Presidential Debate

[A_Wanderer]

Words escape me

[sue4u2]

Kerry knew if he attacked Bush the way he really could have, the same people who think Dubya was on his "game"would say that Kerry was only negative or putting Bush down. Much as they've done all along. The only defense they tried to have was that he was a flip-flopper. Over & over the Bush campaign has tried their best to brain wash, in their usual fashion, the American public with this one phrase. Even the talking heads were throwing that same tired old line. Do I believe Kerry solidified the Presidency with this debate, NO! But Dubya has a lot of work ahead of him. This may have been stated earlier, since I haven't read the whole thread, yet. Someone on MSNBC said: Bush came to a 90 minute debate with 30 minutes of material.

[A_Wanderer]

The newsweek poll seems to be skewed to the democrats, I would rather wait until there is full polling after all the debates before saying that it benefited one candidate or the other.

[thereisnospoon9]

Originally posted by U2Kitten
Kerry spewed a lot of negativity and offered no solutions. He said he wasn't leaving Iraq, and if his only plan is bringing in more countries, that's just not going to happen. Does he think people will listen to him when they don't want to come now? He must be very stuck on himself to believe that. Tell me who's coming, and why, and what's in it for them? It's not going to happen.

The people interviewed afterward on NBC were so obviously hand picked and coached, and all gloating for "John Kerry" - not just Kerry as most would say, even though they claim they are 'undecided' that was nothing but a Tom Brokaw endorsed Kerry commercial. Maybe I've seen so much of this shit over the years I am more cynical than most of you.

I do not feel any questions were really answered or any issues solved. I don't see how anyone could decide a vote based on what we heard last night.

I agree with this post completely... kerry didn't seem to have any credible future plans, either way you look at it the candidates agreed that the country has to finish the work we've started in iraq and i think its better to continue on with what we're already doing instead of trying to switch in the middle, also i think they could of both used a little more variety in their speeches (especially bush)
the people afterwards interviewed were so biased its not even funny, i can't see how anyone would actually believed they were really undecided

[Danospano]

Has anyone been watching the reruns of past presidental debates on C-SPAN? They just aired the 1992 Town Hall debate between Perot, Bush and Clinton, and have moved on to the 2000 St. Louis debate between Dubya and Gore.

Observation: Bush senior is much more cogent than junior---kinda refreshing. And, it seems like Bush has lots his ability to debate in a sensical manner compared to his performances in 2000. I wonder if his tenure in office has made him dumber than before? Is that possible? Hmmm.

[verte76]

People's impressions of the debate depended on who they like in the first place. People judge by appearance in this day and age of the thirty-second sound byte on the evening news. Kerry is the more "polished" debater, thus he "won" in the sense that he won in the popular opinion polls. But, the only opinion poll that matters is the one that takes place on November 2.

[Klaus]

Mr. Bush is a man who will frequently tell you - and may even believe - that up is down, or square is round, when logic and all the available evidence say otherwise. During the debate, this was most clearly displayed when, in response to a question about the war in Iraq, Mr. Bush told the moderator, Jim Lehrer, "The enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us."

Moments later Senator Kerry clarified, for the audience and the president, just who had attacked the United States. "Saddam Hussein didn't attack us," said Mr. Kerry. "Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaeda attacked us."

...

The real world is President Bush's Achilles' heel. He can't keep his distance from it forever.

Oh yes Mr. Bush is "honest", linking again 9/11 to Mr. Hussein - of course with zero evidence.

[drivemytrabant]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Words escape me

Wow Dukakis in a tank comes to mind

[dlihcraw]

The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll presents President Bush and Senator Kerry in a virtual tie for votes. With two more presidential debates and one vice-presidential debate remaining, the momentum clearly looks to be in Kerry’s corner. Debate two will be in a town hall format with live questions being posed. This format looks to be more favourable for Kerry than Bush because of the outspoken nature of Bush’s criticizers. However, the debate rules call for only soft Kerry supporters and soft Bush supporters to be present. What this means is unclear. Kerry has a questionable senate record to explain, but Bush has failed presidential records in health care, job growth, the war in Iraq, and international affairs to explain. Kerry’s faults as a senator are relative, but Bush’s failures as a president are provable. Bush’s administration has been working hard to prevent generic, affordable Canadian and British drugs from entering the United States. Bush will be the first president since the Great Depression to have a net loss in job growth. Despite claims that the situation in Iraq is improving, violence only continues to expand, and today US forces occupy less of Iraq than they did after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Globally, the reputation of the United States has been greatly diminished. Opponents to the “Bush doctrine” include France, Germany, China and Russia. Ironically, even coalition forces are questioning Bush’s logic. Tony Blair, prime minister of Britain, while cooperating with Bush in the Iraq war, has publicly questioned the president’s stubbornness in how the war should be fought. Public opinion polls in England and Australia, the two most powerful of America’s allies in Iraq, show general disapproval of the war. Domestically, polls show similar attitudes in the United States. An ally at the beginning of the war, the Philippines has since existed Iraq, and current ally Poland plans to exist in 2005. Canada, traditionally considered to be “the 51st state of America”, does not support the war and has witnessed an increase of anti-American sentiments since Bush became president. The economic policies of Bush's administration have directly affected the lumber, beef, steel and pharmaceutical industries of Canada. In Quebec, the heart of French Canada, support for President Bush is at 11%, while in Ontario, the industrial and financial heart of Canada, support is at 19%. The third presidential debate will focus on domestic issues, which political pundits claim to be Bush’s greatest liability. If anyone remembers the Republican National Convention, they will recall how Dick Cheney came across as an angry old man. Edwards can use Cheney’s volatility to his advantage in the vice-presidential debate. A reference to Halliburton will be sure to upset the less than timid Dick.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLIT...oll/index.html

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...s&sid=81587690

[Harry Vest]

Has it really been 4 whole years??????

[corianderstem]

Since the last presidential election? Yes, I do believe that's every 4 whole years.

[Diemen]

Your snark is sexy.

[corianderstem]

Harry, my dear, you bumped a thread that was 4 years old just to say "wow, it's been four years?"

[Zoots]

This thread is gonna confuse everyone now.

[U2isthebest]

Seriously, can we lock this or something? What in the world does it have to do with tonight's debate? I would really love to leave Bush's deer in the headlights, first grade intelligence level responses and Kerry's coma-inducing rambles in the past, please.

[sue4u2]

Originally Posted by U2isthebest

Seriously, can we lock this or something? What in the world does it have to do with tonight's debate? I would really love to leave Bush's deer in the headlights, first grade intelligence level responses and Kerry's coma-inducing rambles in the past, please.

It was scary then, and even more so now. I don't need to be reminded of the monumental mistakes "the people" made. I just hope more attention is being paid now. I mean what else do they need to happen?