My impression:
Kerry was at his best in terms of style, delivery and stateliness. Bush did not appear to be in command of the facts and did not seem well-prepared. He seemed to miss many opportunities to counter Kerry's arguments and often seemed halting and searching for something to say. At times, he even seemed a bit whiney in his responses. He just wasn't at his best -- Kerry was.
Hopefully, most people will vote based on their cumulative impression of "flip-flop" and their confidence in W's demonstrated ability.
Nope Kerry's relentless "It's all about me" speaking style and vauge posturing platitudes did not sell him to the American voter. You people really need to get beyond the superfical speaking style and look at the substance. From a substanative viewpoint Kerry lost, badly.
I totally agree with you. I just can't get over that Kerry was to give Iran nuke fuel.
I have a thought about this debate. Kerry rambled on and on about how this war was a mistake and Bush kept hitting him over and over about how he said it was the wrong war and the wrong time. What if we find WMD? What if Saddam was making nukes elsewhere? This speech might have been a trap for Kerry and that's why Bush wanted it as their first debate and Bush didn't attack Kerry relentlessly.
There may be strategery here, folks.
"From a substantive viewpoint, Kerry lost badly."
I'd agree.
Now, would you please persuade us that swing voters will take a "substantive viewpoint" on this debate?
I'm not sure who you mean by "you people" since I was speaking only of MY impressions.
I am a strong Bush supporter. I have donated hundreds of dollars and walked my neighborhood precinct contacting hundreds of registered Republicans to get out the vote and will do it twice again before election day. What have you done to insure Bush's election beside snipe at others?
I also believe that in stating the situation as I see it -- not the way I think someone wants to hear it. If you read my post you'll note I did not say that Kerry won on substance - only form. But many people will respond to that even if you or I and other informed voters don't.
But, that's the problem. These things are NEVER about substance. They are about a tilt of the head, a look at a watch, a drop of sweat. There may only be a sliver of voters out there who are undecided. But, they could be swayed by style only. Think about that; this late in the campaign and someone is "undecided"! That can't be because they are waiting for "substance." "Substance" has been around for months.