Conservative bloggers say Bush sucked

Wes Clark on the Daily Show says conservative bloggers are disappointed.  I found some quotes:

PoliPundit says:

"I think most people's first impression, is that Kerry was strong and forceful, while Bush was less effective, more hesitant."

"I've been watching the debate for five minutes now. Despite my partisan inclinations, I have to admit that Kerry has won this debate. And not just in the high-school debate-coach sense of the word.Kerry comes off as the prosecutor accusing Bush of incompetence. Bush comes off as his Meet-The-Press, press-conference version - dogged, arrogant and unlikable. Kerry will get a significant bounce in the head-to-head poll numbers from this debate."

Powerline Blog says:

"But, candidly, I don't think it went that well for the President. I think Kerry helped himself tonight. He came across as a credible candidate, and he was usually on the offensive...I think Kerry made headway, and there is plenty of material there for the mainstream media to proclaim the beginning of Kerry's comeback...On the whole, though, I think Kerry helped himself tonight."

Freepers say:

"While we were all hoping that Bush would defeat Kerry handidly tonight and put the election out of reach, we can't be that upset with tonight. Kerry may have even had a slight win..."

Post more hysterical wingnut freakouts as you find them.  This is fun!  

Update [2004-10-1 0:22:2 by kaelamantis]: More:

Oxblog:

"ONE LINE ON THE DEBATE: Kerry won. Hands down. By a lot. That's all for now."

Winds of Change:

"Kerry did well in terms of his persona; I went in expecting a pompous windbag and he wasn't one. Bush did less well in persona; fragmented, repetitive..."

New Republicans:

"Well, if I'm generous, then Bush stuck to his talking points. As a former debater, however, I am tempted to say that Bush missed many, many, many chances to really make key points against Kerry...I'm not certain that Kerry won more than a few swing votes in this, but I don't know if Bush can win those votes back. He simply didn't deliver as well as Kerry."

Update [2004-10-1 0:54:10 by kaelamantis]: And more:

More Powerline:

"I've taken more than an hour to try to talk myself out of concluding that John Kerry won tonight's debate. I haven't succeeded. Senator Kerry, I think, edged President Bush on substance and, surprisingly, looked better throughout."

VodkaPundit:

"Kerry won on points, which probably was enough to shore up his weakened support in New Jersey, Michigan, and Pennsylvania."

Dean's World

"My gut's telling me it's a win for Kerry because, frankly, he scared me less than I expected him to."

Whee!

•  I am SO recommending this diary.

  <fingersnaps to you, buddy>

  by Maryscott OConnor on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 08:46:54 PM PDT

  •  Thanks, ma'am!

    Watching them wet their collective pants is the best part of tonight.  

    by kaelamantis on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 08:48:17 PM PDT

    •  So Courageous, Too

      My keyboard needs to be cleaned after a trip to the dark side.  You show courage in the face of the enemy.

      by eafredel on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 08:49:41 PM PDT

    •  also recommending

      Those of us who have the stomach: go out to freeperland and collect juicy quotes, head-scratching and navel-gazing. The rest of us will be much gratified at their expense!

      by jd in nyc on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 08:49:55 PM PDT

      •  The best hand-wringing

        is in this thread at PoliPundit.

        "I prayed so hard that God would be with our president this evening. But I have begun to wonder whether if he has been abandoned now or not. I hope not."

        Snerk.  

        by kaelamantis on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 08:53:20 PM PDT

        •  God has abandoned George Bush

          so George has no personal responsibility for his failure.

          Typical.

          by lapin on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:15:54 PM PDT

          •  God

            I don't think God was ever with Bush.  I mean, if there is a God, and hes supposed to be all KNOWING, he would KNOW that Bush is an idiot.  If I can see it, im sure God can too.

            by chi mai on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:54:14 PM PDT

        •  I laughed out loud

          at "newton"'s sig. other who kept claiming the the pres looked and sounded great. What debate was he/she watching????
          I love it that some of them were too scared to watch. With good reason hee hee

          by bookbear on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 10:09:33 PM PDT

        •  Just Asking

          Hasn't anybody blamed Clinton yet?

          by Athena on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 11:02:35 PM PDT

        •  Fascinating

          1. God abandons people?

          2. If so, what would motivate God to abandon? Maybe stomping on poor people and gays while waging unjust wars for profit?

          3. Or maybe it's just that Bush is right, even if God disagrees.

          by Ted W on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 10:00:46 AM PDT

    •  Good job

      The more updates you can provide, the better. I can't get enough of this stuff!

      by existenz on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:30:53 PM PDT

  •  This is great but

    
    Keep those links to conservative dismay coming! More! More!

    What about Andrew Sullivan saying that no president who presided over Abu Gharaib should ever mention "leashes" in any context (let alone that of his daughters).
    

    by Ottoe on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:20:56 PM PDT

•  aoeu

  It's time for another culling at the freeper's site.  They are gonna thin the herd of those who think Kerry did decently.

  by TealVeal on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 08:51:23 PM PDT

  •  Figures

    Somebody named Veal complaining about culling the herd.  :)

    by DHinMI on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 08:56:08 PM PDT

  •  USA Today

    

    by Al Rodgers on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 02:10:05 AM PDT

  •  FOXX NEWX

    FOX News' political contributors largely agreed that Kerry came out ahead.

    "There was a chance that the president would knock Kerry out of the race tonight. ... I think Kerry survived and I think he did pretty well tonight. Kerry was forceful and articulate," said William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard. "Kerry did a pretty good job of making the case that the invasion of Iraq was wrong."

    Kondracke said Bush began to stumble as Kerry stopped being nervous and became more forceful.  "The president sighed a lot in this debate and he seemed tired," Kondracke said.

    Dick Morris said, "Bush was as unfocused, undisciplined, unenergetic ... as he was during the pre-primary debates in 2000."  Morris, a strong critic of Kerry's policy positions said, "I got the feeling Bush was distracted; Bush didn't answer questions quickly, and he stumbled all over himself."

