Kerry appears more presidential then Bush during the Debate
 

Kerry was on top of his game, he was well perpared for this debate I believe he backed Bush up and made him appeared to be off balanced and confused.

Although both candidates did well tonight, I thought that Kerry was phenomenal.

I think the way Kerry handled himself Bush offguard. Bush seemed flustered for most of the debate. I do look to him being better prepared for the next debate.

However, I do belive Bush got an ole fashion b!tch slappin'.

I'm happy that the debate wasn't as boring as I thought it would be with all the friggin rules. I'm very glad that the media said "screw you" to the camera angle stuff and did what they wanted to!

I like how some of you are saying what most analysts didn't even say.

Both candidates appeared strong. Kerry still had issues with talking down to people and with his language. Bush had issues with being slightly flustered with his speech before picking up on his Texan twang when he reached his comfort zone. Bush was able to strongly show how Kerry had flip-flopped over and over to my delight.

-Rudey

I think that they both did well. I didn't watch the post-debate analysis.

Well, he said it enough times in several different ways, but frankly, I thought Kerry was able to blunt it pretty well.

I think the The President did appear flustered, and I think Kerry managed to come across as authoratative (offering more and stronger "facts") and and much more personable than usual. Off the cuff speaking is not one of Bush's strong points. I agree that he (hopefully) will work harder before the next debate.

As NBC's Tim Russert said, there were no knockouts tonight, but the "undecided" voters from Ohio (a strong Republican state for as long as I can remember -- and I grew up there in a Republican family) all thought that Kerry carried the night -- at least for them. It is telling, though, that most of them weren't ready to say that tonight had made them decide one way or another -- that they wanted to see the other debates, etc.

Over all, I would score it as a close call -- but a "win" for Kerry.

I caught the first hour. I'm looking forward to the next debate and to see what the topics will be. Though unavoidable, this entire campaign season has focuses around the war on terror. Not saying this isn't important, but I'd like to see a focus on homeland issues rather than just the security of it in the next debate.

But I agree with everyone else. I'm not a Republican, but not a huge fan of Kerry either. But Kerry seemed better prepared. It just seemed Bush ended every argument with "I'm/we're gonna win. The End."

I pretty much agree with DeltAlum.

Agreed.

Several different polls conducted after the debates all showed that voters both decided and undecided thought Kerry was stronger. Several polls I've seen online are skewed heavily in Kerry's direction (70-30 and 80-12 with the remaining 8 percent calling it a draw), although of course internet polling has its own biases. The "random" polls were slightly more even, but Kerry still garnered 50%-plus in all cases. From what I saw, most of the analysts, even conservative ones, thought Kerry performed much stronger than Bush overall.

If conservatives are happy with Bush's debates, I'm not really too worried . . . the real factor here is the undecided voters, and as of right now it looks like their scale is tipped toward Kerry.

I found the debate to be more engaging than I had expected. When it was over, I was surprised that 90 minutes had passed already.

As a known Kerry supporter here, I have these observations:

Bush was flustered at times, searching for the words he wanted and Kerry did not have that problem. I was disgusted with him though, as I usually am.

I completely agree with Bush that he rules from the heart and his values system. I completely believe that he BELIEVES he is right and has strong convictions which do not change. This is also what frightens me. It is what is comforting to some people. I think our President should be ruling with his head, not his heart. Some believe that the President should rule with his heart and never waver from his own belief systems. Ultimately, I am frightened by his belief systems. He sees things as black and white. Things are right or wrong, period. There are no grey areas. We will win. We had to go war when we did. Homosexuals should not marry. Iraq was a threat to the US. Marriage is essential in our society (by heterosexuals). I completely believe that Bush thinks his views are correct and I admire him in some ways for that, but at the same time, I don't agree with his value systems and views, so it frightens me that he is so unwavering. I can say that he is sincere.

I prefer a leader who, with more facts, can change his mind about an issue. l prefer a leader who can see the grey areas and know that sometimes he might not personally agree with something, but that doesn't make it right, Constitutionally. I don't want someone to be so convinced that his way of thinking is the only way of a thinking that all policies are based on that alone. There are 275,000 million people in this country and we aren't all going to agree that what one man believes is the best thing for our country. It doesn't mean that we're unpatriotic or heathens. We just have a different point of view.

Everybody agrees that Iraq was a threat. The more important question is: Were they an immediate threat that required immediate action? Did we have Iraq contained with the weapons inspectors present and working there at the time that we decided to go to war? Was it more important to keep our primary focus in Afghanistan and on Osama bin Laden?

Do you feel we are less likely to have a major terrorist attack here in the U.S. than we were on September 10, 2001? I don't.

Dee

The polls in Central Florida are also showing that Kerry "won" this debate.
I'm curious to see what happens over these next 5 weeks.

