I watched on CBS; they disregarded the "rules" and showed the "reaction" shots that were forbidden by the rules.

I, too, thought Kerry was more articulate, and gave him a slight edge overall, but neither of them impressed me.

Agreed. It seemed as though most questions posed to Kerry seemed to open shots against Bush, while questions to Bush seemed to put him on the defensive. Interesting, though not wholly unexpected.

Kerry was quite articulate. On one hand, that was good, it presented him as someone who is organized, with a plan.

Bush, while clearly not as articulate, formulated his answers well, and seemed to bring a quality of relativity with the American people, where again, although he is trying to hide it, Kerry brings an air of elitism with him.

The debate was rather unexciting. We'll see what #2 brings, but I'm not sure whether these debates will really pull undecides in or just create fodder for internet politicians to strengthen their individual resolves.

I was happy that Sudan was brought up. George was like, "We've given $200 million to that country." O boy, George! You've put $200 BILLION into Iraq and that continues to go up. Sudan could've used some more of that money that we're putting into that country where we're looking for WMD that aren't there.

I was also happy that Kerry pointed out that Bush is doing all these things for Iraq, such as building fire stations and making a bigger police force, but our country is losing more and more each day.

I hope they soon debate about abortion and the gun ban that was lifted. -Pat

I watched the debates on NBC and I seen W. roll his eyes a couple times. I decided who I was going to vote for when he got elected 4 years ago. Kerry can talk a good game but he won't be able to deliever.

As far as the president not going to the funerals if he did or didn't the way he talks about the fallen soldiers and the other people who lost their lives he gets so emotional to the point of tears you know he cares. He said tonight that he hated to put the soldiers in harms way.

Oh boy! Let's play "spin the issue that Bush hasn't talked about today." I guess Sudan came up, since we're obviously not stretched enough. Where the fuck is his blessed UN in all of this? So far, Kerry wants us to rebuild and leave Iraq in 6 months, do *something* with Afghanistan, build a worldwide coalition, stop offending muslims, peaceable cooperate with hostile leaders, defeat nuclear stockpiling, and fix the economy while we're at it.

He must be a bloody genious. No wonders I don't understand his plans.

It's a "magic 7."

:p

??????????

Are you kidding me?

God forbid the President of the United States be held accountable. If he doesn't have to defend himself, then why should anybody in this country, according to your logic? Does anybody even remember who Harry Truman was - "the buck stops here?"

There were very few times where Kerry had to defend his mistakes because Kerry didn't get us into this goddamn mess. Kerry didn't go into Iraq without an exit strategy. Kerry didn't ignore intelligence briefings for 9 months that al Quaeda was poised to attack us.

I just don't see how anyone with children could want this war-mongering asshole Bush in for another minute. I don't want my daughter fighting half way across the world for democracy in a place where the people are fundamentally and profoundly different from us. Nobody will disagree Saddam needed to go. But now that we've ravaged their entire country and didn't properly prepare for the insurgency, we're in a quagmire that has no foreseeable end in sight. The only thing for certain in Iraq is that more hostages will be taken, more suicide attacks will happen, and more money will line Cheney's pockets from the Halliburton contracts.

Bush's need to "be on the offensive" as he stated countless times tonight is going to get us into more conflicts than just Iraq. Iran & North Korea are far more serious threats than Iraq ever was. Where are our troops going to magically appear from to fight in those two countries when we pre-emptively strike?

I almost fell off my couch when Bush said with a straight face that we would have an "all volunteer" military. Let's see his two drunken daughters volunteer. Or many of the children of his draft-dodging cabinet. We can't get anyone to go today - why would they choose to go fight in a chaotic situation like Iraq? And the ones who are there are getting there tours extended up to 1 year or more.

I would love to see the Bush loyalists put their money where their mouth is. If you believe in him so much and believe he's such a great leader, go volunteer yourself for Iraq tomorrow. Go over there and be 'steadfast' and 'strong.' Be sure to 'stay the course.' Then those people will be able to see first-hand that there is no plan, there never was, and that the mission was never accomplished.

