Presidential Debate
 

Well theres a debate on right now so I figured I'd start a thread to see what you guys had to say about it. From what I have seen so far, Kerry isn't as strong as I thought he would be, and Bush is being less of an idiot than people always think he is. Bush is not a stupid man I think he just knwos how to present himself to look like a normal person, but thats just me.

Actually, I was thinking of it the other way around.

Kerry actually HAS been handling himself well in the debate, especially given the campaign stuff about him not being steady and resolved in his ideas.

I think Bush has made kind of an ass out of himself in some ways, but generally is doing well.

We'll see how it goes on further. (Check the Terrorism and kerry on the poles thread -- I posted there, too)

Being the first person to post on this after the debate, I would like to point out that the Daily Show, the most unbiased news source out there (and I am being serious on this), says Kerry wins.

I'd say that most all of us here have already decided who we're going to vote for save something earth shattering (pictures of bush eating babies being released or something), so our opinions on who "won" are essentially moot.

Discussion is fun though. :p

Yeah, but the thing is that Jon Stewart is notoriously, sometimes almost irritatingly, non-partisan and he spent the entire show basically saying "Kerry kicked Bush's ass." Oh, and I could make a picture of Bush eating babies if you like ^_^

Yeah i watched the daly show episode (one of the best ones i think ever but thats besides the point)
I think kerry did very well, and debates have had great impact on elections. Bush in my view did very poorly (opinion as is everything said here) you dont want some one who acts normal as president, you want a smart person. Someone who makes long pauses staring blankly, forward, and cant finish a sentance with out saying "um" or "hmm" or some other thing showing you dont have your thoughts together. He also kept taking credit for something than latter saying it wasnt him, or flip flopping, ill use iran as an example. when kerry said we were not part of the orignal discussians with iran bush countered by saying we had and that there were sanctions on the country, then when kerry said that since it was only us they didnt work, bush changed his tune and said that they came in well before him and he had nothing to do with them. he also flip flopped on what kerry did and did not vote for. He is a very controdictory man, and not to bright

I saw the debate and actually thought both candidates handled themselves very well. (Kerry suprised me, he did better than I thought he would.) It was very interesting to watch, but I think the president came out slightly on top. Of course I'm probably a bit biased. (BTW, whoever it was that said the Daily Show was non-partisan, I don't believe it's possible for any program like that to be completly unbiased) I'm going to have to watch the other debates and see how they do there. It should get interesting.

I've always been a Bush supporter, but tonight Bush had his ass handed to him. He's just not a good talker like Kerry or Clinton were and couldn't come up with anything off the top of his head. It even made me waver on my position.

The daily show isn’t the only unbiased source of news
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3703756.stm
you just need to hop the pond

Well, since I already commented on this in another forum, I'll just copy and paste:

While I give the overall win to Kerry, you can't discount what Bush was saying. If you look at a lot of the pre-debate coverage, his tactic of pulling every question back to two or three main points is his standard mode of operation in debate. This tactic won him two governorships of Texas and a Presidency, so don't make it out to to be a signal of weakness. He tries to clarify single points, and do it in a personable, telegenic manner. While it doesn't convince anyone who already disagrees with him, it allows him to duck harder questions, strengthen the base that already agrees with him, and possibly draw some of the undecided voters who've been thinking about the same issues.

Kerry, on the other hand, finally proved that he can give a short, precise, non-equivocating answer. He desperately needed to do that, and the first debate was the best opportunity for doing so. Veiwership tends to drop off after the first, so now was the time to make your best points. I feel that Kerry slammed Bush on pre-emptive war, the case for Iraq, and the alienation of most of our allies. I think he did a good job countering his "I voted for it before I voted against it" quote. The mistakes he made, though, were the repeated mentions of Vietnam and combat, and setting a date for the roundup of loose nuclear material. The first belabors a point that we've already heard too much about. I know you have seen combat and Bush didn't. It's hurting more than helping now. As for setting a 4-year goal on nuclear material, well, anyone remember "Read my lips, no new taxes"? If he wins and screws up that promise, it could kill him in another election (not that I really want him for two terms. I just want Bush out now and McCain in four years. I'm just calling the statement a long-range tactical screw up).

All in all, the real loser was the freakin' format. I hated this, and would rather see a head to head debate on questions posed by the moderator. The best debates of the past thirty years have been closer to that, and they provided us with both defining and entertaioning moments. This was dry and almost nothing but mudslinging by proxy. I, personally, would rather see a Vice-Presidential debate. Cheny is a skilled speaker, and Edwards is an experienced trial lawyer. I figure only one of them would walk out alive.