posted
I was referring to the attitude. It's the first glimpse of the personable friendly everyman attitude that people like about him.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
He used to do it a lot more. I know he's been working on it to reduce it. But it comes out whenever he wants to say something sarcastic. You can just see it...
I have to ask. Does Jim Lehrer have black irises? He's got the darkest eyes I've ever seen.
That Yale joke fell flat. The crowd isn't allowed to make any noise. Well duh, a joke with no laughter from the audience is NOT a good idea. If Kerry had laughed it would've worked for Bush. But Kerry probably didn't get it. So nobody laughed but Bush.
posted
Zamphyr, maybe it's just me, but I hate it when people look straight at the camera. That's a technique everyone uses during an interview -- when you look straight at the camera, it comes off reallllly strange.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was important, did everyone catch that, Lehr was tryin to get Bush to attack Kerry, but Bush said "I'm a pretty calm guy"
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When Kerry starts, he's immediately got something to say and he speaks without a single stammer for his exact time. Bush starts with 'um' and 'uh' and gets 30 seconds into his response and finishes, then talks aimlessly for the rest of the time limit. I think the most telling moment of the debate is when he asked for an additional 30 seconds to respond and spent the first 5 seconds shuffling his papers and staring into space. He rarely used his sense of humor (although he did get another good response in on that last rebuttal.) He's better than that. He's nervous and it shows.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That bit from the wrapup where Bush said he "climbed the mountain and was looking down into the valley of piece" is going to be on The Daily Show tonight. Any bets?
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I like the attempts to make them look equal height by putting the camera lower on Bush than on Kerry. I know it's not an uncommon practice or anything, but it's the sort of thing that always amuses me. In a "I can't believe you think I'm so dumb I won't notice that twice as much of Bush's podium is showing" kind of way.
Heh, it's a strategic move... probably agreed upon before the debate. My gov't teacher last year mentioned that the taller guy -usually- wins the election.
posted
I don't think it looks strange when they face the camera. They're appealing to us for votes, at least address us every once in a while.
The camera was the elephant in the room that Kerry ignored. The only time the President looked confident was looking into the camera. He's definitely looked better in State of the Union Addresses.
Pretty even "debate", Kerry slight edge....maybe half a podium's worth.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lehrer first of all has a job to promote, well, debate. This is about disagreement, and about response.
Second, Bush's tendency to give himself extensions was probably ticking Lehrer off (as it would me, were I a moderator supposedly vested with that sole discretion as one of my few powers).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to give that one to Senator Kerry, but it was hardly a crushing victory. Both candidates started out pretty badly and got better as time went on, but John Kerry spoke consistently throughout and had a more coherent message once he started hitting his stride (I don't think he made a lick of sense in about the first 15 minutes. He kept on going down garden paths.) With George Bush the message and delivery was much less consistent after the first 15 mintues that I was talking about. You could definitely tell the difference when he was on a talking point as opposed to when he wasn't. There was a total change in the style and speed of his speaking. When he was off them, there was far to much muddling of his message and hesitency in his speech. However, the difference between the two was not all that arresting. Senator Kerry comes out ahead, I think, but not all that far ahead.
John Kerry also scored two technical points to (from what I could see) George Bush's zero. He hit him once with the Cuban Missle Crisis line and once with the "What he just said as very telling. He said we were attacked by the enemy but Saddam Hussien didn't attack us. Osama Bin Laden did." Frankly, I would have preferred a stronger attack with that second one, but it still was a telling point and you could see that Senator Kerry was hoping that it would come up that way. They were both lower middle range hits, definitely not knock-outs or even staggering (I think the second, properly pursued could have been), but they were the only hits that I think landed. (edit: I don't think President Bush's repeated "I don't see how you could be the leader if..." comments worked. They didn't really bite, and Senator Kerry's faint counterattack dealt with them fine. they were as close as I saw to President Bush landing a hit, and they weren't that close.)
I did step away for about 10 minutes in the middle, so I may have missed some stuff, but that's my tale of the tape for this debate. John Kerry won by a small margin.
quote: I like the attempts to make them look equal height by putting the camera lower on Bush than on Kerry. I know it's not an uncommon practice or anything, but it's the sort of thing that always amuses me. In a "I can't believe you think I'm so dumb I won't notice that twice as much of Bush's podium is showing" kind of way.
You could also notice that Bush's Microphone had a much shorter stem than Kerry's.
It semed Kerry was a lot better prepared for this than Bush was. But then again, I've kind of become used to the ums and uhs.
