Brad,

While it's still early to see the responses, you are the first conservative I've heard give the debate to Kerry (I thought it clearly went to Kerry myself). I appreciate your objectivity in your analysis.

As a recent Veteran, and Independent voter, I thought the entire debate was garbage. But even as a Bush-spiter, I definitely believe Kerry lost...significantly. He has no platform, no agenda, no reconciliation, and he has little support from the 'Allies' he claims that he will bring together in, quote, "four years". If you believe that agenda, then I might as well tell you that MTV is the source for all of your current events. Honestly, how can you post a 'victory' article on a blog, and not back it up?

Getting back to Bush, even though he is a cheat and a liar, as well as a profiteer, at least he is consistent. Kerry can't make up his mind on which day he is a cheat, a liar, or a profiteer. And nobody, so far, has mentioned that this debate shouldn't have been limited to the dual Republicrats. Where's Cobb? Nader? I can bet you my social security check in 2060 that either one of them would have posed some debate-turning questions, not to mention run circles around the media puppets that have been dubbed "Kerry" and "Bush".

By the way, if you were watching, you should have caught the double-standards that Kerry got caught in, just like clockwork. Unfortunately, Bush didn't catch them (what a surprise). Pardon the cynical overture of this comment... I'm simply disgusted by the debate, or Platonic lack thereof. If you would like to see my own reaction in detail, look at "Liar, Liar, Debate's On Fire". I'd love constructive criticism. At least I give you credit for watching the debate and thinking about it critically.

i couldnt disagree more. i think Kerry looked like a complete fool constantly contradicting himself and leaving small innacurate statements with every topic. An example would be spending 200 billion because we were alone (later admitting we werent really alone), or spending 200 billion at home if we werent alone. I guess if you have friends the war is free. I think he does it on purpose too, to weight his arguments, Bush on the other hand was like a small child up there, he couldnt keep his trap shut, and even when he was quiet the facial expressions were dead giveaways for everything he was thinking.

im against the war, but im against kerry more. i like bush for one reason, because his decisions always seem heartfelt and he seems to really be proud of his country. id rather have a whacko make the wrong decision for the right reasons than a wrong decision for the wrong reasons (yes im aware of the analogies of historical tyrants etc). this election, for me, really is voting against a candidate, not for one.

Kerry is clearly a better speaker than Bush which was obvious in this first debate and common knowledge for quite some time now. Good public speaking skills and a bottle of tanning cream can do a lot for you these days. I'll give Kerry credit - he can sell ice to eskimo's. Unfortunately for Kerry, I am not an eskimo and my memory is still sharp. The polls may narrow a bit but I wouldn't go so far as to say considerably.

I could be wrong.........oh those vanity voters

What I find shocking is how many people are crediting Bush with a debate win, here and in other places. I'm with you, Draginol, Kerry definitely scored a debate win here. I think a lot of people, however, simply credited Bush with a "win" because they didn't believe or like what Kerry said. I think that's a shame, because people simply aren't listening to what the candidates have to say - either of them. They've made up their minds, and are sticking to their decisions regardless of what comes along. I don't think any educated person could legitimately claim that Bush actually debated well tonight. He may have said things that certain people wanted to hear, but that does not equal a good debate.

I posted on my own blog, and I'll repeat here. Before this debate, I was planning to vote against Bush. After it, I'm planning to vote for Kerry. No real substantive change, but there it is.

First off I'd like to say, I've been reading the stuff on here for about a month now and finally signed up so I could respond. I think the majority of you are very intelligent and make some great points regardless what side of the political spectrum your on. I really believe that every time I come on here I leave knowing more than I knew when I came on.

Now as far as the debates go I think I have a unique perspective on the debates. Everyone on the news talks about style points, facial expressions, mannerisms, ect. I was only able to hear it on the radio so "style points" don't enter into the equation for me. I think they both did about the same. They got in their shots and they both made mistakes. I think bush's biggest problem was the long pauses. He seemed at times to be searching. Which isn't bad if your me trying to write this, but as president you need to be able to think quickly. Kerry on the other hand actually thought people would believe that he has been consistant on the Iraq issue. I think we can all agree that he has not. All in all I don't think this really helped either one. I think the polls will look about the same as they did before the debate. I guess we will see what happens next tuesday. Do we think either of them will learn anything from this?

I jokingly posted as the debate was closing that is was a "tie" because conservatives would say Bush won and libs would say Kerry won. This morning, it seems like a lot of people are saying that seriously. Kerry seemed more confident, and Bush seemed a big flustered by the end. I wish the candidates could have addressed one another, though, it would have made it a lot more interesting.

