Simple Topic:

Who won tonight's Debate? Bush or Kerry and why?


After further review, I think Kerry won the Debate, but I think he squandered the opportunity. Kerry needs to tell us what he will do and HOW he will do it, if he is going to get the swing voters. He still focuses on where Bush was wrong rather then what he would do if elected.

Kerry should be leading, he should be well ahead with everything that Bush has to deal with. Instead he is trailing. I believe this is because he is failing to get any message of what he will do if elected out to the public.

The Debate was the opportunity to do that, but in most cases he failed to do so.

He did do a great job of explaining his Iraq position. He said he agreed that Iraq was a threat but he disagreed with the way the President addressed that threat. Good answer.

Now, if the Guy would just get out there and Start stumping on what he will do and how he will do it and how he will pay for it then he might just pull it off. But, in the end, he will probably return to "vote for me because Bush is wrong". That is simply not enough for most Independents.

Personally, I don't care. I am a ABB / ABK guy and will be voting for neither. I personally feel that unless you are solidly behind Bush or Kerry that you should vote third party. ANY third party. If all the third parties combined get say just a quarter of the vote, that alone will be a serious wake up call to the Dems and the Reps and maybe it will get them to open their ears to the moderate majorities again.

IMHO Kerry won - by a large margin. This was a debate about Iraq and Homeland Security - two issues which are supposed to be the President's strongest. To my surprise, Bush spent most of the debate on the defensive; he repeated "key phrases" over and over again far too many times, and frankly, run out of gas. On contrary, Kerry looked knowledgeable and presidential; he was in command of the issues and, as a result, in command of the debate.

I realized that my viewpoint could be somewhat clouded by my party affiliation so I turned to Fox News to see what "the other side" has to say. Both Fred Barnes and Bill Crystol had to admit that Kerry pulled a remarkably good performance today (Boy, was Crystol in a bad mood! ). They also talked about Bush's performance while Kerry was speaking and all FNC "talking heads" agreed that Bush didn't looked his best - he looked dour, smirked several times and, on more than one occasion, looked annoyed and irritated.

As Brit Hume put it (and he is not exactly a Democratic mouthpiece): "If you are a Kerry supporter, you should feel heartened after viewing these debates".

I'd agree with English Horn's statements, but would put it a minor victory. Kerry didn't deliver a knock-out nor did Bush commit a major gaff...which rules out a major victory. But Bush did look annoyed too often...not a good sign. In general, Bush didn't exhibit the proper demeanor, while Kerry did. Other than that, I think both sides articulated their messages. You might say Bush did so too much...but that's better than not enough. I think Bush delivered a very strong point a couple of times about N. Korea--indicating that Kerry's plan would fall right into Jong Il's hands (which is exactly why Bush ignored N. Korea for so long--something he should also have pointed out). I also think Bush missed a couple of opportunities...pointing out Kerry inconsistency in calling out for multilateralism in Iraq and bilateralism in N. Korea...also not mentioning Kerry's record of voting against all major defense systems while proclaiming he would do a better job of supporting the troops. Maybe they knew Kerry would have expected that, and had a good response .

Anyway, I scored it 60-40 Kerry in the chat room...I'll stand by that.

I would say Kerry won...but not in the fashion that will benefit him much in the race.

He did not score "personal" points, in my opinion. He did nothing to make people connect with him. As I predicted before the debate, Kerry won on debating points, but not on a personal level, which is what he desperately needed.

Kerry also screwed up a couple of facts...

Anyway, Bush looked hesitant, which is why the edge goes to Kerry.

I was very surprised in the end results of the debate.

I think Kerry won by a ratio of 70-30.

I believe Kerry explained what he would do in all the question asked him. He explained probably in more detail than Bush did.

The only thing Bush could say was: It is the right thing to so and I will not waver. To me that is not an answer to what you are doing to correct any MISCALCULATIONS.

After about 30 minute Bush had no real answer and keep repeating his reasons for Iraq.

There were a few additional answers I wish Kerry could have tossed at Bush, but I believe he did very good.

If Bush doesn't wake up, the undecided should see that Kerry is better qualified to be President.

Kerry "won" simply because he finally got his own airtime concerning topics other than swiftboats for truth or Vietnam. He came across with energy and with good depth material on Iran, Korea - even though Bush countered those claims with good evidence.

Considering his embarrassing incoherency in the Dianne Sawyer interview contrasted by Bush's clear answers to O'Reilly, Kerry did much better and presented himself well tonight.

I disagree about Kerry's talk of Iraq tonight helping him. Any criticism he throws at President Bush's decision to use force falls right back on Kerry's own vote authorizing it.

No doubt Kerry won on poise and the stating of facts.

But if Bush's "Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place" catches hold in the minds of those who don't follow current events, it might just win him their votes. People on this board and others discussing things like this, educated about issues and current events, are exceptions, not the rule.

The rule might just want a slogan, to hear that Kerry will demoralize the troops and that Bush "works hard" with "a lot of good people" who "work hard".

But I still say Kerry won.

One thing that caught my attention was Bush saying that he and Missy--the woman who lost her husband in Iraq--among other things "laughed together."

Death is final. In such a solemn setting, I can't imagine why they would be laughing or what they would be laughing about.

The debate has reenergized Democrats.

Even Joe Scarborough, whom I usually don't like, said Bush ran out of gas after the first 30 minutes.