Bushes next answers.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, Mr. Kerry but, you can't fool all the people all the time Sen. Kerry. Give us some real answers.

Mr. Kerry, you mouth is writing checks that you just can't cash.

Wake up Mr Kerry, America needs more then your dreams.

SHOW US THE MONEY. Mr Kerry, Show us the money....where are you going to get the money!


Talk is cheat and your bullshit will ruin this country.


and Dick Cheney to John Edwards- Cut that dam thing off your lip!

??????????

Are you kidding me?

God forbid the President of the United States be held accountable. If he doesn't have to defend himself, then why should anybody in this country, according to your logic? Does anybody even remember who Harry Truman was - "the buck stops here?"

There were very few times where Kerry had to defend his mistakes because Kerry didn't get us into this goddamn mess. Kerry didn't go into Iraq without an exit strategy. Kerry didn't ignore intelligence briefings for 9 months that al Quaeda was poised to attack us.

I just don't see how anyone with children could want this war-mongering asshole Bush in for another minute...I would love to see the Bush loyalists put their money where their mouth is. If you believe in him so much and believe he's such a great leader, go volunteer yourself for Iraq tomorrow. Go over there and be 'steadfast' and 'strong.' Be sure to 'stay the course.' Then those people will be able to see first-hand that there is no plan, there never was, and that the mission was never accomplished. [/b][/quote]First off, why don't you stop calling names, considering you're making an ass out of yourself by doing so.

Secondly, if war-mongering makes Bush an asshole, that makes Kerry a dumbass.

His talk of nuclear proliferation, and how the US will give up it's arms, and encourage countries to do the same.

OH MAN! I'm sure Kim Jung Il will play nice, especially after the US gets rid of all it's nukes, and can't defend itself.

God, I love ignorance. I forgot how people take freedom for granted. Thanks for reminding me.

*willing to fight for my country when called*

God Bless You DJ for your willingness to put your life on the line for your love of our country

The heroes are the ones who voluteered and are fighting now. All I'm saying is that if, should my nation call me up and tell me to fight, after seeing the major event of our lifetimes (excluding JFK, since that was way before me) in real-time and seeing the muslim worlds hatred towards America, I would have no qualms about it.

Will it come to that point? We shall see. If John Kerry is elected, we will not only pull out of Iraq, the military spending will be slashed, just as he voted to attempt to slash the funding for weapons and armor we are currently using in the Iraq war during his senate tenure.

I don't want there to be a draft because I hope that we won't get to the point of another world war; war is never a positive thing in history, and certainly I would wish that all problems could be resolved diplomatically as John Kerry says they can.

From the middle-class, silly. Until they drain every last drop of blood out of us.

Oops...I forgot. We can't say that.

This just in:

John Kerry gave everyone who was at the debates a bottle of Hienz Ketchup and some Dill Pickles!

Mrs Kerry was quoted as saying. American need to forget about Bush and eat more pickles.

Bah, Bush should give everyone a can of "Bush's Baked Beans," after all, the secret family recipe has been in the family for generations.

Besides, you could put the ketchup on the beans! Fuckin' A! :p

Kerry on points..just. No major damage done to either candidate. Bush still favourite for Nov.

BTW, Bush's best buddy, Tony Blair in hospital for heart surgery today.

Oh please.

Let me get this out of the way first: Lehrer was horrible! Unbiased?? Sure, okay... as unbiased as I am. (Different side, though.)

Kerry looked great up there... confident, charismatic, etc. In fact, I'd say he won the debate, if I had the TV on mute. Unfortunately, I had the volume up and heard every word, so I know better. :p

Okay, I just read 2 pages' worth of comments on these debates from you guys. Did NO ONE listen to the debate? Did no one hear John Kerry go back and forth, back and forth, back and forth on his positions on everything? Did no one hear how ignorant his comments were? It was disgusting!!!

