For those who missed the first presidential debate here’s a handy summary:
Kerry: I can do it better.
Bush: I provide a consistent message.
Kerry: Bi-lateral talks with North Korea.
Bush: Multi-lateral talks with North Korea, China, South Korea, Japan, and the U. S.
Bush did more to rebut such charges as Kerry made and less to deflect the charges than I expected. Kerry was less confrontational than I expected. A few minor Bush-isms: “pre-September 10” (rather than pre-September 11), Moo-lahs, Vla-der-mer (Putin). A few incomprehensible Kerry responses.
Major omissions: no serious mention of Iran. No mention at all of Syria, Saudi, etc.
IMO this debate was a tie. Kerry missed an opportunity to come back from his slump. Bush missed an opportunity to end the campaign. Let’s see what the post-debate spin has to say.
gEye wrote: IMO this debate was a tie.
Methinks you had one too many frozen peach daiquiris, Dave. 😉 Clearly a victory for Kerry. He was calm, concise, genial, optimistic, intelligent-sounding, commanding, and well, just plain presidential. (And NOT orange! ) Bush stammered and stumbled, grimaced, scowled, pursed his lips, and looked too many times like Dan Quayle caught in the headlights; definitely not comfortable in his skin tonight. Pres. Bush was repetitious to the point of being ridiculous.
At least that’s my immediate reaction. 😉
Connie
As I mentioned on my blog, I do think that Kerry won this debate. But his policy regarding Iran (via rushed CNN transcript) is quite dangerous:
I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren’t willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing.
Can you believe he actually said that with a straight face? And he threatened sanctions to top it off. Maybe I’m just not thinking of the right examples but haven’t most countries that have had economic snactions slapped on them, been able to manipulate them in such a way so they could further entrench their regime while straving their citizens? (Bush did point out that the US has had sanctions on Iran since 1979) Say harsher sanctions are applied to Tehran, won’t that make them, you know, more threatened about a potential collaspe of government to either become more hostile or covertly sell the nuke to al Qaeda? Gah.