It seems that one comment sums up the outcome of this debate: " John Kerry was the more 'stylish' of the two" in this debate. If I'm not mistaken, the 18% undecided were not looking for style to sway their vote. I don't think that either candidate unveiled anything new. I do, however, beleive that while Kerry dominated with his "style", Bush still leads on the issues. Face it-Bush is the grade school friend that you stand behind when the school bully is threatening to crush you into an oblivian. Kerry is the kid that chooses to tell the teacher and really just makes the problem worse. You cannot deal with everyone in this world in a diplomatic way. When all else fails, you must use force to fight those who only speak the language of violence. I think that George W. reiterated that during this debate tonight, and should pull in a hefty amount of the 18% undecided vote.

jennx,

I don't agree with your rosy assessment of Bush or sour picture of Kerry, but welcome anyway.

I haven't seen anything suggesting that 18% of voters, potential voters, registered or "likely" are still undecided. In fact, the information I've seen on a consistent basis suggest that the election may be decided by 10% or less undecided in a few key states.

Please tell us where you got this figure.

No kill shots as I predicted, but Bush seemed overprepared and kept falling back on his rehearsed lines. How many times was he going to talk about a "free Iraq and a free Afghanistan" anyway?

Kerry kept his answers (mostly) short and to the point though he wobbled off course a few times. Bush seemed nervous and never really got as folksy as he likes to in this type of setting. He really was hampered by being stuck behind the podium instead of being able to wander about. Plus, the dreaded smirk made its return.

This comes from PoliPundit.com, no supporter of Senator Kerry:

Kerry comes off as the prosecutor accusing Bush of incompetence. Bush comes off as his Meet-The-Press, press-conference version - dogged, arrogant and unlikable. Kerry will get a significant bounce in the head-to-head poll numbers from this debate.

http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=4296

The Bushies will be spinning how the prez stayed on message and bore down on Kerry's lack of resolve, but as Mickey Kaus pointed out on SLATE, Kerry's retort, "Certainty sometimes can get ya' into trouble" was one of the few memorable lines of the night.

Though if I were Kerry if Bush repeated that "wrong place, wrong time, wrong war" line one more time and how it demoralizes the troops, I would have wondered aloud how well, "Bring 'em on" is going over with the families of over 1000 dead soldiers.

Round one to Kerry. Wonder how George Bush will sleep tonight?

First off I'm going to say that I voted for Kerry. I did so because I believe he showed up with some important points, which Bush did not respond to very well. Maybe none of the facts he presented were "new", but I was unaware of them. While I watched the last thirty minutes or so I got the feeling that Kerry had the upper hand and had done his homework, in a sense. I also think that Kerry had some time to present his stance and ideas in some places where clarification was needed (or clarification for me at least).





Debate Transcript

I think Kerry did very well in this debate. He certainly didn't kill Bush, but if a winner really must be declared, I would have to give it up to Kerry by a small margin. Kerry will probably get somewhat of a boost in the polls from this, but I don't think it will be huge. Two more debates left, then we will see what happens.

I voted for Kerry, and I'm pleased to see others giving a pretty lucid interpretation I think Kerry slowly began to introduce himself to America as a potential president, but he has some substantial work to do in the remaining 2 debates to profile himself, as opposed to spending more of his time on what Bush did wrong. Granted, that approach seems to be effective in getting Bush off his footing. But to win, I think he needs to spend more time in subsequent debates defining himself.

I'm watching it, and have been watching it, for about 45 minutes now. All I can say is, Bush can't play defense.

And for some reason, the whole flip flop "Kerry isn't sending a consistent message" charge seem to really lose it power. I think thats because Kerry was speaking very clearly, as he should be (and should have prepared for). So far, Its clearly a Kerry victory unless something big happens that I haven't seen.

Edited:
Also, Kerry really works that N Korea argument nicely.

Sad to say, but I had to vote that Kerry won this debate overall. I was quite disappointed with Bush's performance. Actually, I was disappointed with both performances, but on "style points", I'd give the advantage to Kerry. I thought Bush was tentative and appeared to be more afraid of making a mistake than he was at making his points in his normal fashion. This allowed the entire tone of the evening to shift more to "nuance" than substance and nuance is Kerry's game, not Bush's.

There were several points during the evening where Bush had some potential "kill shots" and he never pulled the trigger. I counted at least four occasions where Kerry invoked the old, "I served in Vietnam" line and that would have been the perfect time for Bush to come back with a "I know you fought in Vietnam, Senator, and for that I thank you. But, when you returned, you dishonored American soldiers who were still there fighting by calling them war criminals and monsters. And today you are doing the virtually the same thing you did over 30 years ago by minimizing their service and their valuable contribution to our nation's war on terror. You have consistantly denigrated their sacrifice and the sacrifice of our allies in Iraq for your own political purposes. It was wrong for you to do that 30 years ago, Senator, and it is wrong for you to do that today." That would have been a knockout blow, and Bush passed on it.

Not a real happy camper here, someone needs a new one chewed in the Bush campaign.

I'll go with the rest and say that Kerry represented himself well and won tonight due to his poise, knowledge and style. He was obviously nervous at the beginning but became comfortable after a few minutes, showing stamina through the rest of the debate. His body language did not betray negative emotions as often as Bush's did.

