Forget the rest. Its GUPSHUP’s own (un)scientific poll.
Kerry obliterated Dubya. I was literally pumping my fist in the air when he said the stuff about admitting mistakes being as important as being consistent. This is exactly what he needed to say. This could very well be the turning point of these elections.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Pakistani Tiger: *
....This could very well be the turning point of these elections.
[/QUOTE]
And Billis in Pakistan will be jumping up and down mewing for Kerry's win.
Demo-karts ruined Pakistan's efforts to stabilize the area. Clinton was chummying Baja-pipe while Qaida was preparing for 9/11. These demo-karts have no shame. They hurt Pakistan and Afghanistan while their leader smoked cigars.
^ This thread is about who won the debate #1. Lets stick to that. For the rest, we have ample other threads. Thanks.
Kerry clearly won. Will it make a difference? No.
Kerry was so polished and articulate – but I look at these clowns and I say to myself, they don’t have a clue what the problems are that confront the world – since the theme of the debate was ‘foreign affairs/policy”. I was (this time) impressed that George could pronounce difficult names with relative ease (I really was amazed to my amazement). Kerry came across so business like – as if he practiced his answers over and over again.
Overall, I thought that Lehrer won the debate.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Kerry clearly won. Will it make a difference? No.
[/QUOTE]
kerry clearly is the better candidate, would it make a difference? No.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Madhanee: *
Overall, I thought that Lehrer won the debate.
[/QUOTE]
go to hell, neither of them won the debate, nor did lehrer. I won the debate..and u know why, cuz instead of sitting there listening to some dog and pony, i mean donkey and elephant show which had more rules around it than IRS code book, I was at a happy hour..woo hoooo
so in summary i won the debate because I wated no time on it until u bozos started opening threads here about the debate.
I need a Who cares...as an option. That is what I am voting for.
I need a Who cares...as an option. That is what I am voting for.
You know when you get down to it, I just have not gotten over Kerry citing the superb play of the Red Sox "Manny Ortez" at the Democratic Convention. (For those of you who do not follow baseball, there is a MANNY Ramirez, and a David ORTIZ, but there is no Manny Ortez. You would think as the Senator from Massachusetts he would know this...) What a jamoke....
was pretty obvious who won, no need to vote.
OK! Thanks to C-Span I have watched the whole debate.
The debate looked like a football (American) match between two defense-heavy teams. Offense was practically non-existent. Each candidate used his pre-scripted positions on every issue. President Bush stuck to “consistency”, while Sen. Kerry kept repeating, “I have a plan”.
JK 2004 sounds more like GB 2000 that he feels he can fix things with a drop of a hat.
JK said he could reach out and touch the Muslim world. I am not sure he has ever touched a Mullah. Or worse yet, for Israel vs. Arab issue he would even want to touch a Mullah. Muslim world was angry with Clinton for his support for Israel. Muslim world is angry with GB for Iraq AND Israel. Assuming JK solves Iraq issue by 2008, Israel-Arab conflict will still be the royal pain.
GB pretty much followed the script on Iraq with no new vision. January elections, and Allawi can’t really solve the issues with Sunni triangle. So the murder and mayhem will continue in Iraq until a mirror image of Saddam is brought back to power. Arabs cannot live in a democracy.
On North Korea issue, both JK and GB were completely off. JK wants to hug Kim, while GB wants to use China, SK, Japan etc. Both of these schemes are not going to work. China and Japan don’t have muscle to control NK. JK can reestablish aid programs for NK without a total scrapping of their nukes.
GB hinted about the namak-hamam AQK from Pakistan. I wonder how bad it will be for Pakistan to have either GB or JK as the US president. I fear that actions of AQK will come back to haunt us big time.
more later…
So far the score at the end of first qurater: JK 7, GB 6.
Ke-tchup-rry man clearly won the debate. But as OG pointed out, it doesn't make a difference.
Here are some additional analysis.
Pundits, pollsters and political operatives worked furiously to answer one question after the first debate between President Bush and Sen. John Kerry – who won?
