YOu listened, but didn't watch. To understand the nuances of language, you must also watch the speaker's body language. It's very important; take my word for it.
Was that response intended for me, C.I.?
Letty, I was responding to JustWonders, because he said he listened more than he watched.
btw, Letty, if the pundits that covered the debate didn't mention anything about body language, they missed a good part of the debate.
c.i. - surely you don't mean that Kerry can diss our allies, but as long as he has his fingers crossed behind his back, it's okay?
(Just joking - don't get all pissy LOL)
C.I. I am quite aware of how powerful body language is, and yes, his nervousness and frequent sips from the glass of water have been noted here as well as on the news. (I watch ABC, incidentally, cause I like Jennings' delivery)
I'm just thinking that Kerry, or any contender, should ever underestimate an opponent.
JW, I don't get "pissy" about either candidate, but I do know for sure that Bush took us into a shet hole that'll take much more than four more years to correct.
Letty wrote:C.I. I am quite aware of how powerful body language is, and yes, his nervousness and frequent sips from the glass of water have been noted here as well as on the news. (I watch ABC, incidentally, cause I like Jennings' delivery)
I'm just thinking that Kerry, or any contender, should ever underestimate an opponent.
I don't think Kerry is underestimating Bush, or at least he wasn't. I hope he don't now that he obviously won the last debate and Bush come up and beat on the side of head while he is unawares. I hope someone warns him not to do that.
JW,
I got home from work after the debate, and the only place i could find that had the whole debate was on NPR. It had the debates without running commentary, and obviously, without video. I could hear the frustration in Bush's voice when he said "Of course I know Bin Laden attacked us"
Simple fact.
Bush couldn't defend his failures in Iraq, and he knew it.
Furthermore; this election, like all incumbent elections, pivots on whether the voters believe that Bush is doing a satisfactory job or not. Bush tries to avoid this pitfall by painting his competition unfavorably, because he knows that he is running on a terrible record. Anytime that Kerry pointed this out Bush's reaction was to retreat to painting Kerry as "inconsistent" or to remind everyone that "It's Hard Work" (although spending a third of your time in office on vacation, makes me think that he really doesn't understand that concept)
I want to know how Bush is going to change things for the better, not that he doesn't understand the difference between nuance and "flip flopping." And I certainly don't want my Commander In chief complaining about how it's "Hard Work." I already understand that, I want to know what direction that "Hard Work" is going in to make a terrible situation in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea better.
The only place I would give Bush points on is his North Korea Policy. I do think that we are better off building a coalition with Japan, South Korea, and other regional nations, even China, rather than bi-lateral talks.
Every other point in this debate (IMHO) he lost on, and not just because I disagree with his policies but because he couldn't admit that those policies aren't working, and tell me how he plans to do it better in the future.
I can't confirm this, but I think in the multilateral talks all of North Korea's outstanding demands have to do with the US. Kerry's plann, as I undersand it, is to leave the offers already made by China and the others on the table, and work out the final settlement with NK one on one. My impresion is that the talks have stagnated due to an uncompromising US approach, and that Bush is using the five party thing to lower his profile in the proceedings.
Einherjar touched on the reality of Bush's approach on NK; let the others do the negotiating. Not a good plan for any leadership country. NK must understand that they are dealing with all those countries plus the US; that's the only message NK will understand. To remain dormant is not leadership.
(totally off-topic post deleted.)
In that case he was just an all around loser
:wink: hehe
So you're saying the inventor of the phrase did manage to fool all of the people all of the time after all? How ironic!
But, Letty, there are plenty of "off topics" in many other forums on a2k. I've been known to inject off topic posts on a2k, so I'm flexible.
Ironic? You could have fooled me, Thomas. <smile>
Now here's some irony that DOES adhere to C.I.'s thread:
AUTHOR: Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
QUOTATION: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
ATTRIBUTION: Essays. First Series. Self-Reliance.
How does this fit? Obvious, I think.
Good for you, C.I. Cause often, it's periphery from which we gain the most insight.
Letty, When we all have the opportunity to watch an event such as the first debate between Bush and Kerry, it's rather short-sighted to trust what any pundit says after the event. The best personal analysis can only come from watching it ourselves, then reading what the pundits claim. Those that watch it first hand has more credence than those that assumes the pundits comments are the last word.