Of course, Kerry has an additional advantage that has not been discussed, and that is his campaign is not as well insulated against protests, criticism and pointed questions as is the President's. The Democratic Party does not require loyalty pledges from those who attend Kerry's rallies. The President, on the other hand, speaks only to friendly audiences and declines to answer questions that would not constitute a good soundbite for him on television. The result is that while Kerry is in fighting form, Bush has gotten soft when it comes to answering his critics.

And indeed, Bush just declined to answer many of Kerry's questions in the debate, choosing instead to repeat his mantras that work so well for him in rallies. Guess that's not such a great strategy when his opponent is standing right there and prepared to give an answer.

The two areas I found most dissatisfying regarding Bush's answers were those regarding nuclear proliferation and Homeland Security. Bush did not manage to justify the continued development of more nukes in the U.S., that is, how that would manage to be a deterrent to terrorists, or how it was right for the U.S. to be developing new nukes while forbidding other countries to develop them. Also, Bush did not make any effort to justify our first responders getting laid off and Homeland Security being underfunded while 95% of the cargo coming into our seaports is not inspected. Instead, he stuck to the tired old "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" phrase.

The upshot is that Bush failed to show that Kerry would endanger us by being the Commander-in-Chief, or that he was more qualified than Kerry to be the Commander-in-Chief.

Both avoided any major gaffes, and neither scored a knock-out.

Kerry did better on style. Bush did better on substance, since at least his positions weren't incoherent like Kerry's.

But Kerry won in the sense that he was able to stand on the stage with the President and look like a plausible alternative. That's always a win for a challenger.

We'll have to wait and see how it affects the polls after a few days. That's when we'll know who really "won."

I think the media rating was about right- no knockout by Kerry, GW looking angry that anyone would dare question his righteousness LOL

Had GW said what you wanted Aquilla- it might have made points with you- but it would have made GW look like a total, um, south end of a northbound horse. Not to mention that it would have opened up Kerry to really fire up about GWs past as a party frat boy national guard while Kerry was in country.

No, GW actually kept his mouth shut at the right times, and I think that might have been what saved it from a slam dunk- was GW stuck to his game plan, even if it was lame defense, because any number of answers on some of Kerry's questions and comments would have opened the door to a serious drubbing with the slightest mis-statement.

Kerry was on top of his prosecutoriol style, without badgering, very good.

Well, I obviously disagree with you, CR, I think it would have been highly effective. The truth usually is. But, going in Bush was ahead in the polls and that put him on the defensive, protecting a lead. I never cared much for a "prevent defense" in football and I sure as hell don't care for it in Presidential politics. But, that's just me.

I don't think anyone changed their minds tonight, the early polls in LA would indicate that tonight's debate was a push as far as who people plan to vote for and ABC News after-debate poll (which I just saw on Nightline) would indicate that's true. Nobody really made any points, and as a strong Bush supporter, that disappoints me.

A CNN Poll of undecided voters immediately aftwerwards was surprisingly one-sided.

The commentators said to wait 72 hours for a more realistic outcome. A current online "Quickvote poll" though, is even more one sided:


As a one time member of Toastmasters, I recall commenting that if we were at a Toastmasters meeting, Bush would have lost based solely on the ahs, ers, ums, and other uncomfortable fillers.

It seemed to me that most of the times that a one-minute extension was called for, it was George who felt that he needed to add something that he forgot to say to begin with.

Bush seemed to stray off topic frequently, choosing to repeat a previously spoken phrase or two, to fill his time while he was trying to focus his thoughts. A quick review of the transcript showed that he almost completely ignored the first question which was directed to him.


I'm not very good at reading body language, but the President didn't seem to know what to do with his face while Kerry was speaking. I never noticed the President taking any notes, replying strictly on memory to address the questions, and Kerry's points.

I felt that Kerry stayed on topic when he was responding to either a question or to Bush's remarks. I noticed him frequently taking notes on what Bush was saying, and perhaps giving himself something to focus on. That is probably the habit of a one time prosecutor, but it is a comforting change from a President who once said, "I'd like to say I read those books, but that would be a lie."

I have to say that overall, I was pleased with Kerry's performance, and I voted for him as the winner.

I think Kerry won hands down and I would disagree with you Aquilla when you say it did not sway voters. Even pundits like Scarborough said Bush did not seem to want to be there and such. I am actually very glad that Fox TV pool camera was doing split screen shots, because it showed Bush very uncomfortable and looking really ticked off and wanting to get out of there quickly. Just think how people's views might be a little different if we did not see Bush doing a Gore this year.
The funniest thing I saw from the commentators on MSNBC they were all saying Bush would ask for a 30 second response but would not have anything to add several times.

edited to add

I would agree with Curmudgeon I was very pleased with Kerry's performance because it is what I have been seeing him say for the last several weeks on his rallies that I would watch on C-Span. By honing his message better then he was before.

Just reporting what I'm hearing on TV, Cadman. ABC is saying prior to the debate their poll showed 50-46 in favor of Bush and now it's showing 51-47 in favor of Bush. I dunno.... As I stated previously I was disappointed in Bush's performance tonight because I think he could have put Kerry away, but that's just me and I'm not running his campaign. If he comes out of this with an effective draw, ok, we live to fight another day. Not the way I would have done things, but what the hell. Nobody ever listens to me anyway. I can't even get my kids to clean up their rooms....