    Sen. John McCain told FOX News that "Both of them, I thought they did well,"
    

    It was so Bad, even Fox couldn't Distort and Lie with the pre-packaged Talking Points they had
    

    by Al Rodgers on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 02:27:00 AM PDT

    •  Disabuse

      youselves of the notion that McCain is a straight shooter.

      He's a tool.

      My wife likes McCain! I show her the picture of Bush and McCain hugging each other like two scared little monkies.

      Any man who would hug a man who abused him like that is a tool.

      by JamesK on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 08:35:13 AM PDT

•  Well, Redstate was impressed w/Bush, of course...

  by JamesB3 on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 08:55:44 PM PDT

  •  Note quick change of subject, however

    One measly debate reaction post quickly on its way to being buried by Senate donation nags.  

    by kaelamantis on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 08:57:33 PM PDT

•  And here is the thing:

  If Kerry won the foreign policy debate - Bush's perceived greatest strength - he is going to absolutely lay waste to him in the other debates.

  by spot on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:04:00 PM PDT

  •  Exactly

    THIS was Bush's strong suit. And Kerry took it to him. Bush's advisors are gonna do their darndest to make Bush more personable in the next two debates (aka get rid of the smirk and foul looks) but Kerry showed he is clearly the better man.

    Even the freepers know this. When you take away the Republican machine and the spinmeisters, Bush is simply a lesser man than Kerry.

    by existenz on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:32:52 PM PDT

    •  I think they already tried to get rid of the smirk

      I think that's what the lemon-sucking pursed mouth thing was all about in the first part of the debate.

      And really, can't they do something about that weird eyebrow?
      

      by Emerson on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:52:34 PM PDT

      •  He looked like

        he really resented being there, having to answer questions about the mess he has made.

        He played the pletulant, face making child to Kerry's calm, collected fatherly command.

        If style counts for more than substance these days, we creamed Bush.

        by BartBoris on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:55:47 PM PDT

        •  To be sure

          If America was looking to determine which candidate was "alpha male", they got their answer.  At best, GW has a severe uphill battle to fight for that title back.

          I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only thing GW has going for him is his incumbency; the fact that he's president gives him a lot of cache.  On the stump, in front of adoring crowds, he can run with that perceived status as alpha male.  But next to Kerry -- an even which has never, ever happened before tonight -- he becomes merely a candidate for the presidency, which the public always understood only in theory, but not in such stark conditions as a one-on-one debate makes clear.

          It used to be The Dear Leader vs. His Opponent.  Now it's just one candidate against the other, may the best man win and all that.  Given these circumstances, Kerry's natural alpha male-ness has finally come front and center, and all he has to do is keep it rolling and he's going to be getting his landslide on Nov. 2.

          Meanwhile, us poor blokes in SW WA will be getting our landslide off the face of Mt. St. Helen's in the next couple weeks or so.  I just hope I live long enough to see Kerry elected.  But if the volcano burps up on Nov. 3, I will die a happy, happy man.

          by Jason Bergman on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 10:14:41 PM PDT

          •  my dad said

            exactly the same thing. it bears repeating that people go with the one who will lead us. its called surrendering to a greater being.

            by jkennerl on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 11:01:14 PM PDT

          •  I also noted how he scooted away...

             from the much taller Kerry as soon as the debate was over. I also just dropped inover at Freeper Central and looked around...ewwwwwwww.
                Evidently they've had some time to get over their shock at how Kerry wiped the floor with their boy and now they're slinging around the NY Post (Dick Morris)quotes to make themselves feel better.

            by sula on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 12:14:22 AM PDT

          •  Incumbency

            I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only thing GW has going for him is his incumbency

            True, but that isn't much of an advantage since with that comes his record hung around his neck like an albatross.

            I'd say his real advantage is the Republican Noise Machine spinning for all it's worth - the rah-rah boys and girls who "won" him the first debate back in 2000.

            Hopefully even they can't spin last night's awful performance by Dear Leader though (yeah, I'm an optimist...).

            by WanderingStar on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 07:13:17 AM PDT

      •  Yep

        Why do you think the Bush camp was desperate to force the networks to not provide the cut-away shots...?

        Because they know their trained monkey doesn't do well when confronted with criticism.

        He is a spoiled frat-boy flunkey whose family has had the power and influence to always prop him back up while Babs plays storm-trooper in defending "her son".

        Back in 2000, Bush was a relatively unknown quantity to the public at large.. was the challenger... not defending a disastrous failure as a record, and the country was on collective cruise control jerking off to "Reality T.V."... so the petulance was not at the surface and glaring for all to see.

        Mitch Gore

        Wanna win in '08...?

        Put your money where your mouth is.

        by Lestatdelc on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 02:47:21 AM PDT

      •  THIS IS GREAT

        Go here
        http://www.democrats.org/

        Click on Faces of Frustration

        I think this is pretty good. If John Kerry had been acting this way, talk radio would have ripped him a new one. To me it comes off as disrespectful. I am one of those ritalin kids that has trouble keeping still but this was borderline rude.

        by garfield on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 07:21:23 AM PDT

        •  It's not nice to laugh

          at other people's misfortunes...

          BWAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!

          (guess I'm not a very nice person)

          by TheGryphon on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 08:58:21 AM PDT

    •  aahahahahahaha!

      aka get rid of the smirk and foul looks

      Looks like the poor bastard actually started thinking he's the one responsible for getting himself to where he is today.

      by Doug in SF on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 12:24:27 AM PDT

      •  That's exactly what I thought when watching...

