I belatedly watched the first presidential debate. (Click to view the debate online.) I must say, after reading many analyses, I was quite surprised. I thought it was a clear win for Kerry. Not that anything he said made sense. Does anyone think he could have gotten France and Germany into the war on terror? Does anyone think that giving Saddam more time would convince him of anything? And if Saddam refused for a 19th time (or whatever) would it then be the right war at the right time in the right place? And why doesn’t it make sense to “outsource” the war in Afghanistan to locals? Etc. (I’m sure I’m missing a few things.)
But how many people are listening that closely? The impression that I came away with is that Kerry sounded confident and presidential, while Bush sounded tired and defensive. And I think that’s what counts.
Not that I think it will be enough to turn the election, thank heavens!
Posted by David Boxenhorn at October 5, 2004 02:30 PMI agree with your assessment of the first debate. I watched it and although Bush was definitely not in his best form, Kerry contradicted himself all over the place. There wasn't much substance from Kerry -- and nothing that I could really get behind.
Tonight is the VP debate from my hometown. I'll be watching for sure.
Posted by: Stacey at October 5, 2004 05:17 PM Permalink
I agree with you, David. The rightblogs seemed pretty unanimous in declaring the debate an unequivocal Bush victory. I don't see it. I'm reminded of something from gui (graphical user interface) design--
Appearance is all-- substance doesn't sell. :)