Who won?

[Sunstone]

Who won the first Presidential debate? Bush or Kerry?

 

[Rex]

I voted Neither. They both beat around the bush and never said anything.

 

[nomad438]

I believe that Kerry Did a better job than bush did, bush was stutering and seemed to repeat himself a lot more than Kerry

 

[Lightkeeper]

Bush won. Mainly because Kerry said it was and was not a mistake to go to war in Iraq. He also said Sadam was and was not a threat.

 

[linwood]

I dunno I learned more about what Kerry plans to do if he wins than I had before.

That could be because I wasn`t listening earlier..but I thought I was.

I didn`t know he had a 4 year plan to secure the nukes in Russia.
I didn`t know he planned direct talks with N.Korea.
I didn`t know he planned to exert more pressure on Iran over theirnuke capabilty.
I didn`t know he would have directly dealt with the genocide in dafur to the point of committing troops if possible.(That impressed me)
I didn`t know alot of what he spoke of.

All I heard Bush say was..Hard work....3 ..work..hard work..pronged strategy..safer world..Hussien prison..hard work.....work hard...hardly working..work more...I`m workin` on it.

Does it strike anyone else that the guy speaks in safe prepared catch phrases?

I dunno who "won" but at least people are getting a better idea of what Kerry intends to do.

Why can`t Nadar get this stage?

 

[Engyo]

I must admit I'm less embarassed than before the debate, but only a little. I don't believe this debate will have really changed anyone's mind; I'm also not sure that any undecided voters could find enough different between the two candidates to help them make their choice.

The one difference I can see at the moment is this: Bush operates mostly from his gut; Kerry operates from his head. This go some way towards explaining some of the extremely visceral reactions that people seem to have to these two candidates.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

The one difference I can see at the moment is this: Bush operates mostly from his gut; Kerry operates from his head. This go some way towards explaining some of the extremely visceral reactions that people seem to have to these two candidates.

That's an insight I hadn't thought about, Engyo. It would explain why some people I know who normally favor the politics of one party are planning to vote for the other party this year.

 

[Melody]

The one difference I can see at the moment is this: Bush operates mostly from his gut; Kerry operates from his head. This go some way towards explaining some of the extremely visceral reactions that people seem to have to these two candidates.

I think it would be kind of nice to have a president who uses his brain for a change.

I think Kerry sounded more intelligent and knowledgeable than Bush. Bush seemed to stutter and trip over his tongue quite a bit...and then there is that stupid grin. Every time I looked at him I'd get this visual of Alfred E Neuman grinning on the cover of Mad Magazine and it looked exactly like Bush.

 

[Sunstone]

Did the debate change anyone's opinion about who to vote for?

 

[Feathers in Hair]

...and then there is that stupid grin. Every time I looked at him I'd get this visual of Alfred E Neuman grinning on the cover of Mad Magazine and it looked exactly like Bush.

Well put, Melody, hehee. He also tends to have a smug smile, and reminds me of those football players in high school that everyone would bend over backwards to please.

Did the debate change anyone's opinion about who to vote for?

I like to think of myself as open-minded, but I'm afraid I don't think there would have been any way to change my vote. I may not agree with Kerry on all issues, but... Actually, I've heard about 10 or 20 people describe it this way, too. Whatever happens, they want to vote against Bush. Unless Bush had apologized, or suggested that he would try doing things differently in the next term (which would mean inferring he'd done something wrong in this one- inconcievable!) I don't think their votes will be swayed.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I said Kerry won. He seemed more composed. SIGH, if only Bush were more articulate....I really wish he would have asked Kerry how many U.N. resolutions it would have taken for military action to be justified on Saddam.

 

[Sunstone]

Do you think these debates will have much effect on the election?

 

[Engyo]

This one, no. Possibly debate #2 which is "town hall style" and hopefully will have candidates facing questions directly from voters. My real feeling is that unless one of these two screws up big, the debates themselves won't be decisive.

I am looking forward to the VP debate though. That ought to be entertaining at least. We'll see if Mr. Cheney can avoid getting bleeped.

 

[Green Gaia]

I didn't watch it. I was afraid I wouldn't be able to refrain from yelling at the TV and throwing popcorn at Bush, which would not have been a good thing in a room full of Bush supporters.

 

[meogi]

I say neither, it was a pretty even debate... neither is gonna gain or lose votes due to it.

 

[civilcynic]

I think the debate helped delinieate the differences between the two men and their approaches. Kerry appeared to be wanting to build consensus among allies and to use
a more diplomatic approach to foreign policy whereas Bush seems to think along more self-centered, I don't give a damn what anyone else in the world thinks.