        Thought maybe Bush would endorse Kerry.

        by aschweig on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 08:04:55 AM PDT

  •  Do we see the September employment

    numbers tomorrow? If so, and they are bad, it will be like the world is peeing all over President Bush.

    by theprogressivemiddle on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:52:46 PM PDT

    •  employment numbers

      No,  not until the first Friday of the next month T.J.

      by pempel on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 10:45:00 PM PDT

      •  um, you mean

        friday, october 1st?

        by dbfactor on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 11:04:12 PM PDT

        •  maybe...

          ...it's like voting; the first Friday after the first Thursday?

          by jmonster on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 11:26:41 PM PDT

          •  empl number

            that's right...it's the first Fri. of the month, unless that's the first DAY of the month.  So the numbers will be out next Friday the 8th.

            by Mara on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 05:23:49 AM PDT

    •  It might be higher than expected due to

      all the new jobs caused by the weather horrors in so many states. Watch the media obsess over a decent jobs report in order to drown out the debate aftermath.

      by JamesB3 on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 11:10:49 PM PDT

      •  that's very astute

        In Fla., that temp employment is very high right now, literally thousands of work gangs from all over the country

        by doorguy on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 12:02:35 AM PDT

      •  Are you serious?

        I highly doubt it...

        by Asak on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 12:07:43 AM PDT

        •  Yes. The media will go to town on this.

          There will probably be a larger jobs report than usual and the media will use this to drown out any bad news for Bush. If the jobs report is bad, then they won't even discuss it.

          BTW, I'm surprised you think that the debate will make any big difference in the horserace polls (the ones not taken right after the debate). The public have proven their stupidity over the past few months. I'm not sure why they would snap out of it now, not with the media saying it was a draw and that Bush did well.

          by JamesB3 on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 04:43:59 AM PDT

    •  I gotchyer employment numbers...

      first net job loss since Herbert Effin' Hoover.

      Over and over again, for 90 minutes, until everyone has Googled themselves into a stupor.

      by Mogolori on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 11:35:25 PM PDT

  •  it would be

    it would be helpful to perpetuate a CW media
    watch as to whether Bush will change his
    personality for the next debate....but him under
    the microscope a la the media f'ng of Gore.
    

    by JoelK in AZ on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 10:26:00 PM PDT

  •  damn there are

    a lot of smart and wise people in this community.
    I'm used to advising people. I love being able to sit back and watch wiser people take the lead.

    by Timaeus on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 10:50:14 PM PDT

•  Put down the koolaid

  Here's a good one:

  To: All
  Put down the koolaid. Our beloved President didn't redeem himself. Kerry looked nervous at first, but Dubya fumbled.

  Kerry won this round on points.

  2,618 posted on 09/30/2004 8:03:21 PM PDT by annyokie (Now with 20% More Infidel!)

  by snorfbat on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:04:17 PM PDT

  •  If any Freeper says Kerry won

    and his post doesn't get deleted, then definitively, Kerry won.

    by Elizabeth D on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:11:46 PM PDT

    •  I dunno

      I think that if they're leaving up negative posts, it's only because the spin will be, "well, Kerry won, but that's just because he's an elitist prep-school debater who our morally-correct Dear Leader didn't stand a chance against, rhetorically.  But that's all it was, rhetoric.  Bush is still going to win on Nov. 2 because he's a good man and Kerry is a comunist [sic]!"

      Fortunately, Freepers are not swing voters, and swing voters are more convinced by debates than die-hard Bush supporters ever will be.

      by Jason Bergman on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 10:18:03 PM PDT

  •  they actually admit to the Kool-aid?

    that doesn't sound like a plant to you?

    by marjo on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 05:31:03 AM PDT

•  Lehrer

  The Freepers are totally convinced that Jim Lehrer gave Kerry all of the questions in advance.

  by snorfbat on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:08:08 PM PDT

  •  This

    is scary.  I'll wait to see what happens, but they're so good at lying.

    by Poor Statue on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:14:13 PM PDT

    •  Lehrer is above reproach

      He's probably the most honest man in news. If they try to go after him, other news personalities will not appreciate it. Lehrer is respected across the business, and it would look like they are making excuses.

      by existenz on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:34:29 PM PDT

      •  Lehrer is a hack

        Really. He gets these presidential debate gigs precisely because he is utterly predictable and unlikely to ask really tough questions (like "Mr President why haven't you attended the funeral of a single U.S. soldier killed in Iraq?") that would cut to the real questions of substance and character. PBS has always been the Petroleum Broadcast System and Lehrer their loyal and sober-sounding arbiter of the reasonable range of acceptable debate.

        by Christopher Day on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:47:24 PM PDT

        •  That's a dumb question.

          He couldn't attend one funeral because he would have to attend them all.

          by theprogressivemiddle on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:53:44 PM PDT

          •  that's not true...

            he could make a symbolic gesture and attend a funeral to show respect for all the lost soldiers.

            The families of fallen soldiers would understand that the President couldn't attend all funerals and would appreciate the simple public acknowledgement of their losses.

            One funeral and he could show so much compassion. But he can't bring himself to do it, or to stand up to his handlers who are counseling him not to do it.

            He is such a damned coward.

            by pacific city on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 10:54:39 PM PDT

            •  Well there was that one woman he gave love to

              Remember, he prayed with her and loved her.

              It really creeps me out when he says that.  He sounds like the proverbial perverted uncle who just want's to love you a little.

              Ewww, now I must go wash my hands, I feel dirty

              by shivan on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 01:20:41 AM PDT

          •  I agree...

            That's a really stupid question.  I think Lehrer did a good job.  Expecting him to ask obviously partisan biased questions is a bit much.  

            by Asak on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 12:09:17 AM PDT

            •  not to mention the fact that...

              Not a single one of last night's questions was particularly surprising.  I could've predicted most of them myself.  Anyone who thinks Leherer fed Kerry questions in advance is a moron -- both Kerry and Bush should've had a very good idea what to expect going into last night's debate without any help from Leherr.  Clearly, Bush wasn't well-prepared.  But we should be assume he will be ready for the next debates.  Kerry has to stay focused and on his game.  As I understand it, both candidates will have questions in advance in that one, which will help Bush since he's capable of memorizing his lines (when he knows just what to expect) and he's very good at connecting with the public.  

