Overall I thought both candidates did fairly well however I noticed a few things about both….bush looked to be tired and out of sorts to some extent. Bush also didn’t respond to some pointed things such as the protecting the oil ministry line. Kerry seemed to flop during the debate saying that Saddam was not a threat, and then later in the debate during the ‘respond to parents part’, acknowledging that Saddam was. I thought I could also make out Kerry mouthing good point when bush was in his reply portion at one point. Did anyone else feel that he was mouthing something different?

Originally posted by keholmes
Kerry seemed to flop during the debate saying that Saddam was not a threat, and then later in the debate during the ‘respond to parents part’, acknowledging that Saddam was.

Were we watching the same Debate? Kerry did not once say Saddam "was not a threat".

I'd like to point out that I feel John Kerry DID outline a plan to get us out of the war, and attain a peaceful resolution. He spoke of securing the borders, of going back into Fallujah, of sitting down at the table with our allies and asking them what we need to do to get their assistance. Bush countered these points by commenting that we've trained 100,000 people, but never said what we've trained them to do, or how we plan to implement them in the fight. He also attacked Kerry for dismissing the puny coalition we entered the country with, by saying that attacking the size of the coalition was an attack on the countries in the coalition, which doesn't even make sense. Kerry brought up the fact that we are losing more and more troops each month in Iraq, Bush didn't respond. Kerry also said that you could go to his website and read his plan for Iraq, Bush didn't respond.

I went into this debate as a reluctant John Kerry voter, and am not proud to be casting my vote for him. He seemed the genteel statesman, laughing with Bush, addressing him as "Mr. President" or simly "the President." Kerry watched Bush's comments with small nods, and an attentive face, only looking away to make notes. Bush looked like a teenager getting a lecture from dad, rolling his eyes, checking his watch; his entire demeanor seemed to be saying "whatever". He was blatantly disrespectful.

I do not think Kerry won this debate. I think he downright destroyed Bush. I used to find comfort and commonality with Bush's demeanor; tonight, it seemed immature. Kerry was Presidential, Bush was presentational.

- Dom

Kerry said Saddam was NOT the threat, Osama was. (meaning the immediate threat and why we went to war)
meaning we should have concentrated on Osama and taken him out. We let him slip thru our fingers- Bush didnt elaborate on this BECAUSE ITS TRUE!
Really, we all watched the same thing... cope with it, please.

Can you imagine the Cheney - Edwards debates? Oh man!

I have watched the debacleand Bush was and is an IDIOT as usual. His Mother must be pulling her hair out. I do not appreciate either candidate however Bush is and was a clear LOSER!

Originally posted by TrickmastertricK

Originally posted by keholmes
Kerry seemed to flop during the debate saying that Saddam was not a threat, and then later in the debate during the ‘respond to parents part’, acknowledging that Saddam was.

Were we watching the same Debate? Kerry did not once say Saddam "was not a threat".

Well I knew that the Kool-Aid drinkers would be out in force, but I believe if you check he said that Iraq was not a threat prior to invasion....if I’m not wrong he said it more than once.

Originally posted by TrickmastertricK
Please check the facts and your wording.
and yes I did Source FOX , hey they had the transcript up first...hmmmmm

“even knowing there was no imminent threat” J. Kerry - is that clear enough for you.
Care for another shot of kool-aid?
can anyone say FLIP-FLOP



[edit on 1-10-2004 by keholmes]

At least he was a little slick about it by attributing the false statement to bush…however it is Kerry’s belief not bushie that he is extolling. There are also other statements if you care to dig into the transcript which at the very minimum implies that Iraq was no risk….like the moronic Mexico analogy.

I'm disappointed with both candidates. As far as Bush's debating goes, well I think I could have done a much better job of debating for him. I missed the first part of the debate, Bush could have mentioned how Kerry was for the Iraq war and then later was opposed to sending money to Iraq which was used mainly to support our troops after they were already there. I somehow doubt that Bush pointed this flip flop out. Kerry supported the decision to go to war and then wants to deny funding to Iraq which mainly goes to our troops. That's like sending our troops in harms way and then saying sorry to our troops, we can't afford your bullets anymore.