Posts: 1401 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The domestic policy debate will be at ASU. Apart from the "ums" I was suprised that Kerry wasn't more composed than Bush. Kerry didn't have the "ums" but the stiffness is painful to watch. All this time I secretly feared he was smarter, but they both kept tossing the same spam back and fort at each other. I couldn't believe it when Kerry repeated almost verbatim his description of the failure to capture Osama bin Laden. But I guess he really really didn't want to be caught changing tracks in the middle of the debate. The thing he doesn't understand is that whenever he highlights his Vietnam record he is doing a thematic flip flop.
What did Kerry mean when he complained that every day Weapons of Mass Destruction are crossing the border. In the context, it seemed he meant out of Iraq.
I'm not sure how Bush handled calling Saddam Hussein the enemy, which Kerry called him on. I imagine not very well, since it wouldn't be responsible for him to give fuel to the anti-Israel movement. I guess it was a code meant to be understood by right minded people, and that bugs me.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But this issue of certainty. It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong.
It's another to be certain and be right, or to be certain and be moving in the right direction, or be certain about a principle and then learn new facts and take those new facts and put them to use in order to change and get your policy right.
What I worry about with the president is that he's not acknowledging what's on the ground, he's not acknowledging the realities of North Korea, he's not acknowledging the truth of the science of stem-cell research or of global warming and other issues.
And certainty sometimes can get you in trouble.
Finally finally FINALLY Kerry fought back against Bush's talk about his uncertainty and mixed messages. It's about time.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought of the immigration problem as an issue between us and Mexico. But I suppose it would fit just as well in the domestic debate too. So okay...
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kerry's number one job tonight was to rebut the accusations that he's a flip-flopper. I think he did that. I think this debate gave Kerry a chance to concisely explain why he said what he did, when he did, and show how he wasn't sending mixed messages.
I think Kerry gave more factual, substantive responses than Bush did to support his statements. We aren't winning the war on terror, here's why. Bush's responses were less factually based to support why we were winning the war on terror, for instance, and more geared towards painting Kerry with the flip-flop brush.
I think Bush came out the winner on delivery. Slightly. I thought it was interesting that Bush made constant use of 'the enemy' in his speech, as many Christians use that term when they speak of Satan. I thought his use of simile and metaphor was geared towards Christians. Clever.
I think Kerry took a huge risk in dismissing the nuclear bunker busters. This might be percieved by some people as weak.
All in all, nice debate. While there were certainly many rhetorical gaffs, both men showed character and a grasp of the issues. Both men made it clear where they stood. I think this will have much more positive effects for Kerry, than Bush. People knew where Bush stood. Now they know where Kerry stands.
posted
Regarding the certain doesn't mean right thing: there's a big point to be made there, but Bill Clinton did it so much better at the convention. The point is a very good point, but John Kerry didn't really make it that well. We know it's a shot that could do some damage, but I don't think he landed it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When Bush talked to the camera, I get the same feeling that I keep getting. Bush's supporters see it as firmness and boldness. To them, he appears as resolute... while his detractors (and some undecideds, here) feel like he's talking 'at' them, rather than 'to' them... as if he's saying "if I'm elected, this is how I'm going to do it, no matter what happens."
Basically, what I'm saying is that to those who like his policies, he seems firm; to those who dislike them, he seems stubborn. At times, he seems to act for the America made up of his supporters, rather than... 'everybody's America,' I guess.
Gah. I hope that made sense. I'm tired, and I have to get up to get to school in the morning... must goto bed...
posted
Yeah, I agree Storm. Strategically, I think Senator Kerry gained some ground through this debate. However, I wonder how much. He's got the job of increasing turnout for the people who don't like President Bush. That's what I think is going to win him the election. I think he looks like a less bad choice after the debate, but I don't think he really lit a fire under anyone. Especially since he started out really weak. I think he lost a lot of people from the beginning and I don't know that they stuck around.
I'm still not voting for him.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, if Kerry didn't get 'warm' enough, I think there were several times when Bush appeared to get genuinely pissed that anyone would question his decisions.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush made several mistakes here. He repeatedly interrupted Kerry, he lost track of what he was saying and towards the end he actually had to be coached along by the moderator.
posted
I think Kerry made out huge on the Bunker Buster issue, and made Bush look inconsistant by mentioning it. Did you nothice that Bush tapered off on his canned speech obout filp-flops and inconsistancies for a while after that?
And it is true....Bush has fumbled that ball bad there.
quote:You could also notice that Bush's Microphone had a much shorter stem than Kerry's.
