(no subject)
Sep. 30th, 2004 05:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
In format, it seemed better than I was expecting. Both candidates nudged the rules aside to make rebuttals (though GWB did it far more often) and the moderator (Jim Lehrer) rolled with it, giving them 30 seconds if they chose to start in. And on two or three occasions, he'd ask both candidates to confirm his own understanding of how they stood on a particular issue, and clarify if needed. So, thankfully, it wasn't quite the interleaved stump speeches that I had been fearing.
Bush's main point, as far as the C-in-C's role, seems to be: Conviction is more important than truth. It felt like he said "mixed messages" at least a dozen times, and at a couple of points seemed to talk down to Kerry, implying that it was simply mathematically impossible for him to lead any armies or make international alliances because he's already on the record as doubting current U.S. policy, and therefore nobody will ever want to be his friend. I wish that Kerry had isolated this point and attacked it straight-on.
Bush stung Kerry good at one point, I thought, playing off his "global test" line (whether or not you agree with that). But later, I was expecting him to smash Kerry's surprisingly strong words about dismantling new U.S. nuke programs right back in his face, but he let that go.
The lowest point in the debate for Bush, where I bet he lost a lot of people, came when the president of the United States leaned into the camera, visibly upset, and told his audience -- us -- "You'd better elect a president who..." Whoah. You have no place to take that tone with me, dude.
Maybe the most interesting point involved Kerry and Bush seizing the very concrete issue of how best to treat with North Korea and pulled in opposite directions, with both parties clearly stating why they felt the way they did. I sort of wish more of the debate were like that.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-30 10:10 pm (UTC)Is it stubborness or conviction?
And is it flip-flopping or intelligent reaction to a changing world?
insane undecideds
Date: 2004-10-01 08:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-30 10:52 pm (UTC)I didn't watch the whole thing (I MUCKed and AIMed during part of it) so I think I missed that 'You'd better elect a president who...' line. I taped it though -- not sure if I'm going to bother to re-watch it.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-01 06:40 am (UTC)dubya was shifty and sweaty all night. i think kerry got off to an uneven start, but found his stride early and really came off very articulate. i liked that each man had something nice to say about the other with respect to family. i am a sucker for that kind of thing.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-01 07:22 am (UTC)Then I started yelling at my TV because the mic of one or both of them was still on; I could hear Kerry telling his wife "Yeah yeah, I think we did pretty good!" or something, and I knew he'd then say "That turkeyfucker didn't know what hit him!" or something, but I haven't heard about this yet, so I guess it didn't happen. Whew.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-01 07:49 am (UTC)How can you possibly think Bush is "smart" after he ONCE AGAIN said Saddam instead of Osama and couldn't even answer a question without looking at the camera, panic-stricken, for hours.
I can understand that people are Republicans, but I cannot understand supporting Bush.
It's like my husband said, it was literally like Will Ferrell was playing him, and he was busy daydreaming about shiny objects.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-01 07:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-01 07:52 am (UTC)i love how he took steps to claify the actual stance each man had on a particular issue. it was helpful to cut through the rambly sweatiness of the whole thing.