Live debate thread
 

Someone should start one of these (hopefully enough people are addicted to this forum to make it active)


First thoughts on Bush and Kerry. Bush skirted the second question and didn't answer it. And it took a whole 10 seconds to mention flip flop (not by name). Kerry needs to look at the camera not at the person leading the debate.

Bush has better eye contact but is also looking at jim a lot

Notice how they both keep glancing off screen? It makes me think there are some guys with towels over their shoulders shouting "Now jab on Iraq!" "That's it, hit him on weapons inspections!" "You got him, baby!"

I'm glad they are filming the reactions by other canidates occasionally.

They both look all "hot and bothered" when the other guy is speaking.

this is like a tennis match

Bush keeps trying to be snide and insulting. That could burn him a lot.

Heh, looks like Kerry needs to clarify his position on Iraq authorization. Went from calling it a mistake and bringing up his service in Vietnam in one sentence to saying it was the right thing to do.

Perhaps it's not what he meant, but he really missed the ball on this one, way he spoke definently looked like he called going to Iraq bad, rather then how we are fighting it.

"You forgot poland!" doesn't change the point Bush.

This debate is making me very, very angry at my President.

He has a start every rebuttle with a insult policy :(

could kerry shake his head more emphatically?

Kerry has been consistent on Iraq...it's interesting that Bush keeps asserting that Kerry has been inconsistent without offering an example of said inconsistency.

Kerry is plugging his website, ithink hes trying to get a free iPod

Bush needs to have more rebuttles. He has a small group that he keeps using.

Kerry's plan on iraq seems to be made of things that are already being implemented (summits, increased funding, more troops, UN involvement) by the President.

What about the fact they they're shooting it to make Bush look as tall as Kerry?

Also, Fox appears to be on a delay.

haha thats funny

Bush does keep harping on the fact that Kerry keeps changing his position. We get it already. He also keeps trying to convince us that being the president is hard work. Of course it is.

Yes, Allawi is a brave, brave man considering how dangerous it is to be Prime Minister in a country like Iraq.

They have to keep their heads at the same position on the screen. They need to cut off the podiums.

"The enemy attacked us" iraq did not attack the US

"How do you tell the troops 'Wrong war, wrong time?'" Wtf? He has said this three times already.

Do you think there are any psychological associative implications about the colors (dark blue/purple for bush, lighter blue for kerry) behind President Bush and Senator Kerry? Things like that can play a role in the way people percieve both candidates.

Anyone else notice Bush keeps getting the one minute extensions?

What are you referring to, willravel? Ties? Because Kerry's tie is red.
Maybe the color under their podium in the shot?

i'm not seeing these colors your talking about? Where are these colors at?

On C-Span they are constantly showing the candidates on a split screen. I just switched to another channel and realized that others aren't seeing that.

abc has a split screen but the colors are the same. I think...

Even on C-Span they make Bush seem as tall. WTF is that?! Bush is shorter than Kerry! Deal with it.

Kerry looks pretty smug and confident. Almost as if he knows that he may be scoring more points. Who do ya'll think is ahead so far? I think Kerry.

Kerry atm. Bush seems to be backed into a corner with only 3 weapons that are getting duller every time he uses them.

i thought fox news was controlling the only cameras being used by all networks....

No network wants to be accused of influencing the election by showing Bush in an inferior position.

I say Kerry is ahead, but I'm definitely biased, as are probably 90% (or more) of the posters here.

All the networks are using the same video feed. Who is controlling the feed I don't know.

Sactions on Iran are from the CLINTON administration. He should have said instead of just alluding to it.

is there a live webcast of this debate?

On the radio this morning I heard them say it was fox and that they were straying from the rules of only keeping the camera on the person speaking, hence the split screen

The question on the sanctions is should they have been modified/updated in light of recent developments.

C Span doesn't cut from the split screen view, unlike the other networks. There are probably 5 or 6 different cameras that each network is cutting to at different times.

George needs some more aqua.

Is this the only topic of the debate?

heh I cant get over how Bush makes that monkey face every time Kerry says something he doesnt agree with.

Overall I think the debate is going well but I wish Kerry would go into more detail on the things he is saying and I wish Bush would stop bringing up the same points...
exactly.

But overall I think they are both doing well. Bush has made some good points and Kerry had good counter points.

cspan cameras are the most fair....

I like Bush's conviction on N. Korea and how to handle it.

The note taking is good. With Kerry is seems like he's actually paying attention (admittedly, I'm biased), with Bush it seems like he's making a "paying attention" face and doodling.