              My main concern about this debate is the after-game, not just in spin, but in general coverage.  Bush's overall performance was terrible, stumbling, stuttering, confused -- but the morning news shows are not going to pull out a clip of him "emming and erring" for 15 seconds at the beginning of a response.  They'll pick one of the soundbites that he repeated over and over again.  In the context of the whole debate, Bush came off as repetitious and often his pre-programmed lines made no sense when he desperately uttered one in response to a question he didn't know how to answer -- he was clearly a mess.  But when the media pulls one of those pre-programmed lines out of its context it seems like he was reasonably on message and making points -- or at least making sense.

              OTOH, Kerry was clear and persuasive and very Presidential throughout.  But the impact of that is blunted for viewers who catch only a 15 second clip of him on "Good Morning America" rather than two solid hours of Kerry outshining Bush. It may be a great 15 seconds, but it's not nearly the same as seeing the two men, side by side, in stark contrast in terms of their breadth of knowledge, articulateness, demeanor, etc.

              One thing I'm really wondering about is the ratings.  How many people watched the debate last night? How many undecideds/weak leaners watched it in their entirety?  The media narrative this morning may well inspire higher viewership in the next two debates (and the VP debate as well), so it is more important than ever that Kerry stay prepared and "keep his eye on the ball" as he said last night.
              

              by dqw5644 on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 03:56:47 AM PDT

              •  67 million

                tuned into the debates.  That's a great figure.

                by Poor Statue on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 01:10:31 PM PDT

        •  I disagree

          on my scale of media people (most of them are not journalists), Lehrer is pretty high up, better than the hacks on say, CNN or Fox...

          by alxt on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:57:13 PM PDT

          •  David Frost or

            Tim Sebastian should have been imported to do the questioning. Jonathan Mann of CNN International wouldn't have been bad, either -- at least he has cojones when it comes to questioning. Then, none of us would have had to grouse about network hacks -- though I do agree about Lehrer's being the least offensive of the lot. How I'd love to see Bush  AND Kerry grilled by the likes of them.  Actually, Sebastian, the toughest questioner I've ever seen on camera, would eviscerate Bush...  mmmmmmm boy!

            by GulfExpat on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 12:15:44 AM PDT

          •  Yeah but the bar has gone so low

            Don't know what we'd do in Canada without the solid Lloyd Robertson on CTV and the superb Peter Mansbridge of CBC

            I'm sorry, but none of the U.S. TV journalism pool rates with these Canadian news anchors, and Lehrer soft-balled both Bush and Kerry most of the night.

            by Scott in Montreal on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 07:00:38 AM PDT

        •  Tough question?

          "Mr President why haven't you attended the funeral of a single U.S. soldier killed in Iraq?"

          Only a partisan hack would ask a question like that.  It's way too loaded, and ultimately relies more on superficial condemnation of Bush than anything substantial.  The fact that he hasn't attended any funerals is much less telling of his character than what his rationale for invading Iraq was.  It's like saying, "why did you drop your little doggie that one time when you were in that photo op", or, "did you or did you not approve the 'Mission Accomplished' sign that was hung on the aircraft carrier".  It makes the questioner look much too partisan, and if we want Bush to dig his own grave, it's VERY important that the moderator ask a question that is objectively impartial -- which, of course, to partisans like you and I would appear rather lame.  But partisans are not who we should be hoping Lehrer gets the attention and respect of.

          by Jason Bergman on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 10:23:24 PM PDT

        •  asdf

          i thought he did well tonight.  

          pretty good questions, all in all.
          

          by JoelK in AZ on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 10:28:13 PM PDT

          •  Except for one glaring omission

            Most non-partisan and well-informed experts agree that one of the most effective things the US can do in the so-called war on terror is to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian issue in an even-handed manner. Isn't it ironic that the issue didn't even come up in tonight's debate? Imagine a foreign policy debate that completely ignores one of the most important foreign policy issues of recent times! Considering the fact that both Bush and Kerry have taken strong pro-Israeli positions, I can certainly understand why neither of them wanted to talk about it. But what I am still scratching my head over is why didn't Lehrer bring it up? In fact, I have been surfing all the news channels since the debate and didn't notice a single talking head bring up the omission. Am I the only one who thinks this is weird?

            by Gnarly Dude on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 11:49:27 PM PDT

            •  Because no one gives a shit...

              I'm sorry to clue you in on this, but we're involved in a friggin guerilla war in Iraq.  It may seem unfair, but next to that stupid Israel plays like 10th fiddle.  We have real problems of our own to solve, we'll have to get to idiotic Israel's problems in time.  Have no fear that Kerry will handle the situation better than Bush.  

              Personally, I'm glad they didn't muddy the waters with such a (relatively) pointless issue.  It would only have been a plus for Bush because it would take Kerry's heat off of him for 3:30.  

              by Asak on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 12:14:37 AM PDT

            •  bush has tied our hands on israel-palestine

              we're at war with a muslim country.  the idea that anyone would see us as an honest broker is patently absurd.  that's where JK can use his diplomatic skills.....france and germany are in a far better position than we are to take up that work.  so if they don't feel that they can participate in iraq (and who can blame them), they can still participate in the macro-process....

              by roxtar on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 03:20:37 AM PDT

        •  nah

          I'm not going to drop a 2 or 1 on that, but what a load of crap, may I say.

          by Timaeus on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 10:52:03 PM PDT

        •  Wrong!

          Lehrer is an old-school gentleman journalist. Yes, I wish he'd go for the jugular now and then, but that  simply is not his style.

          That said, I was pleasantly surprised by how tough some of his questions were tonight. And, as always with him, it was refreshing that he insisted on asking only substantive questions.

