Ok...who won it?

[Hook Dem]

I think Kerry had to do better than Bush and he did.

If you didn't know who was president, you'd have thought Kerry was the president.

The podium is simply not Bush's best asset.

Ah yes...rhe podium! People in this country are interested more on national security than an astute profile

[Marcus Bryant]

Mondale looked presidential. The problem for Kerry is that his national security/foreign policy strategy is the same as Mondale's.

Oddly enough for those who believe Bush is a deaf mute he won on the substance of the debate (perhaps this was his evil calculating conspiratorial side).

On the war on terror Kerry had the backseat driver/nagging wife position locked down. "How much is this going to cost? Are we going to have to do all that? You said..."

Elsewhere Kerry showed his true blue post-Vietnam war liberal Democrat credentials. Every US military action in the world must be signed off by the UN. Western European opinion must be worshipped. He even managed to revive the Nuclear Freeze position.

Kerry had some WTF?! moments. The first one was when within a minute he went from calling the Iraq invasion a mistake to saying that it was not a mistake. The second was when he said he would give nuclear material to Iran.

Bush hammered Kerry on the approach to North Korea. Pushing China, SKorea, and Japan to the side and dealing with North Korea one to one is precisely what Kim wants.

Kerry didn't need the outcome of this debate to be that he 'looked presidential.' That should have been taken care of a long time ago. It goes to how horrible a candidate Kerry has been that his supporters are now claiming that Kerry won 'on style.' Bush was the guy who was supposed to win on style while Kerry cleaned his clock on the substance of the discussion.

Also, there's the one image that Kerry's performance last night solidified and that is of the 'slick talker who will say anything to get elected.' Bush's haggardness or whatever had the look of a president who is dealing with all of this on a daily basis instead of searching for anything that will get him elected.

I'd be surprised if this debate had any real impact on the presidential race.

[ClintSquint]

Kerry finally pulled out his own can of whoop ass on Dubya.
It was about time he showed what kind of hombre he really is.

Kerry won hands down.

[ClintSquint]

Substance? The only substance Dubya knows is coke.

How many times can you say, "It's a tough job"?

Nothing new from him. Just "more of the same".

[Hook Dem]

Substance? The only substance Dubya knows is coke.

How many times can you say, "It's a tough job"?

Nothing new from him. Just "more of the same".

Atta boy Homer!

[LandShark]

I believe the debate was essentially a draw: Kerry winning on style, but Bush having the edge on substance. As I pointed out in another thread, if Kerry wanted this debate to make a lasting difference he needed to score a solid win or at least hope that President Bush would commit a major gaffe. Neither of those things happened.

[SpursWoman]

It was about time he showed what kind of hombre he really is.

He did, Clint. One that keeps contradicting himself over and over and over again.


It's funny, from watching a lot of the commentary....I was wondering if some of them were even watching the same debate I was. I don't think either one of them had any significant edge over the other. Style, maybe, but I could give a rat's ass about style.

Kerry definitely has the oratory skills, but he's still *all over the place* in his beliefs on Iraq.

[LandShark]

Substance? The only substance Dubya knows is coke.

Brilliant analysis.

[JoeChalupa]

I think they both did well but Kerry got the edge he needed.

Will it sway voters? I don't know.

But I watched several responses from so called "un-decided" voters and the majority gave it to Kerry.

I know many of you conservatives don't want to admit that Kerry did well.

Come on, it doesn't mean you are changing who you support.

It isn't really hard to give credit to Kerry if you keep an open mind.

[Marcus Bryant]

Kerry did well on "style", on "looking" good. Once you get past those 5 seconds he had nothing else. What the difference is between Kerry's national defense strategy today and Mondale's in 1984 I do not know.

Yes, Bush won on points. He did not waver, he did not contradict himself, and he pointed out when Kerry did as well as the error of what Kerry advocated.

Bush's exasperated look was a plus for him. It wasn't a sign of weakness as in 'I don't have an answer' but rather of strength as in 'the bas doesn't know what he is talking about.'

Kerry provided the Bush campaign with some soundbite gems, such as the "global test" comment and him calling the Iraq invasion a "mistake" and 'not a mistake' within a minute. If I'm the Bush campaign I would measure the time between those two comments and make a commercial about it.

In some respects I feel as though last night's debate was in my dreams, except it was twenty years ago and Kerry was played by Walter Mondale. Kerry's general national defense and foreign policy strategies differ very little, I feel. Kerry managed to revive the Nuclear Freeze proposal. A President Kerry would give nuclear material to Iran. He would allow Hussein to remain in power and the sanctions scheme to break down so long as other nations said it was acceptable. He would engage the North Koreans bilaterally (worked the last time, didn't it?) and push the Chinese, South Koreans, and Japanese to the side. He would seek to pass a "global test" (aka kissing Franco-German ass) before he engaged in any preemptive action. How much the Demos have forgotten in those intervening twenty years. Clinton looks like Ghengis (or was it Jenjis?) Khan in comparison.

Bush's strength does not lie in his image but in his positions. Kerry needed to win this debate on the issues instead of on the image. Also, considering that Kerry has been painted as a polished speaker who will take all sides of an issue this debate did nothing but confirm that.

[Hook Dem]

I think they both did well but Kerry got the edge he needed.

Will it sway voters? I don't know.

But I watched several responses from so called "un-decided" voters and the majority gave it to Kerry.

I know many of you conservatives don't want to admit that Kerry did well.

Come on, it doesn't mean you are changing who you support.

It isn't really hard to give credit to Kerry if you keep an open mind.

Joe...there is no doubt that Kerry came across as suave and devonair but he just doesn't get what America is looking for. ...A strong leader in world affairs. He is very lacking in that area. He will say anything to get elected and he has demonstrated that on Iraq. I don't think the debate so far will change many minds. As for the so called "undecides", they are pretty hollow if they haven't made up their minds at this point. I think those are just "stumpers" put before the camera to influence others.

[LandShark]

That is correct. Post 9-11 America prefers substance over style. Come November 2 the man of substance, George W. Bush, will have the edge.

[Marcus Bryant]

Kerry in some respects offers an arrogant view of the world. We can push the Japanese, South Koreans, and Chinese to the side and talk to the North Koreans on our own. The UK, Italy, Australia, Poland, and the rest of Eastern Europe don't matter, we only care about France, Germany, and Russia. The US should normally be able to force the rest of the world to capitulate to our demands and this president has not.

But Kerry looked good.

[Spurminator]

I think they both said a lot of nothing, and that Kerry just looked better doing it. So I guess I'd give him a slight edge.

[EmerilLagasse]

I think Kerry kicked it up a notch last night and BAMM! let everyone know that he isn't just going lay back anymore.

Bush was the same old recipe.