So...

[red-beard]

Who Won?

[techweenie]

I was suprised at how weak Bush seemed.

[red-beard]

I thought Kerry did very well. I don't think there was a knockout, but he did do very well. Even though I'm a Bush supporter, I'd give it to Kerry.

[rcecale]

Bush seemed to not be on his game throughout the majority of the debate, however, his final comments were brilliant. Succinct, pointed and right on the money. I especially agreed with his comments about taking the fight to the enemy (to Iraq) so the fight wasn't in America.

Randy

[A Quiet Boom]

I was surprised by how well Kerry did also, but many of his comments were deliberately misleading even to the point of misquoting what GW had just said. I wonder how many will see right through that. GW was weaker than I thought he would be but he was successful in pointing out just how a commander in chief should act. I give it to Bush by 51 to 49. Very close.

[K. Roman]

Well, it's funny how he already did bring it to our country once with the twin towers, so I think what he meant was that he would make sure it didn't happen again whe he's in power.

I only caught the tail end of the debate and it did seem that Bush won that part just on pure aggressiveness. He's a bully and people like that in the good ole US of A. My brother thinks, Kerry is a P#ssy, and Bush doesn't take any *****. But when you don't have a solid strategy (brain) the bully finally gets beat by the nerd.

[Serge914]

There is a poll on CNN.com, 81% goes to Kerry.
I agree even if he was in Bush territory.

[MichiganMat]

First Bush fumbled.
Then Bush got mad.
And finally, Bush got his ass handed to him.

And that was only in the first 10 minutes!!!!!

[island911]

Anyone remember Andrea Agassi play Boris Becker. . .way back . .. the game where Agassi would move back on a BB second serve?

Kerry lives for these debates. The thing is, we all know (well except Kerry) that these are not debates.

Kerry out "debated" Bush . . .but Bush out "messaged" Kerry.

I find it funny that Kerry is so wrapped-up in showing the world his debating skills, that he misses an opportunity for a "message".

. . .well, unless his message is; Saddam was not a threat . . .yes Saddam was a threat.

heh-heh

Hey speeder, still taken bets?

[dd74]

Agreed. Kerry took it to Bush, and Bush fumbled throughout, even if he did stay on point - too many pauses, too many "ummm"s. He also made his one solid point too many times about Kerry's indecisiveness. Yes, we know the man voted this way than another, so forth and so on - but Kerry (for once) gave some credible ideas toward ending the war in Iraq.

Nuclear proliferation - now that was some scary stuff the challenger brought up - and real credible threats.

Taking it superficially, Kerry looked a helluva more presidential than Bush - and looks are a big part of these things - almost as much as substance. Bush pursed his lips throughout - not good.

In fact, GW looked a little sickly at times - pale, tired, sweating, maybe - must have been those "mexed missages" he ate.

CBS and ABC say Kerry won this thing.

[fintstone]

I agree. kerry proved he was very glib, a smooth talker and master debater....which we already knew.

He also proved he is still not willing to take a position or offer a specific course of action on anything...(only that whatever he does, it will somehow be better than what Bush would do).....we already knew that

And finally, he proved to be incapable of the truth....which we already knew.

Bush was flustered and did not present himself as presidential...but at least came across as an honest man who is trying to do the right thing.

Neither said or did anything new that would make an informed voter change their mind.

[speeder]

Probably missed the opportunity of the year to bet Lendaddy w/ 2-1 odds today that Kerry will win election. All bias aside, purely from a "football game" angle, if Kerry gets back even in the polls he will win the general election. Look for Bush's *negative bounce* in tomorrow's papers.

I though that Kerry did a good, but not spectacular job, and that Bush was quite weak. I was expecting much better from Bush, cocky/sarcastic but still likable/verbal zingers/etc..., he just seemed like a deer in the headlights.

He, (Bush), is going to get his ass handed to him in the "domestic issues" debate, whenever that is.

All in all, I thought that it was a good debate, much better than I expected. They both had the chance to really argue over some really important issues, like nuclear, (that is nu-KLEE-er), proliferation, it was miles above the swiftboat garbage. The American public deserves these debates.

