debate is over how'd they do?

[momof2inPA]

It wasn't really a "debate," it was scripted, so Kerry let a lot of Bush's comments slide, too. You just have to see it, a picture is worth a thousand words-- CSPAN.

 

[poohtown]

do they post transcripts anywhere? I actually feel asleep and now here I sit at 3:12 am totally awake.

 

[denisenh]

Originally posted by poohtown
do they post transcripts anywhere? I actually feel asleep and now here I sit at 3:12 am totally awake.

debate transcript

 

[RobinMarie]

In response to:

"What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?" KERRY:
"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.

I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."

How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way? So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world. And Iran and Iraq are now more dangerous -- Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous."

I thought he explained what he meant by 'global test' pretty well.

While the debates did not change who I am going to vote for, it did change my perspective. My decision has solidified.

I also believe communication skills of a leader ought to be top notch. I believe Kerry demonstrated his ability to communicate while our President seemed uncomfortable and unsure.

I appreciated how respectful they were to one another's family. I liked how Kerry took the time to compliment our First Lady.

I am not sure I liked this question though:

"LEHRER: New question, President Bush. Clearly, as we have heard, major policy differences between the two of you. Are there also underlying character issues that you believe, that you believe are serious enough to deny Senator Kerry the job as commander in chief of the United States"

I was so happy when neither one of them stooped to answer this one at face value (and how rare is it that we are happy when politician do NOT answer a question?)

I'm looking forward to the future debates as well!

 

[Kitty 34]

The debate definetly solidified who I'm voting for.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Originally posted by RobinMarie
In response to:
I am not sure I liked this question though:

"LEHRER: New question, President Bush. Clearly, as we have heard, major policy differences between the two of you. Are there also underlying character issues that you believe, that you believe are serious enough to deny Senator Kerry the job as commander in chief of the United States"

I was so happy when neither one of them stooped to answer this one at face value (and how rare is it that we are happy when politician do NOT answer a question?)

I totally agree with the way they handled the response to that question.

I look forward to a time when such a question would be considered extremely rude and inappropriate.

 

[CheshireVal]

I definitely thought Kerry did the better job. I couldn't help but notice that whenever Kerry was speaking and they showed Bush's reaction, Bush reminded me of a petulant little child because of the huge pout on his face. Or maybe he was just really nervous.

As a middle/high school debate coach, I must say I was impressed that Kerry was taking notes throughout the whole thing. Shows he was paying attention and taking it all very seriously.

 

[orvilleair]

Kerry has always been a good debater, so I had high expectations for his debating ability. I think he met them.

Bush has never been a good debater. His strength is in a more relaxed setting. I think voters have made up their minds already.

The format, initially rigid, broke down when Lehrer gave the candidates more opportunities for rebuttals. Plus, tv showed camera angles that didn't meet the original criteria, which Kerry took advantage of (smiling, note taking etc...). I didn't like single issue debates, and don't have the time to watch all of them. Would have liked to see discussion on domestic issues.

Watched debate on CSPAN.

 

[MikeB63]

I think Kerry gained a little here, but definitely due to style not content. I kept hearing about his plan for this and his plan for that, but never heard what those plans were. He's never said how he'll get our "allies" to Iraq, or how he will "win the peace". The few methods he mentioned are already in place. I heard the same rhetoric I've been hearing for months. He did, however, look more comfortable and spoke confidently. This is where I think he scored his points.
Bush stayed on message and continued to emphasize his commitment and beliefs. I thought he missed many opportunities to attack his opponent, although he probably was coached to not take chances. As a Bush supporter I wish he went on the offensive and hammered Kerry when the opportunities arose.

 

[Elwood Blues]

What I want to know is what happened to "Orangeman"???

 

[DawnCt1]

There are points that I would have loved to see President Bush drive home; Kerry's senate record for one and how he would defend the USA when he has voted against every weapons system for 20 years. The bilateral approach to N. Korea that the Clinton administration embarked on that provided N. Korea with the funds and the time to build up its nuclear armament. I think he should have rebuffed Kerry's lies more aggressively than he did with regard to the grand coalition that Kerry plans to build. Leher's questions to Kerry were soft balls. They were whiffle balls. Why didn't we hear an answer to, how will you engage the French and Germans when they both stated last week that no matter who was elected, they would not send troops. It is easy to be the challenger. You don't have to be accurate and you don't have to be correct. You have no record for voters to judge your future performance...except the senate record, and vote, which kerry should have been hammered on.

