Are you ready to ruuuummmmmble?!?!
 

Let's go ahead and launch the post debate thread right now, since some in the major media are already reporting on it as if it is over. (thanks for bringing that to our attention HM)

With only a very short time before the questions start, the Kerry camp is still arguing about lights on the podium.

link

Let the spin begin.

Well, the 36 page agreement says the lights should be on the cameras, right? Not the lecterns?

Anyway, on CSPAN they have Lehrer explaining the procedures to the audience. It's sorta interesting.

Go Kerry! If people still think Bush should be re? elected after that debate, maybe it is the decline and fall of America.

i think the agreement allowed for the lights to be visible to the audience as well as the candidates, but who really cares? i thought it was funny that the media would turn that into a story in and of itself.

anyway - the debate just ended and the pundits are going to start the spin in motion but i haven't seen any of that yet.

i have to say that i don't think that went as badly for bush as i thought it might. it was typical political BS from both sides but no "bush-isms" that i can think of.

Kerry did a pretty good job of coming across as a human with passion, which is possibly the most important thing for him at this point. his positions, whatever they may be, don't excite anyone so appealing to John Q Public is crucial for him. I think he did well, speaking plainly. i think he has the Clinton closed hand, thumb point down well - to the point that he looked uncomfortable with the large amount of hand gesturing he did.

Bush didn't trip over his own words too badly. he played on his country boy act a little too heavily and his facial expressions get a little annoying after awhile. he did a good job of displaying his humor without delving to deeply into biting sarcasm.

in the end the american people saw very little of value - just another circus that the media will dip into for sound bytes for the next few days.

the only discussion point that i found very interesting was the bilateral vs. multilateral angle with N Korea. i found it fairly surprising that Kerry opposes a multilateral approach to negotiations. that may have been public knowledge before, but i missed it until tonight. i think Bush explained his reasoning on that position a little more convincingly than did Kerry.

in the end i don't see that tonight will cause many to change their vote.

Call me biased, but Kerry just issued a serious beatdown. Dubya just didn't have it tonight.

I wouldn't say a "serious" beatdown, but I do agree that Kerry "won," whatever that means. Bush got overly defensive a couple of times, and came off looking pretty immature to me with the "I know Bin Laden attacked America!" and "This stuff is hard!" lines.

I particularly enjoyed the series of exchanges where they were talking about Darfur, but at the beginning of every response they would quickly issue another retort about Iran.

I swear to God, though, the next debate better not even mention Iraq. I expect one debate about the economy, and one debate about domestic benefit issues, namely health insurance and social security.

I was much more impressed with Kerry than I was with Bush. When Bush wasn't sounding like a broken record, he was being rather whiny and defensive. Not very impressive at all.

Kerry: The President didn't go to war as a last resort.
Bush: Uh-huh! I did too! Cuz I...and...I did too!!

Kerry: This was the wrong war at the wrong time.
Bush: Leaders don't say 'Wrong war, wrong time'! Awk! Leaders don't say 'Wrong war, wrong time'! Awwk. I want your vote, I want your vote. Awwk!

Went a lot like that...

Bush reminded me very much of Gore in 2000: looking bored, getting defensive, butting in. I don't think this setting was Bush's strong suit anyway, but he just seemed to completely drop the ball. He was too folksy to the point of seeming childish and rude.

We have to wait and see whose facial expressions and body language gets replayed ad nauseam before we know who "really won". Will it be Kerry writing and nodding, or Bush blinking and smirking? I can't wait!

Kerry's "you break it, you fix it" moment was good.

I can't wait to see the other debates. Foreign policy is supposed to be Bush's strong suit, however he came across as very defensive and really offered nothing new. Stay the course, stay the course. Well, if you're headed for a storm, you change course to avoid it. Anyway, he's weak on the social issues front and Kerry is going to stomp on him again.

I particularly enjoyed Bush's halting explanation for his/their "miscalculations". Basically the deal seems to be that we were tripped up by our own shocking, awesome and quick "victory". Apparently the administration is hampered and challenged by being too good at what they do. Its rough.