          This country wouldn't be in the trouble it's in if every network had someone like Lehrer.

          by matt n nyc on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 10:57:11 PM PDT

        •  Would have been an awful question

          A softball.  Bush would say that he didn't want to impose on the private grief of the families.  He wouldn't have looked magnanimous and sensitive.

          -Fe Wm.

          by Irond Will on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 11:00:57 PM PDT

        •  there's lehrer and there is

          cronkite. bar none, the best. but robert macneil....that guy ruled

          by jkennerl on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 11:03:46 PM PDT

        •  Sorry, no

          And I think your slur against him and PBS sounds like it came from a freeper.

          I didn't get to watch the debates, as I'm in London and it was at 2am.  But I read through parts of the transcript.

          The questions were good solid ones, and they were tough.  They essentially took the campaign's talking points and threw them back, asking the candidates to defend them.  If anything, because the Bush camp has made such blatantly stupid claims, the questions were much tougher for old George.  Like defending Cheney's accusation that Osama wants kerry to win, etc.
          

          by Steve4Clark on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 05:35:45 AM PDT

  •  Well, you have to admit

    Kerry was that damn good.  Nothing got to him.  His is an agile mind.

    I keep thinking:  He's tough, he's smart, he thoroughly decent and he oughtta be president.

    by Cathy on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:20:33 PM PDT

    •  And funny

      and said nice things about mrs. bush and the twins, and even got a laugh out of bush. He was forceful, but respectful at the same time.

      by Grassroots Mom on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:26:12 PM PDT

      •  Bush's laugh

        I presume you're talking about the exchange about Bush's daughters. Did you see Kerry wink when he said "I've learned not to do that" in response to Bush's crack about putting 'em on a leash? At first I thought Kerry was referring just to his daughters. But the wink makes me wonder if it wasn't a veiled reference to Abu Ghraib.

        I didn't come up with that connection until someone in another diary pointed it out. But I had only heard the debate on the radio at that point. After watching it on C-SPAN, I can't help but wonder. Kerry was smiling when he said it so maybe not. Unlike Bush, Kerry has not regularly been spotted smirking when speaking about things that would make a normal person weep.

        Another observation... listening to the debate on the radio had me convinced Kerry at least held his own and probably won. After watching, there is no doubt... he mopped the floor. The whole split-screen, duelling podium thing played way in Kerry's favor; Bush looked like he was sitting in a high chair... or at least on a couple phone books.

        For a baseball analogy... Kerry was methodically stroking frozen ropes to every corner of the field, with the occasional moonshot into the bay (PacBell reference aside, GO DODGERS!). Bush managed to get Kerry to foul a couple off, but only because he (Bush) had a nail file in his back pocket (He LIED!!). Kerry threw a lot of smokin' cheese and the best Bush could manage was a weak grounder or two... nothing out of the infield.

        I'm happy, but it's more a HUGE sigh of relief than anything approaching the thrill of victory. Miles to go before we sleep....

        by azale on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:56:36 PM PDT

        •  Dealing with daughters = dealing with country

          First thing that popped into my head after that exchange was Bush deals with the country the same way he deals with his daughters - he puts them on a leash.
          Kerry knows better.

          by Your Friendly Neighbourhood Dictator on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 10:25:27 PM PDT

          •  The leash (and collar)

            Hey, maybe this is our chance to show everyone what Bush's "family values" really are, by mailing him and his supporters dog collars and leashes, along with Chimpy's quote.

            by azureblue on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 05:47:36 AM PDT

          •   Quote of the Day

             [quote]"No president who has presided over Abu Ghraib should ever say he wants to put anyone on a leash."[/quote]  -- Andrew Sullivan

            The New York Times has the exchange Sullivan refers to about the "travails" of raising daughters: "I'm trying to put a leash on them," Mr. Bush said with a smile. "Well, I don't know," Mr. Kerry replied. "I've learned not to do that, Mr. President."

            A quip from last nights debates.

            by badgerette on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 07:55:20 AM PDT

        •  President's drunk right now

          I'm happy, but it's more a HUGE sigh of relief than anything approaching the thrill of victory.

          That's okay, this was the tough one.  Edwards will chew on Cheney like a dog toy next, then we get the town hall forum after that, which will easily lean toward Kerry (assuming that the town hall isn't packed with Freepers, though that actually might play in his favor if they can get out of hand and make him look calm and rational in the process), and the final debate, on domestic policy, is going to be nothing but home runs for Kerry.  Tonight's debate was the only one that had me nervous, but I'll be sleeping like a baby tonight.

          Watch for interesting pics of Bush tomorrow, though; in all likelihood he will be completely drunk tonight, and working a hangover or a facial injury or both tomorrow morning.  If we simply see nothing of him, though, it means he got really trashed . . . maybe the twins are going to have to stage an intervention?

          by Jason Bergman on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 10:28:55 PM PDT

          •  Is the town hall debate on

            anything?

            by theprogressivemiddle on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 10:53:59 PM PDT

          •  On Cheney/ Edwards

            Edwards will chew on Cheney like a dog toy next

            I wouldn't be so sure.  Cheney, for all his vileness, is a smart, educated guy who knows his role as "old guy who knows a lot but can come off as avuncular".  Edwards has charm and intelligence on his side, but it's really going to be assymetric warfare.  My guess on Cheney v Edwards is a draw.

            I'm also a little torn on the "town hall" format.  Bush is not Clinton on empathy, but it's not really Kerry's strong suit either.

            On the other hand, debate 3: domestic policy is going to be all Kerry.  He's going to spank the chimp.

            -Fe Wm.

            by Irond Will on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 11:06:44 PM PDT

            •  Cheney has the charisma of a pile of dog shit...