I thought Kerry was very strong. A note on Ohio, I was born and raised there and the state can be considered in most elections a "swing state". Clinton carried it both times and every presidential candidate who has won regardless of party has carried Ohio.

The Debates...
 

I figured Kerry would "win" the debate so to speak because he is a better politician and he is a better debater. If one wants a president that can do better in debates..then Kerry is your man. How shallow is your knowledge of politics and current events though if this is what you're basing your decision on?? I actually prefer a President who won't be shaken on doing what's right regardless of polls and politics...and whose primary objective will be to defend America...not get "global favor."

I think it all boils down to whose approach one thinks is better on handling the war in Iraq. Kerry scares me because he doesn't see Iraq's role in the war on terror. He talks as if we would have caught Bin Laden that the war on terror would be over. Kerry has the luxury of looking at everything after the fact and saying what he would have..should have...and could have done...but a Commander in Chief doesn't have that luxury. Kerry saw the same intelligence and voted to go to war..but now its the wrong war at the wrong time and the wrong place. He strikes me as a president who'd kiss butt to the global world...because he tries to be all things to all people.

I think I respect people more that are in the Anybody But Bush Club..because how anyone could actually be sincere in their vote for Scary Kerry is beyond me. :rolleyes: :eek: :confused:

Interesting Results from Gallop
 

Kerry Wins Debate
John Kerry won the debate Thursday night, 53% to 37%, according to a random sample of 615 registered voters who watched the event. Almost half of the viewers said they felt more favorable about the senator because of the debate, and 60% said Kerry expressed himself more clearly than did President Bush. Despite the positive assessment, viewers said they favored Bush in handling the war in Iraq and serving as commander in chief, little changed from opinions expressed before the debate. And a majority of viewers said it was Bush who better demonstrated he is tough enough for the job.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=13237

I think Bush wins on substance, but Kerry wins on style.

My favorite part was when Kerry started to expound on how he thought bilateral talks with North Korea were a good idea. I think words like "Bilateral" are too big for most Americans. Bilateral means TWO -- then he says he's going to include China? Wouldnt' that make it trilateral Mr. Senator?

I'd like for someone to give me a stat on how many times Kerry actually flip flopped up there on the podium. I noticed it several times and wished I had been keeping score.

I noticed that as well..I dont know how you can be FOR a war after looking at the intelligence :rolleyes: ...then say it was a colossol error.. You know you're a good politician when you can pull this off!

And you're right..Kerry won on style..not substance..

Kerry also unintentionally committed a faux pas - he referred to the square in Moscow where the former KGB (now FSB) headquarters are located as 'Treblinka Square' instead of 'Lubyanka Square' (in Evil Empire days, it was known as Dzerzhinzskiy Square.)

Ahem... Treblinka was a former WWII Nazi extermination camp in Poland.

I kept getting tickled at how frustrated Bush seemed to get, and how Kerry would just stand there and nod and grin.

I hadn't planned on watching that particular debate (I was supposed to be studying), but I did and I couldn't tear myself away! I thought it was exciting. I do think Kerry did a good job, and it made me see him in a better light.

Both candidates did a wonderful job of repeating themselves (my husband even commented that he was sick of hearing Bush's allusions to Kerry being a flip-flopper), and I thought Bush did a better job of sidestepping the questions than Kerry did. Of course, I only watched the 1st 45 minutes or so.

Yea its so funny how appears to be so.................human.

holy jesus - that's unreal . . . now THERE'S a misstatement

Re: The Debates...
 

People thinking that Kerry won the debate has nothing to do with him just being a better politician. He had facts and laid them out, then Bush at times was scrambling.

I don’t think anyone on here or most Americans are basing there decision for president based on last night alone. And trust me I have heard a lot shallower answers from people on why they are voting for Bush than for thinking someone did better in a debate on their policies.

Doing what’s right and holding your ground and doing what’s wrong and not wanting to admit when you are wrong are two totally different things. One of my favorite things Kerry said last night was on certainty. There is a difference between being certain and right and certain and wrong.

I think Kerry sees that Iraq was a part of the war on terror. I don’t think that is the question. It’s he thinks that we should have approached it differently. Plus, he does see that there are and were greater threats to us at the time and still now. True, hindsight is 20/20, but Bush can see what is going on right now as well.

I think the debate was fairly close, which in turn was a “victory” for Kerry. This was the debate in which analyst thought that Bush would have won so to speak, bc this is a huge part of his campaign. The fact that Kerry was strong out there is only going to hurt Bush even worse when it comes to policies at home which the next debates will be on.

Will Kerry do a better job as president, well I can’t really say that until he has gotten in the office. Has Bush done a good job, no. It’s that simple.