One second, Saddam was the least of our worries. The next second, he was a grave threat. 2 minutes later, he shouldn't have been our focus at the time. 45 seconds later, we should have spent more time with diplomacy towards him. Yadda yadda yadda, man!! I was exhausted just listening to the guy run around in circles!!

And I loved this quote from Bush about picking either Bin Laden or Hussein to go after: "Jim, we've got the capability of doing both." Too bad neither Kerry nor anyone else was paying attention to anything Bush said, because this kept coming up. In fact, everything kept coming up over and over again. Bush answered a question, 2 questions later, he'd be asked the same thing. He was very patient, actually. If it'd been me, I'd have been like, "Are you serious? I just told you! Weren't you here??" :rolleyes:

Like this, for example: "And that's why it's essential that we have strong alliances, and we do." Bush said this WAY before anyone mentioned alliances. But even after this, Kerry kept bringing up the fact that the whole world is against us, and Bush should have gotten some allies, and how we're doing this alone, and how Bush "pushed away" the help that other nations offered, and the help that the UN offered,* and how only 2 nations are with us (Australia and GB), and that "we can do better" than just 2 allies. Jeez, Senator, we just went over this!! But I guess that's when you went outside for a smoke; you must have missed it... we'll do it again, buddy. "Well, actually, he forgot Poland. And now there's 30 nations involved, standing side by side with our American troops.
And I honor their sacrifices. And I don't appreciate it when candidate for president denigrates the contributions of these brave soldiers." <---- Bush's calm and patient, yet hard-hitting response to Kerry's shenanigans. God I love this man. And yet, the whole "alliances" thing came up at least two more times after this!!! I swear, Bush should talk in his GOOD ear next time.

*Memo to Kerry: we didn't reject the UN; the UN pulled out their help. Thanks for trying, though.

BTW: "I believe that Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy, and the others did that more effectively, and I'm going to try to follow in their footsteps."
Please, Senator Kerry, don't ever, ever compare yourself to Reagan again. That was so CHEAP, for him to play that card; the "Look, I'm being fair and citing a Republican as one of my role models now!" card. Cheap, disgusting, and WAY out of his reach, anyway.

Another great Bush quote: "My opponent just said something amazing. He said Usama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq as an excuse to spread hatred for America. Usama bin Laden isn't going to determine how we defend ourselves.
Usama bin Laden doesn't get to decide. The American people decide." That was beautiful.

That whole answer was beautiful, actually. I'm going to quote it again here, and try to stay with it and pay attention: "My opponent just said something amazing. He said Usama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq as an excuse to spread hatred for America. Usama bin Laden isn't going to determine how we defend ourselves.
Usama bin Laden doesn't get to decide. The American people decide.
I decided the right action was in Iraq. My opponent calls it a mistake. It wasn't a mistake.
He said I misled on Iraq. I don't think he was misleading when he called Iraq a grave threat in the fall of 2002.
I don't think he was misleading when he said that it was right to disarm Iraq in the spring of 2003. [Well into the war, by the way.]
I don't think he misled you when he said that, you know, anyone who doubted whether the world was better off without Saddam Hussein in power didn't have the judgment to be president. I don't think he was misleading.
I think what is misleading is to say you can lead and succeed in Iraq if you keep changing your positions on this war. And he has. As the politics change, his positions change. And that's not how a commander in chief acts.

Let me finish.

The intelligence I looked at was the same intelligence my opponent looked at, the very same intelligence. And when I stood up there and spoke to the Congress, I was speaking off the same intelligence he looked at to make his decisions to support the authorization of force."

OUCH!! That was gorgeous.