I don't know about anyone else but I also felt that President Bush was talking to a bunch of children in his responses. His responses were simplistic, repetitive and without substance....He kept saying things like "hard work" over and over until I felt like screaming.

President Bush seemed to do ok at the beginning of the debate but he seemed to become increasingly rattled as the debate progressed and seemd to ramble sometimes.

The areas that struck me most was Bush:
- Iraq, that he would have gone into Iraq even knowing that there were no WMD's or links to al Queda.

- His negative comments against the Hague (the world court). sure the world court may have some problems (I don't know much about the issue) but it is a good idea. Instead of denouncing it, the US should be working to improve it. The US is certainly not complaining about the Hague's trial against Milosevich...

- His 'staying the course' attitude without regard to whether the course was being effective or not.

I did like the fact that Kerry is willing to state that one must look for alternative approaches instead of 'staying the course' when the course does not seem to be yielding positive results.

Overall, the debate did not change my mind but it did reinforce my choice of candidates.

 

[Ardhanariswar]

it was pretty even. though i think kerry did a more excelent job of presenting his points with back up examples. bush on the other hand kept going at stuff without supporting it with evidence.

and bush seemed terribly arrogant. seriously, he needs to tone down his ego.

kerry seemed to flip flop before, but he cleared it up now. he was for the war, but the way the went at it was not the best way.

i dont know who to support, id much rather have kerry for pres cuz i dont want to see our crime go up in our own country and see our schools and other public places go down just cuz bush cuts money from them.

but that debate just talked about foreign policy. to me, siding with china just because we have a lot of trade is quite valid, yet hello, bush seemed to have forgotten that they were communist and have wrecked the tibetan people. you kno, if bush keeps on going that it is our countries duty to save others, what about tibet?

lets see, iraq didnt even have weapons of mass destruction. and they didnt find any either! if bush keeps lying to the people that the iraqi people hid them well, then how come our army, the best of the world, HAS NOT FOUND THEM?. saddam was not related to 9-11. we need to get terrorism that attacks our country at its roots and not deviate from that. bush needed to get someone because he felt very vulnerable as a leader after 9-11 and felt that he had to get someone in order to feel like he was a competant leader.

but we have a country. we need to focus on what we need to do as america before we start rightening other countries.
lets see what how both candidates do on tuesday. ha ha.

 

[Sunstone]

I came away from the debate with the impression that neither candidate had actually won decisively over the other. But the debate helped clarify to me what Kerry's positions on several issues are. Bush said nothing that I hadn't heard before, but I was unaware that Kerry believes (for instance) that nuclear proliferation is the most dangerous threat facing America. Because I got a better understanding of Kerry, I think it was worth listenning too.

 

[YawgmothsAvatar]

I voted Neither. They both beat around the bush and never said anything.

Well said.

It's a good thing that I am Canadian and under the age of 18, because I think that this election is choosing the lesser of two evils. Personally, I think that Bush did a terrible job and that Kerry would make a better president simply because he posesses the quality of not being Bush. This does not mean that I like Kerry, I just hate Bush.

I thought that both candidates were redundant at best. The entire thing was maybe four phrases:

1. "It's hard work"--Bush
2. "90 percent of the casualties, 90 percent of the costs"--Kerry
3. "A commander-in-cheif can't say that a war is a 'Great Diversion.' That's not how a commander-in cheif-acts"--Bush
4. "Fresh new start"--Kerry

Some of these phrases were repeated so many times, I was reminded of Gore saying 'lock box' in the old Bush/Gore debate skit in SNL. I was half expecting Bush, Kerry, or Leahrer to turn to the camera and say, 'Live from New York, it's Saturday night!'

Even if you did get past the repetive nature of the first debate, then you didn't even learn anything new about either of the candidates. Both sides claim and absolute 'Boy-that-other-guy-sure-was-whipped' victory. No one watching got any significant new information and no one changed their minds from what they thought at first.

 

[Ceridwen018]

My overall impression was that Kerry won, but not because he was able to deliver his message in a clearer, calmer manner. He kept Bush on the defensive the ENTIRE TIME! That's basically a fault of Kerry posessing more highly developed debating skills than Bush, but go figure. Other than that, I certainly didn't learn anything new, except that Kerry was able to explain his 'flip-flopping' in an understandable way, but is that truth or politics talking?

I don't think the debates will influence the elections at all. Stats from the past have shown that they don't, and the only people who watch the debates already have their minds made up.