God, Lehrer just prompted Bush. Helped him. That is sad.

something has to be done about N Korea, although they are not harbpring terrorists, they are a huge threat to the world.

how can you tell when Bush is lying? His lips are moving. I gave up watching because Bush just doesn't get it. He keeps talking down to everyone like he's the only one who knows whats going on, but using the same responses shows how out of touch he really is. Everyone needs to remember he has failed at every business he has worked and just go talk to Texans on the condition the state is in after he was Gov. He is only the President because of one Supreme Court Judge who happens to be a close friend of the V.P. Go figure

try to stay on task wimpy.

Ok, since most of you have been doing Bush Bashing, I'm coming to do some Kerry Bashing. Why doesn't Kerry realize that North Korea needs to be handled in a completely different way than nations such as Iraq? North Korea is a military nightmare, because they're backed by the largest standing army in the entire world! You can't do the same things! Does he forget that under the Clinton Administration, nuclear secrets escaped to North Korea!? The only way to bring North Korea to heel is to get China to help immensely, simply because they are the only ones with enough clout to help disarm the North Koreans.

I don't see how talking to north korea will stop china from putting pressure on them.

"The military will be an all-volunteer army." -- Bush, 9/30/2004

Write it down. If Bush wins, I fully expect to see a draft. And I will serve, though I will not kill, in keeping with my religion, but it will be the greatest mistake a President has made in my lifetime.

It just ended. I really think Kerry did better of the two.

Well, it makes sense that they are shown at same hight level, this debate should be on an equal playing field. and honestly their hieght should not be a factor, and hieght can have a psycological effect on people.

Kerry may be a better debater but Bush seems to be 100 times more genuine.

Also the reason why they are speaking so much about the war and homeland security is becasue that is this debates main subject.

Another thing that I noticed was that Kerry accused the president of having an inadequate homeland security.

When we were hit on 9/11 we were brought to a financial knee and were made incredibly vulnerable. It is at times like that when you are at your weakest and usualy get hit again.
This did not happen. The president kept us safe. when our defenses were knocked down we still stayed safe the past 3 years.
When you think of it that is quite impressive.

I wish the president would have brought that point up.
When 9/11 happened a lot of hopes were drowned, so much doubt and fear. and here we are 3 years later under Bush and we have hope of continuing to be safe.
we have a hope that we can still succeed as a country of freedom..

according to abc

the winner was kerry

Kerry 45%
Bush 36 %
Tie 17%

cbs

Kerry 44
Bush 30
Tie 26

Kerry won, but It's still going to come down to charisma vs. intellect. I feel that Bush will be better prepared for the next debate while Kerry will bring up new and valid arguments.

next debate will have a whole different topic which is good.

Kerry always comes off to me as a talking head. He is a senator. He talks. He debates. But he is not a leader. I guess that is not neccessarily his fault, that is just his job experience. He is the classic monday morning quarterback. "Well, I woulda...". gee, really? "The President made a mistake when...." Yeah. Senators don't make mistakes? No, they don't, they just cast votes and then fall into line with whichever side wins.

Kerry is a smart guy but people want an individual who has his own ideas and agenda and doesn't live to cut the other guy down.

Of course, JMHO.

I rated it pretty close. Guess it depends on what you personally wanted to hear or what is most important to you. Dont know that any undecideds have been swayed.

i was surprised that kerry actually had some good points. heard him speak months ago and it was just blah blah blah.

bush blinked 156 times in his closing statement.

daily show has post debate "coverage"

I was surprised, honestly. Very good debates.

I didn't expect Kerry to totally clean house. Sorry, but Bush was stumbling, mumbling, and often didn't even give a coherent answer. He also repeated himself a lot.. which was very odd.

I expected Bush to clean house since he's the pres and obviously knows what's goin on, but after seeing tonight's debate... I can totally understand how Bush supporters are completely embarassed right about now :lol:

A LOT of dead air on his end... maybe he'll realize this for next debate!

Kerry clearly dominated, although he could have done better with answering the whole flip-flop charge. He should have stressed the cost of the war(risk-reward) not just in terms of money but more importantly in terms of lost lives. He did a good job of saying that he would be relentless in going after terrorists and that he would be strong but also smart.

Bush did a good job of continuing the strong leader vs. flip-flopper theme, but lost badly when it came down to specific issues. He also got hit hard when he tried to link the Iraq War to 9-11 again. He was on the defensive almost continuously and made way too many long pauses after tough questions/attacks.

grrr.. ultra slow doublt post...