Polls taken before the debate don't matter now Aquilla its the polls that will be taking in the next few days that will matter. With Curmudgeon's CNN poll as well as MSNBC poll both have hugh favor for Kerry. What we will have to wait for is more scientic polls conducted over the next few days to see where we are at. And a little side not not sure if I would trust ABC right now after I finished reading Cube Jockey's post in Who will win Thursdays debate about how ABC posted there debate story in past tense 5 hours before the debate even happened.

Who will win Thursdays Debate?, Kerry or Bush

Another thing the debate topic tonite was supposed to be Bush's strong point with the next 2 being domestic we might see another storm coming for Bush.

edited to remove word

I think by looking at the poll we clearly see the results. I think it is significant that Kerry had a decisive victory in the foreign policy debate.

Kerry did not score a major campaign victory by destroying Bush's position on something or by having Bush commit a major gaffe.

They both made some mistakes with the facts
Bush and Kerry both have problems with the facts at their meeting in Coral Gables

Bush appeared uncomfortable and irritated often.

He seemed to fall off message more, this seemed to be because of the format that was more like a real debate (surprised and please me) than I expected.

Kerry was clearly stronger than Bush in the first half of the debate. Bush verbally faltered and sputtered often.

By the end Bush seemed back on message, but his strongest points were negatives about Kerry and Kerry's comments. He was not as effective about being persuasive in defending his foreign policy.

Kerry scored some strong points on criticizing Bush's foreign policy but at times made it seem like a magic wand of change would happen when his vague policies would be applied.

I would have to agree that although he didn't score a knock-out, Kerry did more than hold his own in an area that the president should've owned. As English horn pointed out:



Kerry was specific about homeland security threats that we still face-uninspected containers and the "belly" of planes. He was also specific about how Bin Laden got away and had a great response to the "I voted for the $87 billion before I was against it" line that was trotted out. Bush seemed a little vague, though I would give him credit for stating how much money was spent on trying to reign in nuclear weapons across the globe, he just didn't do it enough or give out statistics on Iraq that would've countered the senator's contention about family members buying body armor for their children.


CBS News rated the debate a draw According to an ABC News online report, voters give the nod to Kerry, but have yet to be swayed to vote for Kerry.

My perspective is a little different in that we listened to the debate on radio. This focused our ears on the tone, tempo and melodies.

Neither of these guys are singers, that's for sure. Reagan was a crooner and Clinton a rock star.

Kerry came off as a Lyle Lovett type, while Bush was flat and screechy at times. Get the hook. Sound the gong.

So Kerry won on the aural level for us, but how this plays to the minds of undecided voters -- we're undecided on that.

Thought it was interesting that the term "Vietnam" wasn't mentioned, but Kerry did slip it in the side door.

Thought it was interesting the Bush tried a Reagan by bringing in an individual's name, trying to personalize the topic.

Didn't work. You have to have a warmer personality for this tactic to work.

No major gaff in this. I was wondering though if the names Hussein and bin Laden would get mixed up, as this seems to be happening on the talking head circuit. Had that happened, the Bush campaign would be in a tail spin right now.

In all, I am pleased with Kerry's aural performance. I can stand listening to that voice in the future. I've never liked President Bush's voice, and as time goes on, I'm getting to the point of irritation as if it were an auto alarm sounding in the parking lot.

The logical arguments were lacking, and judging this debate on just that point, neither candidate won. Neither candidate made significant progress in making a case for or against anything, other than Kerry's voice is more sonorous than Bush's.

Although I voted that Kerry won, I wouldn't use the word "decisive" as Eeyore did.

According to ABC News: Scoring the Debate



The bottom line is: did Kerry win decisively to change anyone's mind about him?

The early answer is no.

I had to vote that Kerry won the debate, but my initial reaction was that this one was so completely BORING that it may not matter.

Kerry did a good job at taking jabs that President Bush did not always effectively counter although he should have.

My one question going into the debate was, if Kerry has a plan to deal with Iraq in a better fashion, what is that plan?

The answer? See it on JohnKerry.com?

I know that no one wants to be a "policy wonk" during a debate, but this was just one of many BORING answers to questions that both sides were guilty of.

Well at least it helped me fall asleep.

Who won tonight's Debate? Bush or Kerry and why?
No question, Kerry won, but he squandered an opportunity to really go for the jugular. Even with the relative softballs he pitched, Bush could do nothing more than repeat his by-rote stump speech and look annoyed and PO'd, smirking and grimacing like a two year old who needs the potty.

The thing that really gets my goat is Bush's arrogance in not even being able to conceive a scenario where he might not win (even tho his VP has no such qualms). There are classier ways to say what he says so often without seeming like such a smug pig while doing it. Does he know something about the election we don't?

As for those who think Kerry should have given a step-by-step on how to handle Iraq, why don't you demand the same thing from your president? A debate, where each person has 2 minutes to declare a position doesn't have time to give an outline of their "war plan".

This is only the first debate of three....bring it on.

Edited to add: as for those who want a prez who's just "a regular Joe", a good ol' boy, a chum and all that...I want a president who is PRESIDENTIAL, not the dorky goofball who picked his nose and flicked boogers at girls. I want a president who doesn't embarrass my country at every given opportunity, I want a president who can conduct himself with some DIGNITY, who can think about the impact of his actions without the belligerent "because I said so" muleheaded attitude.

