In response to Kerry, Bush said that he was confused about what the �global test� was with regards to a pre-emptive strike. Bush clearly misunderstood the statement. The statement obviously meant that the �global test� would occur after the pre-emptive strike. The test being, the president had better be proven correct that his basis for the pre-emptive strike was in fact legitimate, i.e. WMDs had better be found if that was the basis. However, Bush thought it meant that there was some sort of �global test� that the pre-emptive strike had to pass before it occurred, i.e. we had to ask for global permission from the rest of the world.

Now, Bush�s gaffe could be a plus because of all the yokels in the red states made the same mistake. �Huh, yea, what �global test?� Is it multiple choice? I sure hope there isn�t an essay.�

So it�s hard to tell who won from a debate competition standpoint because that may not matter.

I think that Kerry won, because I think that his numbers dropped because his supporters lost a little bit of belief in themselves and their candidate. I think Kerry�s performance restored that faith. The question then becomes, how much of a bounce will Kerry get?

Or is it just impossible for the press to appear anything but �neutral�?

Forgive me for nit-picking, but I couldn’t help but getting a chuckle from this comment. At this very moment, I happen to be taking a quick break from writing a review on Outfoxed for my university English class. All I can think of is: “Fair and Balanced”

Both sides got their talking points repeated, and neither side scored any good shots (in the portions I saw). I didn’t try to compare the worth of the talking points, so perhaps that is one reason I disagree with most likely voters on this one.

I also recognize that the polls showing more than half the likely voters called Kerry the winner (when more than half the voters were Bush supporters at the beginning of the debate) imply that this isn’t just a case of each side declaring victory.

Kerry was solid overall. Bush seemed on the defensive and didn’t really enage Kerry on specific issues. For instance, he could have defened his policy on nuclear bunker busters when Kerry mentioned it .. he didn’t.

I think for a news caster it must be tense to give an on the spot analysis knowing it will influence others, and knowing you if you overstate your opinion you could look “wrong” or biased , but I thought this was a clear debate to call.

CBS didn’t call it a tie, Well one vote tie, one vote Kerry. So a suppose thats like a hung jury.

kerry:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++(57)
bush:
+++++++++++++++(15)
draw:
++++++++++(10)

More importantly, how seriously are we supposed to take Bush’s claim that all those people streaming accross the borders to fight us are terrorists who would have been lining up to join Al Queda anyway absent a war in Iraq? That’s what he was saying underneath and it does not bear a moment’s reflection.

I think Kerry’s best move was to put himself in the place of the Iraqi people in the debate: “If you saw military bases springing up next to oil wells, would you trust them?”

And now our trust has to be in the American people!

PS: about mistakes – bush lives up to almost lenin size: when handed a list of people by his secretary without any explanations, lenin, possibly swamped with paperwork, did not ask its use, but mark his closest friends on the list. later when he got reported, that all marked people had been executed, he broke into laughter – as the situation truly was absurd and there was no way to redo what happened, thats just what artists do: continue looking forward to realise yet greater works!

I had the debate on for the full two hours, but I was distracted from actually paying attention to much of it. That may be why I’m in the 10% (100% – (53% + 37%) = 10%) who went to bed thinking it was a tie.