Bush was too defensive, like he had done something wrong. He only defended himself, and never made man bold statements, he never focused on anything but how kerry filp flops. Kerry on the other hand made some good points about how bush has been lieing to the american people.

Heheh, they showed them at equal heights because that's professional camera work. You keep the eyes 3/4 from the bottom. Therefore, both candidates should have been on an equal level.

I was impressed with the level of quality in the debates, particularly given that everything was supposedly scripted. Didn't he mention at the beginning that the candidates didn't know what questions were coming? I thought the opposite was true.

I think Kerry definitely cleaned house, and his actions made me a lot more confident about my decision to vote for him.

I thought Bush did a much better job debating than I expected but he seemed to bring up the same points over and over again. I believe Kerry won the debate and he did a wonderful job standing up for himself.

I can't believe none of the analysts jumped on Kerry's inconsistency in wanting a bigger world group when it comes to Iraq but wanting a smaller group (us) with N. Korea.

Other than that, Bush got killed. He needs to come equipped with more than flip-flop accusations and a near tear. He had a ton of dead air and looked confused sometimes. However, the dead air was obviously to think through his words and not make some slip-up like saying a lot of OB/GYN's want to "practice their love" with women....

Bush also too often tried to say that Kerry's "wrong war..." comments will not serve the cause or the military personnel well.... therefore Bush should remain President. This is likely true, however, it is Bush's fault we are there in the first place.... he can't make a mistake and then hold the opponent hostage for it.

Bottom line, I think Bush performed better in the minds of the less-educated populace than the minds of the higher educated... To his credit a huge percentage of America fits into the less-educated category.

Keep in mind though, people of strong political affiliation only heard what they wanted to hear and that is what you will see in the media tomorrow...

Kerry did very well, Bush just said the same shit he's been saying for months. Anyone else notice how Bush took long pauses in mid-sentence and stumbled a lot?

I wasn't going to vote for either of them, after watching the "debate" tonight, I'll probably end up voting for Kerry.

the debate was just a recap of the last 12 months or so. i was disappointed with Bush this evening, though I've never given him high marks for his debating skills. iraq dominated too much of the debate. this issue has been hashed out in every campaign speech in recent memory... so i wish they would've given more attention to other international issues.

kerry's proposal for bilateral talks with NK was his achille's heel, but the president didn't jump at the opportunity. of course neither candidate sets the pace and questions for the debate... but i would have gone for the jugular on that as much as the format would allow.

lol Screw the cameras. No conspiracy here people. Ever heard the expression about looking taller on tv? It is a common practice.

*Edit* And I see now that I overlooked the post addressing this. My apologies.

To back archer's point about North Korea, I'm going to copy and paste what I wrote in another thread (with some changes).

Poland? That's president Bush's ace in the hole? Do you know how many Polaks it takes to win a war?

All joking aside, Kerry clearly won the debate. Even Bush supporters have to agree.

Kerry made good points about how his alledged flip-flops were due to Bush's deception regarding what circumstances under which he would go to war with Iraq.

Much better debate than I had thought we would have. On style Kerry clearly won. Bush slouched and mumbled and repeated himself too often. I don't think either guy won too many or lost too many votes, but the Kerry supports I watch with were very excited and energized, something they were not before the debate. It will be interesting to see how it plays out over the next few days.

I agree with your assessment. Even commentators on Fox news were giving props to kerry, which I think is more telling than anything else.

The only way Bush supporters can hold on to their strand of versions of facts is by deliberately misrepresenting the other side, because I really don't think they are all so unintelligent that they can't understand a complex sentence. (Or apparently the kerry's sentences are too complex, they tend to be lucid to me).

For example, kerry wants to have bilateral talks with N. Korea. He also wants to have multilateral talks with China included. Gee, that's really fucking hard to understand.

The person we want to listen to us wants to talk with us, and China wants us to talk to him, too. And they want to continue having multi-lateral talks. Why is this so complex?

Why insult a leader of a nation? Especially one like kim Jong-il, a communist leader who might possibly have a personal complex about his status among people viewing him--like all leaders of nations I would presume. What justifies calling someone out in public in a way that is likely to humiliate the other person (as Bush did to kim jong-il). Unless you think multilateral talks and other world leaders are just going to brow beat jong-il into submission (preposterous in my estimation), doesn't it behoove the people who want someone to agree to their position to cede a bit of the control (ie, the talks happen at least on some level in a way that jong-il prefers)? Or, we can keep being pigheaded about it and wait until he launches a nuke at Los Angeles and wipes out the world's 5th or 6th largest economy (which he doesn't likely want to do, but may feel pressure to do it if we keep disrespecting him in the world community).

