|
WooHoo!
Sept 30, 2004 21:36:44 GMT -5
Post by SweetNadine on Sept 30, 2004 21:36:44 GMT -5
Good job John Kerry! He clearly won the debate!
|
|
|
WooHoo!
Sept 30, 2004 22:54:25 GMT -5
Post by Roughneck on Sept 30, 2004 22:54:25 GMT -5
Wow! Kerry DESTROYED Bush! Bush looked like he was whining, begging, and pleading for people to believe him, and then he sat there blinking. All the while, Kerry sat there confident and poised. meanwhile, the "liberal" media said "it wasn't a knockout blow." But I can't wait to see the polls shift. ;D
|
|
|
WooHoo!
Sept 30, 2004 23:02:34 GMT -5
Post by LS on Sept 30, 2004 23:02:34 GMT -5
Yep...by- miles & miles!! ;D DuHbya looked like he was squirming pretty good to me (especially when Kerry brought up Tora Bora and the real people responsible for attacking us)...he evaded most of the questions, was pretty confrontational at the start and then Kerry had him totally on the defensive from there on out...Kerry presented plans- the DuHbya presented nothing- all hat and no cattle. And if I heard DuHbya say 'it's such hard work' one more time I was gonna throw something at the TV. Kinda reminded me of just after the 2000 election when he said all that foreign policy stuff was too confusing and hurt his head- and he needed a nap.
|
|
|
WooHoo!
Sept 30, 2004 23:40:13 GMT -5
Post by Roughneck on Sept 30, 2004 23:40:13 GMT -5
The "what kind of message" and criticizing "wrong war wrong place wrong time" drove me up the wall.
|
|
|
Post by LS on Oct 1, 2004 0:44:26 GMT -5
The "what kind of message" and criticizing "wrong war wrong place wrong time" drove me up the wall. LOL...yeah the DuHbya was sounding pretty desperate. He tried sooooo hard baiting Kerry and it backfired. Kerry kept his poise, refused to get drawn into a typical Bushie mudslinging match and ignored it. He just kept confidently repeating his own stance and frequently referenced Osama & Afghanistan- which I thought ultimately spoke volumes for Kerry because it effectively refuted DuHbya's incessent 'wrong war' and 'what kind of message' yammering by keeping the attention focused on who the real enemy and threat is in this 'war on terrorism' without wasting words and minutes on the clock...and it took the wind right out of poor DuHbya's sails on that one. ;D Well I surfed a couple dozen websites and the preliminary 'non-scientific' polls with many thousands of votes cast- all of them showed Kerry won- by margins of 67% and better. (Of course that's before the attack of the talking heads gets in full swing tomorrow ). And to think...the Bushies insisted foreign policy be the first debate because that was the DuHbya's strongest suite (and the first debate's always gets the most viewers) and was supposed to be his 'can't miss' slam dunk!!
|
|
|
Post by Mr._Shooter on Oct 1, 2004 9:22:47 GMT -5
Kerry clearly won. Bush, for his part, ought to win a prize for most blinks and facial expressions per second. ;D LS, you mentioned the unofficial polls. I've learned my lesson - I'm ignoring 'em. ;D
|
|
|
WooHoo!
Oct 1, 2004 12:42:03 GMT -5
Post by Roughneck on Oct 1, 2004 12:42:03 GMT -5
By Tom Shales
Friday, October 1, 2004; Page C01
John Kerry came off as more presidential than the president last night as the two candidates met for their first face-to-face debate, televised live on all the networks from the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Fla. President Bush did not appear to have a firm grasp on the major issues being discussed, opting instead for the repetition of sloganlike remarks and repeated attacks on his Democratic challenger.
Over and over -- and over -- Bush accused Sen. Kerry of having called Bush's invasion of Iraq "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." He also hammered away with one of the Republicans' favorite themes in their assault on Kerry: that he vacillates on issues depending on how political winds are blowing. The term "flip-flopping" may not itself have been used, or at least not often, but Kerry once referred to Bush changing his mind and said, "His campaign has a word for that."
It could be that flip-flopping has played itself out, thanks in part to relentless lampooning of the phrase by topical TV comics.
Kerry acknowledged a bit of flip-floppery by conceding, "I made a mistake in how I talk about the war," but said that Bush's mistake, actually starting the war, was worse.
