Sorry to repost, but I don't think this is a "movies, music and more" thread.

I've been watching this thing for the last 75 minutes and the first hour made me want to not vote for either candidate. If you didn't watch this, basically for the first hour this is what happened.

Leher: So Kerry, what did the president do wrong in Iraq?

Kerry: Oh, he didn't have a plan to secure the peace. Went in without a coalition. And he also didn't give our troops the support they needed (this fact is insanely ironic since he voted against the 87 billion dollars for armor, etc) Also, pres bush said he would have still went into iraq desipte knowing now that there are no WMD's. (Another odd statment since Kerry said the EXACT same thing this summer) Lastly, I will kill all terrorists.

Bush: I don't know what he's talking about. We have a plan, Kerry flip flops, I stand strong. Iraq has made the world safer. I say again, a free Iraq has made the world safer. And by the way, a free Iraq has made the world safer.

After this first hour it basically turned to S. Korea and Iran. Neither candidate really made any stark revelations here. Basically Kerry wants to add bilateral talks to what we're doing with Korea. Bush want to stick with using only multilateral talks.

This whole thing was lame, the majority of the time was spent by each candidate telling the american people how much the other sucked. There was no real revelations made as far as changing the direction of the nation. I want the past hour and a half of my life back. And if I hear kerry tout his three months in vietnam as some silver bullet in leading our soldiers in war, my head may very well explode. What I would like to know is if any modern day president has used their experience as a soldier as extensively as Kerry has. I wasn't around when Ike was campaigning but somehow I doubt he was constantly saying, I led men to victory in europe and now I shall lead you.

My views of this are that Bush didn't do himself any good by saying the exact same things for an hour and Kerry actually did do himself harm (to people who have been following this debate since he became the dem candidate) by seemingly once again outrightly contradicting his previous views with no explanation as to why this view changed for any reason other than political convienence.

What did those of you watch think?

To clarify the intent of the "Movies, Music, More" thread, I was trying to find somebody that was going to tape or vid-cap it and share it out. (Did anybody??)

I'm definitely with you on Kerry's magical 3 months as a private in Vietnam being used as some kind of campaign buzzword. That's a lot like me saying I should be the CEO of Golden Corral International, LLC, because I served 4 months in our store's bread bakery. You don't know what's going on in the grand scheme of things--it doesn't make you a master strategician--all you know how to do is follow (or perhaps question) orders.

And what's with Kerry wanting to kill the terrorists? Bush is only out for justice here--for trying to be as detached and antimilitaristic as Kerry is, he sure is out for a lot of blood.

All in all, though, as far as the actual debate went, Kerry started out a lot stronger, but Dubya picked up steam at the end where it mattered. I don't know. We'll see how it all ends up.

What's this they said at the end about the next debate being October 8th...at WUSTL? What?? And does anybody recall what the topic's supposed to be?

Are they ever going to talk about platform issues?

I think Kerry made a bit of a fool of himself. I understand that he wanted to point out some of the things that Bush did he feels was wrong, but Kerry never really stated much as to where he stood on some important issues. Several times the moderator would ask him a question and Kerry would start talking about something completely different to bad mouth Bush. Now I think Bush has made some mistakes, but if I were to point out those mistakes, I would supplement that with how I wouldn't make the same mistake based on my views and objectives for being president.

It seemed like all too often Kerry said things like "I have a plan" or "I wouldn't make that mistake." But he never said what that plan was, or how him being president would ensure that he wouldn't make that same mistake.

All of the political analysts seemed to think Kerry won that debate. I really think Bush did a better job debating than Kerry. Whether or not being the best debater dictates who won the debate or not, Bush made a bigger impact on me than Kerry.

The next debate's at Wash. U. in St. Louis on October 8. It's supposed to be a town hall style debate in which viewers get to ask prescreened questions. The last debate's at Arizona State on October 13 and it will focus on domestic policy. If you feel frustrated that domestic policy was not discussed tonight, that is because it was not supposed to be discussed; tonight was intended to be a foriegn policy debate.

Anyway, I'm not sure who won this debate. I think both candidates got their blows in. I didn't like those cutaway shots. Pundits said Bush looked irritated with Kerry. I didn't see that, unless they're talking about the times Bush wanted to extend the discussion. Kerry kept nodding vigorously and writing things down, which I thought was funny. It was like, "Oh, good point, W. I'm writing that one down so I don't forget it." I feel like they should have kept both candidates on the screen the whole time or only focus on the one talking. It seems like the editing pushed the audience to notice things. It felt filtered. I thought Lehrer did a pretty decent job as moderator, though. There was definitely debate and it never went below the belt or outside of the proscribed rules.

