09/30 Debate: Commentary

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 1, 2004, 1:23 am

Sheryl wrote: i guess that's mostly, if not entirely, his public speaking skills shining through while bush proved once again that he could bend over and talk with his asshole and be about as impressive while delivering a speech. regardless, i still am not crazy about either candidate, but it was pretty entertaining to watch the two of them go at it.

You consider anything that came out of Bush's mouth to be talking?

Don't work in the business sector much, do you?

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » October 1, 2004, 1:25 am

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 1, 2004, 1:26 am

exactly

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » October 1, 2004, 1:37 am

Winnow wrote:
Xzion- wrote:
Winnow wrote:lol, the comments on this thread are great.

Kerry needs to eat coal and shit diamonds on live TV to win this election.
No way in hell you honestly believe this bullshit you spew out, you come off as too smart to do so, i dont know what your motives are, but il sure as hell be having fun with you about a month or so from now
(according to midnyte im gay now, so you better watch you for the meaning behind that!)
No. He needs to shit diamonds!

Well it would solve his campaign financing issues anyway!

*Hugs*
Varia

Siji · Post by **Siji** » October 1, 2004, 1:58 am

Kylere wrote:Can we all drop the whiny "Fear it, whittle me might get drafted" shit now. Bush stated " It will be a VOLUNTEER army"

And his father said "Read my lips, no new taxes". Bullshit runs in the family.

Makora wrote:More troops? How? Drafting them? There are recruiting stations everywhere. Also, his assertion that if all goes according to his plan we could start pulling troops out in six months. Hey, that'd be great- I'd love to see that. But, what happens if things don't go according to his plan? What then?

A. I know I'd be more inclined to join the military if our president wasn't Bush. I'd feel a tad bit safer that when my tour of duty was up, I could go home. I'd also feel a bit safer if I knew that the military was bulking up for more than just Iraq.

B. Kerry's plan may not be guaranteed and may not go as he wants, but at least he has one to attempt. What's Bush's exit plan? Oh wait, he doesn't have one.

Makora wrote:More sanctions for a pre-war Iraq? How would that have hurt Saddam? He wasn't being hurt by sanctions- his people were. How would yet another decade of sanctions have worked?

Ask the people of Cuba.

Tenuvil · Post by **Tenuvil** » October 1, 2004, 2:42 am

Bush was a malfunctioning android during the whole debate. "My opponent flip-flops!" <BZZT> "The Iraqi people are better off!" <FZZAP> "Ummm..." <BZZZOW>

Kerry was far more polished and had legitimate answers for all the questions posed and made Bush look like a retard, for lack of a better word. As the debates continue Kerry will shine more.

It doesn't matter, because if Bush loses he'll declare martial law and name hinself Supreme Commander.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » October 1, 2004, 2:51 am

My heart almost bled....

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » October 1, 2004, 3:28 am

Did anyone else laugh hysterically everytime Bush said "Mullah?" (moolah)

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » October 1, 2004, 4:00 am

Chidoro wrote:exactly

i post my opinion on bush's public speaking skills and you try to rip on me about not "working in the business sector"?

i'll tell you what. how about you fuck off. unless you care to elaborate on how your little non sequitur is relevant to what i said.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 1, 2004, 7:11 am

war needing to pass the test of world opinion or some shit, wtf

Yeah man, like wtf, you know , who the hell do the world like, think they are!

---------------
I have watched Bush, time and again, in speech after speech, and my conclusion is that if you fall for his nonsense, you would simply have to be a moron with no ability to tell your ass from your elbow. End of fucking story. Sorry you are retarded, really, I wish you didn't have to suffer

SHUT UP BLOKE 100 MILLION AMERICANS CANNOT BE WRONG!!!!1

Again, wrong............. !

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 1, 2004, 7:47 am

Sheryl wrote:unless you care to elaborate on how your little non sequitur is relevant to what i said.

Que?

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » October 1, 2004, 7:57 am

I thought Kerry did quite well during the debate. I thought Bush's long lapses of silence made him look unprepared and just downright undecisive on what he wanted to say.

One thing that bothered me though is the amount of times that Kerry mentionned killing people. I'd rather see Osama and other terrorists captured and put in front of a tribunal than outright killed and not have to answer to his crimes. Every time Kerry said "kill them", I thought it overshadowed everything else he said in that statement.

Bush was just talking in circles the whole time. Re-Iterating the same think over and over and over.

