Debate
 

They aren't reading. Just scrolling.

Debates
 

Well, I still think Chad should have won.

Debates
 

She doesn't like her own tits? That's so sad.

Debates
 

I would hope I could imagine more pleasant things....

Biased Questions?
 

Don't you think that current issues may somehow be more relevant in the current debate? And do you really, really want to get into past issues? Your side is better off leaving it to the swifties rather than in a debate.

Biased Questions?
 

The current issue is, who is more qualified to be president. So, yes, Kerry's twenty years of inaction, waffling, and covering on all issues except for cutting military funds and raising taxes is decidedly relevant. As for Bush's past issues, I think we're quite happy to go there. At least there's a "there" there to go to.

Biased Questions?
 

I heart the swifties. If I met one IRL, I would give him one free grope.

Biased Questions?
 

The person who got you lost is not the person you trust to get you unlost. A 20-year voting record is an easy thing to pore over. Hell, W tried to bring it up with the $87 MM troop funding thing (you remember, where W threatened the veto because he feels his tax cuts are more important than the lives of soldiers he put into danger). The inaction and waffling are manufactured issues and you know it.

We face important issues and the debate is only 90 minutes. I didn't see W's past brought up at all, political or otherwise, except to the extent that his executive decisions are currently those that are of grave concern to all of us. Spin til you're dizzy, but the questions were legitimate.

Biased Questions?
 

Then what are we supposed to judge Kerry on? What he says? I'd need a scorecard.

Biased Questions?
 

It was a debate. Yes, you have to listen. Sometimes that involves turning down foxnews.

Biased Questions?
 

Someone who completely missed the fact that I was saying, we need more questions, not fewer, should probably be less snarky with the attempted insults.

Nytol.

lost amid the debating
 

The Washington Post reported today that "the U.S. government and a representative of President Bush's reelection campaign had been heavily involved in drafting the speech given to Congress last week by interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi." I imagine that all of you who criticized Joe Lockhart will be lining up to apologize now that subsequent reporting has proven him correct. It turns out that one of the puppeteers' names is "Dan Senor, former spokesman for the CPA who has more recently represented the Bush campaign in media appearances." I imagine that y'all will also be criticizing the Bushies for demeaning the putatively independent and sovereign Iraqi government by enlisting Allawi in the re-election campaign.

Biased Questions?
 

Of the news programs on Fox News (not the opinion programs like O'Reilly), what programs do you watch and what problems do you have with those programs?

NOT lost amid the debating
 

Yawn.

Biased Questions?
 

Trick question -- there are no news programs on Fox News. I enjoyed Cavuto's show when they had the Soup Nazi on, though.

Biased Questions?
 

The questions were appropriate. I'd rather see more probing questions, but I doubt Rove would go for that.

You have my apologies for missing your subtlety. But give me some credit: the insult was not just "attempted."

Guiliani might be a good candidate, but a talking head he is not. Sure, Jon Stewart was a complete partisan and totally underprepared to boot, but so was Rudy, and Guiliani's defense of W's performance was embarrassing to all three of them. "Saddam Hussein was a weapon of mass destruction"? It's like Sorkin's writing the dialog --- making the GOP sound stupider than it is.

Debates - My Views
 

Partisianship is one thing, but this strains credibility. What about Bush's comments had substance? The man repeated his tag lines over and over again, and had very little to say. This debate was about Bush's spin versus Kerry's substance.

Biased Questions?
 

I know these comments are part of the script, but after last night, you've lost credibility - people saw Kerry was giving thoughtful, honest answers with depth while Bush replayed the mantra like his handlers told him.

At some point a Presidential campaign has to go beyond the attack-mantra mode, and Bush is failing there.

Debates - My Views
 

If you look at the polls on realclearpolitics.com, you can see where the undecided are. You have to be careful, because some polls factor them out (e.g., the polls that add up to 98%+ are eliminating undecided from their calculation). The best comparisions between states will all come from a single pollster (e.g., a Zogby/Zogby comparision will be better than a Zogby/Gallup comparision).

I expected to see a battleground/nonbattleground disparity - so if you bombard a state from both sides, you either drive up or down the undecideds - or a regional disparity, but can't see an intelligible pattern to either. It looks to me like polls are showing 5-12% levels of undecideds everywhere, and where they fall within that range is pretty random.

Finer points
 

Bilmore, "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."

Perhaps this is what you heard because you wanted to hear it. Problem is a few key words to connect the dots [not a cue] went missing. He talked about his tactic for NK. But didn't use it as an example of the two things Kerry criticized him for failing to use: (1) diplomacy and (2) "try everything else [but war] first." The viewing public would have enjoyed some stories about our President overseas somewhere using his influence as the leader of the Free World to accomplish something that is good for us as Americans and is good for the world over. Examples that show our President is respected and influential througout the world, even if his views aren't always agreed with.

Someone on here mentioned the failure to pick up on the 90% thing by putting it in historical context -- this is a good point. America has always taken the lead in righting a wrong and taking the right road for a cause, and sometimes dying for it ......[all these things should have been said].