If Kerry is elected President, I'm glad some of the people who put him there are the ones closest to North Korea. I disagree with not using the leverage of China in negotiations with North Korea. Kerry stated he wanted to drop multilateral talks and go it alone. That sounds like something I would have thought Bush would say concerning other topics. Both of these candidates get my

Concerning Kerry's comments about containing Sadam with sanctions, I thought many people were in agreement that sanctions were not working. In fact I believe sanctions would have been dropped especially if the UN inspectors didn't find WMD's. Then Sadam could rebuild his armies and his country as much as he wanted. His sons killed thousands with plastic shredders. I heard that they ordered people to be put in feet first so that their screams would last longer. Sadam's sons would have been in charge of Iraq one day probably with chemical, biological, and possibly nuclear weapons. Again I give a thumbs down to this debate.

[edit on 1-10-2004 by orionthehunter]

Originally posted by orionthehunter
I'm disappointed with both candidates. As far as Bush's debating goes, well I think I could have done a much better job of debating for him. ...............

Actually he did most of what you said but only once not dwelling on or belaboring the point....which as you pointed out would have helped him...on the whole I would have to agree they both pretty much didn't do a whole lot to help themselves. But then it was much more important to Kerry then Bushie, and time will tell, but I didn’t think either did much to address their glaring weaknesses.

With the first debate behind them, it is time to reflect on the performance both men have put forth. I would like to go on the record at this time as saying that the whole debate process has become quite a sham. Gone are the lively, thinking on your feet, off the cuff answers that have made these times part of our collective history. What we have now is a 1-2 hour campaign add for both candidates. Both sides are to blame for this as are the sponsors of the debates. It was a very scripted debate with both sides putting forth a variety of canned answers that we have all heard during the campaign. The only real genuine moment occurred when the families came together on stage to shake each others hands. (I do have a problem with some of that too, but it is not relevant to this discussion.). I doubt that we will ever see questions like Bernard Shaw’s asking Michael Dukakis about if he supported the death penalty if it was his wife. Nor will we see the classic Nixon versus JFK debates that are still studied in political science classes across the country.


The Scoring as I saw things:

Issue Coverage (Bush)

Both candidates stuck to their themes and issues from Iraq to North Korea to the changes in Russia. Bush was able to turn the tables on Kerry regarding the North Korean talks. Two major points underscored this. With all of his talk about coalition building, Kerry has outlined a plan for North Korea, using unilateral talks, that would effectively scuttle the 6 nation talks that are underway. The Kerry plan as Bush correctly pointed out would effectively shut out the country that many consider to be Kim’s patron. Despite Kerry’s attacks on Bush’s handling of the North Korean situation, Bush correctly pointed out that the whole situation was begun under the previous Clinton administration.


Unity (Bush)

While both candidates by and large stuck to their core issues, Bush however, did a better job and confronted Kerry on the inconsistencies in his voting for the use of force in Iraq and other votes. The edge here goes to Bush barely.

Bush "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?”

Strength of Character (Bush)

Bush hands down. Bush has shown his strength of character since 911 and continues to do so. As he pointed out in the debate:

Bush: "I believe I'm going to win, because the American people know I know how to lead. I've shown the American people I know how to lead. I have -- I understand everybody in this country doesn't agree with the decisions I've made. And I made some tough decisions. But people know where I stand."

Debating Skills (Kerry)

Kerry wins this one technically. He is a slick polished debater. Bush, did better that I thought he would however, Kerry has the clear edge. That being said, this may very well be a repeat of the JFK / Nixon debate. Nixon was clearly a better debater. However, JFK was more personable and better able to reach a large audience. This may be a crucial factor in the battleground states. Coming off a slick and aristocratic may do well in Northern California or New England, but how it plays in the heartland is another story.