I don't see it as an achilles heel - atleast no more than it is for Bush as well.

The positions of each candidate are in opposition to each other - and in opposition to their respective viewpoints on Iraq. Bush is looking for a coalition, so to speak, in dealing with NK and Kerry is looking to deal directly with NK. In contrast, Bush's position on Iraq was essentially to deal with it directly with a coalition being a nice, but unecessary bonus and Kerry's position was essentially to work harder to attain a coalition.

The reason their respective positions are equally Achilles heels is because the non-direct approach to NK means working with China. Bush is essentially saying, to use his oft repeated assertion of John Kerry, that he is going to allow China to dictate America's foreign policy.

And so now that I've thought about this - it seems to me that Bush's position is the more divergent from expectations: he's suggesting a group effort to deal with NK - but his group does not even consist of allies to the U.S. - it is contingent on China.

kerry just looks ridiculous when he spends the whole front half of the debate stressing his international diplomacy bona fides and the need for international effort in order for him to flush a toilet, yet advocates bilateral talks with NK. to say that you're going to reach a favorable and lasting outcome with NK while simultaneously cutting japan, china, s. korea etc from the table is just plain nuts.

making sure china is at the table is not tantamount to leaving our security up to them. not sure why that would even be suggested...

Hi,
I am curious where you came up with the above notion.

Bush may not have come off as educated as Kerry but if anything I think the statement above is actually reverse of what the reality of the situation may be.

Kerry spoke in a really defined educated manner and everyone even the less educated portion of America picked up on that. Leaving the impression that "oh Kerry spoke co clear and didn't stammer" leaving many to think that he clearly won the debate and is more adept to being a solid presidential candidate.

It is my experience that the less-educated usually root for the clear sounding winner.

With Bush his victory was not as clear you really had to understand where he was coming from and what he was doing.

He was speaking to the American people as an American. He came off modest and genuine where as Kerry came off as the hawk trying to obliviate his prey.

Bush was able to come off humble while addressing the people because he always deals with the world in a strong manner when leading.

over all my take on the debate is still neutral. I think they are both puppets in the long run.

Interesting..

Who gets the respect
 

At the end of that debate, one thing seemed clear. If Bush is president, more of the same: war, terror, green, blue no red alert, and an endless bullet for bullet fight with a tactic. (which is an impossibility!!!).
Kerry seems a little more assured as to what needs to happen. Whether he can do it or not is impossible to say. However the fact that he has a reasonable idea
on changing the current status of world affairs is heartening.

As to the body language of both candidates, Kerry looked refined and composed. Bush looked like a stubborn brat with only one point to repeat on and on and on.
:icare:

I loved the split screen aspect. Kerry looked composed pretty much the whole time, taking notes and doing the whole nodding head thing. Bush looked pretty much pissed off and confused. And as somebody else mentioned, there was a lot of dead air.

At the beginning, I got annoyed with both Kerry and Bush for wasting time with the whole "Lets thank Florida cause they've gotten their ass kicked by hurricanes recently" Yeah, that's all well and good and nice, but DEBATE! I'm not going to vote on you based on who was nicest to Florida during the debates. Then again, I don't live in Florida... Maybe Flordians would..

How much do you want to bet that the "undecideds" aer still undecided today? Notice how many people in all polls said it was a tie.

IMO, it was a tie. Bush was very consistent and Kerry gave the perception of switching positions even in the debate.

"Help is on the way" Umm, except for the $87 billion to fund the war.

"We need to build coalitions." Umm, except when we're dealing with North Korea then we should do it on our own.

"Iraq was not a threat" Umm, yeah I agree with my opponent, I wasn't misleading when I said Iraq was a threat because it was.

Bush did stumble a fair amount but in almost every instance he made important points right as his time ran out.

The biggest win last night was probably Kerry getting his core group of voters reinvigorated. In the overall race I don't think that means much since that only puts him on similar footing to Bush since his base is already energized.

Also you can tell the Republicans were aiming to hit it out of the park with Bush's final speech. I was looking for it in Kerry's but he never delivered "that one line". Anyone else notice that?

i watched the debates.
i thought bush was totally outclassed.