Tip of the hat to Kerry.

Amlord/Aquilla – you raise some interesting points where Bush could have improved but I think Kerry has more opportunity in the next debate than Bush.

Our President has a few annoying habits that Kerry could use very effectively in future debates.

Bush continues to link Al-Quida and 9/11 to the invasion of Iraq and we all know better. Kerry could easily use this against him and point out the Saudi’s, who have had oil ties with the Bush family for decades, have literally gotten away with murder. Delicate issue but it could prove powerful if used in the right context.

Bush has a really bad habit of never really answering the questions. I first noticed this in his pre-invasion press conference, not only were the same sound bites repeated but he dodged several critical questions back then and again last night.

Kerry won and fairly decisively. He defeated Bushes public image of him and that is all he needed to do. But he did so much more. He set a stark contrast between he and Bush.

I must say I was impressed with Fox News (so impressed that I use their real name) in the coverage of the actual debate. The split screens worked very badly for Bush last night. Al Gore bad. I am sure that is not what Roger Ailes had in mind when he ignored the MOU between the candidates. The best comment so far has been form Newsweek when their reporter said Bush sounded like he had "thirty-five minutes of material for a ninety minute debate."

There were some headscratchers from Kerry - like the WMDs crossing the border everyday - I think he meant terrorists into Iraq, but I have no idea. I am not sold on his NK proposal.

Bush seemed to me only to be firing sound bites. He took the tactic of hammering on message and not touch specifics and that made him look like he did not know how to fill his time up. Kerry hammered home as much as he could on specifics.

The danger of making a characature of your opponent is that is the public sees it different you could be in for a world of hurt. I think that happened last night. The expectations were so low for Kerry that there really was no way for him to lose if he could string 3 sentences (rather than 30)together coherently. Bush's frat boy smirk may have done more damage than any the he or Kerry said. I am sure that the Bush campaign is really unhappy with Fox now.

J

Interesting to hear Authormusician's take on the radio. It was hard to get around Bush's awkward mannerisms (pause, shuffle papers, look down, ect), and I was curious how I might have perceived the debate without them. Kerry won, in great part because he looked presidential and projected confidence. Bush looked unsure, even as he spoke of maintaining his convictions and pointed Kerry out as the flip/flopper. It was confusing visually.

I think there is too little humor in politics these days. Humor points would have been huge at a time like this (I'm remembering Reagan's line about not taking advantage of his opponent's youth and inexperience). Ah, well. I'd give it to Kerry...about 65 to 35 Bush.

While this is a more important bottom line, I was looking at the debate on its own merits. That is how I interpreted the question in this thread. That is what I was talking about when i used the term decisive
I does not seem very debatable that Kerry won by looking at the results of this poll.

Kerry needs some momentum in this election and this should help. But this in itself will not change many votes.

As a hard core anti-bush Democrat, I have been so dismayed by the lack of fire in Kerry that I have even considered voting for Nader. I was reassured by Kerry's debate performance. Not the knockout punch that i hoped for but I think a solid performance in the area that was supposed to be Bush's stong suit.

I think overall Kerry did a better job in the debates last night. His message was strong and he delivered it probably better than I have ever seen. He was composed, prepared and very articulate.

Bush was strong in the beginning, but as I heard an analyst say, he seem to run out of material.

This is one of the things about Bush that frustrates me. Although his message is simple and easy to understand, his vocabulary isn't his greatest asset. He repeats the same lines ad naeseam. Personally, I believe Bush's stance and actions in Iraq are the correct ones. I just wish he could express them better. I also think Bush missed some great opportunities to defend his policies.

Bush also lost his composure. That may hurt him as I understand commercials will be launched today showing his facial expression during the debate. Unfortunately, Bush pulled a Gore. He sighed and as one analyst said, his facial expression, at times, looked like he was sucking a lemon.

The debate didn't change my mind, of course. But, it did make up the minds of some independents.

Edited to correct spelling.

A slightly different take on the Debate:

I was driving home from a business trip to another city. Interestingly, by JUST listening, I felt strongly that Senator Kerry absolutely massacred George Bush.

However, I got home in time to see the last 30 minutes of the debate and Bush's ability to 'LOOK better than he sounds' struck me as the reason people "just kinda like the guy".

On the radio, Kerry's ideas were clearly stated and delivered with a "Presidential" flair. His answers seemed not to ramble and stayed on target. Bush's speech pattern along with his obvious discomfort in grasping for words to express himself, magnified his poor form on the radio broadcast.

He seemed to RE-rebutt more than Kerry with those "extra" 30-second follow-ups which were awarded at the discretion of Lehrer. A few times it seemed he was asking Jim Lehrer for the follow-up almost before Kerry finished his last sentence. The radio version was much more telling with Bush reminding me of a little boy looking to his Mom or Dad and saying, "But, but, you didn't give me time to say this".

However, when I caught the last 30 minutes, the likeable side of Bush with his "down home" mannerisms seemed to fit the speech pattern much better while I watched him. That additional ingredient was lost on the radio broadcast.

All in all, on substance and delivery, Kerry was the clear winner by a wide margin while Bush's homespun brand of folksy conversation hid many of his shortcomings on substance.

On a subject where Kerry was supposed to do his worst (Iraq), he scored a very clear victory. If the next two debates follow this course, it will be a horse race.

