OP/ED: Presidential Debate Coverage 2004 - Miami - Kerry Wins

thecry's point is excellent. kerry started a number of key statements, early on, with 'I believe' whereas bush drilled the hard work point. those kinds of things stay in your mind, or an undecided's mind. not the nuances.

ill get to the meat later

Great point ZipDot!!!!

When Bush pointed this out to Kerry he tried to back track but Bush cornered him.

Lehrer said: "I want to make sure -- yes, sir -- but in this one minute, I want to make sure that we understand -- the people watching understand the differences between the two of you on this.

You want to continue the multinational talks, correct?"

Bush Said "Right."

Then Lehrer said "And you're willing to do it..."

Kerry interupted "Both. I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table."

Lehrer turned to Bush "And you're opposed to that. Right?"

Bush replied "The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind. That's exactly what Kim Jong Il wants. And by the way, the breach on the agreement was not through plutonium. The breach on the agreement is highly enriched uranium. That's what we caught him doing. That's where he was breaking the agreement."

*****After that John Kerry didn't say anything else about how he was going to handle North Korea because he made an idiot out of himself. He just kept saying North Korea is now more dangerous. So I suppose they would be less dangerous if we entered into bilateral talks.

---This guy is an idiot.





[edit on 30-9-2004 by BlackJackal]

I felt neither "won", Kerry never told us what his "plans" were, just that "Ii have a plan" and kept reapeating that. He did'nt win me over. Bush if he had better public speaking skills would've done a better job than Kerry.

During his one answer he went on about who supports him millitary which did'nt pretain, he was just bragging. Bush stutterd alot. but Kerry paused alot.

I was disapointed, no one won. It was even they both performed under par. Now tommorrow I have to listen to the Democrats boast that Kerry won :shake:

Originally posted by JediMaster
I felt neither "won", Kerry never told us what his "plans" were, just that "Ii have a plan" and kept reapeating that. He did'nt win me over. Bush if he had better public speaking skills would've done a better job than Kerry.

:

Did you want Kerry to explain issue by issue and point by point, in 2 minutes his exact strategy on Iraq????

I knew it. Nothing like a bunch of sore loosers. Sorry.

He could've said something other than.

"My plan is differnt from this presidents. I have a plan....alliances...... I have a plan..............this president"

That was basicly his debate, he gave no firm stand. In 2 minutes he could've simply and briefly stated a simple version of what he wants to do.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Did you want Kerry to explain issue by issue and point by point, in 2 minutes his exact strategy on Iraq????

No but I want Kerry to shoot straight with me. Tell me what you really believe Mr. Kerry, not what you think will get a vote. Bush is honest, Kerry is not. Even though Howard Dean is 10 times more liberal than Kerry I would rather have him as president because at least he was honest about his wacko ideas.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Did you want Kerry to explain issue by issue and point by point, in 2 minutes his exact strategy on Iraq????

I would have settled on any issue or any point. Did he actually make one? Maybe NK -but when pressed he folded and decided both he and Bush's idea could be implemented.

This election should have been a cakewalk for him and he still manages to muck it up. I'm really disappointed with Kerry.

[edit on 9/30/04 by Bleys]

My mother, who is in her late 60's now, never voted in her life. I was sent to Iraq, and now she is quite vocal on political issues. She is not happy with Bush, and does not see a reason to send her son to war again, under the current conditions. She thinks only Kerry can save Iraq, and my arse.

Did you notice, when Bush raised his hand, there was a follow-up question, Kerry raised his hand, and he was ignored. Did the moderator think Bush needed more time to make his point clear?

John F. Kerry did very well tonight, and I WAS NOT a Kerry lover. He brought up all the important issues facing this nation and he did the best he could, and he didnt stammer or stutter, and for my money, he's the intelligent one, and he's the only one who can get us out of the mess Bush made. But, BUT, have NO fear....I STILL say that Bush will win, be it legally or illegally. He will be your next president. So polish up your weapons and get your children ready for the draft. Because he's lying about that. He WILL have the draft (I'm aware that Democrats drafted the draft and pushed it) again, he does not make any decisions that benefit our people, and he wont think twice about reinstating the draft and sending you all to fight his war. Keep this in mind.