Did anyone else watch the Daily Show coverage after the debate?

While John Stewart was obviously throwing much bigger softballs at Wesley Clark, I must admit I was still very disappointed with Rudy Giuliani's report. There were any number of good things he could have focused on about Bush's performance, but instead he just doggedly repeated that Kerry was a flip-flopper; he flip-flopped in this very debate, by golly! I know he's got to stick with the party line and you never admit that your guy "lost" the debate, but damn.

I only watched bits and pieces, but it seems like George just keep repeating himelf over and over. We know public speaking isn't his strong suit, but he looked particularly bad last night. I'd have to say Kerry "won" this round, if that term is even applicable.

Is it just me, or did Bush do his own flip-flop in this debate? During the debate, he insisted he exhausted all other options and that warring with Iraq was the last resort. But he also insisted that the offensive position is what we need and pre-emption is key. Now. How can you be on the offensive and use a 'get them before they get us' mentality and still call yourself using military force as a last resort?

No matter where you stand, or which of the candidates you support ( or despise ), Curtis and Kuby in the Morning have a great rendition of the whole debate. They probably will be running this gag until the next debate.

Very funny stuff from WABC.

I think Kerry was the winner, by about a 4:3 margin.

I do think he had one ting to do that he didn't get done last night, and that's to convince people that he's actually tougher and more resolute on the WoT in substance. He did it in style: he had Bush speaking defensively several times.

Well, as an undecided voter, this pushed me to Kerry. He clearly was better.


Just kidding. I was already a Kerry supporter, but I do think he was much better. Bush had a couple of good points. I'll give him credit. The whole multilateral versus bilateral North Korea talks was a good score for him, but Kerry did come back to that later by saying that going bi-lateral doesn't mean you exclude China involvement too. I think Kerry realized that Bush looked good on that one point, so Kerry tried to clarify a little. That was the only victory for Bush I saw.

Did anyone else notice how insincere Bush acted when he was talking about his visit to one of the widows of a US soldier and how sad it was for the family? Bush was trying to show a sympathetic face, and was shaking his head like "too bad." He was trying to appear sympathetic and was doing all these mannerisms that he must have thought showed compassion. I was picturing George Costanza from Seinfeld as Bush was doing that. The Seinfeld episodes after George's fiance died and he was with the family trying to act like he was all distraught. The moment didn't serve Bush well. He's a very bad actor, and I found his fake compassion a little offensive.

Also, when Bush was talking about how he stood up for America by not signing the treaty that might result in war crimes charges being brought up against US troops, there was a long pause before he gave his reason why. I imagined that he was going to say that he didn't sign it because he didn't want to be brought up on war crimes charges himself. :) But that was only in my dreams.

Anyone know if it's true that we're building permanent military bases over there? If so, it makes a lot of sense that locals would think that we were moving in to stay - saying, in effect, "you can have personal freedoms, but your government will be a puppet".

It was fairly obvious, those flip-flops wore out
 

I tend to agree with the majority of the commentary on this particular debate. I won't bother to go over some of the wins for Kerry and some of Bush's strongest/weakest moments. The most telling moment for me was both of their final statements. It was the most stark comparision of the two, and it shot down the Bush's camp's contention that Kerry has no positive vision for America. I felt as though Kerry's final statements were positive and uplifting, George Bush's on the other hand were dark and and filled with fear. I came away feeling Bush really wanted people to come away with the feeling that if he's not in charge we're all doomed, to me it was a very dark moment. For a second I'll be honest, Kerry made me feel a little bit better about things in that brief little summation, George Bush just tried to get at my fear.

- Walrus

i understand the reasoning, but along that same line, have germany and japan been puppet nations for the past 60 years. we have troops on the ground in many countries that no one would think to call a puppet government.

I'd like to see the results of IQ tests taken by Mr Kerry and Mr Bush. oh, and I would be against Mr Bush having Mr Cheyney at his side as he takes his....