Jim Lehrer of public television did a first-rate job of moderating the debate, fighting against the stuffiness imposed by debate negotiators. The audience in the hall was kept so emotionally and spiritually distant from the proceedings that there was really no reason for them to be there at all (one forthcoming debate will use the "town hall" format and presumably concede that an audience exists). Lehrer also proved productively flexible with the rules about 90-second statements and 30-second rebuttals -- letting the candidates finish their thoughts rather than rudely cutting them off mid-sentence.
Bush wore his traditional blue necktie, though a darker shade than the usual robin's-egg hue, and Kerry wore the classic TV-red necktie; red ties supposedly lend color to the face of whoever wears them, and if there's anything the Massachusetts senator needs, it's color. But he gave one of his best public performances ever last night, just lively enough, just respectful enough to the president and yet aggressive enough to, at times, make Bush appear confused by his own answers. Bush did more stammering and pausing than Kerry.
At times, Bush sounded plaintive and anxious. Bob Schieffer of CBS News told anchor Dan Rather after the debate, "The president was somewhat defensive at the beginning" but that he grew more comfortable as the 90-minute debate -- or "joint appearance," as Rather absolutely insists on calling these things -- went on.
Fox News Channel, which relied heavily on split screens that showed both candidates within the same frame, gave viewers a good chance to compare the video demeanors of the two men -- Kerry tall and statesmanlike, Bush shorter (though camera angles tried to even them out) and ill at ease. Brit Hume, Fox News anchor, said of Bush after the debate that "he looked annoyed" about the whole thing, and he did; he gave the impression that the debate was an intrusion on his time, much as his father had done when he famously or infamously glanced at his watch during a debate way back in the 20th century.
Mark Shields, commenting for PBS, seemed impressed that "Kerry showed no nervousness at all. . . . He got stronger as it went along." Commentators generally agreed it was a smooth and confident performance but one that happily lacked glib slickness or any sense of smug overconfidence. On NBC, Tim Russert said Kerry found his voice and convincingly articulated "the Democratic view of the world."
One longtime political observer -- among the friends canvassed by this critic -- was more irreverent about the debate and how the two debaters came off: "It was Andy Griffith meets Barney Fife," he said, with Kerry in the Griffith role -- solid, sanguine, sensible -- and Bush as the nervous Fife.
Near the end of the telecast, Bush made some not terribly comprehensible comments about how his daughters were getting along with the Kerry daughters. It was then revealed, as family members moved onto the stage, that the first lady and the would-be first lady wore virtually identical white suits to the event. As a fashion blunder this was less serious than a video fluff; it's not a good idea to dress in all-white because TV cameras don't like it. In the early days of television, it was virtually unthinkable since the white would flare blindingly and all but obliterate the rest of the picture.
Even if Kerry appeared to win the encounter on basic debating points, Bush retained the tremendous advantage of being a wartime president seeking reelection and a vote of confidence in the war he started. He's no Ronald Reagan, but he did strike a note of Reaganesque sloganeering eloquence when he told the audience, in reference to the war against terrorism, "We climbed the mighty mountain and I see the valley below, and that's the valley of peace."
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
|
|
|
WooHoo!
Oct 1, 2004 13:06:20 GMT -5
Post by Roughneck on Oct 1, 2004 13:06:20 GMT -5
By Kathy Kiely, USA TODAY MEDIA, Pa. — Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry won over some skeptics during Thursday night's debate with President Bush, but undecided voters in this closely contested state said they remain frustrated with their choices and want to hear more before they make up their minds. A panel of 15 undecided voters convened to watch the debate. Although the panel leaned Republican in party registration, when it came to deciding who won the first of three presidential debates, the members overwhelmingly gave the nod to Kerry. (Related: Full poll results)
Only three members of the group who watched the debate at the offices of JRP Marketing Research Services thought Bush emerged the winner.
"He was horrible," said Jason Marsh, 28, a data systems clerk who said he is a registered Republican. "He was stuttering. He wasn't speaking in one coherent thought."
But other members of the panel thought that Bush, while less verbally adept, was easier to understand. "I feel he is heartfelt," said Susan Connery Bruno, 45, a health-food store owner.
