I agree. That's the sort of comment that needs a day or so to "gel" before it makes an impact on perceptions.
Kerry looked "presidential" and
Bush looked nervous and exasperated, but he held his ground. It was a chance missed to put Kerry away, and they didn't but Kerry had been well-coached and he was constantly on the offensive...the influence of Carville and Begala no doubt.
Good point. Let's look at how North Korea scores on the "Global Test" that Kerry mentioned in tonight's presidential debate:
·Kerry has criticized Bush on the campaign and during tonight's debate for not giving the U.N. and multilateral diplomacy a chance in Iraq before committing to military action
·Kerry said during the debate that "nuclear proliferation" is the biggest threat to America and pointed to North Korea as the major malefactor in that threat
·Since it was discovered North Korea was attempting to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons in October 2002, Bush has used a multilateral diplomatic coalition of at least five nations (USA, China, Japan, South Korea, and Russia) to contain the potential North Korean nuclear threat
·During tonight's debate, Kerry told America that to end North Korea's nuclear proliferation, he would hold bilateral talks rather than using the leverage that China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia would bring to the negotiations
In other words, Kerry said that America should take a unilateral approach (REMEMBER: Taking a "bilateral" approach i.e. having the USA deal directly with threats, has been called "unilateral" by Kerry earlier this month when he said in a campaign speech that Bush "has chosen to move in a unilateral way" in the War on Terror) in dealing with North Korea. Kerry himself described North Korea and "the spread of nuclear weapons was the biggest threat facing the United States" in Thursday night's debate—so why is Kerry willing to squander the international goodwill created by the Bush Administration's diplomats between China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia and "go it alone" with North Korea?
Does this mean Kerry doesn't think North Korea's nuclear weapons program passes the "Global Test" to have multilateral talks or is this just another example of Kerry's typical political tactic of trying to have it both ways.
He is shoring up his base with "global test" , UN should have taken over when Baghdad fell, should have signed Global Warming Treaty and as Bush reminded him,Kerry voted for the international criminal court....but it will not pass the smell test with the majority of the voters..
His denigration of our allies does not lend confidence to "help is on the way"...His "we need more troops" statement does not line up with his expectations to bring troops home, he has called Bush a liar,despite his lapse of recalling it and the NY subway did not shut down during the convention..
He alluded that tired "no equipment" argument when he voted against the funding..I have yet to see his plan beyond what is already being done...He just touts his capacity to change France and Germany's mind...They say "no".
His statements about Iran and N Korea are downright scary and ignorant.
If one is against the war, believe we should just pull out and allow the UN to hold endless, meaningless debates about "the problem" that will be horrific if we do not stay the course..vote Kerry...
If one wants to trust Iran to "do the peaceful thing with enriched uranium",vote Kerry..If you trust NKorea to stick by an agreement with the US alone negotiating,vote Kerry...WE know what they did after Clinton paid blackmail to keep them from working on nuclear arms. They did it in secret...If one sthe good will of the UN and the diplomatic skills of a man who calls our allies window dressing, vote Kerry.
Bush was tired and he was not looking nice.
Next time he needs to look relaxed and ask some tough questions like:
"Senator, you say you support the troops and will protect them, but do you still renounce you country and think all troops are baby killers and rapist as you said in 1971 before the Congress, let me quote "Cut off ears, cut off hands.."
Kerry's "WIN" of the debate wasn't a win on the issues. It was a "win" as far as speaking his mind a bit more clearly, even though in the end he still came out as an indecisive candidate. Bush was still strong on the issues at hand, which is what really matters here, and kerry was not. THIS Is why Bush still remains ahead in the polls, the debate isn't about who spoke more smoothly, but about who proved themselves on their stance behind the issues!