So who won the debate?

I'm a strong Kerry supporter, and feel that he won the debate tonight, but didn't hit any home runs.

Bush stammered and seemed flustered at times, and Kerry was eloquent and well spoken, but also seemed kind of stiff (although not as much as usual).

I'm glad Kerry was able to effectively make the point that Osama bin Laden is still at large, and that the war on Iraq is not the same as the war on terrorism.

What did you think?

I think that Kerry showed that he clearly is the better debater of the two candidates.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

If I had to pick a winner, I'd pick Kerry. I don't believe it was the butt-kicking so many of his supporters seem to be saying it was, though.

I'll give Kerry the edge overall for his consistency. He remained collected and quick on his feet, and only made one real blunder that I can recall ("pass the global test"). I'll give Bush the award for best line of the night in response to Kerry's claims that Iraq was a "grand diversion" and that we need more allies on board ("What's he going to say? Join us for a grand diversion?").

Kerry's biggest achivement was in simply standing on equal footing with the incumbent and holding his own.

Bush's primary achievement was in highlighting Kerry's utterly convoluted stance on Iraq. He says Hussein was a threat that needs to be disarmed, but actually doing so is an unncessary diversion. A diversion he'll bring more allies in to help with. It was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, yet he'd still vote for it knowing what he knows now. The world is better with Saddam gone, but it's also less safe.

Here's why Kerry won, though: in the first 30 minutes, Bush did a good job of finding the holes in the mess of statements mentioned above. Kerry, however, talked past it and stayed on the offensive. Bush, probably straying from his gameplan, went on the defensive far too often, and it showed. During the first half-hour, Bush successfully demonstratated that Kerry has been unclear and inconsistent, but the next hour felt as if it consisted largely of Kerry peppering Bush with questions. He was setting the tone for the debate down the stretch.

At this point, I'm going to predict double-upsets: Kerry wins this debate on foreign policy (considered by many to be Bush's strongest topic), but Bush wins on domestic policy (which many consider to be his weakest).

This seemed less like a debate and more like a cat fight. It seemed like the issues brought up by Kerry (whom I support) were less "This is how I will resolve them" and more, " It's all basically his [Bush] fault." I came away from the debate thinking, "Yeah Kerry you show him!", but also with no real insight on what will happen if Kerry becomes the most powerful man in the world.

__________________
I have been formatted to fit this screen.

r66-The member who always asks WHY?

I wasn't under the impression that Bush's strong point was considered foreign policy.

In any case I'll agree with Yoda that Kerry won last nights debate but also that how much a victory it is in the long run remains to be seen. A couple points:

- Kerry's biggest weakness going into the debate was that up to now he'd allowed his opponents to define his political character for him. Last night he stayed consistent and on message for the most part and as Yoda points out didn't let Bush set the tone of the debate.

- Most polls showed Bush leading going into the debate, plus he's the incumbent which makes things easier on him. As if that weren't enough, I think most people already have relatively low expectations for the prez when it comes to speaking publicly, let alone debating.

With these two things in mind I think it's safe to say that Kerry won if we just look at the debate in a vacume. That is, with these other factors you could look at it and say that really the only way for it to be considered a decisive victory would have been for Bush to resort to a screaming tantrum or some such humiliation. Bush played it safe and sometimes looked a little foolish; he fumbled around a bit for the last half; but I think we sort of expect that from him. In fact his own people have never sold him as a great talker or a man of much cleverness (which of course doesn't say anything necessarily about how clever 'the real Bush' may be) but as someone who "gets things done" (whatever that little truism means.) So I think Bush and his people went into the debate planning to be on defense and it was probably a prudent choice -- he didn't say anything too embarasing. With the debate Kerry advanced a half-step but he's still a long way from winning an election as Bush is still treading on in his fashion too.

I think it is pretty obvious that Kerry did win and I wouldn't be surprised if his points go up in the polls, but he didn't knock 'em dead or anything, he was just better than Bush was.

I thought Kerry rocked the debate, but it still didn't change that I really don't care for him whatsoever. I'm going to be voting for him because he represents more of the ideals I believe in than Bush does, but he is just another politician to me. I think he is just as much of a log as Gore was. Kerry just has colorful fungi growing on him, whereas Gore was just a chunk of dead wood. And Bush is just a squirrel that doesn't care about anything but gathering more nuts. They both suck, one just slightly less than the other.

Oh and Jim Lear(spelling?) looks like a raccoon.

__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

Yep, Kerry definitely. a bit shy maybe, but at least he's not the one ignoring everything people know in the meanwhile, for example when Bush says after sooooooooooo much time and information (movies too, know what i mean?) the US were attacked by Iraq... does he really believe in his lies himself? and he straightforwardly and unashamed ignores the questions he doesn't wanna answer to, e.g. why attack Iraq and not Afghanistan if the army and government and HIM, ALL knew terrorists were there? (and oil, no no sir, didn't ever play a role in all those *deaths*!!!! of course... "sir")
so, if honesty counts for something, Kerry won.

That struck me as a blunder in terms of presentation, but not of substance. Were you thinking mainly in presentation terms?