On to the next... Kerry's answer to this next question was complete fluff: "Can you give us specifics, in terms of a scenario, time lines, et cetera, for ending major U.S. military involvement in Iraq?"
No, of course he can't, no one can!! This isn't a clear-cut war, like all the past wars we've fought. Because this isn't a war about territory, or nationalism, or anything like that. #1, this is a war on terror, and terrorist groups operate as secret cells. It takes time to bring down organizations whose existence we're not even supposed to know of. #2, we're rebuilding a free Iraq. So it's going to be a long process! Bottom line, no one can know exactly the timeline, scenario, etc.; not President Bush, not Colin Powell, not John Kerry. But of course Kerry thought up some bogus answer, pretending he's got a plan. He could have just said, "No, Jim, there's really no way to know at this point." and that would have been ok. But no, he's gotta make like he's got it all covered. His answer was fluff, I'm tellin' ya. He talked for two minutes about it, but he didn't say anything. Go figure.

"I have a plan to have a summit with all of the allies," he used the term "summit" 8,485,392 times in this debate. Yes, Mr. Kerry, that will work. Good job comin' up with the idea!! Man, I wish Bush talked to our allies. Unfortunately, their conversations were all by telegram, so our allies are fiercely uninformed... from Bush, "War w. Iraq you want in?" from Chirac, "no." from Blair, "sure!" I guess a summit would, indeed, have been more thorough. Oh well, next time. Live and learn.

And this... This was low: LEHRER: "Colossal misjudgments." What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?

KERRY: Well, where do you want me to begin? With that smirk on his face. He was being sarcastic, people. That was sick. This man has no class. This is your president you're talking about, and to his face, no less. You don't have to agree with him, for sure. That's the beauty of this country. However, there's a certain amount of respect that one needs to have towards the leader of one's own country. This man has authority over you! To mock him to his face was so unnecessary, rude, and plain ugly. *And yes, I still would have said this even if the president was a Democrat, and a Republican said that to his face.*

Oh, and Kerry again: "I know I can do a better job in Iraq."
...Yeah, okay. :rolleyes:

The President, in a moment exasperation: "The only consistent about my opponent's position is that he's been inconsistent. He changes positions. And you cannot change positions in this war on terror if you expect to win.
And I expect to win. It's necessary we win." Go get 'em, tiger.

I was not impressed with either candidate.

Both, I think, played fast and loose with the truth for their own benefit, and seldom did either ever really answer the questions.

Kerry is a better speaker, but Bush has a folksier more charismatic approach which I think is more appealing to the public.

Two things that Bush said, though, that I found ridiculous....

Something about a "free and democratic Iraq making the Middle East more secure for Israel"

How does that work? Just because the country is suddenly a democracy, these millions of Arabs are gonna change the way they feel about a country that they have a 60 year history of hatred for, and a people who they've hated for generations?

The other was when Kerry asked him something about why we didn't plan for such an intense "post-war" battle with the insurgents, Bush said something like "We won the war too quickly, and the insurgents didn't stay around to fight. So we're fighting them now".

I do agree with Kerry that while Sadam was a threat to the world and needed to be removed, our first goal should have been to wipe out terrorism and the more immediate threats to our country. And right now, with the war in Iraq still going on, we seem to be stretched a little too thin.

I also think that even the most die-hard conservatives here would (or should) agree with me that we went into Iraq without a viable exit strategy, and free elections notwithstanding, Democracy is not going to work in a country which has no history or frame of reference for it.

A country with a virtual state religion, which, when taken to the extreme, is the antithisis of democracy.

As soon as we leave, I think there will be some kind of coup pulled off by Sadam loyalists, and Iraq will be right back where it started from, making this all a waste of lives and money.

Or, we can stay and prop up the new government while we continue to wage an urban guerilla war for who knows how long.

??????????

Are you kidding me?

God forbid the President of the United States be held accountable. If he doesn't have to defend himself, then why should anybody in this country, according to your logic? Does anybody even remember who Harry Truman was - "the buck stops here?"

There were very few times where Kerry had to defend his mistakes because Kerry didn't get us into this goddamn mess. Kerry didn't go into Iraq without an exit strategy. Kerry didn't ignore intelligence briefings for 9 months that al Quaeda was poised to attack us.