Because I think for Americans (even the anti-war ones and/or the ones who profess their love for building UN ties and "coalitions" with cheese-eating surrender monkey type countries) there is VERY MUCH an appeal to the idea of belonging to a country that won't hesitate to flip the bird to the majority of the world when we are doing the right thing. It's the cowboy thing. Practically every movie made in the country has a subplot of someone going over someone else's head to accomplish something that is moral and right, even if they have to antagonize a lot of people in the process or even die themselves doing it. We take pride in this. Fuck off, majority of the world. I'm an American and I'm not scared to kick ass and go it alone doing it. So much lost opportunities to appeal to this!!!

This might also have helped in the (in my view) devastating point Kerry made: he said he needs to be able to look parents of dead soldiers in the eye and truthfully say, "I DID EVERYTHING I COULD TO PREVENT THIS". How did the President respond? By rambling, interspersed with awkward silence, about some lady who lost her kid and how he tried to comfort her (he fucked up and said "I tried to LOVE her the best I could") and ended up saying (for the umpteenth time) "You know, it's all hard work".

Huh? How about adressing the fact that he needs to look ALL of America in the eye and be able to tell us that he did EVERYTHING TO PROTECT THEM. That he will NOT allow nutcases like Saddam to go another 10 years keeping the world wondering if he is going to blow us up. Or stand by knowing countries like Afghanistan are being used to train people who plan to come over and turn our sons and daughters into piles of human garbage and rubble. We can't take the chance of this happening anymore. He needed to basically say "It ain't easy being a Bad Ass Motherfucker".

Well you get the point. I can only hope that Bush's camp connects some of these things post-debate.

Debates
 

I think this is a fair assessment, and also note my comments came in the middle of the debate. Bush really pounded his points over and over in the second half. There is some part of me, however, that hopes that some people in America can say to themselves "he just said the same four sentences over and over for 90 minutes. where's the substance?" But I don't have my hopes too high.

Debates - My Views
 

Aye, but in the process got themselves two games against Johan Santana.

Debates
 

No shit. You could almost see kerry thinking "Fuck, why did I stick with this anecdote?" when he was mouthing the DeGaulle comment. He should fire whoever wrote that bit into his talking points.

Hi all. Your friendly neighborhood undecided voter here.

I watched the full debate last night. Here is my opinion.

Kerry did a better job. While he continues to not provide specifics as to how he'll accomplish anything, I'm not sure the debate format was conducive (time was too short) to this anyway. I will note however that because of the debate topic, the debate essentially became a review of every foreign policy decision Bush has made during his presidency. Accordingly, Bush could not help but come across as somewhat defensive ("This is hard. War is hard. Being President is hard.").

Regarding Bush, he told me the following:

He knows (fill name of world leader).
His job is hard.
The war on terror is hard.
Once he makes a decision, he sticks with it. Furthermore, once a President makes a decision, he must never ever change his mind or else it will confuse everyone else. Refusing to ever change your mind=leadership.

Kerry pointed out once that sticking to a bad decision is not a virtue. He should have hammered this home more.

Bush was at his best when discussing N. Korea. Bilmore's point regarding Kerry's inconsistency on not forming a coalition of allies to deal with NK is a good one and Bush should have nailed Kerry with it. Bush could have salvaged the whole debate had he simply said: "Here is exactly what I was talking about. My opponent is inconsistent."

Stylistically, Bush needs to work on his facial expressions while his opponent is speaking. Also, he continued to stare off to his left while Kerry spoke. It gave me the impression he was looking to his handlers in the audience for debating tips. The "writing with a pen" thing that Kerry does is clearly just for show, but I think it's effective because it keeps his head down (thus avoiding looking like a dimwit while his opponent speaks) and makes him look thoughtful.

The split screen views of both candidates was interesting. As Bush is about 3 inches shorter than Kerry, Bush's people had to make a decision:
1) have the podium heights be equal during split shots, or
2) have the tops of the candidates' heads be equal during split shots.

Bush's people chose 2), with the result being the podium heights were distractingly out of whack. If they're so concerned with not having the height difference emphasized, they should negotiate for no split screen shots next time.

Did you watch the Daily Show's segment on undecided voters last night?

I wonder whether the pissed-off looks were a calculated thing -- as in "this guy is such a flip-flopper that I can't stand it." That Karl Rove is one clever fellow, so I wouldn't put it past them. However, Dan Bartlett (the White House Communications Director) said on NBC this morning that President Bush is just a heart on his sleeve kinda guy, and he had some honest reactions.

This alternative -- if true -- means that I want to play high stakes poker against the Prez. Or sit on the other side of a negotiating table. If he can't keep his reactions and feelings hidden, maybe this is why he doesn't think that diplomacy works.

They did. The networks disregarded the rule, and ran the split screen a lot (at least on NBC). But, according to Bartlett, the GOP knew this would happen, and he told the president that split screens would happen.