Overall an interesting debate and much MUCH better than the babblefests that we have up here in Canada.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 1, 2004, 8:02 am

Tenuvil wrote:Bush was a malfunctioning android during the whole debate. "My opponent flip-flops!" <BZZT> "The Iraqi people are better off!" <FZZAP> "Ummm..." <BZZZOW>

That's exactly how it sounded. Didn't matter what was being talked about, Bush tried to toss his little flip-flop crap(since the simpleton public apparently can not see that issues need constant evaluation) where it would fit in. Kerry did the "outsourcing" term quite a bit and was an obvious coached dig but at least it fit in the terms of the answer.

I think you're giving Bush's presence a little too much credit Krim. He couldn't answer a question with any type of answer that would be relevant. I would almost rather see Bush just open up and say what he's thinking because that's, obviously, not what's coming out of his mouth. It's almost as if he knows the rubes in the mid-west can't process the things occuring on Bush's watch, so the little tag lines must be the order of the day. In addition, he couldn't run away fast enough when the issues in Africa were brought to the table.

What's funny is that this was, supposedly, going to be the debate where Bush would be strongest at since it is foreign policy. Can't wait to see the domestic one. However, I'm sure we can just "Stay the course!"

Kluden · Post by **Kluden** » October 1, 2004, 8:50 am

I hated the debate. The only good part was watching facial expressions on the candidate who had to sit and listen. That was the only part worth seeing. Non-verbal reactions are the win.

I learned absolutely NOTHING new about either candidate. To me, this means Bush takes the debate. I mean, we already know everything about Bush cause he has been here for 4 years already. Kerry really needs to step up and identify, relate, and basicly come clean to the voters, so we know who our choices are. The commercials do us no good, really.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » October 1, 2004, 9:24 am

Kerry still says he has all these "plans". I know one instance where he said that he would not leave Iraq...and then goes on to say that he can make allies. How? In 200 years we have not had a true ally in the Middle East....and he came up with this "plan" to do it as soon as he takes office? Unless his plan is dropping a nuke on Israel, it is not happening.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 1, 2004, 9:51 am

Bush’s performance was roughly what I expected, which admittedly is due to my low expectations for his speaking abilities and his inability to carefully construct responses on short notice. I did notice that Bush often stopped short of the timer during his responses, but he would then insist on the extra thirty seconds to respond to Kerry’s comments. For me, this is a sign of a mind with poor communication skills that isn't able to conceive of and cover all angles in the allotted time. It seemed to me that when Kerry started his rebuttled that Bush was going "Oh shit, yeah, I have to respond to that, too". There was one point where this irritated Kerry enough for him to mutter under his brief something like "Sure, why don't we just change the rules for you right now".

The shots of Bush while Kerry was speaking showed that he was clearly uncomfortable and often had a strange grimace on his face. Kerry looked more professional to the point of appearing smug and condescending.

I believe that the rhetoric was clearer from Kerry, but he did not have the passion and single-minded determination that was evident in Bush’s responses.

Immediately following the debate, NBC interviewed a panel of undecided voters that felt that Kerry had done better. I found this interesting because my wife felt that Bush had probably come across better because he showed more charisma despite his lack of a coherent, intelligible message. I was exceeding disappointed when Bush said “We were attacked, so we went to war”. It was a poor representation of his own justifications for the war and it opened the door for Kerry to make him look stupid.

If Kerry were more personable, I think that these debates would significantly sway the election because Bush stumbled a great deal. I suspect that amongst undecided voters that listened to the debate and judged it based upon comments made that Kerry will gain ground. For the undecided voters that were looking for a candidate that is approachable and shows signs of unwavering resolve that Bush will gain ground.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » October 1, 2004, 10:05 am

Quite frankly, I was very pleased with the way Bush carried himself during this debate. He is not a strong public speaker, never has been.
However, he did a really good job this time of speaking clearly and stumbling over his words very little.
Of course with that said, being a GOOD public speaker does not qualify you to be president.

The entire debate it looked like Bush wanted to spring, was rather amusing.

I think Kerry made several good points, it was a good debate. But, BOTH canidates did a glorious job of dodging questions. Read: BOTH. (For Xzion that means your Jesus Christ Superstar Kerry too! omfg!). I find fault with the moderator for not keeping them both on track.

