TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Who was more convincing in the first debate
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

Kerry was the clear victor from what I read. Bush really struggled to answer the challenge of his ineffective anti-nuclear proliferation policy, and ended up looking like the one who was sending "mixed messages" more than Kerry.

He also tripped up badly by repeatedly failing to recognize the distinction between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

It's back to the drawing board for the Bush campaign. I expect them to be better prepared for the next debate - at times it seemed like Bush didn't know how to respond and we all know how bad he is at coming up with an answer on the spot.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Kerry was the clear victor from what I read. Bush really struggled to answer the challenge of his ineffective anti-nuclear proliferation policy, and ended up looking like the one who was sending "mixed messages" more than Kerry. He also tripped up badly by repeatedly failing to recognize the distinction between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. It's back to the drawing board for the Bush campaign. I expect them to be better prepared for the next debate - at times it seemed like Bush didn't know how to respond and we all know how bad he is at coming up with an answer on the spot.

Did you read a transcript? Did it say something like

Bush: [pause 5 seconds] "um" [pause 2 seconds] "well" [pause 5 seconds]

quote:

Originally posted by xKaoSx Did you read a transcript? Did it say something like Bush: [pause 5 seconds] "um" [pause 2 seconds] "well" [pause 5 seconds]

Unfortunately it wasn't that good. I could still get a general impression of when the candidates were struggling, but I'll have to actually watch it when I get a chance.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Unfortunately it wasn't that good. I could still get a general impression of when the candidates were struggling, but I'll have to actually watch it when I get a chance.

It was pretty painful to watch bush actually. Especially when Kerry was talking and his reactions.

Kerry had a couple chances to seal the deal and failed. I still think he was better. Didnt look as nervous or jumpy as Bush.

I listened to the debate on the radio this morning.. Bored me to the core.
I didnt listen to the whole thing, but the only topics that i heard being debated was the whole Iraq/war on terror bullshit. Usually domestic interest get some sort of attention. I mean, health and education are still fairly important, true?

As for a winner, bush made me laugh at his stupidy, but kerry didnt do much better to impress me. Who's the better debater though? Kerry, by a long shot. Kinda tells you something about bush though

quote:

Originally posted by Dupz I didnt listen to the whole thing, but the only topics that i heard being debated was the whole Iraq/war on terror bullshit. Usually domestic interest get some sort of attention. I mean, health and education are still fairly important, true?

There are three debates, and this was the first. The topic was foreign policy and homeland security. Other issues will be covered in the next two debates. They should be less boring for you.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter There are three debates, and this was the first. The topic was foreign policy and homeland security. Other issues will be covered in the next two debates. They should be less boring for you.

ah! fantastic! Well that makes a little bit more sense then.

That's probably a good idea that we should follow then. Have a few debates (rather than just one) and set topics for each. Finally, something clever coming out of the US (joking )

It seems from this discussion as though Kerry was the intellectual winner on the debate, but how about the popular appeal? Did he come off as an arrogant person? An aristocrat? A smart Alec?
Gore was also Bush intellectual superior, but he lost the election because of it being a popularity contest. I hope the same fate does not befall Kerry.

i enjoyed it thouroughly.

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil Convincing wise I think Bush spoke more from the heart and Kerry talked more about what he thought America wanted to hear. In the end I think Kerry had more answers than Bush did.

I think Bush was saying what he has been saying all along..

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic It seems from this discussion as though Kerry was the intellectual winner on the debate, but how about the popular appeal? Did he come off as an arrogant person? An aristocrat? A smart Alec? Gore was also Bush intellectual superior, but he lost the election because of it being a popularity contest. I hope the same fate does not befall Kerry.

Kerry came across as blunt, strong and decisive - or, as one CNN commentator put it, he looked "presidential". Bush on the other hand came across as uncertain, dithering and as though, on many occasions, that he just really did not have the answers.

I'm not sure how one could win such a "personality contest", but so long as these judgements are based on more than personability (Bush, for all his ineptitude, still came across as the more personable of the two) and are instead based on impressions of strength, certainty and credibility then - even excluding what was said - Kerry would have had to have come away in the minds of those watching as the clear winner. I think even the more conservative members of this forum would have to concede that even though they may disagree with Kerry's message, his message was certainly broadcast much more effectively and much more authoritatively than that of George Bush's.

