I saw it very much like Deckard did in his well reasoned post. Bush didn't shoot himself in the head with this debate, but he clearly was the loser. I was shocked. I fullly expected him to win. I expected him to look comfortable and exude the charm he is capable of. He did not. After four years on the job, Bush looked like he didn't know his material very well. Kerry seemed to have a greater grasp on the issues at hand even though he hasn't been the President. I think that Bush knew he was going to bring up flip flopping as much as possible, and did so, but it seemed transparent. Bush just seemed unsure, nervous, and worried that he didn't know the answers. Kerry wasn't dominating by any means. Kerry didn't knock it out of the park, but he did seem in much more control. I thought Kerry's best moment was win Kerry said that voting for Bush it comes down to 4 words..."More of the same." I thought that was a good moment for Kerry.
I am reading the transcripts of it on CNN http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/debate.transcript.1/index.html It's amazing how, among 280 mil people, we chose a president who could not put two coherent sentences together.
I thought that after the debate expected camp supporters will claim victory for their candidate. While I think both candidates did a good job solidifying their points to their base, I'm surprised to read from dozens of opinion polls from blogs and etc. that Bush supporters are cut into three camps 1. Kerry is a flipflopper, Bush is a stronger leader, and Bush crushed him! (in otherwords, I may have or may not have watched the debate, regardless, I demonstrate no knowledge that I got anything new out of it, please pull the string on my back) 2. Bush had strong points, and had a good debate, especially those points emphasizing his need for stability and strength in foreign policy., He didn't do great but he did good enough to not hurt himself. 3. I'm embarrassed , this type of wavering I have not seen much of, but it was clearly evident from about 40% of the Bush supporters who watched (and listened) to the debate. By no means though do I believe that Kerry will win, I still think that come election time, those swing voters will vote conservative. Kerry did well, but he needs to keep it up, full steam with no mistakes to have a chance. In conclusion, Don't forget POLAND, Conservatives all of a sudden now have to believe that China and Russia are our best POLITICAL friends after Britain and lastly, Saddam attacking us first on 9/11 justified our pre emptive attack.
Kerry did better than I expected. Kerry did a lot better than Gore. I was pretty surprised that Bush didn't look better. Even all the talking heads seemed to think that Kerry trounced Bush on style and poise. 69% Kerry, 31% Bush per MSNBC with 600,000 votes a few minutes ago.
Kerry definitely came out the winner in this debate. It wasn't a blowout but at the same time he clearly won. Bush did not look in good form and Kerry seemed to be in good form. That MSNBC poll has Kerry 70% vs. Bush 30% regarding the winner of the first debate now.
it's obvious who you're going for. try and take a step back and look at it objectively for just a moment. not a single poll has bush winning this debate. this should've been bush's strongest debate and he is clearly the loser according to all the polls. it wasn't a home run but it was clearly a win for kerry tonight.
if you missed the debate like i did, you can get it from c-span. use NetTransport for best results: rtsp://cspanrm.fplive.net/cspan/project/c04/c04093004_debate1.rm Chron.com has it like this right now: President George W. Bush: 11% Sen. John Kerry: 87% It was a draw: 1% Total Votes: 4130
im liberal. i hate bush. i would wanna move to europe if he got re-elected. actually he'd probably want to deport me. i pretty much agree with most of the criticism of bush. its obvious. he's not the smartest guy in crawford much less america. however these are the other things i thought of. BUT bush is impressive at using those cute 6 word phrases and repeating them over and over again. and i think that generally works with the public. the public is stupid. we freaking voted for him last time. and this was right after we had one of the most intellectual charasmatic yet 'down to earth' presidents ever. and to be honest i think bush did do a good job on the north korea issue. an average voter who didn't know much about it would assume that it was bush wanting multi-lateral and kerry wanting bi-lateral. and multi lateral sounded better. plus i dont really see how kerry distinguished himself in concerning what he'll do in iraq thats different from bush. yes bush was wrong we get that but when he's elected (hopefully) what will he do thats different from what bush is doing? and if its the same isn't it better to have 'consistantcy'? the question about what bush would say to the families of folks who died in war was probably the best reply that i've heard from bush ever. it was impressive. overall kerry killed in substance. he killed in real debate style. but rove and company will make the 7 word phrases seem like gospel and sell it. and ima elitest liberal who has little faith in the public.
69% Kerry, 31% Bush per MSNBC with 600,000 votes a few minutes ago. 68/32 Kerry with 774,087 responses. That would be a good old fashion *ss whipping from where I come from. I am surprised that the numbers for Kerry are as high as that. This number must include Republicans who voted for Kerry winning the debates.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/debate.transcript.10/index.html You know, I think about Missy Johnson. She's a fantastic lady I met in Charlotte, North Carolina. She and her son Brian, they came to see me. Her husband, P.J., got killed. He'd been in Afghanistan, went to Iraq. You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can, knowing full well that the decision I made caused her loved one to be in harm's way. I told her after we prayed and teared up and laughed some that I thought her husband's sacrifice was noble and worthy. GWB channeling Clinton. You gotta love it.
Hey, it was you who so poignantly revealed the republican desire to invade countries. I'm just evidencing it for you....
This was clearly the debate the democrats wanted to be 1st on foreign policy. This is the one debate where Kerry has different thoughts than GWB, although his past actions probably still conuse many people. On presentation kerry clearly won and on substance I think it was down the middle, Bush had a very bad debate (not clear or concise too much bumbling around lookign for what to say) but the bottom line is did Kerry swing any undecided voters and (more importantly) did both candidates get more of the decided voters to get off their couches and got to the polls. If I had to pick a winner it was Kerry, but at the same time if he loses the first debate the election was over. But look at for the coming polls to see what the undecided voters thought (if anything struck them).
First of all, I think neither candidate distinguished himself in the annals of debate. It was a ponderous and dull. Bush appeared to be a bumbling simpleton, while Kerry appeared to be a know-it-all smartass. It was an undermining performance for both, but worse for Bush, who reminded me of Will Ferrell's impression of him rather than the President. The question begs to be asked with these two mediocre men running for office: why wasn't Ralph Nader there? Why wasn't Michael Badnarik there? Why wasn't David Cobb (Green Party) there? Simple answer: the two parties run the debate machinery and excluded those candidates. Even as a 3rd party guy, I've always seen libertarianism as a way to reform the GOP, as most 3rd parties tend to do. But now, I'm convinced that the two main parties, entrenched in their permanence and (both) beholden to the elites and various monolithic voting blocs, are no longer the answer.
I'm just disgusted at choosing between the lesser of two evils. Why should I have to just test drive Chevrolet and Dodge and not be able to look at Nissan, Ford, Toyota or Subaru?
Bama, it's been that way for me in every Presidential election I've voted in, and my first one was in 1980. I am completely sick of it. The two party system is failing this country miserably.
BUSH: "No, what I said was that, because we achieved such a rapid victory, more of the Saddam loyalists were around. I mean, we thought we'd whip more of them going in. But because Tommy Franks did such a great job in planning the operation, we moved rapidly, and a lot of the Baathists and Saddam loyalists laid down their arms and disappeared. I thought they would stay and fight, but they didn't. And now we're fighting them now. And it's hard work." What in the hell was that?
Bush on autopilot, he would have continued saying something along the lines of "freedom", "liberty" and "we are now safer" but he ran out of time. I swear there was more than seven minutes of silence if you compute all his pauses together.