It was clear from the start that both men were well prepared for where they would stand and the issues they would present. George W. Bush hammered Kerry on his �mixed messages� and remained solid with his statement to the American people that this whole presidency thing �is a tough job.� John Kerry consistently and cleverly provided proof that Bush�s justification and handling of the war with Iraq was improper. Bush would ignore Kerry�s questions, such as; why overt the armed forced to Iraq and bring in hired mercenaries of the same ilk as Osama to fight their own kind off�or the lack of properly armored vehicles and soldiers. His immediate response was to act violated, while Kerry kept his composure, and he begin to hit his core components described above, thus averting the issue but still coming off as though his beliefs were solid and universal.

Kerry remained attentive to the questions being asked instead of diverting attention to other areas, unless more attention was required to clarify his position. Bush used his time in extended replies to mumble sweet nothings and take moments of silence to collect his thoughts on how best to word his position without giving credence to his flaws that Kerry made clear-cut. The Bush we saw in the beginning of the debate, lively and animated, quickly turned into a man who had lost his composure and was simply waiting for the debate to come to an end. This was clearly seen in the cuts to the candidate�s expressions � Kerry was smiling and Bush was pouting. Basic emotions displayed by a candidate can easily sway voter sympathy�

Bush often ended his side of the debate by going into the �flashing red dot zone��Kerry not only made his deliveries on time, but he even managed to hammer in that last �and I�ll make it happen.� While Bush was struggling with his last few remarks we could clearly see Kerry jotting down notes and he was eager and quick to respond with emphatic �yes/no� answers�Kerry wasn�t afraid to admit mistakes:

Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?

And he even had little fear of using Bush Sr.�s book as a reference in his speech for direct advice against invading Baghdad. That one�s going to sting in the morning�

Kerry: Issue Coverage: 1
Bush: Issue Coverage: 0

Kerry: Unity: 0
Bush: Unity: 1

Kerry: Strength of Character: 1
Bush: Strength of Character: 0

Kerry: Debating Skills: 1
Bush: Debating Skills: 0

Kerry: Presidentialness: 1
Bush: Presidentialness: 0

Kerry: Looks: 1
Bush: Looks: 0

EDIT: I hope I did the point thing right...

[edit on 9/30/2004 by EnronOutrunHomerun]

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to state here and now that this was an excellent debate on both sides, and having said that, I'd like to share with you what I observed.

John Kerry:
This man had a wonderful debate tonight. I don't know how he normally does, as I haven't followed his political career to this point, but I think that he threw together a debate that almost sounded scripted. It was excellent.

In my humble opinion, Kerry earns the marks for:

Looks
Debating Skills
Presidentialness

He just presented a front of totally being at ease. Of course, this was after both candidates got off to a rough start, but Kerry, I think settled down quicker, and was far more at home in this debate than Bush was.

He earns the mark in presidentialness simply due to the fact that he did not fall victim to the classic 'High School Speech Class' blunders. That is: stuttering, and petulance, with the hope that the answer of an opponent will support your cause, simply by repeating it in a different tone. I noticed Bush do this at least once. Oh, and by the way: Kerry did NOT look orange to me tonight.

Which leads me to the following:
He looked normal. He didn't look like the classic 'Scary Kerry' that SNL and Mad TV present, and he honestly, I think, went the JFK route on this debate, and won a majority of the swing audience because he was the better looking candidate.

George W. Bush:
He came into this debate with one goal in mind: protect his stance on the war in Iraq. I think that he did an admirable job of this. Everything in this debate that was connected with terrorism, he defended quite well. I'm impressed by this.

He wins my marks in the following:

Unity

Here's why:
His debate was solid, probably one of the best he's put together. The problem is that it was focused to a fault. I think that whenever budget talks came around, the stuttering and hmming and hawing came up. Bush came into the debate with tunnel vision, and I think that that in the end cost him.

Tonight, he went with the blue tie, which is odd for Bush, as he usually favors the red power tie. I don't know, but it seemed to take some of the impressivness from him, and there, he didn't look quite as presidential as Kerry.

