Question:
The first presidential debate on foreign policy is now over. Didn't seem to be any major gaffes or any CLEAR winner, but I'm interested in who this crew thought "won" the thing. By "won", I simply mean, which candidate was able to sway more independent voters and/or voters previously committed to his oppenents camp. Or was it a "tie", and you'd rather wait for the next two debates to decide.

Choices:
Bush
Kerry
Neither (need to wait for the next debates)

 

Am I being too predictable for voting for a new category of "Who Cares?" I mean, I really do care, and I will vote in Nov., but I'm becoming aware that in almost every election, California votes for the Democrat, but that doesn't usually affect the outcome. After the 2000 election, I've just about become disillusioned with the entire process of a Presidential election. I was sick of all the campaigning, ads and debates decades ago, but now I'm even sick of thinking about even trying to watch the results. Were the founding fathers REALLY that smart or did they stiff us with a monster which nobody has the guts to rehabilitate (or put down)? Shut up, mark.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,

Kerry on points - no knockout. Watching the debate, I thought the key issues were in Bush's favor, but after listening to some of the pundits, I realized that Bush didn't fully pound Kerry when Kerry stuck his chin out. I may have filled in some of the arguments myself and didn't realize that Bush didn't actually make them himself, which he needed to do. So as far as arument clarity & completeness - Kerry is the clear winner. But if you asked me at this point in the campaign which candidate's positions I'd rather have (and which I'd be better prepared to argue), it'd clearly be Bush. The "Global Test" to defend America just doesn't cut it for me, and Kerry lost FOR ME on that point alone, but because Bush didn't capitalize on it appropriately, I'd say that Kerry won the debate in general. So I'm assuming the race will tighten in the days and weeks to come. I don't think that Cheney will be as "soft" on Edwards as Bush was on Kerrey.

I didn't see the whole thing, so I can't say one way or the other, but I hate calling it a debate...in a debate, the candidates can actually speak to each other and direct questions to each other. This is just a prepared set of stump speeches.

It just goes to add to the the sad truth of mark's "monster" claim. Candidates should be expected to actually debate each other...no specifications about how (or if) the debates happen. Sure, you can have a moderator to keep things on track, but let them challenge each other directly.

And it's kind of sad, mark, that one of the people doing the most to try to put the sad beast down is (cough) Ralph Nader. He's trying to bust the system down, but he's not getting any real systemic results. He'll just help Bush again if he's on the ballot...

I profess that I will probably be voting for Bush, but I must say that Kerry won last night's debate. It seemed Bush was more on the defensive, often fumbled for just the right words to say, repeated himself constantly, and had this sour look on his face during the cutaway shots which were "negotiated" not to happen. It also seemed to me that Bush had usually finished has answers rather quickly but, rather than cede his remaining time, he just rambled on and on repeating himself until the light went down to red.

I don't think Bush was "soft" on Kerry, SM. I think he was doing as well as he was able. Live, public speaking is simply not his strong suit.

That being said, I'm actually looking forward to the Vice-Presidential debate more than I am the three Presidential debates. Cheney and Edwards are smart and savvy. It could be an interesting evening.

In some cases, asc85, Bush didn't continue to ramble on and repeat himself, but rather hesitated as his time ran out. Each time he missed an opportunity to redirect the top. Kerry did not, which gave him a decided advantage.

It will be interesting to see how the respective campaigns spin the initial debate between now and the next debate. If memory serves, Gore was widely considered to have won his initial debate with Bush four years ago, yet you wouldn't have known it several days later.

Now Playing: "Symphony No. 7" Ludwig van Beethoven (perf. Vienna Philharmonic/Simon Rattle)

Personally, I must vote for Bush because of the core issues he stands for (sorry to bring that word up again) and I just feel a lot safer with him in office. That being said, as far as the "press conference" went last night, Kerry was the clear winner and I'm afraid that many undecided's will choose Kerry based simply on that "debate". I agree with Sparkle that the "Global Test" deal is a killer for Kerry and Bush really should have pounded him harder on that. I know I definately don't want my nations security in the hands of ANY other country, but I'm not sure other people are going to pick up on that. Bush seemed to run out of material about 3/4 of the way through while Kerry continued to act and speak presidential. I just hope Bush has another opportunity to call Kerry out on the "Global Test" remark.

But I agree with you Mark that I am ready for all this back and forth nonsense to be done with. I think our forefathers would be ashamed.

After watching the whole thing, I can only say that both candidates are pretty disappointing on a lot of the different levels. Kerry seems too slick and a little creepy. Bush seems to feel a sense of entitlement that he doesn't deserve to feel. He just looked very uncomfortable and angry to be there. I don't feel overly comfortable with Kerry, but I've got way too many problems with the policies of the Bush administration to seriously consider voting for him.

But I'm still with you mark...this whole election has made me feel pretty sad. Who DIDN'T win the debate...the American public.

GOOOOOOOOOOO KERRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!