Who one the 1st president debate?

Originally Posted by Bikerman2004

Unfortunately, here it is all television driven. The networks want sound bites. And most viewers here don't have an attention span long enough to listen and make an informed choice. Don't know about the rest of your post. Don't know who that guy is. I'd say Kerry outperformed Bush, based on what I've heard. I was on plane from Houston to Chicago so I missed it. I actually think Bush is more comfortable with the town hall arrangement. I would think the first format would be better for him. It allows for shorter answers.

Originally Posted by lokstah

I think you both made good points when you pointed out how artificial and stilted these debates are. To be fair, there are still quality political debates in the United States, but they're rare; on top of that, this particular situation (the Kerry-Bush race) is a bad-debate perfect storm.

It's the most closely watched, emotionally charged and electorate-polarizing race in ages, so there's an exaggerated sense of high stakes. Presidential races are always high stakes, of course, but this is a new day.

Each succesive election year also sees greater and greater evolutions in the media, and in the information technology we respond to -- polling sciences, internet services, blogs, advocacy sites, fundraising techniques and news delivery methods are all more varied and extreme than they were 4, 8, or 12 years ago.

Throw into the mix a particularly unusual matchup of personalities and styles: could these two guys give off more different auras? It's such a odd missmatch that each side has feverishly over-strategized how to simply appear human next to the other guy. The Bush team has overworked the hell out of preventing the president from coming across as a moron who's too short; the Kerry boys have overworked the hell out of preventing the senator from looking like a wordy jerk with an enormous, wrinkled brow. Every word has been focus-grouped for offensiveness, effectiveness, stickability, toughness and sensitivity.

The lack of real interaction makes it feel like watching two guys play a video game about debating.

Originally Posted by davidmc

True in regards to being an "simple man" not coming off as being overintelligent. Judging by the polls i would agree w/ you that the people who answer the polls & blindly support this president are either wealthy (or at least "well off")or intellectually challenged, not that there's anything wrong w/ that. I'm talking about a person watching the debates who might comment"Hey Martha!!!, did'nt kerry just use a three syllable word? I don't trust him" People seem to feel threatened by a well spoken candidate, as you point out the "simpson syndrome" Another poster pointed out that since when is it improper to have an elected official who's intelligent. I would like to think the country is being better educated but polls would indicate otherwise.
I notice people dodging the issues by saying "this guys character...", instead of outlining thier reasons for choosing one guy over another. I'm giving kerry a chance because i know it would be a statistical impossibility to end up w/ an administration worse than the current one. Thats the beauty of democracy, if the guy's not levelling w/ the people(misleading them)vote 'em out which is what i'm going to do.

Originally Posted by Bikerman2004

That would be good question. Then Cheney can ask Edwards how much of the the judgements he won he kept and how much went to his clients. Then he can ask how Edwards is going to fix the health care problems. Since it seems he specialized in sueing doctors.

Originally Posted by lokstah

I think the VEEP debate has a greater probability of looking and feeling more natural, and with a greater exchange of arguments. Both Cheney and Edwards are perceived as intelligent and articulate guys; there's less pressure to ensure that one or the other doesn't appear immensely more intellectual or simple than the other, and less pressure for VEEPs in general to be congenial. I suspect (hope) they'll speak a bit more freely.

Originally Posted by zapper

Really? It seems that you describe yourself and your candidate...Bush was probably "sneering" at kerry who is a liar and a cheat...Below is just one of his lies...oh, BTW, you might want to (learn how to spell when calling someone an idiot...)

Kerry recounted how he had (with former Senator Smith (R-NH)) gone down into the bowels of the former KGB under TREBLINKA SQUARE.

Truth... Treblinka was the name of a NAZI EXTERMINATION CAMP

Kerry is so used to making up war stories that he can't tell fact from fiction

Originally Posted by zapper

Kerry is so used to making up war stories that he can't tell fact from fiction

Originally Posted by pomod

Name me a politician who doesn't lie? At least none of Kerry's lies have cost any lives. Which is worse lying about your war stories, or lying to start a war? I don't know who is more pathetic, the Bush administration for actually thinking they were fooling anyone or those who continue to buy their line, hook and sinker.

Originally Posted by pomod

Name me a politician who doesn't lie? At least none of Kerry's lies have cost any lives. Which is worse lying about your war stories, or lying to start a war? I don't know who is more pathetic, the Bush administration for actually thinking they were fooling anyone or those who continue to buy their line, hook and sinker.

Originally Posted by zapper

Kerry recounted how he had (with former Senator Smith (R-NH)) gone down into the bowels of the former KGB under TREBLINKA SQUARE.

Truth... Treblinka was the name of a NAZI EXTERMINATION CAMP