Presidential Debate, Take Two
 

Edit: Had thought better of posting this as a thread, but it would appear that I ended up pressing submit on the wrong tab. Seems rude to leave an empty thread sitting here. If this gets deleted, I'll just post it in the original thread. That seems fair enough.

Personally, I favor a discrete thread for the second debate, but I gather that I'm in the apparent minority. Haven't yet watched or read through the second to my satisfaction, will be sitting out at least a bit as a result.

That said, TRANSCRIPTS for the second debate: CNN, FOX. If BBC has a full transcript up, I'm missing it, but they have a "key quotes" section here.

I am undecided on my vote.
Both candidates did pretty well.
Anyone who claims that one of the candidates "won" only thinks so because they have a partisan bias.
I'm looking forward to the third debate.

Well, I don't really see how you can say that. I don't think Bush presented himself well at all in the first debate, while Kerry presented himself as someone powerful and intelligent.

The second debate Bush was just as good as Kerry, if not better. I think that Bush is just more relaxed when he's not at a podium. The one who 'won' is simply the one who presented himself the best.

...and the one who presents himself the best is open to interpretation.

I forget the term for it but it is studied in psychology. It's also known as seeing what you want to see. There is no "reality" in a situation like this, not even for me.

Being an independent, I'm more inclined to dislike both candidates and think that they are both lacking in some things.

well i listened to the debate, not watched. this kept me more focused on what they were saying and not how they "looked". i found that i had more to agree with kerry, but bush presented his plans better than kerry IE he said it clearer than kerry did as to what he is going to do and what he did.

Bush did alot better to my in my head. I think I'll vote for him, Kerry seems like the person to not know what he is doing.

There is no question that Bush presented himself much better this time around. One of the things that I found lacking in the debate was a good explanation about how health care is going to improve. Kerry said he had a health care plan thats better than Bush's. Bush says he has a better health care plan than Kerry. Neither one really expounded upon it.

Also, did anyone else notice how much effort Bush put in to not decking Kerry when they were talking about the allies? Kerry was belittling the efforts of our allies in Iraq and that got Bush REALLY mad. I tend to agree with Bush on that count.

Kerry also (I think) unable to escape his reputation as a flip-flopper (particularly concerning taxes).

If I could vote, my vote would go to Bush.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3730364.stm

Now his performance is starting to make sense. In the first debate he was unsure of himself. He couldn’t adapt to anything he hadn’t prepared for.

In the second debate he is calm relaxed and reassured. As if he wasn’t worried about being cornered anymore. He even gave the impression of thinking on his feet. Now I’ve watched every presidential debate he’s been in. this is the first time I would say that he acted confident in a situation did not allow total rehearsal or some form of assistance.

But this possibility aside I felt some of his answers where total BS.

Bush said that Saddam wanted the WMD’s and kept around the scientists who worked on them. That Saddam was trying to get the sanctions lifted so he could return to production. Essentially Bushes evidence for this plot is that Saddam didn’t kill and or banish his top level scientists and instead maintained there employment in other fields. To say this statement is flawed is putting it mildly. Bush refuses to prove he is wrong, not to himself, and not to the American people. What are the chances that he would have this attitude towards other actions when they fail.

But Kerry did have his share of inaccurate information. He clamed that Bush had no plan for winning the peace. This is wrong, Bush had a plan. His plan was announced on all major news outlets and was part of the initial case for the war. His plan was that the Iraqi people would be so happy to get rid of Saddam that they would throw “rose petals and rice” at the feet of our liberating heroes. This is what I call the “head up ass” strategy ad is characteristic of everything bush has done before and since the “victory” in Iraq.

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that Bush's new favorite catch phrase You can run, but you can't hide, the same line he used for Bin Laden, back when we were after him.

That partisan snipe aside, I will say that Bush didn't crash & burn like he did in the first debate, but towards the end of the debate, he seemed to faulter a tad more than he did at its onset.

Of course, he did pull on a few facts which were anything but...

- The 75% of Al Queda captured statement, which is obviously false. Some have spun it so that Bush is supposed to be be saying that number corresponds to known leadership, but its obvious to any causual observer, he's suggesting all of Al Queda everywhere.

- The shallowest & shortest recession line just can't be defended. From my perspective, the recession is going on for some time & continues to go on.

- Anything from Canada could be from a 3rd world country. Blatant lie, or whatever you want to call it. If we allowed offical routes, and not just the internet, then we'd be getting exactly the same thing as the Canadians get.

Sky Warrior Bob

Also, it seems to me that the only reason Kerry doesn't get defensive is because he evades the question. Like... let's say people criticize him on something, Kerry, instead of responding, talks about something completely unrelated.

Bush on the other hand, actually tries to the respond to the criticism. While probably more sensible, it usually makes him defensive. Seriously, these debates are completely nuts.

thats what makes some of these debates so fun to watch/listen too. especially their facial expressions. :D

When answered a difficult question they both talk about something different. Kerry changes the topic, and bush changes the topic but takes the defensive. This gives people the impression that he’s answering the question posted.

MAybe I am just biased but I don't think it was my politically biased mind that saw Bush stammer and say "ummmm ahhh ummmm" for a at least five seconds on several occasions in the first debate? He got his head kicked in.

The Second debate not so much. BUt the 1st he was anihilated.

Anyway what about the vice presidents? That was the a free for all.... they intelligence wise were about the same and that debate was pretty even

up until Cheney tried to blast Edwards on his senate voting and attendance and Edwards bitch slapped him.

the following is a poltical bitch slap:

-John Edwards

But this is the best part:
Those are pretty nice shots by the vp though the last part is a blanatant lie or forgetful ness since there are pictures of them together at senate functions...


Admit it, that was pretty nice back hand slapp to the VP.

Nice comeback dick you just got burned.... OOOHHHHHH...

It wasn't just you. I'm a huge Bush fan, yet even I have to admit that Kerry ran circles around Bush in the first debate.

It was said earlier that if you thought someone won the second debate, you had a partisan mind. I'll admit that. My mind is partisan. I thought Bush did win the second debate. But no matter how you look at it, Bush did a LOT better than in the first debate. (Loved his jokes - "Need any wood?" - priceless :) )

He did a lot less of the 5-second pauses that bugged me the first time around. I think one explaination of what happened is that his mind works better when his body is in motion. I know I do all of my best thinking whenever I'm pacing. If I'm standing still, I just can't concentrate.