One side note: the part of Politics I hate is the pundit parade that begins at the closing bell and echoes glowing descriptions of how that pundit's candidate "won".

I noticed Joe Scarborough's voice up another two octaves which should qualify him for a screen test for a munchkin part on a Wizard of Oz re-make along with Tony Snow, Sean Hannity, Gary McNamara and Matt Drudge.

Dare I turn on the radio today to hear those guys screaming about a Bush victory? It will be like hearing a choir composed of male sopranos and not the "wise guy" type sopranos. either.

God it is nice to see so many people in here actually agree on something, with just a little bit of spin. Kerry won, and it will have an effect on voters. I know, I watched the debate with a good friend of mine. He is a tabacoo chewing, gun shooting, NASCAR watching carpenter and basically a sideline Bush supporter. He doesn't pay much attention to the issues and simply votes Republican so that "nobody will take my guns away". (Outside of that he is a great guy and great friend).

I don't think he had ever watched a debate, and he didn't plan on watching the one last night. He stayed, quietly, and watched every second. One of his comments "Oh my God. They are BOTH idiots".

When the debate was over, he asked, "Who in the h... do I vote for now? Do I flip a coin?"

Remember, this guy was NOT an undecided voter yesterday at this time. He is today. I think that shows an effect on voters, and a positive one for Kerry.

Congratulations Mr. Kerry. You did a great job last night and made this American feel proud of his candidate. Keep up the good work.

The race is so close and you opt out for a third choice. Fencesitting is something for the birds (only), so I respect you to suggest that you should find it within yourself to resolce the contest between the two main protagonists. A vote for any other is a wasted ballot. You seem to already have a tough decision between land or sea, this choice requires that you exert your best efforts to decide on one or the other. That's it. From everything else you've said, you appear to be for Kerry. So vote for Kerry. Leave it alone at that. Make life more simple. Enjoy.

Im sorry but I thought Bush won by default. The democrats in all actuality need an anti-war candidate. I do not see how Kerry is going to be able to distance himself saying the same exact things that Bush is saying with very slight alterations. Americans are black and white voters (to our detriment) and Bush is a black and white candidate. Things that fall in the gray area and are considered nuanced positions do not resonate with American voters. I know Howard Dean wasnt seen as a 1rst rate nominee but I think he could have overcame the gap simply because he was against the war. Kerry has been painted into this corner where he cannot say the war was wrong when most people are beginning to think it is. Splitting hairs in this country is suicide......in fact it makes you a flip flopper. People will take simple and wrong over complex and undecided any day. This is why Bush won to me. He didnt say anything....but he never does.....but he has the 1 line answers that voters love too hear and can remember. "We are working hard" "They are good people." "We are making progress" "Thats fuzzy math." etc etc etc. People walk away remembering what Bush said and with Kerry you have to think a little and keep deciphering as you go home.

I do not see how Kerry differentiated himself from Bush and it has been Bush and his antics that has roused the anti-Bush vote. Most people in this country think we are headed in the wrong direction and Kerry wants to keep heading in Bush's direction and simply saying he will and would have done better isnt the answer. Kerry needs to play a different sport then Bush not play the same sport better.

I also heard much the same thing on a local LA poll from KNBC in Los Angeles. Nobody really changed their minds or made up their minds. I doubt that anyone is going to think much about the debate over the next week either. As some here have stated, it was really quite boring and neither candidate had a "moment" particularly. Kerry was vague, Bush was simple and neither of them really mixed it up much. It turned out to be a non-event from the standpoint of the election I think.

Kerry won. Food for thought.


I exhaled after the first half hour. The Bush camp was pleased with the debate rules but I think the rules ended up working in Kerry's favor instead.

When Kerry made his first Vietnam reference my eyeballs rolled so dramatically I thought they would face my brain permanently. Thankfully Kerry weaved the subject but didn't preach it. While I am not voting for Bush he is the standing president and watching him, listening to him last night made me wince again in embarrassment as the holder of the most powerful office in my country; made me wince for him.

I thought both of them could do better. Bush's all-purpose narrow talking points message restricted his dialogue. When it was Kerry's turn to speak I sorted through mental notes and found myself thinking, "No! You should frame the answer this way!" Or "You should really be talking about/enforcing this fact/idea!"

I smirked at their pleasant exchange. These people, politicians, can launch ad hominem TV campaigns stretching months then remark they don't take it personal on stage and toss a few compliments as breezy as you please.

Bush's body language was bad but not awful bad. Live conferences are so alien to his administration that although I've read and debated plenty about Bush seeing him on TV brought that fresh reminder again that, oh yeah, this guy is the president. Kerry looked very nervous at the start. His hands shook noticeably. I guess that's what bearing the weight of your party's hopes and expectations looks like. ;-) As the minutes ticked by he looked comfortable, more assured. By the end of the debate I was very pleased and felt a twinge of guilt for my high—and needfully high—expectations of Kerry or else. He’s human after all and his worth as a politician and a person isn’t restricted to the campaign. At the same time it’s nice to notice Bush isn’t the only guy I'm critical of and expect so much from.

Sincerely,
Rambling Lesly

I thought both candidates (and Jim too) did a good job at the debate. However, if I were to pick a winner, I'd pick Kerry. He prepared well for the debate and appeared confident and knowledgeable. He landed a lot more blows on Bush than Bush did on Kerry. Whenever Bush talked, he used way too many word fillers (um, er), whereas Kerry used little.

