Kerry 1, Bush 0

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.

I too, am impressed. I have to give you credit, you call them as you see them.

Objectivity?
Haven't noticed much of that lately.

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 think Kerry did the best job speaking and presenting his view that I have seen yet. I was glad to see that they did not get down and dirty with character assasination but were able to stay on the issues. I just love how after the debate both sides claim victory but I have to give this one to Kerry. I am interested in seeing the domestic policy debate. Best quote of the night was "you can be certain but still be wrong". Bush absolutely thinks he did the right thing going to Iraq and he is not ever going to back down from that point of view.

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.

"Unfortunately, Bush didn't catch them (what a surprise)."

I think he caught them. As I stated in my own article, I think Bush was muzzled and confined to a set of redundant talking points. It is a shame. The things that made him a good debate opponent seem to have been too dangerous for them to let him use. If I could see Kerry's jugular thumping on a couple of occasions, I know Bush could, and frankly those were the main times he faltered, and slid back to empty catch phrases. It was as though they said "Hey, when you feel the urge to tear into him, just take a deep breath and quote this bumper sticker...".

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

No Bush fan myself but I thought he won the debate. Maybe I was expecting such ineptitude from him that I'm over-impressed by mere competence.

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.

I'm not a huge fan of either canidate and think it's pretty sad that these two are the best that our country can produce. That being said, I think that in terms of debate, Kerry was clearly far more articulate and was much less defensive than Bush. Not to say that I believe or agree with everything Kerry had to say but he definately took control of the debate early and Bush was much more on the defensive than I have ever seen him. IMO, whoever get 's elected in November is going to have one hell of a mess to deal with over the next four years.. Maybe all Republicans should vote for Kerry and all Democrats should vote for Bush. hmmm..... I think the real question is where the corporate and special interest lobby group money ends up to secure the oil.

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?

From DrudgeReport.com:

LOCKHART: DEBATE CONSENSUS A 'DRAW' Unbeknownst to Kerry adviser Mike McCurry, a C-SPAN camera quietly followed McCurry as he found Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart on Spin Alley floor and asked him his impression of the debate. Lockhart candidly said to McCurry , “The consensus is it was a draw.”

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 didn't really see a 'winner'. They both answered questions with non-answers, spouting talking points rather than addressing the actual question asked.

While Kerry tended to go off on tangents more (his rambling non-answer on question #1 had me trying to remember what the question was), Bush kept returning to the same slogans after short one sentence answers to questions.

I suppose that is the nature of these things though. Not a real 'debate' on the issues, but a chance to repeat campaign rhetoric.

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 will be voting for Bush but feel Kerry won this debate.  Am I surprised, no.  Was I surprised by anything during the debate, no, other than Kerry's makeup people managing to cover up the orange color he gave himself earlier in the week

I watched quite a bit of analysis after and thought one commentator really struck a cord with me.  I think it was Peggy Noonan but could be wrong, who said that it was like the trial lawyer, John Kerry vs the regular guy, George Bush.  Kerry was very well spoken and had his file of charges against Bush handy.  He won the coin toss so had the first word and often the last.

In appearance alone, that includes pace and body language, it seemed Kerry was the one who prepared and got plenty of rest and Bush seemed like he had been out partying all night and couldn't get his brain and mouth to work in concert.  Again, no surprise there.

Kerry did get caught by the fact finders over a couple of points he was trying to make and then Tommy Franks made a couple of good points about Iraq not diverting anything from Afghanistan as Kerry kept claiming.  Kerry made a good showing but it was just that, a show.

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".

 

I will be voting for Bush but feel Kerry won this debate. Am I surprised, no. Was I surprised by anything during the debate, no, other than Kerry's makeup people managing to cover up the orange color he gave himself earlier in the week

Jill,

I was surprised by one thing. Bush has always been an excellent debater, and I am not sure why he fumbled here. While I am not a fan of either candidate, I have to say, I'm disappointed he didn't bring his "A" game.

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.

This was not a debate it was a contest.It could have been called "don't break the egg" Poi Dog got it right......re:... now.org.

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.

Bush's posture was poor, he stuttered and fumbled through most of what he had to say

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.

As for stuttering and fumbling, what did you expect? I cannot see how this could be counted against him since this is a known (opposed to an unknown unknown). In fact I think he did better in this format than anyone really expected.

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

Both candidates did this…they would be foolish to let their opponent score points and not try to get a rebuttal in.

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?

I thought Kerry won, but was a little disappointed that he didn't take a little tougher, more direct stance on a few issues.

For example, the "flip-flop" issue, he only hinted at. He could have deflated Bush's bubble there by simply stating that he changed his mind on the issues as the situation changed. If he would have come out and said, "I realized that I was wrong, and tried to take steps to correct my mistakes, unlike President Bush, who will not admit that he is wrong, and won't take the steps necessary to correct his mistakes" that would have made me real happy.

On the other hand, had Bush come out and said, "I made a mistake rushing into war, I'll admit that. In hind sight, I would have done it much differently, but we're there now, and have to do what we can to fix the problem" I would have had much more respect for the man. I'm still waiting him to come clean before I can back him. So until that happens, I'm afriad I'm going to have to side with Kerry.

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.