And that assinine little nod that he does. I'm no great fan of Kerry's (even though I did vote for him). I usually find him wooden, unfeeling, and cold. But tonight he wasn't any of those things. He was confident, well-spoken and accessible. Bush was more than flustered - a few times he just flat out lost his train of thought and stood there with nothing to say, and no other look on his face than that insolent smirk. Repetition is an effective rhetorical strategy when done well; in the President's hands, it was a dull truncheon reflecting an even duller wit.

Kerry hit a homer (in my book) when he countered Bush's statement "the enemy attacked us". Bush's rebuttal made him look like a whiny child.

I can't wait for the next debates. I'm hoping that all of the undecideds will have firmly made up their minds by then.

Well, I thought they both did a good job.

I think W needs to stand up more, though. He gets into that leaning forward thing and I don't think it makes him look powerful or trustworthy. It also drives me nuts when he says 'em instead of them, or shoulda' instead of should have. But my uber-liberal fiance isn't bothered by that, so maybe it's just me. :)

I thought Kerry seemed more approachable and less aloof than he has in the past. And he seemed very in control and calm.

However, I think for the decided voters, there was nothing new. For the undecided, I think if they have strong convictions on how to deal with N. Korea, last night might have helped, but otherwise, they are probably still undecided!

Can the church say "Amen"?

Thoughtful and careful reflection is the mark of a true intellectual and a true leader. Blind allegiance and a stubborn adherence to the "my way or the highway" point of view are Bush's trademarks, and that's what makes him so wrong for this country. To paraphrase the movie "Dogma" - people fight wars over beliefs. I'd rather follow someone who has a pretty good idea.

Ah, but after last night, even Bush agreed that the number one threat facing the United States is nuclear proliferation. So much for throwing nearly all of our military resources at Iraq.

What the heck is careful and reflective about changing your mind with polls and politics? NO ONE is saying that once you make up your mind you can't change it because you look inconsistent...but what people are saying is that you shouldn't go back and forth dpending on what the political climate is. EVERYONE knows that Kerry's flip flops had nothing to do with careful reflection...and it had all to do with trying to appease everyone..at all times. Nice try on trying to "spin" the flip flop issue though.;)

All John Kerry does is poke holes in what has been done and tell people what they want to hear. He is good at it though..because he has a lot of people duped...people really think Kerrry has a clue. There's nothing "blind" about what Bush is doing..don't forget.. "your" candidate saw the same intelligence and voted with our president.

Since you turned this away from the debate and want to argue politics, why don't we.

Kerry doesn't have a belief on those issues you talk about. There is no gray. He votes black. He votes white. He talks about black. He talks about white. There is no gray. Kerry and you may care to try and push that across.

My favorite parts of the debate were the fibs. Kerry says the war is costing $200 billion. It's $120 billion Mr. Kerry. Oh and by the way, you were the one telling Tim Russert on Meet the Press to spend more. Of course you voted against spending more. Then there was Kerry making up the fact that Bush hadn't put sanctions on Iran. Yes Mr. Kerry sanctions were there. Clinton put them there and Bush renewed them. There can be no further sanctions. Bush has been working to pressure Iran with the world.

At the end of the day Kerry and Edwards both voted for the war. So did Bush. They all say they want to win. Kerry however is claiming to be an anti-war president for the left and a strong defender on the right. He talks about coalitions for Iraq but then coalitions are bad for North Korea.

-Rudey

My impressions
 

Great debate, kept my attention MUCH longer than I had originally anticipated, saw about the 1st hour of it.

Simply put,

Bush has very strong convictions, and was very tenacious about winning the war on terror and freeing Iraq from its former dictatorship so it can become a democracy, but IMHO has neglected to take care of the homefront. He often became non-plussed (ie, stuttering and stammering) when backed in a corner with a loaded question.

Kerry, OTOH, held his own very well, answered questions head on and full force, challenged Bush on unresolved difficult issues, however the basis of his responses were due to after-the-fact results. Kerry epitomizes the term "Monday morning quarterback", hence his uncanny knack at flip-flopping the issues.

So considering the nature of the event, Kerry clearly won the debate, but seeing that neither candidate impresses me very much, I will be voting for an independent candidate who I think is more qualified then those professional BS artists.

ETA: There has been way too much mudslinging from both of them during this whole campaign. As the saying goes, "When you do nothing but throw mud, all you do is lose ground."

I will NOT vote for either of them.

With all due respect, that has been exactly what the Bush and GOP ads have been saying -- and that was the theme of The President's responses last night to the point of nauseum.

To my mind, that was the edge that Kerry had in last night's debate. The Senator was debating, The President was trying to bludgeon.

Kerry won points with me with his comments about being flexible enough to admit a mistake and change your mind. Then The President basically agreed, but then went back on the "mixed messages" tirade.

Mr. Bush is not a great extemporaneous speaker, but if he will get off that one myopic attack path, he has a huge appeal and can do very well in the next meeting(s).

