How many debates did they end up settling on, anyway?
Thanks to Friends and Chandler Bing in particular, I couldn’t stop giggling whenever they mentioned their “doodies”. 
3 pres and one VP.
This should be interesting from a campaign strategy perspective.
In 2000, Gore pretty clearly clobbered Bush in the first debate, with Bush stumbling around, but Bush picked up a lot of sympathy when Gore used body language to suggest that Bush was not even qualified to be at the podium.
In the next debate, Bush came back, giving the impression that he had done much better preparation, and caught Gore unaware, then combined his “comeback” with the sympathy vote (or Gore antipathy vote) to make strong showings in the rest of the debates.
I wonder if Bush was hoping to use the same strategy this time and how will his fidgeting play, now, when Kerry did not treat him with disrespect? (I have never thought Bush was stupid, just intellectually lazy, and recent reviews of Bush’s earlier debates (e.g. for the Texas governorship) have pointed out that he can be a very effective debater. This tends to bolster my view that his actions in the 2000 debates were scripted and that he might have been trying the same tactic, this time.)
Doesn’t seem likely, IMO, since it was the Bush camp that insisted on having the first debate be about foreign policy, which they perceived as Bush’s greatest strength.
For your “Bush was faking it to sucker-punch Kerry next time” theory to work, wouldn’t he have saved his strong topic for a later debate?
To continue with tomndebb’s theory (not that I neccesarily agree or disagree with it), whipping out the improved performance could overshadow potential weaknesses on the domestic front? Talking heads going on about his much improved performance, but not nearly as much focus on his ‘microwaving puppies for profit’ initiative?
Kerry won the debate, both in style and substance.
I actually had this thought too, mainly because I refuse to believe that the Bush team would let him walk into this so grossly unprepared. I’m wondering if they ignored this debate in favor of prepping Bush for the town hall debate where he is likely to do worse since it isn’t as scripted. It will be easier for Bush to score points on that one since (especially after this debate) he really couldn’t look worse.
I would say the debate was clearly a draw (though it pains me to agree with Joe Lockhart). I think Bush was not as eloquent as Kerry (Bush had many more uhhs and umms), but there was no substance to what Kerry said. Most of his responses essentially ended “The President did it this way. I would do better.” It would have been helpful if he specified exactly what he was going to do besides playing Monday morning (or in this case Thursday evening) quarterback. I think the lights worked to the advantage of both parties. It kept both of them brief and to the point.
Yes indeed. They’ll be in playboy in about 10 yearsor less, giving they retain their hotness.
I got to watch very little of the debates, form what I saw, Bush was being his normal self, and Kerry was trying not to be himself. Overall Kerry’s tactic worked better. A fake Kerry certainly presents better than the real Bush. Kerry is having to establish himself and his policies in the debate, cause he hasn’t done it anywhere else. Bush just has to not phuck up too bad. He was slouching, I couldn’t beleive it, my 6th grade speech teacher would have eaten him alive for that. Oh, and Kerry was still orangish. I would like to watch this whole thing, anyone know if it’s publicly available to download somewhere.
Given that he had to parcel out his policy plans in 120-second chunks, I thought it was pretty damn substantive. Yes, it’d be great for there to be even more substance, but I just don’t think he had time do lay out plans as fully as he does, say, on his website.
Which is exactly why he referred people to his website. Check out his overview of his plan on Iraq and tell me if you think it’s sufficiently substantive, and which points from the website he should’ve smushed into his 120-second allowance.
Daniel
Bush twins on a leash? Sign me up.
What saddens me is that, while on my way to work this morning, I was listening to a local radio show, and inevitably, some of the call-ins started talking about the debates - and a few remarked about how Kerry was flip-flopping in the debate.
What the hell? I live in a state of idiots. sigh
9:25 Eastern Time: cnn.com’s pundit rating page shows that, with 341,894 user votes so far, Bush is rated C and C for content and delivery; Kerry is rated B and A- for content and dleivery.
Ha! Refreshed the page after previewing this post, and got the same ratings, this time with a figure of 378,338.
Listening to Bush for more than a minute usually gives me a Herbert Lom-type twitch in my right eye, but I managed to actually sit through the whole debate.
I thought Bush looked like a 12-year-old who just had his pants yanked down to the floor during class. His repetitive whining about how “hard” his job was, was utterly, disgustingly Pathetic. Michael Jackson has a better grasp on what reality is like.
Nevertheless I realize with a heavy heart that nearly half of America still believes this dodo to be a strong, resolute leader. Must be the Jesus sauce.
Welcome to Crazyworld!
Agreed. Kerry could have done better, but it was almost as if he didn’t want to “close for the kill”. He should have hammered more on the “where is Osama”. He talked abut it, but not enough. Likewise with the “outsourcing” of the hunt for Osama while going after Saddam. When the talk went on and on about flipflops, he should have nailed Bush for flipflopping about WMD - “he has them, he had the capability, WMD are besides the point because he is a bad freedom hater who kicks kittens”. Kerry had several chances to get it done and simply didn’t.
Hey, but look who’s jumping ship!
As cited at this uber-polls site,
And that sotry is in the Manchester Union Leader, a bastion of Republicanism in New Hampshire.
To those who didn’t think Kerry was “ruthless” enough: Folks, he doesn’t have to convince you and me, and he knows it. He has to appeal to people who like the President well enough, but question the decisions he’s made. These people are not looking to see George W. Bush pilloried and rotten apples thrown at him. They want to see Kerry make his own case.
Nitpick: did Ron Reagan actually say he was voting for Kerry? I thought he spoke at the DNC about stem cell research - does that constitute “jumping ship?”
Lucky for him that he was severely time-limited. It is in part his longwindedness that has caused him problems.