I've posted here a half dozen times my view that there should be no debates. These broadcast debate charades are a relatively new development. The "debates" merely serve to enhance the prospects of a glib, quick-thinking speaker who otherwise is an empty suit, to the disadvantage of a candidate whose gifts are strenth, resoluteness, intelligence, purposefulness, etc., but doesn't have the language skills of his opponent. It would be shameful if the outcome of an election with major geopolitical consequences would hinge on mere televised theatrics.
One poll makes NOT a lost election
ONE POLL MAKES NOT A LOST ELECTION! Keep repeating this.
Without the debates Al Gore would probably be president now, he made such a poor showing in the 200 debates. Bush has shown he can stay cool and do well in debates, why it didn't happen Thursday I don't know.
Exactly. Any number of Hollywood actors could ACT presidential, but none of them could actually do the job.
It was quite telling to watch one of the Sun shows this morning and hear the Kerry rep talking about how Kerry LOOKED and ACTED "presidential" rather than what he actually SAID. Big difference, and anyone who votes for someone solely on packaging and presentation is a fool.
The "debates" are 90-minute infomercials, with all the sincerity and probing depth of any Madison Avenue project. Anyone who makes up his mind about a presidential candidate based on these farces deserves the president he gets.