I am a Republican and I believe Kerry won but not by a lot. Bush was defensive and his face at both some of the questions and Kerry's answers were very telling. It will be interesting to see how they both handle the questions about other areas like the economy, jobs, the out of control deficit etc. If you want to get the facts on ALL the Bush policies, read "Four More For George W?" Look at the reader comments posted on Amazon.com about this book!

I am definitely an objective opinion on this (I detest them both equally), and I think that Kerry clearly outdebated Bush. Bush's posture was poor, he stuttered and fumbled through most of what he had to say (having difficulty producing the name "Osama bin Laden" towards the beginning), and he insisted on changing the rules of the debate to suit him (when he demanded a 30 second rebuttal when it wasn't part of the format). The latter reinforced my opinion that this is a man who doesn't expect the rules to apply him, and expects them in fact, to change FOR him. I continue to assert my opinion, though, that what is more important in this debate is not who won, but who LOST. The answer to that question is, the American people, who did not get to hear the opinions of candidates outside the "big two".

 

Reply #9 By: Lotherius - 10/1/2004 2:35:23 AM What I find shocking is how many people are crediting Bush with a debate win, here and in other places. I'm with you, Draginol, Kerry definitely scored a debate win here. I think a lot of people, however, simply credited Bush with a "win" because they didn't believe or like what Kerry said. I think that's a shame, because people simply aren't listening to what the candidates have to say - either of them. They've made up their minds, and are sticking to their decisions regardless of what comes along. I don't think any educated person could legitimately claim that Bush actually debated well tonight. He may have said things that certain people wanted to hear, but that does not equal a good debate. I posted on my own blog, and I'll repeat here. Before this debate, I was planning to vote against Bush. After it, I'm planning to vote for Kerry. No real substantive change, but there it is.

The reason they are crediting Bush with the win is because as usual Kerry was inconsistent! While GW didn't catch the flip-flops, I sure did and so did a *bunch* of other people.

HOG WASH!

BUSH clearly came out on top. Initial polls in debates historically tend to favor the person perceived "smarter." Subsequently, the determination hinges on public impact.

Bush hammered home the inescapable about Kerry. He's a politician, not a war time leader.

The ultimate difference between Bush and Kerry is simple. Kerry would do anything, go to any length... stab his own mother in the back to realize his life long ambition of being another J.F.K. Bush, on the other hand, shows true grit. Even in the face of enormous pressure, he follows through on what is right.

Kerry probably won the debate. He has more style as a speaker, anybody can see that. Doesn't matter. He is winning the battle and losing the war.

Last night Bush did not say anything different than he has said before. I think there is very little the Kerry campaign can use against him because that is what he is been saying all along.

Kerry on the other hand issued what I would call a flip-flop in the middle of the debate. He is going to be hearing the "global test" in a sound bite very, very soon. I think he is also harmed by:

Outsourcing the attack on Tora Bora. That is easily contrasted with his position on Iraq.
Giving Iran Nuke-U-Ler fuel. It is going to be tough going convincing people this is a good idea. It will be easy for someone to paint this position in a very bad way.

I think the post-debate marching orders for Democrats is going to be on Russia's nuclear stockpiles and dropping the ball on Korea. I think that the bi versus multi-lateral talks doesn't play great to the general electorate but I have to say that Bush made an argument on this issue and Kerry didn't.

So they are really left with the Iraq issue. Nobody really understands what Kerry's stance is but I think most of us are convinced that he will cut and run as fast as he can. Bottom line that is what a lot of people are going to vote...should we cut and run or should we tough it out?

Gideon, I find it interesting that you present this as your reason for why Kerry won the debate (more accurately you are saying Bush lost it). I would think that part of your bag would be to judge candidates on substantive issues not this kind of fluff. Personally, I don’t think Bush’s posture was bad he just looks like a small man because of the way he is framed side by side with Kerry.

The debate is ALL about how you present yourself. I wasn't a very good debater, and even I know that much.

As for Bush's posture, he actually SLOUCHED....and LEANED AGAINST THE PODIUM...Kerry's height can't change that.

As for the "fumbling", it is NOT fluff. A candidate who cannot answer quickly and decisively is obviously a candidate who does not have answers, but is searching for them. A brief pause would be a better response than a fumbling response.

Basically, it comes down to this: the only people I know who think that Bush actually won this debate are absolutely DIEHARD Bush supporters...even many of his supporters, though, concede this one.

Please tell me where Kerry changed the debate rules in mid stream. I didn't see that. I DID, however, see George W. Bush INTERRUPT Jim Lehrer and request a rebuttal where it hadn't been placed because he felt it was deserved. As for "being able to defend themselves", you could rebut for hours if you needed to; there has to be a line drawn, and the preagreed upon rules of the debate are a pretty good one to go by.

If Kerry did demand a rules change in the middle of the debate, please show me where.