All in all, I think Bush did a better job. He came right out and said why he did this and that which he hasn't done before. There was no hedgemony about it, also Kerry said "yes I would do this with a different plan" but never explained what he was talking about. It was a hard call but I give this debate to Bush but barely.

I will be voting for Bush, not because I think he is the Republican Messiah but because I see him as the lesser of two evils until 2008 where we can get McCain up there.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 1, 2004, 10:09 am

It's odd to see the notoriously apathetic voters of the US (not that apathy is a U.S issue alone) choosing whats important to them in a president.

A lot of you seem to care what the Presidents personality is like more than the what causes he may champion, or abuse.

Which is more important to the people of America?

Edit: From what I see, neither of those two clowns are fit to run a toilet, nevermind the worlds superpower, but as a case of a lesser of two evils, surely any change from the damage you are doing has got to be considered.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » October 1, 2004, 10:16 am

The average American (most likely not found here) doesn't have enough interest to actually read up on issues Teeny. A LOT of them will be swayed by personality alone. It is unfortunate, but..

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 1, 2004, 10:23 am

Cheers Kelshara, its the same here in the UK, last election only 8million people voted for labour (out of 64 million) and Blair retained power.

Tis weak!

Moonwynd · Post by **Moonwynd** » October 1, 2004, 10:49 am

I have kept my political leanings and view silent here on VV...but I suppose I will share my perspective on the debates.

First, I will say that I am Bush supporter and will be voting for Bush in the election. I will not delve into my reasons why as I believe that is a whole different thread/topic.

I was disappointed a little bit in President Bush's performance last night. As I said, I am a Bush supporter, but I think the President fell a little a wee bit flat last night.

I think John Kerry sounded a bit too scripted. His answers were well spoken and he did seem confident. However he did come across as a little too scripted.

President Bush's greatest speaking strength is that he comes across as a confident, steadfast, every man. Last night the President's words were very similar to what he has been saying for many months. However he was not on his game. The President has never been known for his strengths as a public speaker. I heard that the President makes most of his verbal mistakes later in the day. He is an early to bed/early to rise person and the later in the day the debates are scheduled the more gaffe's and stutters you will hear from President Bush.

There is no doubt that John Kerry can speak well. He has 20 years of Senate experience where speaking/fillibustering is taken to an art form. I think Kerry looked a little too smug with that wry smile of his at times.

I think President Bush did show some good knowledge and confidence in the way the world works when it comes to aspects of foreign policy. I also think that John Kerry *believes* he can do better and last night was the first time I really saw Kerry with a determined confidence in his voice, but he never did outline any of his plans other than to say he has plans. But you can tell it was scripted by the way that Kerry opened with his remarks and somewhat trite attempt to send his thoughts out to the hurricane ravaged people of Florida...where the debate was hosted.

Some of the finer points that Kerry used to his advantage were most definitely scripted...but I am sure they are done to good affect. When Kerry mentioned little anecdotes about speaking with people on the campaign trail he mentioned people from states like, Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, Iowa...key swing states. A good ploy that may work on some people but is likely to be seen as just campaign rhetoric by people that actually listen closely.

On style I would have to give the debate to Kerry. Kerry *sounded* good...but his words were often hollow. On substance I would have to give the debate to Bush. You could tell Bush was getting annoyed a little too much. Bush had a look that conveyed that he knew how things worked as president and that Kerry had no clue. I think the people watching also got that sense at times.

Nothing new was said. President Bush used the "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" too often. The first time was enough. No one likes to be browbeaten with an overused slogan...and that was my major gripe with the President's performance.

Both sides are going to spin the hell out of the outcome of this debate. The questions were not tough nor terribly engaging. The president *should* have done better. I think the President said what he needed to say but did so without the usual ease and full measure of his true sense of passion that he has been displaying lately.

My hope is that President Bush and his debate advisors really sit down and take a long hard look at this debate and make sure that the president does not make the same mistakes twice. This debate should have been the knockout punch for Bush....the war on terror and homeland security should have been his greatest strength as far as the three scheduled debates.

Regards,

Moonwynd

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » October 1, 2004, 11:00 am

Moonwynd, both candidates thanked Florida. Both candidates dodged the comments on the Sudan and Dafur with continuing their discussion about Iran. Singling out Kerry or Bush for dodging questions is unfair: both did it in abundance. They are politicians, they know how to dance and both did so last night.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » October 1, 2004, 11:07 am

Moonwynd wrote:President Bush's greatest speaking strength is that he comes across as a confident, steadfast, every man. Last night the President's words were very similar to what he has been saying for many months. However he was not on his game. The President has never been known for his strengths as a public speaker. I heard that the President makes most of his verbal mistakes later in the day. He is an early to bed/early to rise person and the later in the day the debates are scheduled the more gaffe's and stutters you will hear from President Bush.

That's interesting, the same applies to people with degenerative brain disorders...

Moonwynd · Post by **Moonwynd** » October 1, 2004, 11:11 am

I was not singling out either candidate. I was trying to be unbiased...as much as possible. I saw Kerry and Bush dodge questions...that is the nature of the game...not much has changed in political debating in the 30+ years that I have been watching them.

Yes, I did not expect the Sudan/Dafur questions during the debate. I am not sure that either candidate expected them either. There was dodging and political rhetoric from both candidates regarding their answers to this question.

Kaldaur, I know both candidates thanked Florida. I watched the debates very closely. I was merely stating that since the coin toss had Kerry speak first, he took the opportunity to thank Florida and send his best wishes to the people...and that it did sound a tad bit scripted. The same thing happened to an extend on the question of character when President Bush answered first...saying that he respected Kerry's service to the country...that he respected Kerry as a family man committed to his daughters...which of course Kerry had to reciprocate when it was his turn.

Lots of dancing...dodging...nothing new said....

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 1, 2004, 11:14 am

Bush lost the debate that was on the subject matter that was where he polls the strongest. So that is potentially important over the arc of the debates as a whole. I think Bush got off to a pretty poor start, but in the last 30 minutes was pretty good, and had some good moments where he certainly scored points on Kerry. Bush didn't look as composed as Kerry, but did recover from what would have been a somewhat humiliating performance, and in the end may have done well enough.

But all in all, Kerry did what he needed to do, he fought the President on the President's turf and won. We'll see if it changes the dynamics "on the ground".

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » October 1, 2004, 11:16 am

I agree Moonwynd, this is the nature of the game. And while you and I may have heard nothing new, for the 50 million Americans tuning in last night, some of whom this is their first look at either candidate, it was an important night for both figures. Anyway, I'm greatly anticipating the next debate.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 1, 2004, 11:17 am

the war on terror and homeland security should have been his greatest strength as far as the three scheduled debates.

How? Are you not aware of the situation?

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 1, 2004, 11:19 am

Voronwë wrote:Bush lost the debate that was on the subject matter that was where he polls the strongest. So that is potentially important over the arc of the debates as a whole. I think Bush got off to a pretty poor start, but in the last 30 minutes was pretty good, and had some good moments where he certainly scored points on Kerry. Bush didn't look as composed as Kerry, but did recover from what would have been a somewhat humiliating performance, and in the end may have done well enough.

But all in all, Kerry did what he needed to do, he fought the President on the President's turf and won. We'll see if it changes the dynamics "on the ground".

Strategically, the debates are ordered to favour the Kerry campaign; the last thing that people will remember hearing the two candidates discuss before the election are the issues that Kerry wants people to think about, the economy and domestic policy. I am surprised that the Bush team allowed the debates to be scheduled in this way.

This order makes any success, in this debate, for Kerry more interesting for the election provided that he can build upon this moving forward through the next two.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 1, 2004, 11:23 am

Teenybloke wrote:
the war on terror and homeland security should have been his greatest strength as far as the three scheduled debates.
How? Are you not aware of the situation?

it is where Bush polls the best. Yes while many would say there are some big problems with both of those, the perception is still among the American people that Bush is doing the job on those. Mostly because he says he is.

i saw a great comment on MSNBC's post-debate coverage from a contributing editor from Newsweek who said something to the effect that:

Bush is running a "meta-campaign" in which his central point is that he is an unimpeachable leader - without really mentioning where in fact he may be leading us.

Arch: The Kerry team may have been willing to conceed to all of the wierd requests of the Bush team (the camera angles, the timer lights, etc) specifically to get the domestic policy debate last. I was happy that FoxNews (controlled the video feed last night) actually didn't acquiesce to the White House's demands regarding the camera angles. They certainly probably felt the heat from their media colleagues.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » October 1, 2004, 11:29 am

*gasp*

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 1, 2004, 11:34 am

It's my understanding from Fox News (the Republican choice!) that what was covered when was primarily comming from the Bush team. They wanted the first debate to cover Iraq in the hopes that viewership would go down as it did in 1996 for the stuff Kerry really wants to talk about.

Personally I can't understand how anyone would even remotely consider voting for Bush, especially after last night and this is coming from someone who supported him in 2000. His record is pathetic and he is a habitual lyer. Who cares if someone flip flops, hell the American public fliped out when Clinton lied about getting a blow but some people, how I can not fathom at all, over look everything Bush does they don't agree with.

I did think he was funny that he spoke about the Patriot Act when parts of it were deemed unconstutional yesterday. I think it's funny that he kept telling us that someone who changes their mind can't lead... that IS the biggest bunch of bullshit I've ever heard. Frankly I thought he was pathetic last night. He continued to get angry at Kerry when he made a point that made him look bad, he had the Al Gore facial expressions going on while Kerry was speaking, he crouched down and LEANED on the podum... send him back to toastmasters or something.

Of course that's just my opinion

Marb

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » October 1, 2004, 12:01 pm

What surprised me is on my way to work, my normal radio station (right wing) declared, and with much hesitation and stuttering, that Kerry won. Could not believe my ears.

Hoarmurath · Post by **Hoarmurath** » October 1, 2004, 12:02 pm

Kelshara wrote:The average American (most likely not found here) doesn't have enough interest to actually read up on issues Teeny. A LOT of them will be swayed by personality alone. It is unfortunate, but..

Poll says Americans are uninformed!! (or at least half the nearly 1200 people polled were uninformed.

)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... mericans_2

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 1, 2004, 12:14 pm

Marb, George Bush has a few flip flops of his own.

He promised not to invade Iraq without a UN Security Council vote.
He initially opposed the Dept. of Homeland Security, then took credit for it.
He opposed the creation of the bipartisan 9/11 commission, then acquiesced.
He opposed having any senior advisors testify before the commission, then under pressue allowed Dr. Rice to appear before the commission.
He refused to testify, then under pressure agreed to appear with the vice president as long as no notes were taken and they did not have to testify under oath.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » October 1, 2004, 12:18 pm

It's humerous to read people on this thread talk about how Kerry seemed scripted.. without also mentioning that Bush probably couldn't remember his name if it wasn't scripted. You want to talk about someone that was obviously prepped ahead of time with massive practice.. just look to Bush. And because of that, I will even agree that he spoke much more clearly (ie: getting words right, sentences that are put together correctly) in this debate that I expected. But he was still sub-par for someone I'd want to be my leader. It was always funny listening to him slur words together repeatedly.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » October 1, 2004, 12:24 pm

Hehe the DNC has made a video showing the funny faces Bush made during the debates. Pretty good stuff.

http://www.democrats.org/

Midnyte_Ragebringer · October 1, 2004, 12:28 pm

Zaelath wrote:
Moonwynd wrote:President Bush's greatest speaking strength is that he comes across as a confident, steadfast, every man. Last night the President's words were very similar to what he has been saying for many months. However he was not on his game. The President has never been known for his strengths as a public speaker. I heard that the President makes most of his verbal mistakes later in the day. He is an early to bed/early to rise person and the later in the day the debates are scheduled the more gaffe's and stutters you will hear from President Bush.
That's interesting, the same applies to people with degenerative brain disorders...

Bush has ADD.

Moonwynd · Post by **Moonwynd** » October 1, 2004, 12:29 pm

And while you and I may have heard nothing new, for the 50 million Americans tuning in last night, some of whom this is their first look at either candidate, it was an important night for both figures.

I find it very, very sad that the voting populous may have gotten their first look at either candidate last night. Living in a time where information is so readily available to anyone in this country...and we still have people that do not take the time to research issues, candidates, and who ultimately wind up either blindly voting straight party or voting for whomever they think *looks* or *acts* more presidential.

Apathy=Ignorance=Death

noel · Post by **noel** » October 1, 2004, 12:51 pm

Chidoro wrote:
Sheryl wrote:unless you care to elaborate on how your little non sequitur is relevant to what i said.
Que?

How about... your response was unecessarily demeaning, and uncalled for given that I seriously doubt you know Sheryl from Adam. Additionally, the insinuation that an individual needs to work in the Business sector in order to speak is laughable at best. Do teachers not speak? Do police officers not speak? Your comment was pathetic. You've become an opinionated bastard who should keep his comments to yourself.

