the debate

[quasi-modo]

So what did you guys think?

[Hitmen]

Vote kerry! He's like bush, but taller!

[Stealth]

I thought it went fairly well for both candidates, screwup-wise. Nothing major.

I thought Bush didn't emphasize Kerry's vote on that 87-billion-dollar troop expenditure package enough, even after Kerry whined about troops not being properly equipped.

Kerry brought up the Vietnam war twice. Bush once, in praise. Democrats lead, 2-1. Vietnam needs to be dropped immediately.

All in all, a very interesting debate. Senator Kerry is indeed a strong debater, although in his haste to defend his ideals he contradicted himself on Saddam Hussein and yet again failed to properly clarify his positions: "I have a plan for Iraq"; what plan, Senator? "I would have done things better"; how would you have done things differently, Senator?

My stances on Kerry and Bush were both reinforced. Kerry is well-spoken, but changes his mind on core issues and can't support his elaborate plans. Bush isn't the best public speaker, but he makes up his mind and then speaks it with admirable simplicity.

[idoL]

I feel I know Kerry's posistion a little better now.

[Trance]

I felt that Kerry definitly won the debate, it seemed as if Bush was on the defensive from the get go, then he became very anxious and was angry at times.. Which surprised me a bit because this is supposed to be Bush's subject...  Kerry did what he needed to do, went out there and started attacking and hammering away at Bush. He was calm and i think did a good job of trying to help americans understand his position better.

[K]

It wasn't a debate; it was a joint press conference.  The canidates couldn't ask eachother questions, and they knew the questions ahead of time.  It was completely scripted.

If you wanted to see an actual debate, you would have watched the debate between David Cobb (Green) and Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) which happened earlier.  They fielded questions from the audience as well as eahcother, and will respond (tomorrow?) to points raised by Kerry/Bush during their "debate." 

IMO, all the Kerry/Bush debate was good for was the Presidental Debate drinking game.

If you missed the Cobb/Badnarik debate, their VP Debate is tomorrow (LaMarch/Campagna).

[iago]

It wasn't a debate; it was a joint press conference. The canidates couldn't ask eachother questions, and they knew the questions ahead of time. It was completely scripted.

I'd love to see Bush trying to get through a debate where his answers weren't prepared. 

[hismajesty]

It wasn't a debate; it was a joint press conference. The canidates couldn't ask eachother questions, and they knew the questions ahead of time. It was completely scripted.

I'd love to see Bush trying to get through a debate where his answers weren't prepared.

Both of them had speaking points prepared. I'm pretty sick of your nonsense thinking that Bush is the only one that practices. Kerry has people write his speeches, Kerry has people help is campaign, it's not only Bush as you seem to think. You can tell when Bush is trying to recite something memorized as that's when he stumbles on stuff - not when he speaks naturally. You didn't even watch the debate, iago, I don't see how you can comment on it without having a previously biased opinion. I'm certainly biased, but I've given Kerry lots of credit. His debate record is inferior to Bush's, even Gore warned Kerry that'd it would be tough - but he performed well. Kerry was vague on his plans, as Stealth mentioned. Kerry made grammatical errors, Bush made one - but he took longer thinking pauses. Bush certainly didn't attack Kerry enough about his vote against the 87billion funding legislation, which I think was an error on Bush's part. But, overall, I think it was a tie.

[quasi-modo]

Bush is not as good at thinking on his feet. I feel that Kerry won the debate. He was bsing all over the place but it came off very smoothly. Bush came off as being very firm, I felt he sounded more truthful when he spoke, but Kerry just really seemed to do the better job. He was writing (flowing) on that little paper of his all over the place and going after bush on tons of stuff. That's how I saw it. I think bush should have gone after Kerry big time when Kerry said Bush did not supply the munitions to the troops, and really kill kerry on that 87 billion dollar thing. At one point Kerry said he has never waivered. I wish bush would have hit him with more examples then wrong war wrong place wrong time, because there were several others in the homeland security dept.

another thing I wish bush went after Kerry on is when Kerry said (several times) that he will hunt the terrorists down wherever and kill them. But somehow there are no terrorists in iraq? Thats why we have proof of saddam paying that families of palestinian suicide bombers and we have found terrorist camps in iraq (that major one just south of baghdad for example). He also said he would do what is best for Israel one time, how is not going into Iraq a good thing for Israel, especially when Iraq is sponsoring the terrorism going on in their country?

[iago]

It wasn't a debate; it was a joint press conference. The canidates couldn't ask eachother questions, and they knew the questions ahead of time. It was completely scripted.

I'd love to see Bush trying to get through a debate where his answers weren't prepared.

Both of them had speaking points prepared. I'm pretty sick of your nonsense thinking that Bush is the only one that practices. Kerry has people write his speeches, Kerry has people help is campaign, it's not only Bush as you seem to think. You can tell when Bush is trying to recite something memorized as that's when he stumbles on stuff - not when he speaks naturally. You didn't even watch the debate, iago, I don't see how you can comment on it without having a previously biased opinion. I'm certainly biased, but I've given Kerry lots of credit. His debate record is inferior to Bush's, even Gore warned Kerry that'd it would be tough - but he performed well. Kerry was vague on his plans, as Stealth mentioned. Kerry made grammatical errors, Bush made one - but he took longer thinking pauses. Bush certainly didn't attack Kerry enough about his vote against the 87billion funding legislation, which I think was an error on Bush's part. But, overall, I think it was a tie.

I didn't watch the debate, nor did I comment on it.  I commented on Bush's skills.

All I know that Bush is lousy at thinking on his feet, so an unprepared debate would be interesting.

<edit> Also, I know I have said on many occasions that "they are both morons".

[hismajesty]

If you weren't commenting on the debate, why were you posting in a topic that was labeled for discussion of the debate?

[Soul Taker]

If you weren't commenting on the debate, why were you posting in a topic that was labeled for discussion of the debate?

Because his country is free, too.   Maybe you'd like to invade Canada and shut him up?

[Kp]

If you weren't commenting on the debate, why were you posting in a topic that was labeled for discussion of the debate?

Because his country is free, too.   Maybe you'd like to invade Canada and shut him up?

There's nothing in Canada to make it worth the trouble.  On top of that, it's infested with Canadians.

[iago]

If you weren't commenting on the debate, why were you posting in a topic that was labeled for discussion of the debate?

Because his country is free, too. Maybe you'd like to invade Canada and shut him up?

There's nothing in Canada to make it worth the trouble. On top of that, it's infested with Canadians.

I totally agree.  We aren't worth it with the whining and what not.

Trust -- I was posting about debates in general, in response to what somebody said on a thread about the debate. 

[hismajesty]

How come you targeted Bush, even though you're against Both? They both have their strong points, and flaws, when it comes to public speaking.