Debates
 

I'm mixed on the DeGaulle story - it was good, but would have been better if it had been any country but France.

Debates
 

That last pont that Bush made about North Korea and keeping China in the talks was a good one. I just don't think that joe six pack undecided voter understands the issue.

Debates
 

go back to greedy politics board circa 4 years ago. all the libs thought gore handed Bush his ass. turns out they were biased and wrong. I'm just saying your opinion isn't that insightful maybe. I don't mean that in a mean way.

Debates
 

This is why these debates are meaningless.

Because in my opinion, Bush is steamrollering home the point of what a wishy-washy do-nothing Kerry has been and will be.

Everyone already decided ahead of time who "won"

Debates
 

The visuals are not helping Bush. The look on his face as he contemplates answers looks confused, and he's doing a fair amount of contemplation. Kerry ain't Cicero, but on TV Bush is helping him look a little like it.

Debates
 

Everyone's going to call this one for their own, because mid-way through, Bush got back to the Rove message and just kept repeating over and over again the same stuff we've been hearing - it's all about Kerry, not about Bush. Kerry stayed on message and seemed intelligent, and he struck a good balance between going after Bush and digging in deeper on policy issues.

So, my read: Kerry wins in the Florida audience and in the Plains states, each of which are dominated by more issues oriented voters. Bush may gain some traction in the southwestern and southern states that were issues 2 weeks ago - the same places he got a bounce after the RNC.

Who wins in Ohio and Michigan? I don't know. Let's see what the polls say. (And, of course, if this is debate class Bush was handed his ass - but it's not, and the shallow, on-message performance of the last half was what Rove wanted to see)

Debates - My Views
 

And the writing with the Pen thing I think made him look more Presidential.

Anyway....Dubya did so poorly you could go on forever saying why. Here’s just some observations:

To the relentless suggestions by Kerry that the President has no allies in the world: the President didn’t bother to talk about his excellent relationships with other leaders until the very end where he mentioned in another context Putin (and he had to be directly asked about him). No mention of things achieved by working globally. No mention of relationships with allies. Not even a mention of Tony Blair for Chrissakes.

Lost opportunity to talk about Afghanistan. He could have had a great explanation in response to Kerry’s repeated “You let Afghan Warlords do the work for us.” The President didn’t even respond once.

A fuller explanation of how the 6 party talks would fail if bilateral talks were pursued with North Korea.

Um…a little too long winded about all the things he admires about Kerry. Dubya’s admiration for Kerry seemed to be one of the only topics he got excited about.

A better explanation of HOW Kerry changes his positions would have been nice. The “Wrong War; Wrong Time” got old and was not very strong.

All the talk about where the GREATEST terrorist threats are located: how about mentioning right on US soil? Excuse me but were we not simultaneously attacked – the center of commerce and even our Pentagon, with another plane headed for the White House. And the continued threat and sleeper cells…..

One of Dubya’s worst “comebacks”: “Hey; I know who Osama Bin Ladin Is!!!!!” Well, that’s nice.

Ugh.

Diane

Debates - My Views
 

Neither candidate drooled. Meaning it was a draw.

Kerry cannot afford a draw. He's down 8 points.

Debates
 

You aren't an undecided and neither am I. It doesn't matter what we think.

Debates
 

Every time Kerry said "Afghan War Lords" I started to snicker. Not sure why, but something about that phrase struck me as very, very funny.

Debates
 

Hi, sweetheart. I missed you at this evening's conference.

Debates - My Views
 

Bush can't do the public speaking thing for shit.

Kerry can, but has nothing to say.

So,

Presentation: Kerry.

Substance: Bush.


Kerry wins four points nationally.

Debates - My Views
 

I'm afraid that's about my take, give or take 4 points, and Diane stated the reasoning pretty well. In other words, I don't think he picked up undecideds.

There were so many better things to say, and his defensive justification for the Iraq war was a point he could have made in the beginning, the middle and the end, rather than throughout. He totally fumbled the coalition-building thing. There is a way to point out that America has historically provided the bulk of helpful outside combat forces since WWII without even insulting the French (NTTAWWT), but he instead seemed to accept the 90% number on its face, as if it is an aberration from history.



Hello

Debates - My Views
 

If past history is an indicator - You ain't exactly Nostradamus, pal.


More importantly, Bernie walk-off homer. Yanks clinch home-field throughout the playoffs.

Debates - My Views
 

You judge Nostradamusness by the future, not the past, remember?

We'll check this on Monday.

Debates
 

I missed the first half hour due to work stuff that i couldn't get out of (i may or may not check out the Tivo rebroadcast if the Daily Show doesn't tell me everything i need to know), but it seemed that Kerry was a hell of a lot more comfortable than Bush until nearly the end.

ETA: I love jon stewart

Debates - My Views
 

Of course, remember that most of the people who are interested enough in this process to actually watch these guys for ninety minutes have long since made up their minds. The ones who are still wavering watched, maybe, ten minutes before flipping to the Frazier rerun. I doubt most of those people are going to pick up on the details you and Diane mention. They're going to leave with a quick, several-minute impression of speaking quality, and vote on that.

Debates - My Views
 

point- the undecideds are undecided because they're smart and thinking. don't oversimplify this. bush should have killed- he didn't but I don't know that it changes that much.