I was busy at work, so I missed the debate, and the clips I heard on Howard Stern were pretty Kerry slanted because Howard hates W so much. does anyone know if they will be replayed on tv anytime soon?

I listen to 610WIP on my ride home most nights, and lately, G Cobb ( former Lions and Cowboys linebacker) and Dick Jerardi (local Sports columnist)have been having their own mini debate ( two dumb guys arguing politics is always funny). G is for bush, and Dick is for NOT bush, which i think is true of many Kerry voters. That's where I am .....NOT FRIGGIN BUSH!

One of the things that DJ said was that people who are likely to believe that there are simple answers to complex issues are much more likely to vote bush.....ie, the mentally lazy, and those who have actually been paying attention to what the fuck is happening have no choice but to vote him out.

one of the clips I heard replayed was Kerry saying tat after we occupied Baghdad, the only buildings we guarded were the oil buildings....I never heard that before, and I think it is pretty telling.

PS. FUCK BUSH........(George W, that is)

It's quite likely that what you heard on Howard Stern was a fair sampling of the debate. There was only one point Bush made that was good, in my opinion, and that had to do with negotiations with North Korea. If you pulled out any other soundbite from the debate, it would look biased towards Kerry, because Bush was pretty lame. There really wasn't much material in the debate to make Bush look good.

i think the talking heads are all a little disappointed. neither candidate made any memorable gaffes, no new ideas were brought forth, and there is very little there for good sound bytes.

i have to stick by my original summation. the debate didn't change much of anything. Kerry of course, wins on style points, but neither candidate topped the other with substance. the bilateral, multilateral approach to N Korea was the only new info.

in the end i think the debate only served to solidify already held opinions. if you are an ABB person, you probably feel a little better with Kerry because of his hawkish act, his polish, and he stressed that he only has one message. if you are a bush supporter, you probably liked his folksy presentation and his commitment to his core values.

if you are like me, you probably still wish that all politicians could be sent to a turkish prison for a life sentence.

Both those countries were totally defeated. They had no choice,......or religious agenda. :(

What debate? I watched Law & Order, made more sense than the the press release they called a debate.

It really is too close to call. Oaklands pitching should be better but Anaheim has a more complete ballclub.

Well, except for the bit about coming on to the war widow...

:confused:

i watched it all, but i must have sneezed or something because that doesn't ring a bell. what happened?

Bush said he tried to love her as best he could. Similar to when he lamented the difficulties OB-GYNs had practicing their love on their patients.

*groan*

Reading about sign-stealing, etc, I really begin to wonder about polls. It's seems that convservatives seem to intimidate liberals more than vice versa. In secret ballots, intimidation stops at the voting booth, which is why I think the numbers may be off. Some pundits are saying that people who say they will vote for Kerry will really switch over to Bush in the voting booth, but I think that more people in Republican-dominated areas might switch to Kerry in the booth.

I've been getting unsolicited anti-Kerry photoshops from a coworker. This is the same guy who told me about TanGate, which is the theory that since Kerry and his people made questionable statements about whether his tan was real or not, he is unfit to lead. He also told me that even though he had every confidence in Bush since Bush was a Yale and Harvard grad, he couldn't watch the debate because Bush might blow it.

Of course he did watch some of the debate and told me that Bush beat Kerry.

*sigh*

Is there as single Bush supporter in here? This lil debate we got here seems abit.. onesided. Not that I like hearing all the rhetoric Bush supporters drown me with.
One quick thing too, I was talkin to a buddy of mine and he is strongly opposed to voting on the presidency at all because he says his vote doesn't mean sh*t. He cites the electoral college as an example. He says he'll still vote on local things and the Senate and whatnot since his votes supposedly count towards that. Just wonderin what i should tell him to consider voting. Tried the "if you don't vote you got no right to complain" bit but he didn't buy into it.

Does he live in Ohio?

Yes ma'am! Its my roommate actually lol. Here at good 'ol Ohio University. A drinking town w/ a football problem! :drunk:

Ma'am? WTF?!