Of course the immediate 'outcome' of a debate can change over a few days time, so watch to see if after the initial assessment by debate watchers who were in locations to be polled (one of those was on our campus and both political parties were trying to get as many people on their side of the spectrum there as possible) follows through with the polling conducted over the next few days of a greater sample of the population.

ETA: the sample of Americans in the debate watchers polling is not always comparable to the average voting population and thus extraction to say 'this is what most people who watched thought' is flawed.

That was one of the things that Tim Russert and Tom Brokaw pointed out that was actually wrong in their post debate review. The way they did the math it came out to much less than what Kerry stated in the debate.

Kerry did get a good dig in when he was talking about which mistake was worse. What did he mean by the Pottery Barn thing if you break it you fix it? I don't many stores that go by if you break it you bought it either.

As for Bush appearing flustered, I thought that he had a problem with stuttering as a kid and that came out sometimes when he spoke.

Kerry laid out his plan really well unlike Bush he (Kerry) went into details, Bush on the other hand was his usual vague and petty self opting to attack Kerry instead of explaining his plans for Iraq. Dispite all the spin it was clear that Kerry beat Bush @ his own game National Security & Terrorism if Bush couldn't defend his policies in the war on terrorism how can he hope to explain his failed domestic policies like the economy.

Re: My impressions
 

The thing is that in American politics, we've moved towards a 2 party dominated system. The Republican party was the party that really started it because it was formed by uniting several issues - the major one being anti-slavery. I don't see things changing until people stop clinging to one party. For example, if blacks as a voting group were evenly split between Democrat and Republican then the 2 parties would compete head on to get their vote OR another party would emerge that would represent their beliefs more.

-Rudey

He laid out his plan?? Really he attacked Bush on the war on Iraq - the same war he voted for. He made comments about building a coalition and the only mention of a plan was holding a summit. This isn't summer camp. Presidents and leaders around the world do not want to participate in Iraq as it stands and have made not even one hint that they would if John Kerry was president. In fact it's dangerous to even consider that other countries could make demands on who we should vote for - but they don't. Kerry laid out no plan. In fact he went on to attack the countries that are currently participating in the coalition just like in the past.

And stop putting out BS by throwing words like "failed" behind the phrase domestic policies.

-Rudey

Bush should have mentioned how some of the countries that aren't a part of the coalition are likely involved with the oil for food scam.

Yes. Also I'd like to see who is being polled here. It's obvious that people try to influence the polls. In fact in a forum on Greekchat, they are trying to get other Democrats to go influence the polls.

-Rudey

Eww! This is why I _hate_ when anyone publishes the results of webpolls as fact (increasingly popular btw). If you're going to poll the population - do it right!

I got really drunk. Drink everytime Bush said 9/11, War on Terror, Terrorist, or Mixed Messages. Drink everytime Kerry said um...I forget I went through like five beers by the third question. f

I very much agree with this. I think it's clear to anybody who follows politics even in a shallow way that both parties have done their share of "flip-flopping," but as you said, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I would love to have a president who is able to say, "Given the information we had at the time, I voted this way, but now that we have different information, I've changed the way I think on this issue." How many of y'all have never had a political opinion swayed by the introduction of new information? I think being able to admit that political situations are very nuanced, being able see things in shades of gray instead of black and white, and to be able to admit that circumstances are constantly changing is a sign of maturity and intelligence, not a bad thing at all.

But I think a lot of people are comforted by the fact that with Bush, you pretty much know what you get (or at least you think you do). And that's great for them, but I would rather have a consistently intelligent leader than a consistently consistent one. But given the last election, it's become clear that the majority of the American public would prefer a charismatic leader rather than one they can't relate to (i.e. one who is clearly far smarter than they are). Charisma isn't necessarily the wrong way to pick a president, and of course in our wonderful democracy you can vote for the president who has the cutest dog if you want to, but it's not really how I want to pick who's in charge.

I have to admit that I checked out at a couple times during the debates, but even so, I was frustrated by the way that Bush kept responding to Kerry with the same three arguments ("You send mixed messages," "We're only going to win the war on terror," and "Since you don't approve of the way I'm running the war, you clearly hate all American servicemen"). It was pretty clear that he was coached to hammer on a few certain points, so when he couldn't respond decently to what Kerry was saying, he just went back to one of those three. I also thought his slip-ups confusing Osama and Saddam (as well as Giuliani's mix-ups in the post-show interview) were pretty telling, and frightening, but since so many Americans still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11 I don't think it will hurt Bush much.

Like I said last night, I think Kerry pretty clearly got the edge here, but I expect Bush to be much more prepared in the next debate, so anything could happen.

Oh, you mean kind of like changing your mind on an issue?

Holy shit I was drunk this morning.