Presidentialness (Bush)

Bush wins primarily because of his strong sense of conviction. Kerry who kept referring to building coalitions and in particular mentioning Germany and France on occasion, sounded more like a negotiator than the President of the worlds lone superpower and leader of the free world.

Looks Tie Score

Neither candidate had an advantage.


The debate was Bushes to lose and he did not do that. IMHO the next debate will be more important as it will deal with economic issues. Despite my scoring 4-1-1 for Bush , it was a close debate. Kerry needed a homerun and he never got beyond second base.


[edit on 1-10-2004 by FredT]

It seems to me that most had already made their minds up before this debate even took place. Further proof that we see what we wanna see lol. I'm not fond of either candidate and the fact that they're our only two real options makes me feel a little less free. They both seemed awkward and shifty to me. I think Kerry is slimy and a buffoon and Bush is... well... a grown man who seems to have never left his frat daddy stage... and a buffoon.

Most of you who at least tried to hold an objective view made some very good points on both sides. It still seems as though the liberals thought Kerry won and the conservatives thought Bush won lol.

Personally, I don't trust the two-party set-up we have, so I'll probabaly vote Libertarian... as if it'll make a difference. Bush is probably in for another four (or more?lol) years regardless of how the American people feel.

Text Black I watched the debate live here in New Zealand, as after all who ever is the next President affects the whole world.
I thought Kerry looked and talked much more Presidential than Bush.
Bush appeared hesitant, he mummbled, umm'd and err'd his way all through the debate.
The classic clanger was when Bush said Saddam (Iraq) attacked the USA. Hullo is any one at home!!, Bin Laden attacked the USA don't ya know, maybe Bush is starting to believe, the stories his administration been spinning, and can't tell fact from fiction.
His continual uttering, it became a mantra, that Kerry was saying
"wrong war, wrong place, wrong time,"
after awhile I thought he (i.e: Bush ) was saying
"wrong war, wrong place, wrong time",
I thought now buddy you are getting it right, but alas no, he still lives in the fiction.

Kerry won hands down Bush

[edit on 1-10-2004 by eduardo]

Originally posted by EnronOutrunHomerun

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…

[edit on 9/30/2004 by EnronOutrunHomerun]

I thought Kerry using Bush Sr's book was his best moment. The debate was 99% campaign rhetoric and partisan sound biting. Sometimes their scripted answers didn't even seem to fit that particular question. Almost like they had 10 pat answers that could be used to answer any question.
Bush: mixed messages bad, hardwork and war good
Kerry: Bush bad, Iraq war sucks, me fix
I would also like to time to blame both candidates, the moderator, the networks and anyone else that gave us that format. Question and Answer is not a debate, it is an informative (or not) Question and Answer session.
Let these guys go off on each other on Iraq and let's see where they really stand. I'm sick off sound bites. I think Bush came off like Yosemite Sam and Kerry was still unclear about specifics of his "plan".
Consider this. When things aren't going well, change is never a bad idea.

doctorduh

The best person there was Jim Lehrer hands down.

Originally posted by Vegemite
The best person there was Jim Lehrer hands down.

I don't know about that one, he failed to properly uphold the rules by letting Bush rebutt before being authorised then refused Kerrys attempts to rebutt.

However, by far the funniest thing was Bush trying to drink from an empty glass FIVE TIMES.

If I were Alfred E. Newman (Bush) I would do everything in my power to cancel any remaining debates. Did you see how many times Alfred kept looking underneath his podium?

I bet 100 bucks Cheney or one of those NeoCons were underneath that podium telling him what to say. Too funny!

And to think this puppet is being used to run our country is very, very sad.

It was like Alfred E. Newman playing the Rain Man.

Jim Lerher would ask a question unrelated to Iraq and Alfred would answer

“Yes, ah Iraq, ah”.

How about your goals in Afghanistan? Alfred would answer

“Yes, ah Iraq ah”

Just too funny!!!