Please note that I have not awarded a point for either issue coverage or strength of character to either candidate, as it was an outstanding debate, and both stayed on topic. I think that we can look forward to the next debate with excitement, and I hope you all feel the same way. Both candidates showed that when they need to be good, they can shine.




[edit on 9-30-2004 by Loki]

Both candidates, I felt, did a very good job of presenting themselves to the public along with their opinions and views, explaining best they could why their opponent was not the man for the job, and as to what reasons the previous statements could and should be held as truth. I don�t think anyone �won� the debate, as many try to assign a victory to one, but I do believe, politics aside, that Bush came out on top.

Let�s start at the beginning. Everyone expects the power suit; white shirt, blue blazer, red tie. Bush, and I�ve noticed this before, often prefers a blue tie, it makes him look softer and kinder, much more acceptable to the public. Kerry wearing his red tie accented that effect to the point where a picture of bush seemed so much more natural. Both wore the flag pin.

Early on, both tried to gain their footing. Bush spent a lot of time on the first question or two �thinking,� and thankfully came out with something intelligent at the end. Kerry seemed to falter, in an almost Bush-style fashion, but he too quickly regained his ground. Bush didn�t falter on any words; in fact, he used them numerously and correctly. He was very capable in recalling relevant facts to be put to use against Kerry�s claims. Kerry spent his time explaining his policy and position, something that needed be done to introduce himself to the public. Bush spent more time hammering home his already well-recognized views.

Bush stood strong through the event. He constantly repeated key phrases, such as �the world is safer,� �ideology of hatred,� and the �wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.� He took the time to weigh his words, and continually stuck to his points and message. He successfully rebutted nearly all that Kerry came up with, as well as a number of stingers from Lehrer. In addition, he put out a number of good points, especially that the war in Iraq is finished when the Iraqi people are able to take responsibility for themselves.

Kerry also had key phrases. �I will hunt down and kill� the terrorists, �Help is on the way,� and �I know what it�s like� to be in a war. His job was harder, and although he held his own, he came off as having to try to hard, as having to reach everywhere to try and combat the president. His biggest blunder, I�d say, was saying he stood for nuclear proliferation, but otherwise he debated very well; he simply had more to say across a wider range of subjects, and just could not do everything he wanted to. Talking about the muslims was a very strong point. He was, however, a much stronger debater, both logically and verbally, the presidents words just resonated better.

Bush emoted. Kerry tried. There�s so much more to say, but ill cede the floor to my colleagues.

Bush: Issue Coverage: 0
Kerry: Issue Coverage: 1

Bush: Unity: 1
Kerry: Unity: 0

Bush: Strength of Character: 1
Kerry: Strength of Character: 0

Bush: Debating Skills: 0
Kerry: Debating Skills: 1

Bush: Presidentialness: 1
Kerry: Presidentialness: 0

Bush: Looks: 1
Kerry: Looks: 0

edit: ATS is NOT cooperating with me tonight.

[edit on 9-30-2004 by Loki]

I kept getting pissed, because all of Bush's answers were: freedom, terror, Iraq, yada, yadda

Learn some synonyms!

CNN just reported a few minutes ago, Zogby poll of 650 registered voters. 53% felt Kerry won, 37% felt Bush won.
I am no fan of either candidate. But I have to agree completely. Kerry won hands down. It wasn't even close. We have a real race now, as I am sure the Democrats will be stoked with their candidates performance. While I don't think the polls are accurate to begin with. I do think, they will be locked up again at a 50/50 split within a couple of days. I.E. Bush's lead is going to be gone.

Tom Sawyer

WOW. This was nothing that I expected. Both George Bush and John Kerry have been excellent debaters throughout their careers, but I did not expect this. George Bush looked like he did not want to be there. If anyone had not caught the split-screen on C-Span, I suggest you catch the replay. It reminded me of Al Gore sighing during the debate between him and George Bush in 1999, which some have said cost him in the election. George Bush did not look very prepared for this at all, John Kerry started off very slow, but I think he finished strong. John Kerry seemed to have an agenda and was very skilled at changing the subject, and also rebutting from previous questions. I came into this debate thinking Bush would have the upper hand in almost every category, especially since he is the President.
I personally do not think he ended up faring well at all. However there is only so much you can say in two minutes, so this will surely be carrying over into the News .

