Oh thta's what it was... good job Kerry!
kerry sure does sound presidential - a strong leader with a strong conviction - that was a good closing statement.
--
but bush starts talking soft, taking the tempo down, like in a quiet, personal conversation with you. thats good, creating a bond with the viewer - and in comparison he makes kerry retroactively sound like he was just stump speeching.
Back pat!!
Bush's face fell!
What was that?
What'd Kerry feel?
Oh I'm so so so curious...
in short: bush's closing statement was much less good than kerry's - but his delivery was superior, more personal.
Hm.
I can't get past the microexpressions. Fake fake fake fake fake fake SO fake!
Curious what persuadables thought... oh Liiiiinkaaat...!
It's over. <heaves sigh>
I think Kerry did well!
the liberals are gonna hate me for this - hell, *I* hate me for feeling this - but just like with the last debate, I come away from it with this feeling like: you sure got two strong men competing for your presidency there - two strong men with strong convictions, you gotta respect em for it. well, thats like my isntinctive reaction after such a debate - so that means a pretty good, convincing delivery on bush's part, cause i'm most undisposed to feeling anything like that about him.
all in all - i gotta say - kerry did well. he did pretty well, i'm glad with him. but it was still, like last time, two strong men in a headlock - and they really did keep themselves standing well against each other.
i'd again call it a tie - advantage to kerry, but overall a tie. the differences are clear now - people should be able to say, OK, they'll both do what they think is right - but i agree more with this guy. So who do more voters agree with?
They both sounded real good tonight, but I think Bush landed the harder more effective blows. Kerry got a little winded there in the middle and forgot to check his cadenceĀ
which is very bad for him. Bush still doesn't look nearly as smart, but he seems to be more honest. I think that will sway more people. Gotta give this one to Bush.
republican post-debate talking points: "government-controlled health care plan" that will "raise taxes on everyone" ...
i know kerry just denied that and explained how it was not that - but expect lots and lots more along this line in the remaining three weeks of the campaign anyway - and when the ads come, kerry won't be able to respond to the charge directly anymore ...
mcauliffe: "with bush its excuse after excuse after excuse" - he wont take any responsibility for anything
bringing up how bush "didnt even attampt to answer the question" about the laid-off worker - how question after question, bush didnt give any answers, could not give any answers perhaps.
thats a good line for the dems: the president doesnt want to or is not able to acknowledge reality.
damn, soz, bill, husker - did we really just go through 13 pages here?
nimh wrote:Craven de Kere wrote:When Bush started about "leading media..." or whatnot and said "nevermind" was it acting?
With sound only it sounded stupid, but maybe it was a dismisssal through acting?
It was code. Thats why he stopped, too. He said enough to give his conservative base something to nod to, like, "oh yeah we know those liberal media!", but stopped in time not to actually have to come out and say that out loud and sound far right about it.
Yeah, the ole media thing was clear, but it came off bad in sound. I was wondering if he acted the "nevermind" better.
I like mcauliffe's take. (obviously, but still.)
some bush/cheney camaign advisor makes a big deal about something i hadnt even noticed - a big deal. "john kerry's knees buckled" midway the debate, when bush said he passed only 5 bills - "and when he did come with an answer he said something unbelievable" - that he passed 56 bills - "this is just so wrong" - "this is going to be the noose around his neck", if not so much right now tonight but "in the next 19 days". he says its kerry "exaggerating" his record - remember the charges of gore "exaggerating", inventing the internet and stuff? do you think this might be another line we'll see a lot of attack ads on in the remnant of the campaign?
who do you think won, craven - on radio?
Re reality about jobs--I think Bush was the only one who was facing reality on jobs and Kerry's comment even backed him up. He said you can't blame the President for progress. We are moving out of manufacturing and into tech. The manufacturing jobs are leaving. Our inflated rates of pay are also driving this change...
Bush has strengthened education grants and is trying to create an environment for citizens to advance their skills through education and retraining.
Its easy to promise 10 million jobs, as Kerry did--but has he ever said how he'll do this? Is he still saying it, even? Advantage--Bush for realism.
And, the same about Social Security. Greenspan and just about anybody with an economic degree and a voice box are saying SS will not remain solvent. Kerry is content to leave this problem unaddressed.
mind you, i said even after the first debate that i thought it was mostly a tie, at most with advantage to kerry - but it turned out that the polls had him winning big. i thought bush had kerry down to at least a tie in the second debate - but it turns out the polls had it a win for kerry, if only very narrowly. so if i think that this time it was again a tie with merely an advantage to kerry, will the polls again show it a kerry victory?
Nimh, do you know off hand how many bills he can really claim to have passed?
13 pages
during the debate is a lot of talking... wonder if we missed anything.
OMG
I'm looking a picture of Craven lighting a bowl for a hamster!
Lash wrote:And, the same about Social Security. Greenspan and just about anybody with an economic degree and a voice box are saying SS will not remain solvent. Kerry is content to leave this problem unaddressed.
I think Kerry actually did well on that one. He said, of course we have to look at change when the generations shift - but for now, we gotta live up to our promises and we
can. Just the money Bush gave away in a tax cut
to the top 1% would have saved Social Security up to twenty seventyfive - 2075. Thats impressive.
lockhart: "i dont think [kerry] felt the need to attack george bush", while "george bush did feel the need to attack john kerry".
that may be incorrect, obviously, cause kerry was talking about what bush hadnt done all the time - but in terms of how they came across its kinda true - it was bush who seemed to be angry all the time, not kerry.
ralph reed had another take on the same thing (thus kinda reinforcing it): "george bush is the incumbent, but he's fighting this race like he's the challenger" - like, fired up he meant.