I just don't see how anyone with children could want this war-mongering asshole Bush in for another minute. I don't want my daughter fighting half way across the world for democracy in a place where the people are fundamentally and profoundly different from us. Nobody will disagree Saddam needed to go. But now that we've ravaged their entire country and didn't properly prepare for the insurgency, we're in a quagmire that has no foreseeable end in sight. The only thing for certain in Iraq is that more hostages will be taken, more suicide attacks will happen, and more money will line Cheney's pockets from the Halliburton contracts.

Bush's need to "be on the offensive" as he stated countless times tonight is going to get us into more conflicts than just Iraq. Iran & North Korea are far more serious threats than Iraq ever was. Where are our troops going to magically appear from to fight in those two countries when we pre-emptively strike?

I almost fell off my couch when Bush said with a straight face that we would have an "all volunteer" military. Let's see his two drunken daughters volunteer. Or many of the children of his draft-dodging cabinet. We can't get anyone to go today - why would they choose to go fight in a chaotic situation like Iraq? And the ones who are there are getting there tours extended up to 1 year or more.

I would love to see the Bush loyalists put their money where their mouth is. If you believe in him so much and believe he's such a great leader, go volunteer yourself for Iraq tomorrow. Go over there and be 'steadfast' and 'strong.' Be sure to 'stay the course.' Then those people will be able to see first-hand that there is no plan, there never was, and that the mission was never accomplished. [/b][/quote]Look... No I wasnt angry how Bush's service in office was put in question during the debate. Thats what a debate is about. It put him on his toes, and I am not angry with that. What angered me was how none, NONE, of the questions were aimed at Kerry's faulties. How about one like, "Mr. Kerry, what would you say to those who feel you are incapable of taking office based on your voting record?" Or, "Mr. Kerry, how do you explain your apparent inconsistency regarding your policies on many issues?" or even, "Mr. Kerry, how do you defend your actions after your service in Vietnam, and what would you say to the Vet's who resent you for it?" Thats just a few possible examples.

And for your information, although Im only 17 and have most of my life ahead of me, I would gladly place myself in the position where I get to defend my country. If there is a draft (Which there wont be) I would do my duty like anybody else, and it would be an honor to do it. I have two grandfather's. One fought in WW2 and the other fought in Korea. My uncle fought in Nam. My cousin fought in Desert Storm. My best friend's dad is currently fighting in Iraq right now. I understand the horrors of war. I understand that its hell. But I also understand the cause, and I whole heartedly believe in this one.

Did anyone here Kerry when he said that WMD were crossing the boards daily?

Kerry big mistake was talking about how he would deal with North Korea. WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Questions were anti-Bush


I like when Bush caught Kerry trying to blame the Bush Administration for what the Clinton Administration started. (Sanctions against Iran)

Now Kerry threw a good jab at Bush when he said
Osama bin Laden attacked Us, not Saddam Hussein.

I thought Kerry spoke well, but he still haven't given us anything to show us. He would rather bash Bush then give us his facts. Which the numbers he used were way off.

Both men ran the same routes over and over again. It was boring. I think Kerry had it easier because he could stand there and blast everything that had gone wrong in the last four years.

My biggest questions is Who in the Hell is Kerry going to work with if he should get elected that would make the government that much better for the people? After all the government isn't just the president, even if Kerry wants to blame everything that has happen on Bush and him alone.

Again pointing out negatives without showing how you would do it better and not just saying that you would do it better is bullshit.
The one time he did say what he would do was with Korea, and that is what scared me the most. His idea just plain sucked!
The have no Fear, Kerry is here crap doesn't work for me.

Neither man can fix these problems alone. Maybe if both sides got together and worked together we may have a chance.

I watched the last 45 minutes (the Sopranos ended early) - I thought Kerry was more articulate, but that doesn't make him right. I will say that there were times when the President seemed to lose his train of thought.

