the time out to go do a photo op if there was even a chance it'd leave you less than your best for the upcoming debate?

Don't expect any major poll changes. The parties are pretty much polarised at this point, nothing is going to change that now. What this debate (and if Bush shows up, the other two debates) are about is increasing voter turnout and that's always seemed to be the chief fear of the Republican party (witness the attempt to dock new registrations in Ohio).


What Comes Next

To my mind there's going to be a couple of obvious things coming out of all this. The first is that the Democrats are going to be fired up after this. No question, heads had gone down on the left with the (questionable) polling over the last few weeks and this is going to be a huge boost to them. The other is that there's surely no question George W Bush HAS to get better in a hurry to hit back and he's used the easy points up. He can't keep hitting the "mixed messages" card without something backing them up. He certainly can't afford another performance which sees the President of the United States staring blankly into the camera for seconds at a time. When even the convservative commentators are saying he got it wrong, when the Free Republic crowd of all people have their heads going down their candidate has GOT to pick his game up, and do it damn quick.

This was supposed to be the best debate for the Administration, it didn't work out that way. Bush had a chance to bury the opposition and missed it. The biggest change is that the entire tone has now changed. Two days ago this was a referendum on John Kerry, now it's a referendum on President Bush and that cannot be making Karl Rove a happy bunny today.

[BOFH666]

Quick update: well that didn't take long, Bush is already lying about what was said last night.


One other point I want to make about the debate last night. Senator Kerry last night said that America has to pass some sort of global test before we can use American troops to defend ourselves. He wants our national security decisions subject to the approval of a foreign government


I'm sorry but this is BS of the highest order. Here's what was said in the debate:


No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations...


In other words, Kerry said that he would not cede the right of America to protect itself but that any strike must be justifiable to the American people and be based on evidence that will stand up to global scruitiny. Why is that so hard to understand and how can Bush get away with flat out lying about this? Seriously, this is something the media SHOULD jump on if they're still interested in reporting the truth. It's not a 6 month old 'he said, he said' situation, it's less than 24 hours old and easily available on transcript.

[tactillianlover]

The only new statments I thought stood out -not
verbatem.

Towards the end, Bush echoed Kerry's flip flop short comings
and Kerry's response was like "Yes I screwed up but compared
to your screw ups, Your the bigger screw up!"

AND...

Kerry said "That tax break is for you and me" to Bush.
"I will take care of buisness financially for America
before I would get a tax break". Good shot landed!

The two best punches in the prize fight. Mind you
not a top notch contender in the contest. More rounds
to come...

For the record, I am not a republican, and John Mc Cain
is the only one I've seen appeal in, personally.

If we were not at war, it probably would have been the
same shnook fest that Bush and Gore had four years ago.

Not that it was much more.

[red indian]

...what kind of sad insomniac political anorak does that make me???

I thought Kerry won it in terms of articulacy, and in terms of quick witted responces to questions. However I think we all knew that would be the case before the debate started, so, Kerry lived up to expectations.

Bush on the other hand did not play to his strengths as well as he should have. We all know he is a poor debater and does not respond convincingly when faced with quick fire questions and a need to be agile, but he was not as relaxed as i expected, not as homely, not as affable and he faded badly in the last third, constantly repeating himself.

Having said that, he did get in the expected set piece on kerries flip flopping and lack of support for the troops, which is a blunt instrument but still effective.

No one has picked up Kerrys little give away nervous tick, although some have picked up on Bushes. When ever Bush landed a blow (usually the same one, from the same direction) Kerry pretended to be writing something down in a very ostentatious manner, in such a broad hand that he must have been off the paper by the third letter!

I agree with the views expressed above that say no major harm was done to either candidate, but that kerry won it overall.

[BOFH666]

First poll is in from Newsweek and it does not make good reading for the Bush camp. Edit - Forgot the link, sorry http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6159637/site/newsweek/

Less than a month ago the Newsweek poll had Bush up 52-41 on Kerry coming out of the Republican convention with a poll sample of 35R, 32D and 33 I/O.

Latest poll has Kerry up 47-45 after the debate with a poll sample of 36D, 34R and 30 I/O. Both of these are three way race figures, the before and after without Nader were Bush 54-43 last month and Kerry 49-46 now.

Among the three-quarters (74 percent) of registered voters who say they watched at least some of Thursday’s debate, 61 percent see Kerry as the clear winner, 19 percent pick Bush as the victor and 16 percent call it a draw. After weeks of being portrayed as a verbose “flip-flopper” by Republicans, Kerry did better than a majority (56 percent) had expected. Only about 11 percent would say the same for the president’s performance while more than one-third (38 percent) said the incumbent actually did worse that they had expected. Thirty-nine percent of Republicans felt their man out-debated the challenger but a full third (33 percent) say they felt Kerry won.

Kerry’s perceived victory may be attributed to the fact that, by a wide margin (62 percent to 26 percent), debate watchers felt the senator came across as more confident than the president. More than half (56 percent) also see Kerry has having a better command of the facts than Bush (37 percent). As a result, the challenger’s favorability ratings (52 percent, versus 40 percent unfavorable) are better than Bush’s, who at 49 percent (and 46 percent unfavorable), has dipped below the halfway mark for the first time since July. Kerry, typically characterized as aloof and out of touch by his opponents, came across as more personally likeable than Bush (47 percent to the president’s 41 percent). Sixty-one percent of Americans who watched the first presidential debate on September 30 say Sen. John Kerry won; 19 percent say President George W. Bush won and 16 percent say they tied, according to the latest Newsweek Poll which was conducted after the debate ended. Fifty-six percent say Kerry did better than they expected; 11 percent say so for Bush. Thirty-eight percent say Bush did worse than expected; 3 percent say so for Kerry, the poll shows.

