Presidential Debate

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Not open for further replies.
agreed. My friend said the same thing, that "Bush sounded scared to answer and had too many pauses." If I remember correctly, this is why people called our President "unintelligent" last election.

That said, I hope Bush stops with the flip flop idea now that he's beaten it to death...
Remember when everyone jumped on Gore in 2000 for the sighs? Bush is going to get the same treatment for all his eye rolling. When Bush was speaking, Kerry was taking notes. When Kerry was speaking, Bush was licking his lips, looking off with this weird stare and when he finally did get a chance to speak, he stumbled and bumbled and looked like a deer caught in the headlights. Some commentator said afterwards that some may find that endearing that Bush talks just like the guy down the street. I don't. As Jon Stewart said, I don't want the guy down the street to be president. I was someone smarter than me.

Kerry needed desperately to pull out a win and he did. If things continue to go the way they did last night, Bush is going to be toast in the next two debates. Even if you think last night was a draw, that's not good enough for Bush. He's the president of the United States, he made the policies over the past four years. He should be able to soundly defend them against any opponent. Anything less than a sure win for Bush is a loss for Bush.

Can't wait for the Veeps!
Dreadsox said:

In a debate about Foreign Policy did either of them mention AIDS?

I appreciate THIS is on your radar screen.

But, to many "good old Americans" this is a 'Negro problem' in Africa.

On principle Kerry should have brought it up.
Carter put principles first and did not do too well.

Bush only brings it up when he wants to play the compassionate conservative.
Until election is over Bush will be solidifying his base. Sorry no Aids talk from him.
Only bait for bigots, sanctity of marriage and crap like that.
I just read the transcript. I wondered if maybe I was hoping it read better than it sounded.

Bush had his ass handed to him last night. He did not bring his A game. There were times when Kerry made statements that he could have been NAILED on. My wife, the liberal of the house, at times was saying he just opened the door for Bush to slam him, yet it never happened.

If the independant voters saw this, and it sways them, there may still be life for Kerry.
yea that really friggin pisses me off... i make up my own friggin mind, thank you very much. i don't need, nor want, anyone to tell me how to friggin think. did hannity say something similar? i don't know, i couldn't tell ya, 'cause once the debate was over, i made a few posts in here and went straight to the friggin bar. a few pints sounded a hell of a lot better than abunch of a-holes telling me what i should think about what two dicks just talked about for an hour and a half. the guy did do the same damn things in 2000, the guy isn't a polished, smooth talking debator like kerry is, and god damn it that's why a whole lot of people in the country like him to begin with. if friggin sean hannity or jon stewart or tiny friggin tim said the same thing, i do not know, nor care.
Headache in a Suitcase said:
he did the same things in 2000 where many felt he won the debates... ya never can tell how these "faults" of bush will play in the sticks...

That may have played better in 2000 when he was a challenger sticking it to Mr. Know-It-All-Professor. But watching it last night it didn't seem very "presidential." Now that Bush is in office I would hope that viewers would hold him to higher standards than they did when he was an outsider running for president.

Of course, I'm bringing my own bias into this, but that's my two cents.
deep said:

Are you waiting for Sean Hannity to tell you what you saw and heard?

I'm gonna have to defend Headache on this. I saw Hannity after the debates. Oh my gawd, if anyone believed that guy they are COMPLETELY gullible and I think Headache is smarter than that, even if I do disagree with him. Hannity was all like "I've never seen Bush be at great as he was tonight. He sounded more intelligent than Socrates and Plato COMBINED! Kerry had to run off to a corner and cry in the middle of the debate, he was getting beaten so badly!" Hannity was sooo out of his mind last night.
Headache in a Suitcase,

I believe the 2000 debates could be argued to be closer and even advantage to Bush.
Last nights debate was not close.

When he said the enemy attacked us as an excuse for Iraq?
When Bush called Saddam Osama. :|

I thought your post suggested it was close.
I expect only Fox will say that.
I have heard the Bush camp say it was a draw. (They wish)

I think there is nothing Kerry can do.
And almost nothing Bush can do to change
the outcome.
I expect Bush to win handily.

No offense intended.
I'll buy you a pint if I make it back to NYC.
sharky said:

I'm gonna have to defend Headache on this. I saw Hannity after the debates. Oh my gawd, if anyone believed that guy they are COMPLETELY gullible and I think Headache is smarter than that, even if I do disagree with him. Hannity was all like "I've never seen Bush be at great as he was tonight. He sounded more intelligent than Socrates and Plato COMBINED! Kerry had to run off to a corner and cry in the middle of the debate, he was getting beaten so badly!" Hannity was sooo out of his mind last night.

You can read Alan Colmes weak softballs towards Karen Hughes, and see Hannity and Hughes fight over who gets to call John Kerry a bigger loser here:,2933,134244,00.html

First of all I never saw the President this passionate or articulate or really on his game tonight.
the one person i did listen to was imus on my drive in to work this morning, and low and behold, he, a kerry supporter, thinks that bush's "bumbling" or whatever you want to call it makes him seem like a more "real guy" and that he doesn't think kerry will get any bump out of this debate.

wether or not that plays as well as it did in 2000, i don't know... kerry clearly won the debate, but he didn't put forth a dominating performance, which is what he really needed. he set himself up big time a couple of times for bush to swoop right in and hit him where it hurts, but bush didn't do any swooping, and he left the door open for kerry.

kerry won this debate... he should get a decent bump out of this, and if he doesn't get a bump, then he has no chance of catching up to bush and he will get blown out come november.
I enjoyed when Bush said "Not only do they kill people here, they kill children, too" (or something like that, I don't have the exact quote).
On a positive note... It was entertaining to watch both Kerry and Bush finally on a stage together... Basically a whole year of trading barbs and criticisms and their surrogates teaing off on each other. Sort of like big title fight in boxing. You see the number 1 contender clean up his division and make noise. Then he finally gets a chance to take out the champ... I love that type of sporting atmosphere. That's how I felt when they got on stage. ALMOST tingly...
one candidate was bumbling alot. another was slick and polished. dunno who to believe.

thane noveau
Words escape me :ohmy:

Last edited:
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.
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.
U2Kitten said:
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' :rolleyes: 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom