Kerry 1, Bush 0

on Oct 01, 2004

I will be voting for Bush but feel Kerry won this debate. Am I surprised, no. Was I surprised by anything during the debate, no, other than Kerry's makeup people managing to cover up the orange color he gave himself earlier in the week

I watched quite a bit of analysis after and thought one commentator really struck a cord with me. I think it was Peggy Noonan but could be wrong, who said that it was like the trial lawyer, John Kerry vs the regular guy, George Bush. Kerry was very well spoken and had his file of charges against Bush handy. He won the coin toss so had the first word and often the last.

In appearance alone, that includes pace and body language, it seemed Kerry was the one who prepared and got plenty of rest and Bush seemed like he had been out partying all night and couldn't get his brain and mouth to work in concert. Again, no surprise there.

Kerry did get caught by the fact finders over a couple of points he was trying to make and then Tommy Franks made a couple of good points about Iraq not diverting anything from Afghanistan as Kerry kept claiming. Kerry made a good showing but it was just that, a show.

17

Gideon MacLeish

on Oct 01, 2004

I am definitely an objective opinion on this (I detest them both equally), and I think that Kerry clearly outdebated Bush. Bush's posture was poor, he stuttered and fumbled through most of what he had to say (having difficulty producing the name "Osama bin Laden" towards the beginning), and he insisted on changing the rules of the debate to suit him (when he demanded a 30 second rebuttal when it wasn't part of the format). The latter reinforced my opinion that this is a man who doesn't expect the rules to apply him, and expects them in fact, to change FOR him. I continue to assert my opinion, though, that what is more important in this debate is not who won, but who LOST. The answer to that question is, the American people, who did not get to hear the opinions of candidates outside the "big two".

18

Gideon MacLeish

on Oct 01, 2004

I will be voting for Bush but feel Kerry won this debate. Am I surprised, no. Was I surprised by anything during the debate, no, other than Kerry's makeup people managing to cover up the orange color he gave himself earlier in the week

Jill,

I was surprised by one thing. Bush has always been an excellent debater, and I am not sure why he fumbled here. While I am not a fan of either candidate, I have to say, I'm disappointed he didn't bring his "A" game.

19

drmiler

on Oct 01, 2004

Reply #9 By: Lotherius - 10/1/2004 2:35:23 AM
What I find shocking is how many people are crediting Bush with a debate win, here and in other places. I'm with you, Draginol, Kerry definitely scored a debate win here. I think a lot of people, however, simply credited Bush with a "win" because they didn't believe or like what Kerry said. I think that's a shame, because people simply aren't listening to what the candidates have to say - either of them. They've made up their minds, and are sticking to their decisions regardless of what comes along. I don't think any educated person could legitimately claim that Bush actually debated well tonight. He may have said things that certain people wanted to hear, but that does not equal a good debate.

I posted on my own blog, and I'll repeat here. Before this debate, I was planning to vote against Bush. After it, I'm planning to vote for Kerry. No real substantive change, but there it is.

The reason they are crediting Bush with the win is because as usual Kerry was inconsistent! While GW didn't catch the flip-flops, I sure did and so did a *bunch* of other people.

20

charlie poore

on Oct 01, 2004

This was not a debate it was a contest.It could have been called "don't break the egg" Poi Dog got it right......re:... now.org.

21

hitparade

on Oct 01, 2004

HOG WASH!

BUSH clearly came out on top. Initial polls in debates historically tend to favor the person perceived "smarter." Subsequently, the determination hinges on public impact.

Bush hammered home the inescapable about Kerry. He's a politician, not a war time leader.

The ultimate difference between Bush and Kerry is simple. Kerry would do anything, go to any length... stab his own mother in the back to realize his life long ambition of being another J.F.K. Bush, on the other hand, shows true grit. Even in the face of enormous pressure, he follows through on what is right.

22

FreeMark

on Oct 01, 2004

Bush's posture was poor, he stuttered and fumbled through most of what he had to say

Gideon,
I find it interesting that you present this as your reason for why Kerry won the debate (more accurately you are saying Bush lost it). I would think that part of your bag would be to judge candidates on substantive issues not this kind of fluff.

Personally, I don’t think Bush’s posture was bad he just looks like a small man because of the way he is framed side by side with Kerry.

As for stuttering and fumbling, what did you expect? I cannot see how this could be counted against him since this is a known (opposed to an unknown unknown). In fact I think he did better in this format than anyone really expected.

and he insisted on changing the rules of the debate to suit him (when he demanded a 30 second rebuttal when it wasn't part of the format). The latter reinforced my opinion that this is a man who doesn't expect the rules to apply him, and expects them in fact, to change FOR him

Both candidates did this…they would be foolish to let their opponent score points and not try to get a rebuttal in.

23

FreeMark

on Oct 01, 2004

Kerry probably won the debate. He has more style as a speaker, anybody can see that. Doesn't matter. He is winning the battle and losing the war.

Last night Bush did not say anything different than he has said before. I think there is very little the Kerry campaign can use against him because that is what he is been saying all along.

Kerry on the other hand issued what I would call a flip-flop in the middle of the debate. He is going to be hearing the "global test" in a sound bite very, very soon. I think he is also harmed by:

Outsourcing the attack on Tora Bora. That is easily contrasted with his position on Iraq.
Giving Iran Nuke-U-Ler fuel. It is going to be tough going convincing people this is a good idea. It will be easy for someone to paint this position in a very bad way.

I think the post-debate marching orders for Democrats is going to be on Russia's nuclear stockpiles and dropping the ball on Korea. I think that the bi versus multi-lateral talks doesn't play great to the general electorate but I have to say that Bush made an argument on this issue and Kerry didn't.

So they are really left with the Iraq issue. Nobody really understands what Kerry's stance is but I think most of us are convinced that he will cut and run as fast as he can. Bottom line that is what a lot of people are going to vote...should we cut and run or should we tough it out?

24

jkueser

on Oct 01, 2004

I thought Kerry won, but was a little disappointed that he didn't take a little tougher, more direct stance on a few issues.

For example, the "flip-flop" issue, he only hinted at. He could have deflated Bush's bubble there by simply stating that he changed his mind on the issues as the situation changed. If he would have come out and said, "I realized that I was wrong, and tried to take steps to correct my mistakes, unlike President Bush, who will not admit that he is wrong, and won't take the steps necessary to correct his mistakes" that would have made me real happy.

On the other hand, had Bush come out and said, "I made a mistake rushing into war, I'll admit that. In hind sight, I would have done it much differently, but we're there now, and have to do what we can to fix the problem" I would have had much more respect for the man. I'm still waiting him to come clean before I can back him. So until that happens, I'm afriad I'm going to have to side with Kerry.

25

Gideon MacLeish

on Oct 01, 2004

Gideon,
I find it interesting that you present this as your reason for why Kerry won the debate (more accurately you are saying Bush lost it). I would think that part of your bag would be to judge candidates on substantive issues not this kind of fluff.

Personally, I don’t think Bush’s posture was bad he just looks like a small man because of the way he is framed side by side with Kerry.

The debate is ALL about how you present yourself. I wasn't a very good debater, and even I know that much.

As for Bush's posture, he actually SLOUCHED....and LEANED AGAINST THE PODIUM...Kerry's height can't change that.

As for the "fumbling", it is NOT fluff. A candidate who cannot answer quickly and decisively is obviously a candidate who does not have answers, but is searching for them. A brief pause would be a better response than a fumbling response.

Basically, it comes down to this: the only people I know who think that Bush actually won this debate are absolutely DIEHARD Bush supporters...even many of his supporters, though, concede this one.

Please tell me where Kerry changed the debate rules in mid stream. I didn't see that. I DID, however, see George W. Bush INTERRUPT Jim Lehrer and request a rebuttal where it hadn't been placed because he felt it was deserved. As for "being able to defend themselves", you could rebut for hours if you needed to; there has to be a line drawn, and the preagreed upon rules of the debate are a pretty good one to go by.

If Kerry did demand a rules change in the middle of the debate, please show me where.

26

bakerstreet

on Oct 01, 2004

"A candidate who cannot answer quickly and decisively is obviously a candidate who does not have answers, but is searching for them."

As I said earlier, I think he had answers, I think he was just told to stick to a set of talking points and "Whatever you do, don't wing it." A shame.

And Kerry did hold up a finger a time or two to get a 30 second rebuttal in when Der Lehrer was moving on.

27

mindlar

on Oct 01, 2004

I'm a Bush supporter and I saw the debate as a draw.

Kerry managed to make me not fear having him as president. Though there were a few things that I completely disagree with him on, especially North Korea. I don't quite get the consistency between getting a coalition for Iraq vs going it alone with North Korea. I was happy to see that both had roughly the same position on the future of Iraq, which was to keep the troops there until the process was finished.

Bush didn't say anything new, which is what I expected. His verbal pauses were driving my wife crazy with all of the "umm..."'s that he was doing. My favorite line of Bush's all night was something to the effect of "You already know where I stand on that issue, what more can I say?"

I wouldn't say that the only people who saw the debate as a Bush win were Bush supporters. Listening to the radio this morning, about a quarter of the callers said the debate was a win for Bush, half called it a draw, and another quarter called it for Kerry. Supposedly all of them were undecided as to which candidate they were going to vote for.

28

MNFisherman

on Oct 01, 2004

Just a quick note, in the 2000 election everyone was saying Gore won the first debate for about 2 days afterward, then as the substance of the debate was talked about more and more people changed their minds on who won.

29

drmiler

on Oct 01, 2004

Reply #25 By: jkueser - 10/1/2004 9:32:53 AM
I thought Kerry won, but was a little disappointed that he didn't take a little tougher, more direct stance on a few issues.

For example, the "flip-flop" issue, he only hinted at. He could have deflated Bush's bubble there by simply stating that he changed his mind on the issues as the situation changed. If he would have come out and said, "I realized that I was wrong, and tried to take steps to correct my mistakes, unlike President Bush, who will not admit that he is wrong, and won't take the steps necessary to correct his mistakes" that would have made me real happy

You are correct in your assesment. But the fact remains that he didn't do it. He flip-flopped and then left it alone instead of trying to fix it.

30

Deference

on Oct 01, 2004

Dear God, Kerry supporters have been waiting for the other shoe to drop since the dem. primaries and did it ever. Not only did Kerry give Bush a sound drubbing, he managed to do so with grace and even managed a small bid to seize the national security issue from Bush. Bush responded with the same tired Rovian rhetoric that paled in the face of Kerry homework and manuever. For those feeling that Bush won the debate, there is also a sensation that the Bush wave has crested and is now tumbling towards craggy rocks on a barren shore.

This appearance by Kerry dispirits those reveling in the Bush "macho" image when watching him squirm and crumble underneath Kerry without white men past ten years his senior propping him up. Today is a new dawning on an emboldened democratic voter base, prepare to watch Kerry stay above Bush in the polls from now till the NEW COMMANDER IN CHIEF takes over.