Kerry appears more presidential then Bush during the Debate

[Love_Spell_6]

Originally posted by ktsnake
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 ...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..

[AlphaSigOU]

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.

[WCUgirl]

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.

[Love_Spell_6]

Originally posted by AXiD670
I kept getting tickled at how frustrated Bush seemed to get,

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

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by AlphaSigOU
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.

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

[angelic1]

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.

Originally posted by Love_Spell_6
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 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.

Originally posted by Love_Spell_6
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."

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.

Originally posted by Love_Spell_6
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.

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.

[Sistermadly]

Originally posted by chideltjen
It just seemed Bush ended every argument with "I'm/we're gonna win. The End."

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.

[xo_kathy]

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!

[Sistermadly]

Originally posted by AGDee
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.

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.

Everybody agrees that Iraq was a threat.

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.

[Love_Spell_6]

Originally posted by Sistermadly
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.

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.

[Rudey]

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

Originally posted by AGDee
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

[Rain Man]

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.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Love_Spell_6
NO ONE is saying that once you make up your mind you can't change it because you look inconsistent...

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).

[IowaStatePhiPsi]

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.

[wrigley]

Originally posted by Rudey
[B
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.

-Rudey [/B]

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.