I guess you see what you want to see. I want a president who is willing to tell the world to piss off and unitlaterally start bombing if need be. I saw that in Kerry. I also want a president who works tirelessly at international diplomacy; I certainly heard more of that from Kerry than from Bush. More active divisions and double the special forces? Again, Kerry. I wanted to see a Kerry who would act unilaterally and present a strong front against terrorism, and that's what I saw. :)

Kerry was supposed to lose last night's debate, as Bush is running on foreign policy. I thought he did an excellent job. It's unfortunate that Bush chose to stick to the same 'ol misinformation about Kerry (eg - the $87 billion that Bush also threatened to veto, calling Kerry inconsistent on Iraq when his record is, in fact , consistent) rather than really challenge Kerry on the issues, but I suppose that Bush has a lot to gain from keeping the public misinformed on those issues.

Threatening to veto and voting against are two different things. I think Kerry erred by making the statement "Help is on the way" for the troops in Iraq. That will likely get a lot of play in Republican ads.

They both equate to an attempt to alter the shape of the appropriations bill...at no time was funding for the troops threatened, which is the most important point. It is disingenuous to imply otherwise, but such fine points don't fit well into sound bites.

Here's an analogy for you:

2000 is to "Fuzzy Math" as 2004 is to "Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time"

Say it a couple 100 more times George! Ask for the 30 second extension just to say it a few more times! Clearly Bush's advisors told him to wait for any statement Kerry might say that makes him look like he isn't supporting the troops and then to hammer it to death. Truth is, Kerry kept saying that now that we're in the war, he has a plan to see it through, but Bush wasn't hearing it (or wanted the viewing public to ignore it). Trying to paint Kerry as unpatriotic or implying that he would in some way pull all the troops out of Iraq while spitting on the graves of those who have lost their lives was pretty low.

But all in all, I was disappointed in one major thing with Kerry (whom I support). I was really hoping that Kerry would talk more about his own stances on things than on Bush's shortcomings. It wasn't "mud-slinging" per se (no personal attacks), but a lot of undecided voters get turned off by what they may perceive as any kind of "bashing".

And your point is RB? I seem to recall you denouncing blatantly partisan sources of analysis in the past. Why is this now acceptable procedure? Additionally, how about commenting on the link rather than just posting it?

i actually didnt have anything to say about it--the link simply provided a plot summary that accorded in general terms with how i saw the debates. i just posted it instead of saying the same in a less developed way.

but you are right, onetime: i should have qualified or said something about the link.
my apologies.

unrelated aside: i watched the debates in a tavern filled with west philly anarchist types. it was great.

I probably would have enjoyed watching the audience of that one more than the debate itself. I'm sure it was quite a sight to see.

the audience was much more fun than the debates themselves, yes.

events like the debate seem like things that should be taken in publically.
they are better public events than the alternative possibility available to me: when the eagles manage to get into the playoffs.

I've watched debates in public before and can't say I enjoyed them as much. Certainly does give you a better sense of how certain things "worked" in the debate but more often than not the audience isn't anywhere near a representative sample to base any real analysis on.

Last night I watched the debate with my fiancee. She is undecided so it was interesting to me to hear her questions and reactions.

She was trying very hard to understand Kerry's positions on things but was confused by them. Of particular interest to her was when Kerry said that he wanted both bilateral discussions and multi lateral discussions with North Korea. She said it didn't make sense. Pick one or the other not both. This is of particular interest to her because her sister lives about fifteen minutes from the border in Korea.

Additionally, she thought Bush seemed cocky but not in a bad way. He was repetitive and that turned her off but she couldn't understand why Kerry was hung up on the fact that Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11. She said "Didn't Kerry watch Bush's state of the union address when he said he would go after all countries who support, harbor, or commit terrorist acts? It was pretty clear that Bush was going to target anyone that we thought had links to terrorists."

I even got a chuckly when she said "Why the hell is he talking about Vietnam? What's that got to do with anything?"

Out of curiosity did anyone else hear Bush's comment to Lehrer as he shook his hand at the end of the debate? It's not really that big a deal; but I think it's funny.

It sounded like, "So I guess you're rootin' for the other team too."

The mics were cut after that. It sure sounded like Bush though it may have been someone else ... but it's interesting. If Bush thought the moderator was biased it may be an indication as to why he seemed defensive.

Kerry did not say he wanted to go after NK alone. He said he wanted both Unilateral and Multilatteral talks. Which to me sounds like he wants to up the current diplomacy there because obviously just multilateral talks are not working.

By entering into bilateral talks with NK it minimizes the role of multi lateral talks and gives those countries involved in the multi lateral talks the opportunity to walk away from them. China does not want to be in the position it's in. Bilateral talks are a move away from a "coalition" approach, plain and simple.