Some Key Points:


George W Bush:

He kept his stance and point about his Leadership and sticking with an agenda. Whether you or I believe in this agenda, he has and will not waiver from it. This is a strong personality trait in my eyes, something that may bode well with unsure voters.

This nation of ours has got a solemn duty to defeat this ideology of hate. And that's what they are. This is a group of killers who will not only kill here, but kill children in Russia, that'll attack unmercifully in Iraq, hoping to shake our will.
We have a duty to defeat this enemy. We have a duty to protect our children and grandchildren.
The best way to defeat them is to never waver, to be strong, to use every asset at our disposal, is to constantly stay on the offensive and, at the same time, spread liberty.
And that's what people are seeing now is happening in Afghanistan.
Ten million citizens have registered to vote. It's a phenomenal statistic. They're given a chance to be free, and they will show up at the polls. Forty-one percent of those 10 million are women.

My opponent looked at the same intelligence I looked at and declared in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat.
He also said in December of 2003 that anyone who doubts that the world is safer without Saddam Hussein does not have the judgment to be president.
I agree with him. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein.
I was hoping diplomacy would work. I understand the serious consequences of committing our troops into harm's way.
It's the hardest decision a president makes. So I went to the United Nations. I didn't need anybody to tell me to go to the United Nations. I decided to go there myself.
And I went there hoping that, once and for all, the free world would act in concert to get Saddam Hussein to listen to our demands. They passed the resolution that said, "Disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences." I believe, when an international body speaks, it must mean what it says.
Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming. Why should he? He had 16 other resolutions and nothing took place. As a matter of fact, my opponent talks about inspectors. The facts are that he was systematically deceiving the inspectors.
That wasn't going to work. That's kind of a pre-September 10th mentality, the hope that somehow resolutions and failed inspections would make this world a more peaceful place.

He talked about the intelligence that was used for the reason of invading Iraq, that both He and Kerry viewed the same intelligence. He mentioned the �pre-September 10th mentality�, which I think should have been pre-9/11, but this was not brought up through the rest of the debate. This was something that could have been hammered to counter Kerry�s stance of the Iraq war, and for future dealings with rouge nations.

Jim, we've got the capability of doing both.
As a matter of fact, this is a global effort.
We're facing a group of folks who have such hatred in their heart, they'll strike anywhere, with any means.
And that's why it's essential that we have strong alliances, and we do.

This was in response for priorities of going after Osama bin Laden and going after Saddam Hussein. The American Military is capable of handling more than one thing. He also reiterates that we do have a strong alliance.

First of all, what my opponent wants you to forget is that he voted to authorize the use of force and now says it's the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place.
I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place. What message does that send our troops? What message does that send to our allies? What message does that send the Iraqis?
No, the way to win this is to be steadfast and resolved and to follow through on the plan that I've just outlined.

Pointing out Kerry�s �flip flopping�, and also brings out the �it's the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place�, which was never answered by Kerry. This was brought up time and time again, maybe He was trying to get Kerry to bite, but none the less Kerry never answered to this.

You cannot lead the war on terror if you keep changing positions on the war on terror and say things like, "Well, this is just a grand diversion." It's not a grand diversion. This is an essential that we get it right.

I have a problem with the end of this answer. Kerry has insisted for a long time now, and even in this debate that Bush went about it wrong , Bush has been steadfast in his position he made the right decision, but says �This is an essential that we get it right�. Poor choice of wording in my opinion.

I think that by speaking clearly and doing what we say and not sending mixed messages, it is less likely we'll ever have to use troops.

This was in response for taking another preemptive military action. It is my understanding that we sent in troops without sending mixed messages. This gives me a mixed message.

First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that.

I think this is where Bush lost his cool for good.