It appeared that the main thing Bush attacked Kerry on was flip-flopping. However, I believe Kerry did a reasonable (but I believe not thorough enough) job in defending himself against that accusation.

Kerry said he would do a better job in foreign policy, but he did not convince me exactly how he would do that.

One major problem I see facing Bush is that he appears to have no reasonable exit strategy in Iraq. I believe he underestimated the difficulty of making Iraq a "free country". And simply being resolute is not sufficient to win a guerilla war.

One notable point in the debate was when Bush praised Kerry for his service and treatment of their family in the campaign. So, I give extra credit to Bush for praising an opponent. On the other had, I give credit to Kerry for not going into exposing any character flaws in Bush.

Well my observations are similar to everyone elses. Kerry was the clear winner of the debate, maybe 75-25 or even as high as 90-10. It depends on how you choose to rate the candidates... From a perspective of general debate skills they both did really bad, both candidates red herringed question after question, however 90% of the time Kerry at least breifly returned to the subject matter, whearas Bush seemed totally incapable of using anything but talking points. From a perpective of candidate speaking ability Kerry did pretty well, and Bush, since he has always been a terrible speaker, could be thought of as doing pretty well too (he shouldn't get to cocky about it though)

I took pretty detailed notes. Here are first some entertaining Bushisms:
A)Of the MANY flip-flop-esque inconsistency messages Bush accused Kerry of sending "mexed missiges" to the troops.

B)While defending his anti-proliferation programs Bush used the word "transhipment."

(I think the next debate should mandate Tele-Tubby costumes for both candidates)

Bush biggest failure in my eyes was twofold:
1) Flip-Flopping and his usual "Im consistent and thats good, your not and thats bad" message was repeated to answer almost EVERY question. Out of 18 questions Bush brought up the consistency talking point 13 times. Several of which were in totally inapproprate situations where it looked like he didn't know what else to say. Thats My Bush!

2) Bush is stupid. I will say it again, Bush is stupid. I have given him credit for a long time, you have to be smart to be president. I take it back now. In response to question 13, how Kerry feels about pre-emptive warfare, Kerry said that a president must have the right to use pre-empt W, but when doing so he must seek legitimacy in a "global test." Bush began his ninety second response with: "I don't understand what you meant about the test." Bush then very visually realized his war legitimacy was being questioned, and the best defense he could come up with was and I quote: "I understand that it was an unpopular move, but it was the right one." This pattern of thought wsa repeated al through the debate. When questioned about Iraq, Bush always said "It's tough" or "hard work" or something, as if that was supposed to make him less responsible for screwing up.

The best part was on several occasions Kerry completely stuffed Bush on the Flip flopping thing. Kerry argued that:
A)Bush isn't admitting mistakes and that's dangerous.
B)Kerry may change his mind but Bush gave us Iraq/illegitimate war.
C)Kerry described in detail how his position on the war has changed, and not changed. It was enough to refute the flip flopping charge...
But Bush just kept right on accusing him the entire debate, all the way to the closing statements. In the end Nostra-Bush used blatant opinion to justify all of his choices and then promised there will be no draft after the election. Let's hold him to it.

I am new here and being a Conservative in the state of Massachusetts is like being a 125 pound line backer for the Patriots. It's hard to talk to anybody that isn't pro Kerry and Pro same sex marriage, so I hope that I will be able to engage in some intelligent and whity discussions with some of you.


As far as my take on the debates last night I really only have a few things to say.


I don't think that Bush went into that debate as prepared as he could have been. The only example I can think of to compare last night to is the movie Rocky 3. If you've seen that movie then you know that Rocky had a fight against Clubber Lang (Mr. T) and in the first fight Rocky didn't really train that hard, he was more interested in the fame and the glitz and he made a spectacle out of the moments he actually trained, and on the other side was Clubber working out in basements and pushing his body it's absolute physical limitations.


As a result the first fight of the movie didn't really go in Rocky's favor and he lost, but like any true movie he learned the error of his ways and got a rematch and this time he came back and won.


That's what I take away from last night...I think that Bush knows he's a clever debater, in fact Kerry had credited him of that several times before the debate and I also think that Bush saw how strong of a lead he had in the polls and just didn't get up there and fight as hard as he could have. But let there be no mistake, I am sure that Bush is looking at his performance last night and you will see a different Bush in the next debate. Just because last night didn't favor him doesn't mean he's out of it.



I also have a hard time with debates because what a man does over the course of his life is what I look at. Yes Bush has had his problems with substance abuse, but so have many other Americans and he put those problems behind him and has moved on to a great career as Govenor of Texas and now the President. He's a christian man with a conservative approach to things.


As far as Kerry goes, you need look only as far was what he's done here in the Senate for the state of Massachusetts. Something you won't see the media report too much on is his attendance record. In the 19 years that he has sat on the senate he has only attended 24% of the meetings that have been held. That means that 76% of the time he didn't make it and there are Senators that will attest that when he did show up, he was usually the one that would ask if they could wrap things up a little early so he could go.


Things like that tell me a little about a man and how he plans to run our country, and when his record for showing up to work is only 24% it doesn't impress me. Not to mention the fact that in this election, if come Nov 2nd the biggest concern in the US is National Security then John Kerry cannot and will not win. If it's other concerns like health care and welfare then Kerry may have a better chance, but that's not likely.


