prog | (no subject)

I need to go to sleep, but I'll note that, as I'm writing this, most of the mainstream media seem to be handing this one to Kerry. I hope this is still true when I wake up tomorrow morning.

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.

Threaded | Flat

You know what this has come down to, for the insane undecideds?

Is it stubborness or conviction?
And is it flip-flopping or intelligent reaction to a changing world?

I have to agree that this debate wasn't nearly as bad and 'speechy' as I feared it would be.

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.

i think more important than NOT electing someone who sends mixed messages, is electing someone who can SAY mixed messages. dubya said it a half dozen times before he got it right.

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.

The format was greatly helped by the fact that Lehrer was asking real questions. Nothing like "So, when you're president, will you do a good job?" and instead serious questions that went straight to the issues that each candidate needed to give a straight answer on.