Fox news whiners-

"Bush quickly ran to his podium because he didnt want to seem short"
"Bush was slouching because he might have had bads knees" (Yes- they actually said that)

My favorite of the night:

Kerry said, "Unfortunately he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces -- the best trained in the world -- to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords -- and he out-sourced that job too. That's wrong."

BBC:

Both men played the game that you expected them to play.

Mr Kerry launched surgical attacks against the president's handling of foreign policy. He showed his senatorial skills.

And Mr Bush played to his strengths by looking like a conviction politician.

In the end, neither one played above their game, and neither landed a knockout blow.

This debate was Mr Kerry's chance to keep himself in this race and possibly close the gap with President Bush.

Mr Kerry is definitely still a contender after the debate, but Mr Bush didn't make any serious mistakes.

This leaves things pretty much where they were.

kerry has established himself as a contender, not just a choice other than bush. all preliminary polls had the viewers giving kerry the win by around 10% (i haven't seen the fox poll yet, I wonder if they asked whether bush looked good regardless of his bad knees). I think in one night, kerry was able to switch the perception of this election from being a bush vs. not bush election to a bush vs. kerry election.

if the hardliner bush supporters declaring the debate as a tie, that means there is a raised level of respect for kerry... not what needs to happen at this point on the election (if your carl rove)

congrats to kerry for such a good display of statesmanship

Ok my thoughts on the debate. First I thought that Kerry won the overall debate, not overwhelmingly but I thought he won. I thought the commentators were spot on in saying that Bush was even with Kerry until about 30 minutes through. After the 30 minute mark however, Bush was playing catch up to Kerry and simply looked and sounded ackward and repetitive.

I was upset with Kerry on a number of points however. First, when Bush kept saying Kerry voted for the war, I think Kerry should have jumped on him and clearly emphasized the point that he did not vote for the war. He voted to give the President authority to go to war as a last resort. He did convey that message in a roundabout way, but this is a nation of soundbites. I think he could have and should have made that point clear in a single statement to detract from the bush flip-flop arguments.

Second, I nearly jumped out of my chair when Kerry said that he made a mistake in speaking about the war, referencing the whole "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." I thought that he had the opportunity there to hammer the President for his threat to veto the $87 billion, and that Kerry should have explained his position with the utmost clarity: "I voted to support our troops by taking $87 billion out of our tax cuts. Bush threatened to veto this bill, and proposed a bill that incurred $87 billion in deficit spending. That's why a vetoed the bill." And then he could have went into a discussion of fiscal responsibility.

Other than those two points I thought kerry performed up to my expectations. He is a master debater (yuk yuk) after all and he should perform well being a college champion and debating so much to win his senate seat.

Btw: Which is the offical debate thread? Do we need 5?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ok my thoughts on the debate. First I thought that Kerry won the overall debate, not overwhelmingly but I thought he won. I thought the commentators were spot on in saying that Bush was even with Kerry until about 30 minutes through. After the 30 minute mark however, Bush was playing catch up to Kerry and simply looked and sounded ackward and repetitive. I was upset with Kerry on a number of points however. First, when Bush kept saying Kerry voted for the war, I think Kerry should have jumped on him and clearly emphasized the point that he did not vote for the war. He voted to give the President authority to go to war as a last resort. He did convey that message in a roundabout way, but this is a nation of soundbites. I think he could have and should have made that point clear in a single statement to detract from the bush flip-flop arguments. Second, I nearly jumped out of my chair when Kerry said that he made a mistake in speaking about the war, referencing the whole "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." I thought that he had the opportunity there to hammer the President for his threat to veto the $87 billion, and that Kerry should have explained his position with the utmost clarity: "I voted to support our troops by taking $87 billion out of our tax cuts. Bush threatened to veto this bill, and proposed a bill that incurred $87 billion in deficit spending. That's why a vetoed the bill." And then he could have went into a discussion of fiscal responsibility. Other than those two points I thought kerry performed up to my expectations. He is a master debater (yuk yuk) after all and he should perform well being a college champion and debating so much to win his senate seat. Btw: Which is the offical debate thread? Do we need 5?

excellent points.