The debate watchers were an economically and educationally diverse group. They reflected the political diversity of this suburban Philadelphia community, where Republicans dominate but voters don't always cast their ballots according to their party registration.
Of the group, 12 said they were registered Republican and three were registered Democrats. Five said they voted for Bush in 2000, five voted for Democrat Al Gore and five did not vote.
"It was my protest," said George Clarius, 54, an electrical engineer who wasn't satisfied with either candidate four years ago. He's not sure whether he'll cast a vote for president this year.
Seven members of the panel said they came away from the debate closer to a decision about how they would cast their vote. Of those, six said they were leaning toward Kerry.
George Silli, 65, a waiter who said he backed Bush in 2000, said Kerry seemed "more knowledgeable" than the president.
Internet company manager Bob Simon, 36, said he came into the debate leaning toward the president but left "more comfortable with Kerry."
Neither of them has definitely decided to vote for Kerry, however. They said they're waiting to hear more at later debates.
"I'd like to hear them be more specific," Simon said.
Alicia Mancuso, 54, defended the president.
"The mess we're in right now, I don't know if I want to change," she said.
But Mancuso said she's still not sure she'll vote for Bush.
"What I want to know is how much of the world is Bush going to take on?" she asked. "Where does this end?"
The candidates' insistence on sticking to their campaign talking points exasperated many of the debate-watchers.
"I came out of it a little more frustrated with both," said civil engineer Joel Comanda, 29. "All Bush says is, 'Don't change horses and we can't trust a flip-flopper.' All Kerry says is, 'Bush got us in a lot of trouble.' "
Several of the viewers said they want to hear more specifics about Kerry's plan for Iraq and homeland security.
"Get off it already," Janet Watson, 58, a medical assistant, muttered at the TV screen at one point during the debate.
Watson said she came eager to hear more information about the candidates' plans for Iraq, where her godson is stationed in the Army. She left undecided.
The debate-watchers said they liked the debate format but weren't happy with how the candidates used it.
They said both candidates relied too much on rhetoric and didn't provide enough details on how they planned to implement their plans for combating terrorism and securing Iraq.
Teaching assistant Kimberly Kelly, 45, spoke for many members of the group when she said she needs to hear more before deciding who will get her vote.
"Right now," said Kelly, a Democrat. "It looks just like two rich guys trying to get a job."
They can't even SKEW their results, although the link to the full poll results had Bush winning in a lot of individual areas. How, I'm clueless.
|
|
|
WooHoo!
Oct 1, 2004 13:09:48 GMT -5
Post by Travelinman on Oct 1, 2004 13:09:48 GMT -5
Senator Kerry....I salute you. It was refreshing to hear a warrior talk about handling the war, instead of the Artfull Dodger. Bush was able to duck and run from Vietnam, but he had no where to duck or run last night.
|
|
|
WooHoo!
Oct 1, 2004 13:19:32 GMT -5
Post by Roughneck on Oct 1, 2004 13:19:32 GMT -5
But you know he wanted to soooooooo bad! ;D
|
|
|
WooHoo!
Oct 1, 2004 18:20:58 GMT -5
Post by SweetNadine on Oct 1, 2004 18:20:58 GMT -5
W. was ticked-off last night. You could see the steam coming through his nostrils. He wanted to verbally attack John Kerry. W. didn't like it one bit that John Kerry told the truth and the whole wide world was watching. I think W even gets more steamed over the realization that John Kerry is winning favor throughout the world. W didn't like it one bit when John Kerry announced the support coming from President Eisenhower's son. I say good for John Kerry. He has zeroed into the American's population attention span. I predict the Tuesday night debate will garner a larger audience and next Friday night's debate will see even more of the attention span in America. I saw my guy John Edwards this morning on The Today Show. He is ready for the Tuesday night debate. Oh, how I am longing to see him bring down Cheney a notch or two - then stand there with a smile on his face, be a perfect gentleman and shake Cheney's hand at the end of the debate. I heard someone talking the other day about how they long for the dismissal of W's administration shortly after inauguration. Then as Steve Earle stated, the real work begins to clean-up the mess these people have made. Go Johnny Go! Go Johnny Go! Go Johnny B. Goode! ; ;D
|
|