I like John Kerry as a person, I think he's a good man and I salute him for his service to this country and I disagree with Bush on a lot of things and if there were a different Republican to chose from I would probably pick them, but that's not the case. In this case we're given 2 people to chose from and it comes down to picking the lesser of two evils and I firmly believe that with National Security being so much on my mind and the minds of all Americans, Bush is the one that will keep us the safest.

As expected, Bush has wasted no time finding a friendly crowd to reiterate his mantra (can someone PLEASE write him some new material?)

Ho hum here we go again.

VanHaulin, both Bush and Kerry have spent days preparing themselves for debate (and let's face it, the issues haven't changed much in over a year); in my opinion, being unprepared isn't an excuse for Bush's performance. He knew he was going to have to "bring his lunch" and he did the best he could...which isn't all that great.

Edited to add link to article about "fact-checking" the debate (interesting): MSNBC

The only point I was trying to make is that you cannot judge a man by one debate. You judge him by the the things that he has accomplished over his lifetime.


Kerry continues to attack Bush and say he mislead America, when as Bush stated last night, Kerry saw the same intelligence that Bush saw and Kerry said on the TV the other morning..."Knowing what we know now, I would not have gone into Iraq"


Well hind sight is a beautiful thing for some people, but in the real world you cannot make your decisions on hind sight you have to make them with the information that you have in front of you and that's what Bush did.


Do I think we need to be there now? Yes, not free the Iraqi people, but to keep that place from becoming a hotbed for terrorist action. I guess in the end if you want France and Germany telling us how and when we can defend ourselves then a vote for John Kerry is the best way to do that.


Let me also add that the President of France just last week said regardless of who is President in Novermber he will never send his troops over to Iraq...Kind of interesting considering John Kerry said that he would get France involved. I guess he should have spoken to French before he made that comment. If he's making promises of help from France without talking to them, what other false empty promises has he made?


I also like your tag line about what Blink182 had to say about Bush and Ted Nugent and the loin cloth...I guess a loin cloth is better than being naked on stage which is something Blink182 is notorious for. As far as saying every musician is against him isn't a benchmark of any kind for two reasons..


1. It's only the liberal entertainers that lash out against the current President, there are plenty of others that like the current administration, they just don't whine about the other side.


2. Who really cares what musicians think anyway? They're job is to play music and shut up about politics. Leave the politics to the professionals...You don't see politicians up there playing instruments they can hardly play do you?...The only one I can think of is Clinton and I think I need not go into what team he was playing for.

Leave politics up to professionals? I'm sorry, I guess I'm in the wrong place. I didn't know everyone here had to be a professional politician. So apparently the only people allowed to have an opinion about politics is politicians? So if one isn't a musician I suppose they should shut up about music?

Please don't make these comment. I consider myself a musician and I think my opinion on politics is important.

But back to the topic:

I believe Kerry won, maybe not decisively, but it was a win. I have reasons in my earlier post.

(spelling)

Bush screwed up a couple of facts as well.

100,000 trained security troops is misleading. There are only 8,000 troops that have completed an 8 week training course. The rest have only completed cursory 3 week courses.

He also misled in statements about spending. Only 1.2 billion dollars of the 18 billion appropriated for Iraq and Afghanistan in December has been spent supporting the troops. The administration has been sitting on the rest.

He did actually misquote Kerry when he attacked him about withdrawing in 6 months.

He misled people when he stated that 75% of Al Qaeda has been killed or arrested. Actually, 75% of the network that existed as of 9/11/2001 has been arrested. More have joined since, and some reports state, as a result of the occupation in Iraq. A conservative estimate puts the current Al Qaeda membership at around 18,000 in 60 countries.

"The only point I was trying to make is that you cannot judge a man by one debate. You judge him by the the things that he has accomplished over his lifetime."

Your right, we can't know much by just one debate. However, I've been doing competetive speaking for years now, and a key skill for winning debates is the ability to analyze your opponent. Bush is a bad speaker, and a terrible debater. Last night he was only able to iterate and re-iterate his several talking points on the Iraq war and terrorism, and Kerry numerous times made him look like a fool. There was one instance that I was impressed with Bush though. Kerry said when answering a question about Iraq that Allawi had stated: "Terrorists are poring over the border." Bush got really excited and buzzed in or whatever they were doing and said "Well, Allawi agrees that Iraq is central to the war on Terror!" It was a smart and well put reply, and Kerry just DROPPED IT, when he could have easily said: "Terrorists weren't pouring over the border until after we invaded, so how can you use this as pre-text for the war?"

"Who really cares what musicians think anyway? They're job is to play music and shut up about politics. Leave the politics to the professionals...You don't see politicians up there playing instruments they can hardly play do you?...The only one I can think of is Clinton and I think I need not go into what team he was playing for."

Like DA, Im a musician and I believe that politics and the arts go hand in hand. I have been listening to punk rock for a long time, and punk rock wouldn't exist if politicians weren't corrupt self serving J-holes. When the government isn't working for you, and the media is too concerned with making a tidy profit to care, who do you turn to? Bob Dylan, Bad Religion, and the many intelligent social commentators who express their opinions through art and music. And BTW, haven't you seen footage of the Republican conventions where certain key administration officials gave "hit" musical performances of cheeky patriotic hyms?