Great distinction between voting to go to war as opposed to actually making the decision to go to war.

I didnt know about that second point myself. If that is true I dont see why he wouldnt hammer on that. Maybe he is saving it for the Domestic Debate?


I think this should be the official one- only one with substance.

quote:

Originally posted by xKaoSx I didnt know about that second point myself. If that is true I dont see why he wouldnt hammer on that. Maybe he is saving it for the Domestic Debate?

Yea I thoroughly looked into that one in this thread ...

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...t=&pagenumber=4

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Yea I thoroughly looked into that one in this thread ... http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...t=&pagenumber=4

Nice work.

A little pressed for time, so I'll give my quick lowdown:

1. No need to state the obvious, but darnit it just tickles my funnybone - Kerry was the clear overall winner. Christ, even the Conservative commentators and bloggers stated as such. From William Rivers Pitt today:

quote:

"They need to make Americans forget what happened tonight," said ultraconservative Joe Scarborough on MSNBC, speaking on what he believed the Bush campaign needed to do post-debate. Right out of the gate, Scarborough and the other talking heads gave the debate to Kerry, hands down, turn out the lights when you leave. "I think John Kerry," said Scarborough a bit later, "looked more Presidential." A post-debate caller to C-SPAN announced herself as one who had voted for and supported Bush, and then described the Democratic candidate as "President Kerry." Freudian slip? We report, you decide. At FreeRepublic.com, the bastion of far-right cheerleading, the faithful were fashioning nooses. "It's really painful listening to Bush," said one Godebert. "Kerry has had him on the defensive from the beginning. Kerry sounds confident while Bush has a pleading defensive tone. Not good so far." "Kerry looked much more experienced," said one whadizit. "He appeared to be relaxed and in control. W looked weary and worn and sounded weary and worn." "Unfortunately," saith The Sons of Liberty, "Kerry looked more prepared. He seemed to have more facts, however questionable, at his command and he delivered his message succinctly. Even when confronted on his flip-flops, he had plausible explanations. On the other hand, The President seemed to lose his train of thought at times. He continued to repeat the same things, and he looked tired and a little haggard. He needs to do much better next time." The comments went on and drearily on in this vein, in conversation thread after conversation thread, until a forum participant named areafiftyone threw the distraught legions a lifeline: "I had that feeling that Kerry had the questions beforehand. He seemed to have his answers right on target. Bush seemed like he was surprised by the questions. I wish they could investigate to see if the DNC got a hold of the questions beforehand." Yeah, that's it. Never mind that one participant had total command of the facts, an understanding of the foreign policy realm, a firm grasp on the situations in Iraq, North Korea and Afghanistan, while the other participant seemed shocked that faded platitudes and repeated campaign slogans weren't getting the job done. The shattering, humiliating, obvious defeat handed to George W. Bush before a massive television audience must have come because moderator Jim Lehrer somehow conspired with debate host Fox News to telegraph the questions to Kerry beforehand. Or something. http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/100204Z.shtml

As one blogger put it, the split screen might have saved the election for Kerry. There were times that it seemed that Bush would forget that the camera would be focused on him at all times. Kerry played the camera extremely well. Kerry also kept his messages much more succinct and clearer than anticipated. Bush was clearly rattled, and was seemingly unprepared at times as he seemed quite repetitive of his message, even when his message was often times not entirely related to the question asked.


2. I completely agree with Occ on his 2nd point - Kerry missed a major opportunity to turn the tables on Bush with his $87 billion statement. Nevertheless, I thought his rebuttal, though a bit weaker on substance, was good on display and tone.

3. I believe, too, that the tables turned when Kerry corrected the President about who attacked us. At that point the momentum clearly shifted in favor of Kerry, and Bush was left on the defensive from that point forward. Both his repetitive message and posture was quite revealing of this shift.

4. With all that said, I wonder just how good the conservative spinmeisters are going to be this time around. Are they going to successfully perform a shift on who won like they did with the Gore/Bush 1st debate in 2000, where it was clear Gore had won but in less than 2 days the conservative mouthpieces successfully convinced the media that Bush had won? I don't know, but I wouldn't count out that possibility, despite the clear winner in this situation. Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox, Novak, FreeRepublic, and the like are very powerful influencers, so I put nothing past them.