And secondly, to think that another round of resolutions would have caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, disclose, is ludicrous, in my judgment. It just shows a significant difference of opinion.
We tried diplomacy. We did our best. He was hoping to turn a blind eye. And, yes, he would have been stronger had we not dealt with him. He had the capability of making weapons, and he would have made weapons.

�He had the capability of making weapons, and he would have made weapons.� Not good, He is suppose to be defending his position of invading Iraq, which was the Saddam had WMD�s, now he had the capability of making them. I do not think I have ever heard George Bush publicly say this, I could be wrong.

My opponent talks about me not signing certain treaties. Let me tell you one thing I didn't sign, and I think it shows the difference of our opinion -- the difference of opinions.
And that is, I wouldn't join the International Criminal Court. It's a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial.
And I wouldn't join it. And I understand that in certain capitals around the world that that wasn't a popular move. But it's the right move not to join a foreign court that could -- where our people could be prosecuted.

I can see the board lighting up with this one, Abu Gahrib sound familiar? I would not have had him go there. This is costly to me.

Before I was sworn in, the policy of this government was to have bilateral negotiations with North Korea.
And we signed an agreement with North Korea that my administration found out that was not being honored by the North Koreans.
And so I decided that a better way to approach the issue was to get other nations involved, just besides us. And in Crawford, Texas, Jiang Zemin and I agreed that the nuclear-weapons-free peninsula, Korean Peninsula, was in his interest and our interest and the world's interest.
And so we began a new dialogue with North Korea, one that included not only the United States, but now China. And China's a got a lot of influence over North Korea, some ways more than we do.
As well, we included South Korea, Japan and Russia. So now there are five voices speaking to Kim Jong Il, not just one.
And so if Kim Jong Il decides again to not honor an agreement, he's not only doing injustice to America, he'd be doing injustice to China, as well.
And I think this will work. It's not going to work if we open up a dialogue with Kim Jong Il. He wants to unravel the six- party talks, or the five-nation coalition that's sending him a clear message.

He may have sold me on this one; however it currently is not working. I do believe China has a lot of power in this negotiation and to exclude them would only make things worse.

I agree with my opponent that we shouldn't be committing troops. We ought to be working with the African Union to do so -- precisely what we did in Liberia. We helped stabilize the situation with some troops, and when the African Union came, we moved them out.
My hope is that the African Union moves rapidly to help save lives. And fortunately the rainy season will be ending shortly, which will make it easier to get aid there and help the long-suffering people there.

I like to see that He does not have to do everything.

My administration started what's called the Proliferation Security Initiative. Over 60 nations involved with disrupting the trans-shipment of information and/or weapons of mass destruction materials.
And we've been effective. We busted the A.Q. Khan network. This was a proliferator out of Pakistan that was selling secrets to places like North Korea and Libya. We convinced Libya to disarm.
It's a central part of dealing with weapons of mass destruction and proliferation.
I'll tell you another way to help protect America in the long run is to continue with missile defenses. And we've got a robust research and development program that has been ongoing during my administration. We'll be implementing a missile-defense system relatively quickly.
And that is another way to help deal with the threats that we face in the 21st century.

With the things going on in N. Korea, and Iran involving Nukes, which were mostly unheard of from either candidate until tonight, He managed to stick in the �missle defense�.

As far as Bush's performance I say it is poor at best. He looked like he did not want to be there, constant sighs, rolling of the eyes, even at one point it looked like smoke was coming out of his ears. I do not think he was very well prepared for this. Too many pauses, and "think before I say" going on. He should have laid more into the pre- 9/11 mentality, and a new way of thinking that needs to be applied on actions that needs to be taken. He did not mention anything about standing on the rubble of the WTC, which would have maybe brought some deep feelings back to people. It also seemed as if he had some ammo which ran out about 50minutes into it. Poor performance in my opinion.

John F Kerry:
He started out almost shaking, but made a quick recovery. Was very quick and firm in his answers. Very well prepared in my opinion.

