POLL: Good Debate -- If you are for Kerry.

Remove all ads!

John Kerry did himself a big favor tonight by being the "tuff guy," at least in debating skills. Yes, the "flip-flopper" showed Americans that it isn't enough to be "steadfast and "certain," but that there was something to be said for being judicious and correct also. The thing is, Kerry kept George on the ropes for most of the debate, taking the argument about Iraq straight to the commander and King. IMO, there was little that he let get by him, and although it was not a knock-out, Kerry clearly came out on top in the first debate - but on Shrub's issue - "the War on Terror." Of course, there may be some who don't agree. So, who do you think won the first of the "Great Debates" of 2004?

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 39 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Good Debate -- If you are for Kerry. (39 votes.)

Good Debate -- If you are for Kerry. (Choose 1)
* President Bush - King George proved that Kerry is still a "liberal flip-flopper. - 8% (3)
* John Kerry - He proved that Bush couldn't fill a 90 minute debate with: "We're fighting for freedom." - 67% (26)
* Neither - I can't believe I have to vote for one of these two turkeys! - 26% (10)

 

Huh, Bush vs Kerry, and my poll vs yours...I wonder which will live.

 

That's OK, Kitrax - I voted on your poll also. It seemed the democratic thing to do.

 

I will watch the debate this afternoon when Swedish television after airs it.

 

I'd love to see it.

The BBC are showing it again this afternoon at 3pm. Well, woopie! How is a working man meant to catch that? (One who forgot to set the video that is).

 

Saw it last night, missed school today because of that, but it sure was worth it.

About the debate, I hoped that Kerry wouldn't get stuck on small details like he often do, and he didn't, for most of the time. My first impression of Bush during the debate was "duuuuh". I mean, Kerry had a lot of quick responses, Bush continiously looked in his papers.

Conclusion:
Kerry layeth the smackdown upon the heathen Bush.

Grades;
Kerry: 8, still has a problem with the details and such.
Bush: 5, Did a better job than I predicted. Still, lover than average.

Hope they show the rest of the debates here in Sweden as well.

@Joacquin - When will they air the after-air it?

 

@ tal

http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/udland/article.jhtml?articleID=203155

If you follow thise link and choose "den første tv duel mellem George W. Bush og John Kerry(ca. 100 minutter)" then you can see the whole debate...go Danish news

 

Caleb, they just did. It started at around 15:10 our time.

I pretty much agree with Caleb and the others about Kerry doing better. Bush performed above expectations though, seeing as he often have problem speaking with a teleprompter I thought he would be in serious trouble in a debate. In general I thought it was a rather uninteresting debate where the candidates did their best to repeat slogan like phrases as often as possible. The Bush people seems to have decided to concentrate the attacks on Kerry's reputation as a flip-flopper but I think Kerry did reasonable well in diverting those attacks. Bush on the other hand tended to ignore the attacks on him and did not to my knowledge deign to really meet much of the criticism Kerry levelled at him but instead kept talking his talk. This could be both a good and a bad thing I guess.

 

Bush fumbled several times. He failed to answer questions and lost the point several times. He looked weak with bad body language and he hunched over the podium. He stammered over words and showed his cockiness and one tracked opinions. Not a good quality in a president.

I was VERY pleased that Kerry said that you can be certain and still be wrong. Humility is an important trait of any individual, especially a world leader. This highlighted that the president is confident in his certainty, but will not admit to ever being wrong.

I just hoped people paid attention and plan on doing something about it on election day.

 

I personally wasn't surprised by Bush's poor performance. This is how this man acts when he's challenged. He gets pissy, and petulant, and impatient, and flustered. He simply can't take criticism, and it shows. He deserves it when people hammer him like Kerry did - what do you expect will happen when you will only speak in front of pre-screened, loyal audiences? The man has no intellectual curiosity. He knows what he knows, he believes what he believes, and honestly thinks that being resolute is the same as being right. Real men don't think like that, and neither should Presidents.

Bush has about 20 or 30 stock sound-byte answers he gives for everything. Outside of these stock answers, he's lost. He's the mad-lib President. How many times did he say "you can't send mixed messages!"? Even after Kerry explained his position, and clearly stated that he's always had the same position on Iraq (and he has, if you've been listening), Bush still came back with the only thing he can: his stock sound-bytes. It's weak, and so is he, and finally it's beginning to show.