5. It would be completely foolish for Kerry and the Dems. to stand tall on this for very long. I saw the footage of Bush debating for the TX governor position, and he was extremely sharp and on point. Though he may have been a little rattled last night, do not count him out by a long shot. I still firmly believe he is a skilled debator, and his "dumbing down the message" techniques play a crucial role to those voters who hate to pay attention to details.

6. The next debate, the Town Hall venue, will play more to Bush's informal, "dumbing down the message" style of debate. I expect Bush to be more prepared and will probably do much better here. Another particular feature of the next debate will also favor Bush - the questions usually posed in these Town Hall venues are historically unprepared questions which create a more ad lib, quick on your feet type answer. That won't be the case for the next debate - all questions are known to both debators beforehand. I think this favors Bush because he's decidedly better at prepared Q&A sessions, plus it gives him the opportunity to repeat his ever-so-repetitive sound bites against Kerry.

7. I also see a possible future advantage for Bush after losing this 1st debate and it is this: the only direction for Bush to go is up. Conversely, the 2 directions for Kerry to go really is keep relatively even or go down. This "future direction of momentum" favors Bush, because it could at least appear that he has become stronger throughout the debates, while Kerry can, at best, appear staying relatively the same, and at worse, have his debating performance move downward.

Overall, it was a great start for Kerry. According to the polls, the public majority believes we are going in the wrong direction, but unfortunately still had some questions and reservations about Kerry. I think Kerry moved very well with the latter, but I also feel the momentum shift can easily go right back to Bush with this 2nd and 3rd debate, even though this 1st debate on foreign policy was Bush's bread 'n' butta.

Bush convinced me about one with with respect to Kerry ....





How could Kerry do such a thing???

Just in case anyone doesn't believe the upper hand going to Kerry wasn't official, then please read the following e-mail from Newsmax:

quote:

Lehrer on Defensive Over Biased Questioning PBS host Jim Lehrer was challenged Friday morning on claims that he went easy on Sen. John Kerry during Thursday night's presidential debate, while tossing verbal hand grenades in President Bush's direction designed to keep him on the defensive. "I don't know what in the world you're talking about," Lehrer told radio host Don Imus, in his only post-debate interview. "I would argue that my questions were right down the middle. There were some hardball questions for each candidate. There were some softball questions for each candidate. But for the most part they were just terrific." The bias complaint, said Lehrer, was more of a commentary on his critics than a valid criticism of his own debate performance. Still, some observers noted that Lehrer's questions largely focused on negative aspects of Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq - while avoiding Sen. Kerry's waffling on the issue, not to mention the top Democrat's long record of opposing measures to strengthen U.S. intelligence and national security. At one point Lehrer claimed that over ten thousand U.S. soldiers had been killed in Iraq, before quickly revising that number to 1,052. At the end of the debate, the PBS anchorman shook Sen. Kerry's hand - with some debate watchers claiming he gave the top Democrat a knowing wink. In 1999, the president of Lehrer's network had to resign after admitting that 53 PBS affiliates had been sharing their donor lists with the Democratic National Committee for years. In 1997, then-White House aide George Stephanopoulos revealed that President Clinton's reelection team thought it was a major coup when Lehrer was chosen to host one of the presidential debates, boasting that "our moderator" had been picked.

Honestly, I'd swear I saw Lehrer grab Kerry's ass and give it a BIG squeeze, and when they kissed, did you see tongue, I swear I saw tongue.

Jesus I am absolutely loving the sour grapes here!

A wink eh?

Hmmm maybe Lehrer should give bush a blowjob to even things out. Fair is fair ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider A wink eh? Hmmm maybe Lehrer should give bush a blowjob to even things out. Fair is fair ...

Well I think it would only be fair to have a conservative partisan "hack" moderate the next debate, considering we had a leftie wingnut tree-huggin' hippie doin' the moderation last night. Who's it gonna be? Hannity? Limbaugh? Coulter? Cheney? Somebody's gotta step forward and take the ball here!

It's a conspiracy.. it's a conspiracy, it was all set up for Kerry, Im telling you..

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.