September 30, 2004
Presidential Debate

... everyone else is blogging it, I won't bother...

It is interesting to read the different view points on the debate from both sides.

"Kerry clearly won!"
"Bush totally kicked Kerry's butt"

Makes me wonder what the definition of "win" actually is?

Posted September 30, 2004 10:51 PM in Random
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.unix-girl.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1346
Comments
On October 1, 2004 01:12 AM Tom added:

When I watched the debate, I thought that Kerry had an obvious lead, by which I mean that it looks like he was calm, spoke clearly, and knew what he wanted to say.

I turned the TV on again an hour or so later, however, and they were playing clips from the debate that made it look like Kerry had no advantage at all. On the positive side, it forces me to reflect on what I heard and try to dispel any biases before watching again. On the other hand, I know that cutting out Bush's stuttering and repetition of "It's a hard job" helped him out a lot.

#
On October 1, 2004 01:14 AM david added:

Can't say much on the debate itself since I was caught asleep, but wouldn't it just all be better if they got into a mud fight?

http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/726/3491

(Verizon reps can put you to sleep very easily if you have bouts of insomnia)

#
On October 1, 2004 03:14 AM Luis added:

I'll better ask about loss definition instead.

#
On October 1, 2004 04:25 AM Sam added:

to "win", like winning iraq ?

#
On October 1, 2004 07:39 AM pbw added:

Kerry was the better speaker. Heck, anyone is a better speaker then W.

The thing is, Kerry, didn't get a big soundbite (like 'Are you better off then 4 years ago?' or 'It's the Economy stupid') that made W look bad or the feeling that he had any better ideas on Iraq then W...

In Politics, the incumbent always has a huge advantage, if the new guy doesn't score a TKO, he's not going to score in Nov. So, I give Kerry the round but W is still ahead on points.

#
On October 1, 2004 07:48 AM Lynne added:

I'm a Bush supporter, but he really needs to do better next time.

#
On October 1, 2004 09:06 AM Jason Stare added:

I totally agree. In the end, supporters of each candidate think their man "won" and the undecided population will probably still think their both monkeys. Millions will not find either appealing and simply not vote.

Not that anyone could have won this "debate" anyway. it was all scripted. Oh, how I long for REAL debates in a presidential election. Maybe then we'd see some emotion from these guys.

#
On October 1, 2004 05:03 PM Randy added:

As a "win" I think it's whoever sucks less, which is a completely subjective thing.

I agree that Kerry was more polished, but that's not going to win my vote. Of course, Bush, at times, didn't look like he could put a sentance together with Magentic Poetry, which isn't going to win my vote either.

What did sorta make me PROUD is that a lot of the larger media seems to be pointing on faults on both sides and the fact that there was no buzz word or instant cliche phrase from last night... it seemed to be VERY serious and VERY conflicting views on the same issues... almost like an actual debate, instead of the PR machine that "debates" have been since Kennedy/Nixon.

JM2C of course... I think they were evenly matched - I found myself agreeing with a few more things that Bush said, but Kerry was better at stating his points of view.

Wonder if we can get a merged clone?

#
Trackbacks