Debates - My Views
 

The undecideds are (generally) the ones who don't know who their own Senator is, vote when it doesn't conflict with their hair appointment, and think the Electoral College is where you have to go before you get your politician's degree.

(Yeah, there are thoughtful Undecideds out there still considering, pondering, and weighing. Seven of them, to be exact. None of them can get their friends to go out to eat with them anymore, 'cuz they can never make up their minds there, either. "Pasta. I want pasta. No . . . fish. I feel like f . . . oh, you have meat loaf?! Okay, give me the . . . no, wait, pasta. Or, wait . . . ")

Debate
 

well, I don't think any remotely objective observer could claim victory for Bush. I wouldn't call it a Kerry grandslam either, but Kerry was definitely more poised, and seemed well prepared for Bush's obvious and repeated attacks.

Bush, on the other hand, found the debate to be hard work. He may even have thought they his campaign picked the wrong issues, in the wrong place, and at the wrong time. Further, he sent mexed missages about North Korean.

But in all seriousness, Kerry addressed some of the things he needed to address, while Bush looked annoyed and angry. Advantage Kerry.

Of course, what is even more important is the spin, and CNN was downright shameful. Their analysts clearly prepared their comments on the basis of what they were told Bush was going to say ahead of time. They repeatedly proclaimed that Bush said something he simply had not said. He may have wanted to say it, and he may have meant it, but he objective did not utter the words. We'll see how the rest of the "liberal" press does tomorrow.

Debate
 

You watched the debate that was on TV tonight, right?

(Good lord, that was the one thing he was the MOST focused and on-target with.)

But, seriously, you got the DNC e-mail earlier, right? Have you been out there taking all the listed on-line "winner" polls, writing your letters and posts about how Kerry rocked (oh, yeah, here you are), and calling your radio shows?

Debates - My Views
 

You really think that? You don't think the undecideds are undecided because they are ambivalent about politics?

Debate
 

Yeah... I just needed something to go after the mexed missages line...

Although one could argue that both candidates sent mixed messages about North Korea given that they argued inconsistent messages for NK and Iraq.

Debates - My Views
 

The orange face, manicure and arm-waving are a helluva lot more likely to impact the "undecideds" than anything either of these schmoes said.

Debates - My Views
 

Dick Morris just made the same point. Wait are you Dick Morris? Ages match up right? Hmmmmm.

Debate
 

\

Grandslam. I wouldn't even call it a Kerry win.

The only problem for me is that Bush didn't kill him - and he should have. Kerry left him so many openings, I was begging to call in on a life-line.

Debates - My Views
 

I liked the new haircut.

Debate
 

My favorite line was when they asked Kerry if he wanted bi-lateral or multilateral talks with NK. Has said he wanted "both." That sums up my view on JK.

Debates - My Views
 

I did just see someone on PBS say that Bush scored points by actually knowing the names of foreign leaders this time around. Talk about yer soft bigotry for low expectations....

That said, I think substance is almost impossible to assess without letting your personal biases get in the way. I would say Kerry was a clear winner on substance, but then I thought that ahead of time. Neither candidate said anything substantively suprising.

I think style is a bit less substantive, and I agree with Bilmore that i think this was a win for Kerry.

For what it is worth, six of six "undecideds" on CBS picked Kerry as the winner.

Debate
 

My take (completely partisan, of course), was that Bush is saying "you keep telling the world that my problem in Iraq is that I skipped the international route, but here I am in NK trying just such a route, because I happen to think it will work better in this situation, and you're complaining about that, too."

(P.S. New news tonight:

US, China back North Korea talks

The US and China have said they were confident North Korea will return to six-party talks to end the stand-off over Pyongyang's nuclear programmes.
US State Secretary Colin Powell said after talks with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing the format was "what we should be concentrating on".

Mr Li described the talks as the "only feasible and correct option".

. . . .

With Mr Powell standing at his side, Mr Li said the "entire international community" agreed that the six-nation approach was the best way to deal with the problem.

Debates - My Views
 

I'm way younger.

Debate
 

Why are the two mutually exclusive?

And why does Bush insist that bilateral talks mean the end of multilateral talks?

Debate
 

Yeah. That's why they both seem oddly inconsistent.

Debate
 

Bilateral necessarily means that conversation will take place only between two parties.

Japan and China (and a few others) have a hugely more important stake in this issue than do we. NK wants us in alone because it doesn't want to be faced with the various pressures and risks inherent in dealing with some of its biggest "allies" in an adversarial process.

Debate
 

Consistency is the hobsomething of something somethings . . . .

(Different tacks for different situations isn't "inconsistent". It's flexible Merely because you can draw some gross parallels between different situations doesn't mean they equate perfectly.)

Debate
 

Only if you assume there can only be one course of talks.

etft -- t.s.

Debate
 

Note the word "seem."

Debate
 

Mine was "Triblenka Square"

Debates - My Views
 

The same CBS that portrayed as an "undecided" the other night someone who gave a hundred bucks to the Kerry campaign?

Debate
 

If China were not included in any one course of talks, then, (1), NK could proceed in that course of talks free of having to appease China on whatever issues were to be discussed, leaving any failure to satisfy China the "fault" of the US, and (2), China would be sorely pissed off.

Neither of those would be good things.

The situation is so intertwined between ALL affected countries that any attempt to short-cut discussions among all concerned is doomed to failure. I can't see Kerry's rationale for "bilateral", unless it's simply to have a difference with Bush.