Replies

Kerry came across well. He was collected and articulate.

Bush seemed a bit passive, or perhaps tired. He was frustrated by some of Kerry's lies. He was searching for words at times, but presented his case straight-forward and articulate. He missed lots of opportunities to expose Kerry.

Kerry's arguments and points were just plain wrong. Many were outright lies. His presentations contradicted his previous speeches and his voting record.

Bush's content was correct.

If we assume the purpose of these debates is to sway the undecided, then we have to decide if style is more persuasive than substance for that group. Will more facts help them at this point? I think not. But will more style help them at this point? I can't see why it would. We've seen Bush's cowboy persona and Kerry's Billionaire Boy-Toy persona for a year now.

Personally, I think anyone who was undecided on Sept 30, 2004 shouldn't be voting anyway. This election is a clear choice and the differences has been open to all. The undecideds are either too stupid to discern what makes sense, or they just don't give a damn. Either way, they should play Gameboy and stay home on election day.

gitmo

Too bad that's exactly who is going to decide the next four or eight years, and our outcomes for all that time.

And they'll do it on atmospherics and impressions. Bush, unfortunately, lost, and he may have lost the election already. It was his first, best chance to make a real impression -- in the round, in the flesh -- with those undecideds. His best hope is that they'll keep on watching baseball and NBA games on cable instead, right up to Election Day, and that they didn't see the debate.

It was a missed chance, and the 'Rats' gloating tells us everything we need to know about them. Anyone see Larry O'Donnell on McLaughlin last night? He looked like he was possessed by Pazuzu. He was radiating dark light.