All that said - Kerry pissed me off a little. There were several beautiful opportunities for Kerry to absolutely nail Bush and go in for the kill, and didn't. Like when Bush criticised him for the "he voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it" crap. Instead he went on about something unrelated. He could have killed that stupid talking point right then and there, once and for all, but he didn't. If he'd simply thrown in back in Bush's face by saying:

"First of all, I'd like to point out that had the President properly planned for this war in the first place, the $87 billion supplemental would never have been necessary. This is a little detail the President doesn't seem to grasp. But furthermore, of course I support the troops and insist they have the proper equipment. But that bill, as it was originally written, provided that the funds to pay for it came from rolling back the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans who didn't need a tax cut. I can't think of a single nation in history who's ever had a tax cut in the middle of a war. Instead, President Bush and the Republicans in Congress insisted that the entire $87 billion be added to the already outrageously large defecit. They essentially put their mistake on America's credit card. And today we have the largest defecit in the history of our nation. So yes - I was in support of the supplemental when it was to be paid for responsibly, but opposed the change that made it the wrong choice. Evidently keeping his precious tax cuts is more important to the President than funding our troops properly. I don't agree."

He's said exactly that in previous speeches, and he was right to. That was a major softball, and he blew that one. But I'm picky, I guess. Despite him not doing a few things the way I think he should have, overall he certainly won that debate. However, I don't expect the next 2 debates to be this easy for Kerry. If Bush has any brains in his head, he'll study this debate like crazy and make damn sure not to get all huffy again like he did this time. Kerry won for a simple reason: for one night, he looked more presidential than the President. And it's clear the public noticed.

EDIT - One more thing to add.

Let's not forget that this was supposed to be a slam-dunk for Bush. This debate was on foreign policy, ie Iraq and the War on Terror. This is one area where Bush has consistently outscored Kerry in the polls.

And by all accounts, Kerry won. Something for Bush voters to think about.

[ October 01, 2004, 18:30: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Saw the debate for a second time on TV and third time on the link provided above, and I must say, I lower Bush's grade to a 4, it was much weaker than I first thought.

Then again, I doubt that much americans will watch the replay just for the sake of watching.

 

I also watched the debate last night (4 am )

It was very interesting, but I couldn't help laughing out loud when Dubya got irritated.


Go Kerry!

 

BTA, snicker all you want.

Every poll I've seen says indeed that Kerry won. Don't believe polls? Listen to the partisans.

Even hard-right conservative bloggers like The New Republicans said: "Well, if I'm generous, then Bush stuck to his talking points. As a former debater, however, I am tempted to say that Bush missed many, many, many chances to really make key points against Kerry...I'm not certain that Kerry won more than a few swing votes in this, but I don't know if Bush can win those votes back. He simply didn't deliver as well as Kerry."

PoliPundit says: "I've been watching the debate for five minutes now. Despite my partisan inclinations, I have to admit that Kerry has won this debate. And not just in the high-school debate-coach sense of the word.Kerry comes off as the prosecutor accusing Bush of incompetence. Bush comes off as his Meet-The-Press, press-conference version - dogged, arrogant and unlikable. Kerry will get a significant bounce in the head-to-head poll numbers from this debate."

And even Powerline, the blog that credits itself with breaking the Rathergate memo story, said: "I've taken more than an hour to try to talk myself out of concluding that John Kerry won tonight's debate. I haven't succeeded. Senator Kerry, I think, edged President Bush on substance and, surprisingly, looked better throughout."

You don't get much more partisan that these people, and even they concede Kerry won. I could list more, like Andrew Sullivan, Joe Scarborough, Winds of Change, hell - even Free Republic, but I'm sure you know how to use google.

Of course Karen Hughes and Bill Krystol and Sean Hannity spun it for Bush. That's their job. Their livelyhood depends on it. Other more honest people gave a more honest assessment.

And I never said ALL Bush supporters will agree with that; I'd be crazy to. Hell, I'm sure many don't. But then again most Bush supporters still believe Saddam was involved with 9/11, so it's not a surprise. Some Bush supporters wouldn't change their vote if a video surfaced showing Bush raping children while wearing a turban and listening to Barbara Streisand. Some goes for the hard-core Kerry people, too.

So roll your eyes and snicker all you want - Kerry did better than Bush last night, period. Even the executives of my company, all of whom sport multiple Bush-Cheney stickers on their various Hummers and Escalades, all came by my office this morning to comment on how well they thought Kerry performed. Only a week ago it was "flip-flop" this, and "swift-boat" that coming from their offices. So...

<--- Right back atcha, there chief.

 

I did not watch the debate (had a heated raquetball game to go to), so I cannot comment on anyone's performance.

However, I do agree with DR that the general consensus among the conservatives is that Bush did not win. It will be truly interesting to see if the liberals can say the same thing if Bush "wins" one of the future debates.

 

The MSNBC online poll alone currently has 2,082,727 votes as of a minute ago, and had Kerry winning 61 to 38. Online poll, sure - and I agree polls don't mean much. But hardly 615 voters. Some polls are better and more scientific than others, but when even the Republican-favoring Gallup poll says Kerry won, then Kerry pretty much won.

And just to be clear - if Kerry had sucked last night, I'd be the first to say it, believe me. If you notice my post above, I'm hardly without criticism. I actually could have gone on about things he should have done better IMO. But my political leanings don't trump my honesty. I call it like I see it, even if it hurts me. Fortunately for me, in this case, my assessment was in line with my preference.