 

[dumboiu]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
What I want to know is what happened to "Orangeman"???

What an intellectual and mature question to ask.............

 

[puffkin]

I don't think that Bush should be defended because he isn't a good public speaker/debater. In my opinion, that is one of the MAIN criteria for the job of President of the United States. The spoken word is the main form of communication in this country (and the world), and to have a president that cannot come across as a good public speaker is an embarrassment to this country.

I am definitely voting for Kerry, not because I really like him, but because I think we need a change. However, last night I thought he did a good job because he reinforce MY beliefs on foreign policy. I am interested to see the next debate about domestic issues.

 

[jrydberg]

Having watched the whole debate, I think it's safe to say that neither candidate will gain much from that debate. Neither candidate put on a poor performance. Neither candidate was outstanding. Neither candidate said anything that would cause large numbers of undecided voters to say, "Aha! I'm going with that guy!"

 

[ByTheSea]

Having watched the whole debate, I think it's safe to say that neither candidate will gain much from that debate. Neither candidate put on a poor performance.

I think having watched the debate, it's safe to say that Kerry clearly "won" and did the better job last night. But the spin machine is working hard.

Remember 2000: after the first debate, initial polls found that people thought Gore won--and then the GOP spin machine went into overdrive. Kerry was much stronger last night, Bush's performance was weaker than he was in 2000.

 

[robinb]

Last night's debate was at the heart of the Bush campaign: terrorism, foreign policy and national security. We see a lot of campaign adds here is Wisconsin . I expected President Bush to do a good job at defending the war in Iraq and emphasizing homeland security. To my delight, he didn't.

I think John Kerry won this one. The next one, given the Town Hall format, may go to Bush and his "Everyman" persona. Kerry will have to relax and turn on the charm. The last debate will be on domestic issues and will probably break out on party lines.

 

[Geoff_M]

puffkin,

I would hope that what you say should be more important than how you say it. In terms of polish Gore cleaned the floor with Bush in 2000 but more people identified with Bush. The CNN/Gallup poll shows that Bush may have edged Kerry out in that department this time around too.

As for the whole idea of debates Jim Lileks made this observation: "I hate the debates. I have a vision of 65 million undecided Americans tuning in and making a snap judgment for all the wrong reasons. Wow, he pounded the podium to emphasize each word - but the other guy pounded each syllable. What’s this about sealing Fallujer? Is it leaking? Did they have a flood?"

 

[WilmaBud]

I watched the whole thing on MSNBC. I was surprised that the commentators seemed to think Kerry was such a clear winner. I thought Kerry handled himself well, for sure. But I didn't see much substance to his answers. I want to know "how" he's going to do all these things that he claims he'll do.

I think that President Bush was clearly taking a defensive position, rather than an offensive one. I think he could have been more agressive. But really, Kerry is challenging Bush for his job, so Bush is naturally in the position of "defense."

I thought both candidates were polite, which was a pleasant surprise. Bush's pauses and "umms" don't bother me. He's a plain-spoken man, and everyone knows that by now. And you know, I don't think speaking style is "one of the most important qualities" in a President. I think substance is.

I think Kerry won the debate, but I'm not sure how much it's going to help him in the long run. Time will tell. I do think Kerry came off very well, though.

 

[denisenh]

One thing that I noticed is that the President kept on about Kerry changing positions regarding the war in Iraq (AKA war on terror)

What I see is that Kerry is able to take more into account when he makes a decision. He can look and think in many areas at once, make an assessment, which may then change and develop as the situation changes.
I see this as a vital component in dealing with ANY issue. Its intelligent, mature behavior. Not flip flopping, or being indecisive.

On the other hand, the President seems to be looking straight ahead, taking nothing into account but "winning Iraq." Whether that is good or not seems to depend on who is asked.
Any adult, and most certainly, the President, should be able to differentiate between being correct and doing the correct thing.

It is important to realize that other folks in other countries have their own thoughts, convictions and beliefs. They can be steadfast and resolute also.

Of course terrorist/terrorism ought to be stopped but I am not convinced that this is what Iraq is about, even to the President.

 

[cats7494]

We watched the debate last night...and we thought Kerry by far did better. He had a broader knowledge base that he used in his answers. I am looking forward to the other debates...especially the one on domestic issues.