A 62-percent majority of viewers says Kerry seemed more confident and self-assured (26% say so for Bush) and 51 percent say Kerry had better command of issues and facts (37% for Bush). Forty-seven percent say Kerry seemed more personally likeable (41 % for Bush) and 49 percent say Kerry came closer to reflecting their own views on most foreign policy issues (43% for Bush). The two were nearly even on several other points, including who came across as a strong leader (47% Kerry, 44% Bush) and who had a better plan for dealing with the situation in Iraq (45% for both). Forty percent of viewers thought Kerry was too wordy and 57 percent thought Bush was too repetitive.

Now of course polling is an inexact science at the best of times, and this election is likely to be more skewed than most thanks to the large increase in new voters if nothing else, but these results make interesting reading. They're from the same source, and a source that had Bush up by a large amount only 4 weeks ago. More to the point perhaps, look at some of the individual questions. Kerry coming across as a better leader, more self-asured and confident attacks a BIG part of Bush's campaign. That's something that they have to turn around and early indications are negative spinning isn't working with anyone but the bsae.

The next debate really is going to be crucial, Bush has to go for a knockout in a setting that really didn't suit him in 2000. It's going to be interesting seeing if he can manage it without dropping his guard in the process.

[TKpervert]

Bush got his ignorant ass kicked, but he has my vote anyway.

[Candlewicke]

Originally posted by TKpervert
Bush got his ignorant ass kicked, but he has my vote anyway.
Why does he have your vote?

[Cosmo_ac]

Problem is Flat, Bush is not an effective leader. We've seen that already. Bush can not get the job done 'the right way, because it's simply something he can not do. The iraq people either distrust at best, or hate at worst, the US, and any government set up by the US is doomed to failer. Soldiers can Kill and blow things up flat, but they can't make people suddenly change there entire society willingly and make choices that the people truely believe in. Add into the fact the US is using Iraq as the battle ground for terrorists, and they have plenty to be pissed off about. No, Bush can't win this they way he's going about it, and neither can America. the US NEEDS the UN here. However, Bush would rather lecture them about he was right and they were wrong, despite the evidence to the contrary, then admit he fucked up, say he's sorry, and ask for help. The UN will not deal with Bush, and i think this is going to be a tough lession in humility for the US. That they can't do everything, and that sometimes they need help. Do i think Kerry will make everything great? Nope. Bush has dug way to big of a hole for that to happen. If Bush get's into office again, with the way things are going with Iran and N.Korea, more then likely a draft will be created. However, the future is unknown to all, so either way, we can only hope and pray that whoever gets in, can try to make things right. IMO, from what i've seen him do Bush is not that man.

[Mitchell]

Ray, a follow up on your point here. It is now Monday Morning, more than 72 hours after the debate, and, according to the latest important polls, Bush has blown all of the lead that he had in this presidential race, the one he built up after the campaign. CNN has the race a dead heat, tied percentage wise statistically, while I heard a poll on MSNBC which claimed Kerry was leading by two or three points. At one point after the RNC, Bush had as much as a 12 to 15 point lead in most polls, and it looked like Kerry was done. Respected political commentator Bill Schneider on CNN said this morning that Kerry has fought back due to his fine performance in the debate, Bush having a sub par performance, and the continued violence and causalties in Iraq. Voters are concerned, and he said that the momentum is definitely Kerry's now, and that Bush has to regroup to get on the right track. It will be interesting to see if Kerry can sustain the momentum into this Friday's debate. At one point just a couple of weeks ago, it looked like Kerry was on the defensive, and in trouble, now it looks like Bush may be. I know you dont put much standing in polls, but for a president to blow a double digit lead in the polls in a month's time is significant. In 1996, Clinton's lead only kept growing, until finally leveling off to an 8 point win on election day. I feel that Kerry is in a good position now, and that he just had to put together two more good debates, and hope for more of the same that Bush gave us on Thursday, to put him into a nice lead.

Mitch

[venray]

I did indeed see that the race is in a dead heat, which is pretty much where it has been all of the time in reality....no surprises here at all, Mitch.....and I still place no credence in polls...;)

[New2u]

Venray, Mitchell, Cosmo, I read some place that there's going to be a poll taken to see how many people don't take polls seriously... Just kidding.

[giggleygirl25]

should we use this thread to critique the rest of the debates (the one tomorrow and the one on friday and the last debate)? just curious, i'm looking forward to the rest of them i want to see how each one is going to come across to the ones selected to go to the town meeting(unfortunately they aren't having any undecided voters there...would've made it much more interesting...since kerry and bush didn't interact in the first one does this mean that the partisan voters can only ask questions of their favored candidates?)

[venray]

Your choice GG, but I think a special thread for the VP debate is in order if you would like to start one tomorrow night...And I have no problem with separate threads for each debate if you like....:D


Ray

[venray]

Originally posted by New2u
Venray, Mitchell, Cosmo, I read some place that there's going to be a poll taken to see how many people don't take polls seriously... Just kidding.

Just dont take the results seriously and you will be ok....

Ray:p