Phoenix:
Quote:
i loved the sideways look Kerry would give Bush when Bush said some stupid shit
like the one time he never corrected himself and said of course Osama bin laden never attacked the us
he meant Saddam..but regardless both names devaluated his earler argument...lol
Keryy had a big grin on his face for much of last night
|
I thought Kerry behaved very "correct" and avoided going over the top and doing a load of eye-rolling and grimacing like Bush.
He was succinct and not loaded with repetition to the degree Bush was.
Bush is definately at a disadvantage when he speaks. Unless he can made an original statement without the parrot rhetoric he usually has, - he will lose all the "debates". And showing some degree of annoyance does not help :-)
It's only my opinion, but I smell Kerry came out ahead overall - both on good presentation and content. He wasted few words.
They both fucked up on some points, but that is not unusual.
Although the "debate" is limited, or non-existant, as a debate, - it is a kind of "acid test" of candidates. The issue is "who is better" in a war scenario, is really a non-starter in real life.
It is actually easy to say "Let's roll" on a war - any asshole can do that. "Managing" a war is a totally different story and "creating a peace" is 500 times harder than declaring a war.
I'm inclined towards a leader who shows some "command", prescence, the ability to act quickly when needed and indications the "real man" is honorable and trustworthy. The actual "policy" is almost incidental - some shit ya agree with, some not - as long as it is made in good faith and for sound reasons under whatever circumstances.
Whether this Kerry image is the "real man" or a face, remains to be seen. If it is the real man (I suspect it is), - ya got a good guy there who is more than capable of leading the US - whether there is a war or not.
Kerry also clearly has more experience of government/diplomacy than the President - kinda obvious :-)