Early in the day for me for any deep writings. I avoided listening to the talking heads after the debate, did not read any blogs other then Captain Ed’s live blogging, and have only heard a little bit on FoxNews and the Bob and Tom Show this am. Me, I call it a draw.
Both candidates seemed to be playing more to their bases then the folks who haven’t made up their minds, and the low percent who would consider switching. The talking points were out there.
Kerry was using Bush 41’s hand motions, and W was leaning on the Podium. Both got some zingers in, but W blew off some fantastic opportunities to real attack Kerry. One thing to think about, is that W did not really go on the attack, did not really play the smear game, which will play better to those who are not into politics like you, me, other bloggers, the DUer’s, etc. They do not like that. We will see as the polls come out through Monday.
A couple points. Kerry never answered the question on “Would a Kerry win increase the risk of terror?” He bloviated on W. But he never said what he would do, other than banal generalities.
Question 7, “Are US soldiers dying for a mistake?”, Kerry said “No, and they don’t have to,…” . So he admitted Iraq wasn’t a mistake.
There is so much more, but, in this, I would humbly suggest that you, the reader, check out the transcript yourself. There will be tons of folks on tv, the radio, and the internet. Transcript first.
2 final things. 1st, Kerry blew off our current allies, especially Poland and Australia. 2nd, he now wants to do it alone at the bargaining table with North Korea, rather then with the multiple countries, including South Korea, Japan, and China, as we are doing now, and have been doing.
However, I will give you one comment from Captain Ed: No, it’s like invading North Africa in response to Pearl Harbor, Senator. It’s the difference between tactical and strategic thinking. Oh, Halliburton just made its first appearance. Now Bush gets to run the list of allies in Iraq, and he’s making minced meat out of Kerry’s arguments …
Lot’s more to say, but no time, no time. Work time.
Addition:
After thinking on this more (still haven’t hit other sites except for the CNN transcript, but I want to), I will give Kerry the win on style, but Bush the win on substance. I think back to the Nixon/Kennedy debate, which I have managed to see some of on the ‘Net. Kennedy easily won on style. He looked confident and youthfull. Nixon looked awfull. But, if you read the transcript, and read pundits from later times, Nixon beat the pants off of Kennedy for substance. What’s the point? Todays society feeds us an enormous amount of news and analysis. The blogosphere has added even more. The 2 candidates points will be reiterated through at least next wednesday to thursday. And W had the better points, and did not sink as far as Kerry did in the finger pointing. He took some shots at Kerry, but talked about what he would do, and has done, more then taking pot shots at Kerry. Kerry talked more about Bush.
Kerry’s supposedly has plans, but it seems he will only tell us the good ones when he is President. Except for dealing unilaterally with North Korea and giving Iran plutonium. Oh, and blowing off our current allies, insulting the Interim President of Iraq, thinking that Russia would gladly allow the USA to go into Russia to secure their nuclear materials, tasking US troops to destroy poppy plants in Afghanistan, annoying Pakistan, and so on.
While the debate may have been, in my estimation, a tie, it remains to be seen whether the after affects will favor Kerry or W. I think they will favor W. A quick uptick of 2 points for Kerry, then a loss of 4 by on Monday or Tuesdays polls.
How can you tell who won? I fell asleep 45 minutes into it, it was that exciting — and this stuff really interests me!