I believe America is safest and strongest when we are leading the world and we are leading strong alliances.
I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. But I also know how to lead those alliances.
This president has left them in shatters across the globe, and we're now 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq and 90 percent of the costs.
I think that's wrong, and I think we can do better.
I have a better plan for homeland security. I have a better plan to be able to fight the war on terror by strengthening our military, strengthening our intelligence, by going after the financing more authoritatively, by doing what we need to do to rebuild the alliances, by reaching out to the Muslim world, which the president has almost not done, and beginning to isolate the radical Islamic Muslims, not have them isolate the United States of America.

Kerry starts off with �Alliances�. This is a strong point for me, considering I would rather have everyone for than against. He also brings up reaching out to the Muslim world, which Bush has not made many attempts to do.

But we also have to be smart, Jim. And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking if off to Iraq where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein, and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein.
The president moved the troops, so he's got 10 times the number of troops in Iraq than he has in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden is. Does that mean that Saddam Hussein was 10 times more important than Osama bin Laden -- than, excuse me, Saddam Hussein more important than Osama bin Laden? I don't think so.

He makes a clear case for not continuing after Osama, who was behind the 9-11 attacks, and going after Saddam. This was one question I have always wondered, yet still do not have a direct answer.

The president just talked about Iraq as a center of the war on terror. Iraq was not even close to the center of the war on terror before the president invaded it.
The president made the judgment to divert forces from under General Tommy Franks from Afghanistan before the Congress even approved it to begin to prepare to go to war in Iraq.
And he rushed the war in Iraq without a plan to win the peace. Now, that is not the judgment that a president of the United States ought to make. You don't take America to war unless have the plan to win the peace. You don't send troops to war without the body armor that they need.

I think this is where he starts opening the �can of worms� so to speak. �You don't send troops to war without the body armor that they need.� I have always thought this was ridiculous when I read awhile ago about parents buying body armor off the internet. He talks about plans in motion before the Congress approved of the plans for war.

The president -- 95 percent of the containers that come into the ports, right here in Florida, are not inspected.
Civilians get onto aircraft, and their luggage is X- rayed, but the cargo hold is not X-rayed.
Does that make you feel safer in America?
The president just said the FBI had changed its culture. We just read on the front pages of America's papers that there are over 100,000 hours of tapes, unlistened to. On one of those tapes may be the enemy being right the next time.
And the test is not whether you're spending more money. The test is, are you doing everything possible to make America safe?
We didn't need that tax cut. America needed to be safe

Attacking Bush�s Homeland Security measures, and placed the question in the hands of the American people. One Hundred Thousand Hours of tape not listened to. Makes me wonder what if anything could be on those tapes. Did this not happen pre 9-11? Slides in the �Tax Cuts� Bush gave.

Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?

This has to be the sound bite of the night.

Kerry seemed to be in control most of the night. After a shaky start he regained his poise. When he was speaking the air seemed �full�, not many pauses at all. He also, when wanting to rebut Bush�s statements, did not speak, as so to interrupt as Bush had done. I thought this was Professional of him. He however steered away from the �it's the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place�, which I would like to have seen him address directly. He seemed to divert attention away from this with his answers, but it will always be in my mind. To me he was Firm, Knowledgeable, and Quick.

I think Kerry won this one hands down, but as I said above: There is only so much you can say in 2mins.

Issue Coverage-Neither

Unity - Bush

Strength of Character -Kerry

Debating Skills-Kerry

Presidential-ness-Kerry

Looks-Kerry

I will post more on this tomorrow, and update this. Need to be at work in 3 hrs



Will be back with more.......




[edit on 1-10-2004 by TrickmastertricK]

Originally posted by curme
I kept getting pissed, because all of Bush's answers were: freedom, terror, Iraq, yada, yadda

Learn some synonyms!

Well, duh, this man doesnt have the slightest basics of the English language. This is a man who first of all has lied so much, is responsible for so many deaths, even if he mastered the language he'd still look shifty. Rapid blinking, smirking, rolling his eyes, bobbing his head...LOL.... I dumped a boyfiend for this reason
Just not presidential material.

One more thought ( and then I'll get out of here) now that Kerry apparently won, look out for TERROR THREATS by Saturday of this week.