              So, it doesn't matter what he says, only crap will spew out of his mouth.  

              by Asak on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 12:16:21 AM PDT

            •  But,

              Edwards' entire trial lawyer career was the practice of going after corporate criminals like Cheney.

              by Demigod Mac on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 12:33:58 AM PDT

              •  Bingo

                And what is a trial but not a debate?

                Edwards will win-maybe not as well as tonight.

                Interesting thing-I think Kerry could have done slightly better.  I give him a B or so.

                But Bush had a D-, so he wins by a landslide.

                Plus, Kerry looked "presidential", which is bullshit in a way, but important to get voters on his side.

                by Geotpf on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 01:03:30 AM PDT

                •  That Presidential Gleam

                  Plus, Kerry looked "presidential", which is bullshit in a way, but important to get voters on his side.

                  The "flipflop" stuff has been hitting us hard, and have been getting rooted in the collective imagination, in spite of its basic lack of truth.  In this way, it's  much like Gore's pedanticism, arrogance and "fibs", which almost made him lose the 2000 election.

                  Keep in mind that the malleable part of the remaining electorate are people who came to the debates having never seen Kerry outside of "windsurfing flipflop" commericals.

                  Instead of being confronted with a long-winded brahmin, they saw a steely, resolute future president.  Bush's "shifting position" talking points just seemed snarky and unjustified from this point of view.

                  So -

                  by Irond Will on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 11:59:06 AM PDT

            •  My conservabuddy

              (that would be shorthand for conservative friend) thinks they'll both flounder in the town hall format.  I think that the pre-packaged format of it will make it not much different than the other debates.

              by Poor Statue on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 01:14:24 PM PDT

        •  anybody who works that hard on a post

          and manages to be funny, deserves praise!

          by Timaeus on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 10:54:53 PM PDT

  •  Oh gawd, not this crap again.

    If this argument in any way somehow leads me to have to explain "kerning" again, I'm leaving civilized society, buying five guns and changing my name to "Rick DangerThump".
    

    by Hunter on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:56:21 PM PDT

    •  I certainly

      hope it doesn't come to that.

      but just in case, will Rick Dangerthump continue to blog ?  :-)

      by its simple IF you ignore the complexity on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 10:18:20 PM PDT

    •  Rick Dangerthump

      One part Nick Danger, one part Rick Derringer, and one part Thumper the Rabbit?

      by Dancing Larry on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 10:48:45 PM PDT

  •  Denial

    They're in a state of denial.  And its a blue state of denial.

    by chi mai on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:56:38 PM PDT

    •  Denial

      It ain't just a river in Iraq.

      by ne plus ultra on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 10:15:12 PM PDT

  •  re: Lehrer

    Jim Lehrer made this the best presidential debate I have seen in my 40 years of watching them. This, in spite of the fact that G.W. Bush was present and the 32 pages of "rules."

    I only wish he was going to do the remaining two.

    P.S. Did you catch that bit on The Daily Show -- about security being so tight that they even checked the bags under Jim Lehrer's eyes?  Now that was funny!

    by Len on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 12:05:51 AM PDT

  •  I Loved this bit

    "Johnny Nobody
    Bottom line.
    Bottom line, or tan line?

    At any rate, so what if Kerry was more prepared or you think he won.

    For me it's just more evidence of the liberal lovin' media."

    soo, for freepers, if you think for yourself, then it's all a liberal media conspiracy.

    what is it if you automatically agree with everything you see on FNC and here on Rush?

    by lizzerd on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 10:56:23 AM PDT

•  Thanks.

  We all so needed this night & this diary

  by NorCalJim on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:09:47 PM PDT

•  Wes Clark was also

  astute and said that now the GOP will try and spin their way out of this one.

  We have to be on CNN and MSNBC's asses to make sure they don't buy into it.

  by Newsie8200 on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:12:28 PM PDT

  •  9:45 PST on msnbc

    For the last 30 minuets the rethug spin misters have been trying to spin out from under, but the correspondents on MSNBC are moving from neutral to claiming Kerry took the debate, and asking each other where the republicans can go from here to get the momentum back.

    The very most partisan press people give Kerry a slight win, and many pudits are moving toward Kerry.

    Between this, and the freeper comments, the online polls, I think it was MSNBC, who sat with 22 undecides in ohio, Tonight, at least, the playing field just tipped heavily our way.

    I do not know if the thugs will be able to respin it by morning, but if TV is still behind Kerry through an entire news cycle, especially going into the weekend, we may have some really good news going into next week.

    Mr Tek

    by Mr Tek on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:57:23 PM PDT

  •  massive spin.

    They will trot out the irrefutable statements they always do. There is no objective way to measure this stuff so you can never prove it wrong.

    Kerry didn't really win because he failed to get his message out.

    Bush really won with "real americans" and the liberal media is just pulling for Kerry.

    Bush really won because he didn't do as bad against Kerry as they thought he was going to.

    etc.

    by zoinks on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 11:21:12 PM PDT

    •  Guess they'll be surprised at the polls then...

      There's spin and then there's denial, the Retardlicans crossed the line about 6 months ago.  

      by Asak on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 12:18:30 AM PDT

•  You say Treblinka and I say Lubyanka

  Here's a freeper catching Kerry dead to rights.

  To: george wythe
  Who can sift through well over 2,500 posts! So someone may have already said it, but Kerry did make one flub that I did not see anyone on the internet catching yet:

  KERRY WENT TO THE OLD KGB BUILDING IN MOSCOW (with Senator Bob Smith). That area is called "Lubyanka Square" NOT "TREBLINKA SQUARE."

  Lurch just placed a notorious Nazi concentration camp in Poland right into Soviet Russia!!

  2,660 posted on 09/30/2004 8:07:07 PM PDT by AmericanInTokyo

  by snorfbat on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:12:46 PM PDT

  •  How can they stand the cognitive dissonance?

    Imagine.  Bush supporters going after Kerry for misspeaking.

    by snorfbat on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:17:29 PM PDT

    •  You've got the response

      That's all you say...