The rationale is very simple--Ohio could very much be like Florida 2000. He who gets the most votes in OH wins the state and adds it to his EC total. And OH could very well be the deciding state.

hahaha - syc - he called you out as a biatch! :D

bullitt - i am one of the few bush supporters to be found in the cellar. that doesn't change my view of the debates though.

lol dont take it seriously syc, i call everyone ma'am, just to poke fun w/ em a bit :stickpoke . I'm a pretty footloose and fancy free kinda guy.
Flyin by the seat of my pants and lovin every minute!

But still wonderin what ya'll think i should tell this guy that would get him to vote. i'm out of ideas.

Sex usually works ;)

It's all good...I thought that you might not know that I'm male.

See my previous post. If that doesn't convince him that every vote really does count, nothing will.

Wow, we ought to invite the women from Pennsylvania to the Cellar to join our election threads.

You might want to check with your wife on that first, buddy.

From today's electoral-vote.com:

Say it ain't so, George, say it ain't so. :bawling:

With so much at stake, I doubt either side would want to take the chance of being caught doing something so stupid. Besides, I can't imagine Bush tanking that badly in the first debate with prompting. If that were the case, you would think someone would mention to him that the cameras are picking up his expressions and he's looking like an idiot. Since he didn't change his behavior, I doubt he was getting prompted.

It's not conclusive evidence, by far. The thing on his back seems large for a modern radio - you'd think he would have access to better ones.

On the other hand, trying to speak with a voice in his ear might explain some of his incoherence and the one time he snapped "let me finish" when nobody was interrupting him...

Ummmmm.... Apparently, Bush is against slavery.... It's good to know he won't overturn the overturning of the Dredd Scott decision.

Hell, Bush is a complete automaton who functions at the behest of his handlers - kind of like one of those radio controlled cars the kids used to play with. *Sqwak* "I have made NO serious mistakes" *Sqwak* "Well, we had to GO there to find out there were no weapons of mass destruction" (Maybe we should invade Canada next to see for ourselves if THEY have weapons of mass destruction, let's go see for ourselves if Argentina does. How about Montana, you never know about them. Let's invade every country in the world just to check and make sure!) *Sqwak* I flew over the western forests myself, and I'm here to tell you that forest fires are caused by TREES! I promise to rid America of this menance, good environmentalist that I am! *SQWAK* SQWAK* TILT! :eek:

and the one time he snapped "let me finish" when nobody was interrupting him...

Whoa, I missed that! Is there video or transcript of it?

Bush came off looking childish on that one. what happened is that in last night's format they were generally given a chance for rebuttal. i don't remember which question it was, but as soon as Kerry finished Bush started with his rebuttal without being given the nod by Mr Gibson. So Bush was speaking as Gibson started to say go ahead Mr President in a formal way, but Bush apparently thought he was going to be cut off, because he just kept going. not his shining moment of the evening.

rtsp://cspanrm.fplive.net/cspan/project/c04/c04093004_debate1.rm

(Not linked because you have to paste it into Real Player. Skip to 40:30)

It doesn't show Jim Lehrer, so it's possible he made some silent motion.

HM, did it happen in the first debat too? i thought you were talking about last night. sorry.

The "Let me finish" was the first debate, which was also the one with the odd object under his jacket. In last night's debate, he trampled Gibson twice (once as you described, and once when Gibson was trying to get a clarification on "backdoor draft")

Could the "odd object" have been a lapel mike transmitter? Seems more likely.

Indeed it could.

Good Bush quote from the last debate:

And in context:

"The truth of that matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if [John Kerry] [had been] the president of the United States, and the world would be a lot better off [according to John Kerry].

Of course. One can usually figure out what Bush meant.

Anyway, the Bush campaign is claiming that the bulge under his jacket is just a wrinkle in his suit.

Or maybe not. The mikes were podium-mounted.

What's the difference? A vote for Bush is a vote for the whispers in his ear anyway. :yelsick: