Duality wrote:
Wow. I just saw Giuliani on The Daily Show. He’s become such a spinster, its very unsettling.Yeah, that was disappointing. I guess he really wants that nomination.
It goes right back to what I was saying. Gen. Clark comes on the Daily Show and says that Kerry hit a homerun and all the democrats were happy. But then, Giuliani (who does seem to be getting creepier) announces that Kerry in fact looks foolish and Bush owned the show.
And they wonder why people don’t vote.
Great debate>
I thought Bush started out very strong, and Kerry seemed a little unsure, however throughout the debate it was almost as if Kerry physically grew (like Gandalf did in the Fellowship when Bilbo suggested he should keep the ring) and by the end he seemed to loom over Bush, who seemed to shrink becoming petulent and fumbling.
Kerry really clarified what his platform was, which might swing some voters.
I must concede though, that Bush’s point on encouraging democracy in the middle east is vital for the long term security of the the US and the world was very good, however beyond the rhetoric, there was not much substance on achieving that goal. Way too idealistic.
Overall I think Kerry won hands down, but it will be interesting to see how much political mileage he gets out of it.
[EDIT} I got quite a chuckle about the MOOOLAHS of Iran. Classic Dubya.
I thought Kerry has going to get toasted when he said some like “Osama Bin Laden is using this to get new recruits.” Bush said “My opponent said something amazing, he said that Osama …”
I was SURE he was going to point out that Bin Laden hasn’t made a public appearance or released a tape in 3 years because of the action Bush took, and that to say his personal recruiting effectiveness was increased would be absurd. But he went somewhere totally different.
saw it on c-span, split screen the whole way. was it like that on the other channels?
kerry did well. as mentioned above, bush drained two or three glasses of water. kerry, one sip i think. they had different glasses for some reason. bush had a normal looking one, kerry had a fancier one with a stem.
kerry made bush chuckle once, bush made kerry smile a few times. i think kerry made the audience laugh once (making them violate the rule that the audience be totally silent).
kerry made me and my mom look at each other and laugh when he said the way he explained the $87 billion was a mistake but bush took us into the war, which mistake was worse?
kerry got bush to say he agreed with kerry at least twice, bush only got kerry to nod a few times.
kerry scored a major point when he quoted the first president bush’s book about how going into iraq would be a mistake. i so wanted him to whip that out at president bush during the debate. awesome!
that bit where kerry wanted to follow reagan’s example probably made bush’s teeth grind just a little. imho.
bush stumbled on his words a few times, the way he had a hard time getting his arguments started a few times hurt him a bit.
another mistake bush made was when he corrected kerry by saying his administration didn’t start the sanctions on iran. not a good thing to mention. did i mishear him?
the most interesting reaction shot was when kerry said he and bush both probably loved america equally. bush was looking down at his podium and then looked up in…surprise? an interesting reaction.
kerry left the stage last, he and the wife got an extra cheer, one of the audience screamed kerry’s name. looks like kerry is a closer after all. game on.
Kerry did better than I expected him to. Bush worse. Neither performance was stellar, though they both had their moments. Bush’s main message was clearly that Kerry is inconsistent but I think Kerry countered well and took some of the wind out of Bush’s sails.
Foreign policy and national security are supposed to be Bush’s strong points, so I’m a bit surprised he didn’t do a better job tonight. I can’t imagine he will be on firmer ground when it comes time to debate domestic policy.
It was interesting to hear some of the call-in viewer’s comments on C-SPAN immediately following the debates. Some of the callers on both sides were still simply regurgitating talking points, some of which had just been discussed and refuted during the debate, so clearly some opinions on either side are firmly entrenched. The reactions on some of the more partisan web forums even more so.
Not sure how the swing voters will respond, though I suspect Kerry’s camp will be quite pleased with his performance.
I thought Bush was absolutely awful. He essentially answered every question with the same response, constantly harping about Kerry’s supposed inconsistency, you can’t win a war that way, blah, blah. He also stumbled a lot and vapor locked for 1-2-3-4 seconds on what seemed to be every second question and rebuttal. A lot of Bush’s responses also seemed half-hearted, like he was defending someone else, someone close to him, but not too close, like a brother-in-law.
But Kerry didn’t murder Bush like he could have. He got in a few great zingers, particularly the “more of the same” remark, though he wrecked their impact by not ending on them. He’d toss out a great statement or putdown, and then blather on with “and what I mean by that” stuff for another 15 seconds. So by the time he shut up, most people would have forgotten the great score he’d just made. Also, I could have done without the constant "I believe"s. Yes, we know your advisors have told you to be forceful about your beliefs to counteract the flip-flop stuff, John, but you don’t have to be so repetitive and pedantic about it.
Even with these problems, though, Kerry did come off as thoughtful and committed, and as someone with a plan. That really stood in contrast to Bush, who just talked vaguely about being resolute. I just wish Kerry had made more of his opportunites, gone after Bush at least once on the way he was answering every question by bringing up that flip-flopping bullshit. One little memorable comment, about how Bush is being led around by Cheney and the Wolfowitzers, could be the thing that tilts the polls in Kerry’s favor. Hell, Kerry could have even used “There you go again.” ;-)
Like Jakub, though, I can’t help but feel that most Americans are going to prefer the lying halfwit who tells them that everything is going great. If so, I’m going to be something pissed off come November 2. It’s so obvious that the better man is Kerry. Personal background, intelligence, integrity–all make him a far, far superior choice than Bush, who has done nothing but lead the US into military and economic quagmires. And I can’t believe anyone could have watched that debate tonight and honestly thought “Hey, Bush is clearly the better leader. He’s my president!”
kerry campaign posted these instant poll results:
CNN / GALLUP POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE
Kerry: 53
Bush: 37CBS POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:
Kerry: 44
Bush: 26
Tie: 30ABC POLL ON WHO WON DEBATE:
Kerry: 45
Bush 36:
Tie: 17
from what i read, they were pretty small sample sizes (approx 500 each). and other polls indicate that there hasn’t been too much change in actual voter position, with only a slight bump for kerry.
Um, not so fast.
You simply cannot conduct a thorough scientific sampling of the American electorate in the hour or two after a debate. While there are quickie polls saying who won or who lost, to do an actual poll of the electorate to see if either candidate received a bounce off their debate performance will require the standard 36-48 hour tracking snapshot.
It takes that long to get 2-3,000 people on the phone across the country. Keep in mind, too, that pollsters are forbidden from calling after 9pm, so there are literally no scientific polls from groups like Gallup, Harris, Rasmussen, ARG, or Zogby at this time to gauge the effects of the debate. None. Nada. Empty Set. Zero. Zed. Nil. Zilch.
Tomorrow morning the pollsters will be gearing it up in earnest. You should see actual useful polling data by Saturday or Sunday.
Kerry = President
Bush = whining, defensive, clueless bitch
(ABC poll from above)
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04misc.htm
1000 person poll; guess they screened them last week and then called back tonight. 3 point margin of error. Items of interest: 81% of Dems thought Kerry win; only 69% of Republicans thought Bush won. And Kerry has the independents by 20 points.
Combined with the upset over at the National Review, looks pretty clear for Kerry.
Substantive comments:
I agree with whatever blogger I read that said you can tell Bush hasn’t had to argue with someone who disagrees with him in a while - it shows. All those pre-screened town halls don’t keep your chops up.
And if anyone’s still wondering, Drudge has a picture of Bush with pursed lips up and a caption:
Bush inner circle suggests Bush visit with Hurricane victims earlier in day was emotionally draining, contributed to “tired” appearance in debate…
Check out John Stewart’s interviews with Wes Clark and Rudy Giuliani - the kids behind Wes were jumping around like it was Christmas morning; the ones behind Rudy looked like the Somebody-Shot-My-Dog support group.
Admittedly, I did not see the debates.
Had something more important to do at the time.
But as i read the transcripts of the debate itself, I can’t feeling that Bush comes off worse. His answer are repetitive and rarely with a point. Yes, he comes off resolute; so much more by pointing out how Kerry changes positions all the time, while he makes calculated thoughtful decisions; yet rarely ever able to counterpoint Kerry’s claims of having a firm position, albeit one that isn’t as obvious as the Presidents.
Case in Point
I’ve had one position, one consistent position: that Saddam Hussein was a threat, there was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the president chose the wrong way.
Mr. Lehrer Thirty seconds, Mr. President.
Mr. Bush The only consistent about my opponent’s position is that he’s been inconsistent. He changes positions. And you cannot change positions in this war on terror if you expect to win. And I expect to win. It’s necessary we win.
Then there’s this mistake…
But to say that there’s only one focus on the war on terror doesn’t really understand the nature of the war of terror. Of course we’re after Saddam Hussein - I mean bin Laden. He’s isolated. Seventy-five percent of his people have been brought to justice. The killer in, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, is in prison. We’re making progress.
It’s beeing broadcasted tonight in France, I’m gonna watch with great attention (let’s hope they provide subtitles and do not use a translator).
I watched the first fifteen-thirty minutes, and in that time Kerry looked good. He challenged the president, but more importantly, he stood firm, displayed some charisma and overall seemed to refute the notion that Republican talking points have tried to reinforce, that he’s a flip-flopper and a bit of a meandering stiff. By showing some charisma, I’m sure that at the very least he has energized a lot of people who beforehand wanted Kerry to win, but have gotten a bit defeatist in the wake of the Vietnam stuff, CBS and such, which will be very important to win this election. You can’t have people expecting to lose to argue your cause, if you are to win.
Though I got a bit afraid at this part:
Kerry: You’ve decreased funding for police, et al.
Bush: No I haven’t.
Kerry: Money isn’t important.
And what is up with the Hussein/bin Laden switching all the time?
“OMG, WTF? U 4GOT POLAND!!!1!LOL!” – George Bush
Ah, the intellectuals are now weighing in.
Kerry whipped his ass.