Much of the 90-minute debate on international policy issues focused on the war in Iraq and the war on terror. But the candidates also fielded questions on nuclear proliferation – particularly in Iran and North Korea --and the situation in Darfur, Sudan, which both men agreed was genocide.
In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey of 615 registered voters who watched the debate, most said Kerry did the better job and almost half said the debate made them think more favorably of Kerry.
By narrow margins, Bush came out better on believability, likeability and toughness. But there was virtually no change among those polled on which candidate would handle Iraq better or make a better commander-in-chief.
It is also unclear how much impact the debates would have. In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday, 18 percent of registered voters said the debates would make a difference.
And ofcourse, to keep it all fair and balanced…
While the Republicans tended to be stingy with praise for Kerry’s performance, some undecided voters said they had come away with a more favorable view of him.
“He debates very well and I was impressed tonight. The night was completely lopsided,” said a 33-year-old who works in finance and gave his name as Tom. But Tom, a registered Republican originally from Anchorage, Alaska, said he wasn’t yet ready to cross to the other side.
“In diplomacy, in the environment, in lying to the public and going into Iraq (search) instead of focusing on terrorism, [Bush has] lost my vote,” Tom said. “But I don’t like Kerry at all. I think he’s an opportunist, I don’t think he has much character. As a registered Republican I’m not sure I can vote Democratic and have it on my record when I really don’t like the guy.”
Another undecided registered Republican gave the debate to Kerry.
“I think Kerry definitely outshined [Bush] on almost every point,” said 33-year-old Ari Ackerman, a business owner.
But while his expectations for Bush in the debate were “very low,” Ackerman said he was still leaning toward the incumbent for his policies on Israel.
“Sometimes you have to say ‘thank you’ to the president of the United States for being supportive of an issue that’s important,” he said, adding that he was not sure if Kerry would be as support of Ariel Sharon’s government. Still, “Kerry would be a good president,” he said.
President Bush and Sen. John Kerry rushed back to the campaign trail Friday to try to convince voters they had won their debate over foreign policy and to continue the argument over whether going to war in Iraq had made the nation safer. Three post-debate polls suggested voters who watched the policy-driven confrontation Thursday night were impressed by Kerry, with most of those surveyed saying he did better than Bush.
And news from the world
**First blood to Kerry in TV debate **
John Kerry regained the initiative in the US presidential race last night with a forceful performance in his first debate with George Bush, occasionally leaving the president scowling and at a loss for words.
Instant-response polls by three major television networks all showed that a large majority of their viewers thought the challenger had won the 90-minute verbal contest at the University of Miami - the first of three debates in the last month of the campaign.
Perhaps even more seriously for President Bush, the networks ignored broadcasting guidelines agreed beforehand and showed both candidates at the same time. On several occasions, Mr Bush could be seen sour-faced and nervous in reaction to some of Mr Kerry’s remarks. Similar “cut-away” shots of Al Gore in the first presidential debate four years ago sapped his campaign and helped put Mr Bush into office.
However, several conservative commentators awarded the encounter to Senator Kerry on points. Morton Kondracke, an outspoken hawk on Fox News, said he did not think the president “had dominated” and argued “Kerry looked like a commander-in-chief”.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Fraudz: *
kerry clearly is the better candidate, would it make a difference? No.
[/QUOTE]
I hope it does..
Kerry IMHO looked like a president last thursday.
George looked like he needed help from his frat-brothers. He looked like he needed a drink actually.
Kerry's ideas might make a difference.
George's are same old failed ideas.
George right now is sacraficing American Soldiers for his re-election and IMHO sorrowful action of someone presidential.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
You know when you get down to it, I just have not gotten over Kerry citing the superb play of the Red Sox "Manny Ortez" at the Democratic Convention. (For those of you who do not follow baseball, there is a MANNY Ramirez, and a David ORTIZ, but there is no Manny Ortez. You would think as the Senator from Massachusetts he would know this...) What a jamoke....
[/QUOTE]
I liked the "pottery barn" simile....
Someone was saying the debate will not effect the swing voters??? Where is Bush's lead now? ;-)