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."

___________________
I've never felt alone... 'Till I met you

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.

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

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?

___________________
Retro ...

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.

___________________
I've never felt alone... 'Till I met you

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

___________________
Retro ...

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.

___________________
I've never felt alone... 'Till I met you

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.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

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





How could Kerry do such a thing???

___________________
Retro ...

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!

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

A wink eh?

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

___________________
Retro ...