On an unrelated note, I can get a car just as dirty in California as you can anywhere so kindly fuck off.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » October 1, 2004, 1:17 pm

Yes Vor, I agree with you 100%

Marb

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 1, 2004, 1:36 pm

noel wrote:
Chidoro wrote:
Sheryl wrote:unless you care to elaborate on how your little non sequitur is relevant to what i said.
Que?
How about... your response was unecessarily demeaning, and uncalled for given that I seriously doubt you know Sheryl from Adam. Additionally, the insinuation that an individual needs to work in the Business sector in order to speak is laughable at best. Do teachers not speak? Do police officers not speak? Your comment was pathetic. You've become an opinionated bastard who should keep your comments to yourself.

On an unrelated note, I can get a car just as dirty in California as you can anywhere so kindly fuck off.

Sheryl is cool. She doesn't give into the will of teh fnord and remains nice to just about everyone! Few people have impressed me as much on this board in terms of attitude.

ok...back to being a ruthless [shadow=orange]neocon![/shadow]

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » October 1, 2004, 2:28 pm

Did anyone end up watching the Daily Show last night? I nearly died laughing.

Rudy Giuliani came on live, and pronounced that even he was confused by John Kerry's inconsistencies on Iraq. Stewart politely waited for him to finish, and then said something like "Well, actually, I thought he was consistent this time. I thought his message was 'Saddam Hussein was a threat and should have been disarmed, but the President chose the wrong way to do it.' Wouldn't you agree?" Rudy looked shocked. The rest of the interview went basically the same way.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » October 1, 2004, 2:44 pm

What?!? Somebody dared talk back to the Great Hero Rudy?!?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 1, 2004, 2:51 pm

Arch, the more i think about your question about the order of subject matter of the debates, the Bush campaign may have wanted Foreign Policy first - their logic being they wanted to strike a death blow to Kerry's campaign.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 1, 2004, 3:23 pm

Voronwë wrote:Arch, the more i think about your question about the order of subject matter of the debates, the Bush campaign may have wanted Foreign Policy first - their logic being they wanted to strike a death blow to Kerry's campaign.

I think the strategic planning for the Bush team was not taking into account the strengths and weaknesses of Bush himself. If Bush were a much stronger public speaker and debater, it would make sense to strike hard early and knock Kerry back onto his heels from the start.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » October 1, 2004, 3:34 pm

well regardless of whether Bush can express himself in a manner consistent with somebody who has mastery of the material, his campaign managers certainly are expertly adept at their jobs, but it is interesting to think about the motivations and calculations.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » October 1, 2004, 3:41 pm

Kerry was the clear victor in that debate, but this should have suprised no one. Even GW's staunchest supporters agree he is not someone who has good public speaking skills. For his meager capabilities and well established history of embaressing himself publicly, he did a descent job. Kerry is a well practiced and articulate speaker and far more capable of thinking on his feet, however, and it showed. Bush stuck to his script pretty firmly, but I think Kerry could have pressed him harder. I expect the next two debates to be more confrontational. This one was a by the numbers contest with nothing unexpected.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » October 1, 2004, 3:51 pm

I found it funny that Kerry was able to stick to the rules better then Bush (when most of them were from the Bush campaign), and also - the way Bush tried to get a rebuttal - the first few times he basically called out in the middle of Kerry speaking.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » October 1, 2004, 4:00 pm

Thess wrote:I found it funny that Kerry was able to stick to the rules better then Bush (when most of them were from the Bush campaign), and also - the way Bush tried to get a rebuttal - the first few times he basically called out in the middle of Kerry speaking.

Hell the first time Bush broke in Kerry offered to scrap the BS rules...

. Funny the "pussy liberal" wants to go gloves off and the war hawk cowers. Bush is a wimp unless he can send someone else to do his dirty work.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » October 1, 2004, 4:20 pm

Thess wrote:I found it funny that Kerry was able to stick to the rules better then Bush (when most of them were from the Bush campaign), and also - the way Bush tried to get a rebuttal - the first few times he basically called out in the middle of Kerry speaking.

Bush was about to pull the, "I'm the President bitch!"

I noticed one time Bush was eager to get a reply in and then had one of his freeze frame hesitation moments after he finally got to speak.

Were the camera angles the same for every network? I'm not sur why Bush is being criticized for smirks. I saw Kerry look like the wicked witch of the west a few times. It looked like he was about to break out a cackle.