There was a very strange moment afterwards when the First Lady and Kerry's wife seemed to want to chat and hang out w/ each other, Kerry had to drag her away like a husband at a picnic. They seemed to actually like each other. Very strange, but not really. Nearly everyone in the world likes Laura Bush.

[dd74]

Honestly, Kerry offered many more courses of action for many more widespread issues (than just Iraq) than Bush...

North Korea was a good one, for instance. Relying on China to resolve N. Korea is, in my mind, relying on gasoline to put out a fire. I think, in a back-handed way, this Chinese reliance brings up how "stretched" the administration is toward thinking about anything than Iraq.

And N. Korea is a BIG THREAT.

[Z-man]

Originally posted by K. Roman
Well, it's funny how he already did bring it to our country once with the twin towers, so I think what he meant was that he would make sure it didn't happen again whe he's in power.

I resent that comment: it was not because of Bush that the towers fell: it was because of sheer and utter hatred of the terrorists that caused the disaster. BTW: IIRC, the Al Queda's plans for September 11th were started when Clinton was in office.
So careful about your accusations.

What I find interesting is how many times Bush corrected Kerry's statements. Kerry was certainly misleading people by mis-stating Bush's administration's views. Problem is, you can't do that when the man you are misquoting is standing right next to you!

-Z.

[Z-man]

Originally posted by Serge914
There is a poll on CNN.com, 81% goes to Kerry.
I agree even if he was in Bush territory.

CNN.com is typically a liberal news organization, which would explain their pole outcome.
-Z.

[speeder]

Originally posted by island911

heh-heh

Hey speeder, still taken bets?

I wish like heck that I had the money to gamble, but it would be fiscally irresponsible. Back when the Clinton economy was in place, I had $$ to just play with, I was betting before the election and afterwards about who would win.

I was sitting w/ a buddy having a sandwich 1 hour before the debate, he has dough to burn and was wondering how to contact/place a bet in Vegas before the debate. (@ 2-1 Bush). He said that in the unlikely event that Bush won the debate, he would simply throw a G or two on Bush to cover.

[CJFusco]

Bush's final comments were the strongest part of his side, and they were far better than kerry's...

HOWEVER, Kerry seemed better prepared and more resolute in his presentation than Bush. Bush got flustered and lost his train of thought several times throughout. The debate itself went obviously to Kerry.

Now, kerry's main problem going into the debate was dthat nobody knew who he really was because his beliefs on several key issues were tough to pin down. He seemed overly complex - an intuitive, instead of a sensor. Tonight, Kerry said what he thought clearly and concisely, and I think a lot more voters know who John Kerry is now.

I wasn't comfortable voting for Kerry just because I didn't agree with Bush before; now that I understand Kerry a little better, that discomfort has subsided a bit.

[island911]

Originally posted by CJFusco
. . .Tonight, Kerry said what he thought clearly and concisely, and I think a lot more voters know who John Kerry is now.

I wasn't comfortable voting for Kerry just because I didn't agree with Bush before; now that I understand Kerry a little better, that discomfort has subsided a bit.

So then maybe you can help me out here. What was kerrys (clear and concise) position on whether Saddam was a threat?

[Jason Porter]

Bush looked to me like a little kid who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

Kerry several times laid out statistics and "facts" for Bush, pointing the president's shortcomings as our leader. Bush was just sorta like, "No I didn't", and seemed to try and double talk his way out. I don't trust either of them, but I felt like Kerry had somewhat of an agenda and plan of action for growth, instead of just lobbing bombs and saying how resolute we are...

I still don't know who I'll vote for though...

Suggestions?

[speeder]

Originally posted by island911
So then maybe you can help me out here. What was kerrys (clear and concise) position on whether Saddam was a threat?

That he was a threat, but that it was unwise to unilaterally attack him w/o all of the info available. There are levels of threats, and it is a pretty unique situation when you have your Army surrounding a "threat" and inspectors crawling through his country, uncovering more and winning more concessions from the threat every day.

Agreeing that he was some type of potential threat and co-signing Bush and company's actions were two different things. A lot of good people should still be alive right now, and of course some bad ones were killed.