Who won Friday's Presidential debate?

I missed it

The few clips I saw, Bush was fiestier than the previous debate.


What difference does it make? - They’re both losers.

Neither of them are capable of a real debate. When was the last time Bush gave a competent reply in a news conference? … in fact, when was the last time he actually held a news conference?

And for them to stand up in front of gullible TV viewers to have their so-called ‘debates’ which are obviously choreographed down to the smallest detail is just farcical. What’s the point? - To help America decide?

Some decision. The lesser of two morons.

Which could do the least damage while in office? A Democrat President and a Republican controlled Congress or a Republican President and a Republican controlled Congress? Congress will be Republican controlled again. I don’t think it can NOT be this election so a Democrat controlled Congress and either Presidential candidate isn’t an option.

I taped it and have managed to see it 2-3 times between myself and others watching it. It seems Bush had more umph while Kerry had more substance. As soon as Kerry gave a good thought out answer, Bush would come back with a “That was so complicated, nobody could understand such a thing. He’s talking smarty pants gibberish. What we need to do is nip it in the bud” responses. Kerry was smart and countered with “It’s never as easy as the president wants you to think it is.” Personally I appreciated such longer answers that took into account more of the issue rather than Bush’s overly simplistic black and white answers and they did get some decent jabs in on one another. However, Bush had the revival meeting persona going which I could see appealing to a lot of folks.

I think they both played to their core voting block for sure and they both missed opportunities to blast the other. Bush’s environmental answers were pitiful at best and had conflicting answers on Iraq and Kerry didn’t charge in as he could have. Kerry tried to over sell the “I’m not a flip flopper” to a point and Bush could have pounced again and he didn’t. So over all, I don’t know if there was a clear winner.

It depends on what you are using to judge the debate by. Bush looked better from the fact that he did so miserably in the last debate, so I think he may have won points not that he did so well, but that he managed to not do so poorly again. Kerry was pretty much consistent with what he was like the past week. In a nut shell, I think Kerry had much more meat and Bush more fireworks. With the folks at home watching, I don’t know what folks will be more swayed by, content or presentation… I prefer meat, but people still go to see Spiderman movies which are all fireworks. This undecided has certainly found value in the debates.

BTW, can we not turn this thread into a rant? This part of the forum has almost become some place I might tread if folks can be reasonable. I took a risk with this post, I sure hope it doesn’t bite my in the arse.

I think the clear winner was any network not running the debate on their valuable airtime…

That was so complicated, nobody could understand such a thing.
Right - I did hear that part. It's the anti-intellectual trend in America that's been going on for 20 - 30 years.

What difference does it make? - They're both losers.
It makes a difference because one of them will be elected.
Quote (clark_griswold @ Oct. 12 2004,11:44)
I think the clear winner was any network not running the debate on their valuable airtime...

Hrm, was South Park on at the time? :) But I do think these debates do have some value. As with anything, you need to temper the debates with common sense in knowing that they are staged to a point, there is plnty more both candidates aren;t telling you, the group that puts on the debates are clearly in the business of maintaining a two party system in the country etc. But there is some value. I have learned a few things about both sides that made me go hmm and dig deeper into what they are talking about and that is about all one can get out of them I think. But that is of value to me.

The election’s too close to call again. It’s tough because usually during war time, the incubent is not usually kicked out. However, I rather not have 1 party in control. I’d prefer to have a Democratic Congress & Republican President but that ain’t going to happen.


True enough. For anyone on the fence there could be some value in these debates…

It was a good debate. The audience asked challenging questions, both candidates did about as well as they could. When it comes to public speaking, neither is a Clinton or a Reagan. In rhetorical terms I’d call it a draw, although I am strongly partisan toward Kerry, and I think Bush is just not very smart, nor knowledgable. But he did do what he does effectively - he did that “shucks, we’re just reg’lar folks” thing.

One thing that bothered me a lot - Kerry repeatedly said things like “we’re going to find those terrorists and kill them.” Even if the killing is just and necessary, it makes me cringe when I hear one human being say that sort of thing.

Hey Mt. I think Kerry won by way of composure. Bush seemed to get hot headed and losing one’s temper under pressure is not a trait I think this country can afford as a leader in these troubleing times. Although I agree with TomS about Kerry’s statement to “kill them”. Two wrong don’t make a right. (exept in the musical context, where two wrong notes can make a right cord!)
You know the terrorist are goin’ about there agendas in a wrong manner. But instead of mimicing they’re behaviour wouldn’t it be wiser to address the issues that are fueling they’re hated of us?
Anyway, I’m falling off topic. I think America needs a smart, mild mannered, open minded, leader right now, which in my opinion neither canidate posseses all of those attributes. And neither canidate seems to have benifited much from this last debate.
Kerry showing his intelligence, but also his lack of compashion for human life.
And Bush, showing his lack of intelligence, lack of resolve, and inability to stand by the decisions he’s made, or take responcibility for his mistakes.–hey Bush! if you reading this. IMHO Eveyone makes mistakes, it takes a bigger man to admit it than to try and skirt around it.

Couldn’t agree with you more Jerm.

As for Kerry’s “Find em and kill em” that is a total grandstand to the Bush folks and using Bush’s schtick. Down deep I don’t think Kerry is like that, but I think he is saying what he says in that way to push the “I’m tough on terror” point. That is all Bush says is “We’re gonna get em and kill em.” and Kerry is trying to compete in that arena.

But at the same time, Bush turned me off with his zeal. I didn’t like him interrupting Charles Gibson and talking over him. He seemed like a bully and I hate bullies. But, some folks read that as being tough and for another fence sitter it could have had an opposite effect.

Both men are trying to look tough.

That’s right Bubba - Kerry was trying to counter the argument that he won’t be tough on terror (which of course is not true).

In the end, getting elected is all down to making up a set of lies that will appeal to the maximum number of people.

Lying is complicated, you have to keep your story straight and make sure that the stories arent falling over each other.
In politics lying is a science, the candidate that has a better grasp of it, wins.
Just how i see it…

Hey Jow,
looks like this race of the liars as you’ve dubbed it is pretty close. It just might come down to which party is workin’ the hardest to register old and new voters. I think the statistic used to be, a little over half of the citizens voting, so that could make a big difference.

Shouldn’t some kinds of “tough talk” turn off a lot of voters? Who really wants to hear that the president is going to go out and kill people? Stated like that it just sounds inhuman, cold, lacking in compassion. I’ve been told (and anyone who has served in the military should correct me) that soldiers who get bloodlust are considered a potential source of problems by their commanders. War is not a glorious thing, it is at best a necessary evil, and it doesn’t seem to me that it ought to be glorified in any way, so that when someone starts thinking it is in itself of value, well, that tells me that that person is messed up. I can honestly imagine killing someone under certain circumstances, but it would be an event filled with sorrow for me, even if necessary. But both Bush and Kerry came close to sounding like they would relish the killing - Kerry slightly more so than Bush. Shouldn’t some of the voters feel that there is something inappropriate there, esp. the more religious of them? Especially Bush’s “base”? ???

The taking of life is WRONG. Anyway you slice it. Period. I had to have my kids cat put down a couple years ago. Made me sick…and I DO NOT LIKE CATS!

However, when it comes down to US or THEM…I vote US.

Bush and Kerry are both scary. Whats a man to do??


PS Before the hunting contingent flames me…I got NO problems with that. Only one thing, if you kill it, eat it.

I think there are cases in which it is OK to defend ourselves, and I am not making any judgments about terrorist or the war right now, it just struck me that the way the two of them were talking was very bloodthirsty. Really bothered me. Didn’t that bother anyone else? ???