      Kerry is obviously too much of a real American to know the street names in Moscow.  :-)

      by Steve4Clark on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 05:44:18 AM PDT

  •  How many times did...

    GW pronounce mullah...moola?  Seems he has money on his mind.

    by pacifica on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:34:37 PM PDT

    •  My three-year old. . .

      . . . started bouncing on the sofa, chanting "moolah! moolah!" at that point.

      After we told her that it wasn't "Moolah" but "mullah", she bounced some more, chanting "no moolah! no moolah!"

      I missed a whole bunch after that, I was laughing so hard.

      by Robespierrette on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 10:10:05 PM PDT

      •  Kids and Bush

        Right after 9-11, when Bush made that stupid comment about a crusade, one of my co-workers told me his (admittedly precocious) 9 year old son, who was studying medieaval history in social studies, said "dad, I don't think President Bush should have said we're on a crusade, because Muslim people didn't like the crusades."  

        by DHinMI on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 10:22:28 PM PDT

        •  My hat is off...

          
          ...to your school system and/or teacher(s).  Way to go.

          by loopster on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 11:45:39 PM PDT

      •  Wow Robespierrette

        My 52 year old husband did the same thing.

        "Moola...moola...moola!"  

        Then...

        "No moola...no moola...no moola!"

        Of course he was paying the bills at the time.

        by pacifica on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 12:57:49 AM PDT

  •  actually youre all wrong

    its Dzerzhinsky square. named after the first leader of the Cheka, which became the NKVD, then KGB.

    But the difference is, I love you all. The freepers, well, they can go fuck themselves.

    by jkennerl on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 11:09:01 PM PDT

    •  Is It Still Dzerzhinsky Square?

      Post-Communist Russia hasn't changed that place name?  Felix Dzerzhinsky was a pretty notorious character.

      by lysias on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 04:35:22 AM PDT

      •  You're correct

        According to this article about controversy surrounding a statue of Dzerzhinsky, the place was called Dzerzhinsky Square in Soviet times but is now Lubyanka Square.  (And maybe it was originally Lubynaka Square but it became known as Dzerzhinsky Square in Soviet times because of the statue -- I'm not entirely clear on this.)

        by snorfbat on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 06:34:36 AM PDT

•  LGF

  #4    KevinV  9/30/2004 08:33PM PST  
   Bush looked tired and angry, spouted cliches, failed to respond to easy set-ups due to Kerry's ridiculous positions and most of all said "ummmmm" WAY too much.

  Tomorrow the Kerry people are going to be energized and the MSM will have Bush on the defensive.

  Prediction: race re-tightens.

  #8    Vandeervecken  9/30/2004 08:35PM PST  
   I had several friends over, some Kerry supporters, some Bush supporters, and most of us undecided. We all thought Bush looked angry, and lost. We all thought it a slam dunk for Kerry.

  #21    zulubaby  9/30/2004 08:40PM PST  
   evariste (#1)

  Bush owned it.

  I disagree. Kerry was far more fluid than Bush was. No substance at all, but Bush was agitated and he missed a lot of opportunities to highlight Kerry's weaknesses and his own strengths.

  #23    BotoxBoy  9/30/2004 08:40PM PST  
   Kerry didn't win it as much as GWB lost it...

  and what this about Kerry talking about nuclear proliferation being a big issue???? the guy hasn't ever even brought up the subject before...

  a search of john kerry's entire web site for the words "nuclear proliferation" shows those words appear only 1 time as a 2nd hand remark.

  My favorite right here

  #80    beck  9/30/2004 08:59PM PST  
   If you want to be seen as having no credibility, if you want to be regarded as a blind cheerleader, then go ahead and say that it was a draw or that Bush won.

  by lapin on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:22:14 PM PDT

  •  Okay.

    and what this about Kerry talking about nuclear proliferation being a big issue???? the guy hasn't ever even brought up the subject before...

    From the convention speech: "We need to lead a global effort against nuclear proliferation - to keep the most dangerous weapons in the world out of the most dangerous hands in the world."

    by apostropher on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:31:50 PM PDT

    •  Who else noticed Bush's blank moments?

      There were two or three times where Bush lost his train of thought completely. Just like two or three seconds of staring into space trying to come up with a word.

      THOSE were Bush's worst moments.

      by existenz on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:36:56 PM PDT

      •  How

        about when Bush agreed with Kerry that nuclear proliferation was the greatest threat to the U.S., and then Bush stammered through his answer?  Made you feel reassured and comfortable, eh?

        by wisdude on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:40:46 PM PDT

        •  Yeah, totally.

          What he said.

          by Jumbo on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 12:13:25 AM PDT

        •  Can't say...

          Bush couldn't say nuclear..proliferation and that really scared me....

          Sing along.

          by brendan1963 on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 06:50:18 AM PDT

      •  I watched in a lecture hall full of rowdy students

        Every time one of these moments happened, the whole crowd erupted with laughter.  One guy tried to start a "The Wave".

        by contraption on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:44:47 PM PDT

      •  Staring into space - one of Bush's strengths

        Something about staring into space seems oddly familiar with Bush.  Wait...I think its coming back now...something about a classroom...and wait...a book about a goat...oh darn i forget!

        by chi mai on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 10:03:37 PM PDT

      •  I sure did

        He started one of the 90 second rebuttals going "Umm..." for 5 seconds. I believe it was the "nuclear proliferation" question, which really took Dumbya by surprise.

        by Young Freud on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 10:10:41 PM PDT

        •  how about...

          At least once or twice Bush demanded a one-minute extension, followed by, "um, uh, um..." blink, blink, blink...

          by dqw5644 on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 10:19:48 PM PDT

          •  Proliferation secret weapon

            Damn that was nice.  Bush's team must have thought Kerry would mention the war on Iraq or terrorism.  He did some impressive Kung-Fu by bringing up nuclear proliferation and slammed it home with the North Korea and Iran references he had been bringing up all night.  Very skillful.