The questions did seem to "pick on" Bush's record and not pin Kerry down on his, but I guess when it's a presidential election and one of the candidates has a record to go on that is natural. I think the next one, in a more town hall format, will favor Bush. Of the two extemely wealthy candidates, Bush seems more down to earth and likable.

My problem with the President is more with the people around him - really Cheney and Rumsfeld. Put Powell as the VP and McCain as the Defense Secretary and I would vote to re-elect.

As I've said here before, I didn't vote for Bush in the last election and, admittedly, am not a fan of his. However, the one reason that I'm leaning towards voting for him is the years I spent working for a quasi-governmental agency. I know first-hand the complete and utter upheaval from one administration to the next. I think that this country is in dire need of continuity. What really bothers me is that I think that's what the republicans are counting on - people thinking that way. I just want Kerry to give me a darn good reason to vote for him. Unfortunately, I haven't seen it yet.

Unfortunately, Don M...those decisions are made AFTER the election. It's already on record that Powell will not serve in a second Bush term (ditto I think for Condi Rice).

So the idea is to re-elect him and hope he fills these posts accordingly over the next 4 years.

Except for VP of course, which will remain Dick Cheney.

And Sicilian Babe...you are absolutely right about switching administrations in the middle of a war. It is imperative that we keep Bush in office for the duration of this thing. Kerry can lambast all he wants with his 'I have a PLAN...!" re Iraq.

But everyone knows (or should know) that his 'plan' is to either continue doing exactly what Bush has been doing; or hope he's elected and THEN come up with some kind of plan.

Because he's made it clear that he really has no plan at all...just likes to say he does.

Apple


Apple

Apple-I've found that to be the case with most politicians. They plan on having a plan...

As a woman, I don't particularly like Bush's views on abortion, but, as I said, I haven't been given a compelling enough reason NOT to vote for him.

Oh.
In other words you are not pro-life?

Personally...I am pro-choice. However I've always thought it quite sad that women selfishly continue to view this issue more as a right to do what they want with '...MY OWN BODY...', as opposed the tragedy of the ending of a life.

No matter how necessary or sensible the ending of that little life might be.

Apple

Not to play the devil's advocate here, but are you saying that if you start a war, even if it proves to be an error, you should keep the same leader for purposes of continuity?

A war on terror, designed to protect our nation, is an error?

I guess I'd just rather have someone who has clear morals and a defined message to terrorists, as opposed to someone who will not only disarm the United States and leave us vulnerable, but will play nice with Europe, who are notorious in their poor political decisions.

Whether you're a liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, you know that Kerry had the better debate. I've heard 2 people say that Bush won the debate: Sean Hannity and the Bush campaign advisor. Every single other person on CNN, FOX News, and MSNBC all said that Kerry obviously won the debate or that Bush hadn't won the debate that everyone thought he'd do the best at as President: the war on terror and Iraq. Even Tom Scarborough said Kerry won the debate!

The only threat the Iraqis posed to us was if the taxi drivers in NY went on strike. The war on terrorism in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq are 2 different things.

The war in Iraq was to remove a horrible dictator - admirable, but not the reason that was given for the war. We were led to believe that Iraq had WMD stockpiles and was a direct threat to the US. They did not, and were not. The president would not have received the same support for a war if the reason was simply to remove Saddam Hussein.

All I am saying is that continuity is not a good enough reason to re-elect the same leader. The country survived a leadership change during the Vietnam War when LBJ chose not to run. Nixon got us out of the war after a few years and we survived.

Kerry didn't win. Bush didn't win. That debate really didn't have a clear cut winner, because they both delivered some interesting blows.

Kerry was more articulate. Sharp witted. Seemed elitist.

Bush had more sincere answers, and related better to everyday Americans. Wasn't coherant enough when speaking.

And just because CNN says so, doesn't mean it's true. :p

This just in:

John Kerry is the big winner over George Bush!

95 % of the people polled thought Kerry beat the hell out of that devil Bush. The other 5% of the North Korean People were taken out and shot.