You know, I was going to insert the obvious joke here, but I just can't.
Being a casual supporter of Bush with no other political motivations, I have to admit that Kerry seemed to have so many more experiences to rely upon to better answer question after question. This reminded me of two opponents who were hopelessly mismatched, in Kerry's favor. He simply out-debated our President. His wealth of information and experiences over the last two decades spent in the Senate really helped him speak unforcefully and succinctly. This reminded me of a college debate club whooping the collective arse of a high school equivalent.
This made Bush appear to stammer and hesitate. Too bad, IMO. I think that without a comparison to Kerry, Bush gave a good, solid performance (but not as good as Kerry)! Also, Bush was all over the radar, and kept chanting the same phrases like "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" and "mixed messages" which tended to tire my over-active brain. Kerry seemed to more fluidly state his points, without having to repeat these safety phrases over and over.
The sad part is that many Americans will cast their vote for seemingly meaningless impressions they gathered from tonight's debate, ignoring the other information they might gleen elsewhere.
I have to admit this is a scary, fun, interesting, and scary again kind of thing to behold. I wonder if the rest of the world is as nervous as the US is.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, my analysis was that the beginning was o.k., the middle was o.k., but things kind of got out of control towards the end until the last two minutes.
I think Kerry really needs to talk about the cost of the war and how we could make better use of that money here at home. His points about domestic security were spot on, but he needed to hammer those points more often.
It was a good debate, by and large. I think both men acquitted themselves well.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I made the prediction that Bush will win the first debate. I was wrong. Kerry had a slight edge in this debate. He was more composed, articulate, and charismatic. Bush looked agitated at times and had way too many pauses between his sentences.
The one good thing about Bush's performance is that he looked into the camera more often in the debate. It took Kerry a while before he realized that he should be making eye contact with the TV audience and not the moderator.
Bush also came across as more human, as when he praised Kerry and his daughters. Kerry's response to that praise seemed a bit forced.
Kerry took a lot of chances tonight and we will have to wait a few days to see the effects of his gamble.
Kerry shifted the focus away from Iraq to North Korea at the end of the debate. Kerry did not clearly explain why bilateral talks between American and North Korea is better than the six- country group discussions that Bush supports.
If I were an average person who is not well-informed regarding the North Korean crisis, I would be puzzled by Kerry's position. First Kerry stated that coalitions are important for Iraq. But then why are group talks not good for North Korea?
Kerry also admitted that he made mistakes in his characterization of his positions on military spending. In my opinion that was a good move. Hang a lantern on your problem and move on. It shows character in my opinion. But this is also dangerous for Kerry because Bush can easily turn this against him later in the campaign.
The one thing I liked about Bush tonight is his flat refusal to give a timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq. I think any candidate who gives a firm deadline to the American people is way too optimistic.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree (edit: with Storm's characterization of it as a good debate). I think the level of debate was around average varsity high school debate. Neither performance would have won any prizes, even on a high school level.
posted
I thought that Bush had many opportunities to rebuke Kerry much more effectively. Situations like Libya could have been played much more effectively to support the war in Iraq as far as having global ramifications for other countries and WMDs, but it was mentioned in passing. I have to admit I was laying on the floor shouting "Mention Libya!, Mention Libya!" And he did. In a lackluster way.
I too agree that both men did well, but I was just frustrated that Bush could have done better. I believe that this is an indication that Bush relys heavily on his staff and VP for assistance in addressing matters. On his own, without a safety net it is quite the tightrope walk.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush's extensive stammering really surprised me though. I would expect that in a town hall format where candidates can get surprised. But all the questions tonight should be anticipated by Bush's staff.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't feel like either really won. The both mixed up Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden at one point.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sure that tonight's debate will do nothing to change the minds of the neo-conservatives in Bush's camp, but I think it'll go a long way towards reassuring Democrats and Undecideds that Kerry is a strong, capable leader worth their votes.
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka -- I feel the slight mixing up of proper names (particularly when both fill very similar "idea spaces") is a small thing, really, and a very bad way of judging the winner or loser of a debate. I am confident neither would actually mess up the two (for instance, attack one when he meant to attack the other).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I thought you weren't paying any attention to post-debate coverage or discussion, Dagonee .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I think in general Kerry pretty much dismantled Bush in the debate, both factually and (surprisingly) stylisticly. Bush seemed irritable and nervous.
However, there is still one big thing that stands in Bush's corner and that's the simplicity with which he continues to deliver his message. He (and his campaign in general) repeats the same phrases over and over, and I think that works well for a lot of voters.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