And, you know it's a bad result when a friendly paper (the New York Post) ain't even pretending to buy what you're selling:

• Karl Rove must have known things didn't go well when the New York Post asked him whether this was the worst debate of President Bush's life. No, Rove insisted. This was one of the president's best debates, and one of John Kerry's worst. "Really?" asked the reporter, Vince Morris. "You can say that with a straight face?"

http://www.slate.com/id/2107516/

Biased Questions?
 

For the record, I listened on NPR

Not that it matters. This may just delay the inevitable. The Yankees will probably win it all. Bastards.

Biased Questions?
 

Go back and watch the tape (I did). Kerry appears to give very, thoughtful and meaningful answers and has a very dignified delivery style. But there is nothing there. It's alll delivery for him, no substance. Now Bush isn't exactly Aristotle either, but I thought he did much better the second time I watched than the first.

Biased Questions?
 

Kerry has, and had, the greatest opportunity to broadside Bush with a KO haymaker, and he let it slide...

Bush's mantra, indeed his entire pitch to the public, is that he is the best man to "Get the Iraq mess figured out." That is akin to saying "I made the mess, so I'm the best man to clean it up." That is not a strong argument, not even to the stupidest voter. Kerry could have said "So, Mr. Bush, your argument is that because you took us over the falls, you're most familiar with how to climb back up them" or "Does a company keep a CEO who's run the company into bankruptcy because 'He's most familiar with how the company came to be in such dire straits'?" Of course not. You don't get a medal for rescuing someone from peril you put them in. A Kerry ad should say "Bush is trying to put the American voters between the proverbial rock and hard place by making a huge mess and then arguing that he's the only ,man who can get us out of the mess. Bush may call that plain speaking, but in plain terms, that is called stupid, or worse, cynical and manipulative."

More proof they're out to get you
 

I'm not sure how the Rand Corporation fits into all of this, but did you know that the government has convinced the hardware and software industries to build anti-counterfeiting technology into their products?

You have to love the idea of a popup box that says, essentially, "Bad User! Go to this website or else!".

Biased Questions?
 

Katie Couric and a panel of 5 "undecided" voters tell me this morning that Kerry won. Isn't this enough for you?

Finer points
 

Old Europe and Red China hated Ronald Regan, too.

Biased Questions?
 

And another thing, this whole "we have to maintain the offensive in this war" could have been hammered home 50 different ways til Sunday, instead of being repeated as a sound bite 50 times.

America and most other nations will repeatedly make mistakes about sitting back and praying for peace. Even the original JFK wrote a book or something on it, about "While We Slept". At least, I think he did. Who wins in these never-ending wars? The smart general who maintains the offensive effectively. Reagan, with proxy armies and star wars weapons, not Carter with an "our defeat is inevitable" mentality and not [my opponent] with a "we should wait for Europe to triple its GDP contributions to defense, though they never matched ours in even the cold war". If history has taught us anything, its that no peaceful and civilized nation can sit back and pray. America cannot wait for help from others, though the help of our friends is always appreciated. America must identify its enemies and attack them when attacking them is the best way to make sure they cannot inflict grave damage on us.

But instead, all we get is we need to stay on the offensive here. This whole election sucks.

Biased Questions?
 

Which is why we attacked a secular, marginalized, tin pot dictatorship.

I thought it was quite a coup for TDS to get what my guess is would be the two nominees in 2008, if Bush wins in 2004. But appearing on TDS last night was a bad, bad move for Rudy. He sounded really disingenuous; Clark sounded much better. And I think this had more to do with preparation than anything else. Fortunately for Rudy, he's got four years to live it down. Still, after last night I'm not sure I can take Rudy as seriously as before.*



* Despite appearances to the contrary, I'm not quite as rabid as one might think. I was genuinely undecided in both 1992 and 96 until very close to the end, and would have voted for McCain in 2000. I'm more anti-Bush Jr. than anti-Republican. I'd vote for Rudy over Kerry, but probably not over Clark.

Biased Questions?
 

Ya know, for this offensive thingy to work, we gotta be attacking somebody.

Biased Questions?
 

The difficulty with that approach (and I agree it would be an effective one were it not for what I'm about to say), is that Bush refuses to acknowledge that there is even a problem in Iraq. To hear him talk about it, everything is going just swimmingly. Notwithstanding the fact that virtually every news-gathering organization in the world believes Iraq is in complete and utter chaos.

Biased Questions?
 

Iraq=flypaper. Regardless of the reasons we attacked, the outcome has been car bombs driven by arabs killing other arabs on arab soil (and unfortunately also US soldiers). But since we invaded Iraq, no planes flying into skyscrapers in US cities and no car bombs in the Mall of America. The arab/muslim terrorists are less focused on Israel since we invaded Iraq, too.

Debates
 

My eight year old saw a chunk of the debate last night (1/2 hour in the middle - she woke up and came down while we were watching). I asked her what she thought this morning. Her answer: "Bush kept saying the same thing over and over - did he think we weren't listening the first time?"

There you have it - Bush's pitch insulted the intelligence of an 8 year old. In his defense, she's a very smart girl.