            Bush was left with the option to ignore it (and therefore implying he didn't care about nuclear proliferation) or have a go on a subject he was [b]clearly[/b] unprepared for.  

            Well done Mr. Kerry

            by BouffantSpectacular on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 10:43:04 PM PDT

            •  yes, exactly

              the "proliferation secret weapon of the Kerry campaign," he he he

              by Timaeus on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 10:58:54 PM PDT

          •  bre: blink blink

            Remember children! Cocaine abuse can cause permanent brain damage.

            by Foreign Devil on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 02:24:03 AM PDT

        •  It was "My Pet Goat" all over again!

          Bush really didn't know if he was actually going to be able to string together the 8-syllables required to say "nuclear proliferation".  He hesitated, said "um-um" a bit, then started the sentence and halted on the precipice of saying it and finally delivered, "nucular proliferation", like a chump, er, champ...

          And let's not forget all those Iranian "Moolahs" and the "vociferously fighting" Iraqi insurgents.

          by frisco on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 11:37:08 PM PDT

          •  I still think he had a

             radio mike secreted somewhere  on his person, everytime he stammered and stopped I just had images of garage doors opening all over Florida.

            by sula on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 12:26:24 AM PDT

          •  Vociferous

            Was it me, or did Bush actually sneak in a "vociferous" at one point?  I was impressed by that one.

            by TrentL on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 05:38:33 AM PDT

            •  vociferous

              But I think he used it wrong.  Something about rebels "fighting vociferously" - so the rebels were yelling loudly while they were fighting, so what?

              by Todd Gaines on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 07:37:58 AM PDT

              •  used it wrong and said it wrong

                i can't even approximate the misprounciation.

                by lizzerd on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 10:59:55 AM PDT

                •  Someone

                  in another blog's comments asked about what it meant:

                  Last, but sooo typical. Does anyone here know what "ficiferously" (sp?) means? I'll use it in a sentence: "That's why they're fighting so ficiferously!" If it helps, my son heard it as "viciferously."

                  I heard it like the son did.  My fiance turned from his computer and looked at me to see if it was a real word.  I responded:  ooh, Bush just used a big word.

                  by Poor Statue on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 01:25:34 PM PDT

        •  Nutella Profiteroles?

          Yum!

          I thought that is what Roi du Soliel Arbusto McChimp II said at first.

          Delicious!

          by rgilly on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 12:39:30 AM PDT

      •  As the rabbits say...

        
        ...the dude went tharn.

        by loopster on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 11:47:34 PM PDT

        •  A musical interlude...

          in tribute to rabbits caught in a tharn state everywhere.

          Kerry is our El-ahrairah...

          Bush, u embleer elil General Woundwort?

          by rgilly on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 12:50:55 AM PDT

      •  Very... painful...

        on the radio.

        Dead
        Air

        Every second of it seems M-U-C-H L-O-N-G-E-R.  It was really clear that Bush was fishing for a hook to hang onto a couple times at least... trying to figure out what he could say that was sort of related to the topic of the question.

        by ogre on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 12:41:27 AM PDT

      •  I think Bush has lost a few brain cells...

        ...since he became president.  Whether it's Alzheimer's, or him being a "dry drunk", or him being an actual drunk, or him taking anti-depressants, or for some other reason, he is less mentally accute than when he became president.  Those big pauses with the dear-in-the-headlights look occur whenever Bush has to speak off script, which is very rarely due to the fact he gets them.  Being president ages a man.  For Clinton, it turned his hair white and gave him a heart condition.  For Bush, it went straight to his brain.

        And there is a chance we might re-elect this man. <shudder>

        by Geotpf on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 01:08:03 AM PDT

        •  agreed

          This is something that I've noticed about dear ol Chimpy.  Clinton's aging became most apparent in his second term, but Bush doesn't even look like the same person.  I think that the sour puckered-up look on his face has stuck that way, just like his momma said it would.

          by BrodyV on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 08:24:11 AM PDT

    •  understand their news source

      They listen to their own spin. Total victims of the reality distortion field.

      Nuclear proliferation has always been a real concern of Kerry's. He wasn't lying when he said he wrote the book on it. But for some reason (gee, wonder why) the GOP spin machine didn't bring it up, so they've never heard of it.

      Bush himself has clearly swallowed the spin that his people have been feeding him -- I'm starting to think he actually doesn't know what's really going on.

      by drewthaler on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:55:46 PM PDT

      •  And

        It was telling that Bush changed it from nuclear proliferation to weapons of mass destruction and not the danger of states proliferating but of wmd getting into the hands of a terrorist.  Bush has a one track mind and it is to our peril.

        by Dave the pro on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 11:31:55 PM PDT

    •  yeah...,except for that

      BOOK HE WROTE ABOUT IT

      by ablington on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 07:29:01 AM PDT

  •  You're brave

    Even I can't stomach LGF long enough to dig there.  

    by kaelamantis on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:58:42 PM PDT

    •  by the way

      I love your signature from Springsteen. I picked up on Bruce 36 years ago. Hard to believe it's so long!
      Damn I've aged more than he has. I'm friends with some of his bandmates, FWIW.

      by Timaeus on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 11:00:22 PM PDT

  •  I beg to differ

    it was a draw

    (smirks a la GW)

    It was definitely a draw.  You'll just have to tune in next time to see who wins.

    (The big thing here is that we want every single voter to see these two together.  Get this race away from the attack ads and the crap and just let them hammer away, Kerry with his 70 lb. sledgehammer and GW with his toothbrush.)

    Definitely a draw.  Certainly everyone will need to tune in next time and see who wins.

    by ne plus ultra on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 10:19:04 PM PDT

    •  DIARY THIS

      for expectations round deux.

      by jkennerl on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 11:12:44 PM PDT