By using that little punchy phrase, he wasn't able to qualify it as being about gaining consensus where consensus is necessary (and played into Bush's traditional response of 'the-US-needn't-consult-others-concerning-it's-own-security' [despite the lack of evidence of a threat to the US ])

It's this tricky-to-communicate strategy that he could've done with 'sound-biting' a bit more effectively (although he hit on a lot of the issues afterwards). It's especially tricky to communicate, tho, in the face of Bush's deliberately simplistic/black-and-white presentation of the issues. (Kerry fell into that presentation trap again when he said 'There's a right way and a wrong way to deal with Saddam' - to my mind he should have said 'There are right ways and wrong ways...', and that Bush chose one of the wrong ways. That way he wouldn't have fallen into the trap of appearing to be against everything Bush has done on that score - i.e. his prefered approach would've involved invasion too etc, and resolute stance post invasion.

That's the advantage of the Bush admin's approach and presentation. It's been simplistic and inflexible while using the 'war' on 'terror' to make it seem that all its actions must be good. (And Bush loves to spin it that way. i.e. the... 'We're fighting terror - i'm going to keep fighting terror - how can that be wrong?' spin he loves so much).

As Kerry pointed out, that kind of dogma on its own is no guarantee of being right

Most of these apparent contradictions are resolved if you look at his general stance (which is shared by just about all the [non-pacifist] objectors to war-in-this-way ).....

He says it's only a diversion if done in such a way that resources are drawn away from other key areas in the fight on terrorism [Afghanistan etc]. IE The unilateral way which spread unsupported US forces too thinly. That is what Bush has done. (We can argue about the whys/hows of him not gaining multilateral supprot on the other thread Yodles - There's still much to discuss )

Has he actually said that the world is better, or just that removing Saddam is the right thing to do (so long as we don't lose sight of more pertinent/wide-reaching terror issues along the way)?

That, i must admit, is the perplexing one. And the one i'm gonna try and track down on that damn montage of his stances that i still haven't watched...

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

I think that's a fair assessment. The debate was less about how to proceed, and more about how we got where we are. I imagine that criticizing Bush on that front will do plenty to rile up his supporters, but less to persuade undecideds, who presumably care most about what each candidate would do from here on out.

Kerry kept bragging about Vietnam. Sure he did a brave thing and I completely respect him for it, but he doesn't really have to whore it out. And Bush doesn't need to keep complaining about how hard his job is. Buncha whinners.

Here's how it works:
It's an easier stance to be the Joe that gets to say in a debate setting what he's going to do once he's president. It's harder to be the Joe that has to defend himself for actions already commited as the current president. Kerry can call up all of Bush's 'mistakes' and Bush has to defend them. All Bush has, really, is Kerry's tendancy to 'flip-flop' and he used that WAY too often. It was repetitive.

I disagree about that it was a catfight and about how America got where it's at today and whose "fault" that is. And let's not forget that the moderator asked the kind of questions that wanted answers about that kind of stuff.

Kerry surprised me in that he was much more clear and consistent and aggressive (without being offensive or nasty) than I expected. Bush surprised me too in that it almost appeared as he didn't know about the debate until five mins before the thing started. If there was a catfight I think he stood for that contribution. To generalize a bit his answers and rebuttals were a lot of "No, I didn't" and "No, you don't". I just think he came through as badly prepared for a debate between presidential candidates.

I do think Kerry presented a different strategy regarding how to deal with Iraq. It's what I have thought was the right thing to do the whole time and that is to let the entire world community play a much greater and more important role in Iraq.I do believe this is something that is typical for Kerry althrough his foreign politics - to regain the trust and understanding of the rest of the world, something that Bush lost during his period as president. Considering the way that the whole free world plus a few more other countries stood behind USA after 9-11 and how Bush fumbled all of that support away AND today is refusing to see the relevance of global cooperation, this is a vital issue that Kerry should be and is offering an alternative to. And I think he did an above average job bringing that message out last night. I just wonder why Kerry didn't bring up the crisis between USA and Europe during the start of the war when Bush denied that there is a schism dividing USA from the rest of the world, a schism that he helped create.

I am looking forward to the other debates, especially the second one between Bush and Kerry since it will be about domestic politics. I had expected that Bush would win this first one considering what the campaign has been about the last weeks. Now I think that this may all turn when Kerry will be even more secure when he is on his own turf so to speak.

The fact that Bush seemed to be kind of lost will perhaps work in his favour. Maybe "ordinary people" found Kerry a bit too academic or a know-it-all (even if I thought he kept pretty clear and very focused) while Bush, more than ever, came out as the people's guy who sees things in simple ways.

Bush looked terrible...

__________________

Bush looked bad? Kerry is just plain silly looking. He has those hairy turds for eyebrows and the long chin...
I think Bush is kinda handsome. I like his straight, petite nose.

From what I hear Kerry won it, and even the Repubs there agreed. Bush never was, and never will be an orator.

__________________
something witty goes here......

You've convinced me; I'm voting for Joe. Who's with me?

Yoda, you mean the Joe. He doesn't like to be lumped in with all those poser Joes.

heh, I didn't mean physically lol. Bush looked unprepared and nervous.

Sorry for shortliners..really busy today

Oh.
heh heh.


Nervous isn't the right word. What would he be nervous about? Unprepared? That would be weird to be unprepared when you're the president of the United States and you have a VERY important debate coming up and you didn't prepare for it? No. These men spent the last couple of weeks OVERpreparing. After the debate the little spin doctors for each party said that the canidates were expecting to talk about specific topics that never came up. Perhaps Bush was annoyed with Kerry's one-trick-pony antics and vice versa?

Most say that John Kerry won the debate, but i say that it was too close to say. Both ahd strong arguments and weaknesses. I'm getting excited just thinking about the final days of the election!!