I would say from a technical standpoint Kerry easily won the debate. Kerry stood tall and straight the whole time, talked with few pauses, and kept strange facial expressions to a minimum.

Bush, on the other had, slouched and leaned on the podium alot, stumbled and fumbled around with most questions, and used the phrase "hard work" eleven times.

I also burst into laughter when Bush exclaimed "But you forgot Poland!" refering to the Coalition of the Willing. Almost like a "Ha! I've got you here!" remark.

I don't think it was a bad debate. No serious blows or cheap shots by either candidate, both were pretty polite. I think Kerry did pretty good....better than i expected him to anyway. Makes me feel a little bit better since i will be voting for him.

The Gallup after debate poll has Kerry winning the debate 53 to 37. (Yes that doesn't add up to 100...)

Kerry came across very well. Bush looked flustered at times and was clearly on the defensive most of the time. You can repeat something over and over but that doesn't make it so.

How exactly can Bush do anything but be on the defensive?? Kerry attacks his record as president, which is all out there for the world to see. Kerry on the other hand has had nary a mention of his 20 years in the senate and what he accomplished. Had bush done the intelligent and politically prudent thing of calling Kerry out on the fact that when it came down to it he DID NOT give our troops the support they needed by voting against the 87 billion dollars.

And yes, I know that one of Kerry's other gripes is that the 87 billion dollars of equipment should have been in place before they went in (something I agree with), but the fact still remains, even Ted Kennedy said that although the money is not spent in the most efficient way, there is no way that he would deny our troops the things they need to stay safe.

In addition had Bush pressed him on Kerry's July statment that he would have still went into Iraq despite no WMD's, Kerry would again have been on the defensive.

As I said, in my mind, Bush didn't convince me more that he would be good in another term. However, Kerry further convinced me that either he has a short term memory issue about forgetting what he said/did only a few months ago, or he simply changes his mind to do the politically safe thing. Either case is not good.

And as far as Leher goes, I think his questions were terrible. They did more to pit the two against each other than to get the points across. Half of his questions were something along the lines of, "Bush did this and you think it is wrong, why is it wrong?" Why must that adversarial tone be put into this debate? The question should have been, "What is your plan for this issue, and don't give me some crap about a lady you met in Des Moines that is totally off topic." That would have been an effective and a hell of a lot more informative debate.

After hearing both candidates stutter themselves well past stupidity, it has become very apparent (not that it wasn't before) that neither candidate is very intelligent. Despite their posture, both seemed dodgy and rather arrogant. Bush has held his position strongly through the debates I’ve watched while Kerry has only proven that the way he votes and what he says have little to do with each other.
The only opinion Kerry did state honestly is that he will, if he becomes president, lower the military budget. First, he attacks Bush for not putting enough effort into the nuclear war effort in the Soviet Russia, then, declares how he will reduce military spending.

I agree, most of the debate was them arguing back and forth who was more full of themselves but, without a doubt, Kerry has “proven” himself once again. Oh yeah, and if you missed the part about the “intelligence reports”, Kerry did read the same ones that Bush did, and still voted for the U.S. to go to Iraq.

I think kerry made himself look like an idiot. You can't stay on one had and count the amount of times that he contradicted himself in that debate alone. Both candidated look well below par, but I have to say that Bush looks like he has some sort of an idea about what is going on, while Kerry seems to like to point the finger so much that he can't keep facts straight.

I agree with whoever said it before...Those questions were loaded. I hope they find someone else to do the questions for the rest of the debates. All it was was pitting one against the other. I wouldn't be suprised if a bunch of people sitting in the bars of Germany or wherever are laughing at us because these are the best candidates our country has to offer for president.

Honestly, I think that the Dems would have been better off if Edwards was running for president. Just get Kerry out of the picture, he is at least as much of an idiot as people say Bush is.

I don't know what the point of debating this is, but I think Kerry dominated tonight. He put up a better image by standing tall, looking into the camera instead of the podium, spoke clearly, and seemed well prepared for all of the questions. Also, he actually talked about his plans as opposed to just saying "we'll stay the course and it will all work out some how".

But what do I know. I am very liberal, and was predisposed to Kerry from the beginning.

Appearance over Substance? After listening to the pundits this morning, they feel that Bush "ran out of steam". Meaning that towards the end of the debate, he was doing a lot of repeating to fill his time alloted. However, this doesn't take into consideration that 2 minutes was way to long for most of those questions and while Kerry didn't use repition to fill his time, he just wandered off topic do discuss things outside the supposed realm of this debate. Sometimes he spent as much as his first 45-60 seconds talking about something entirely different than what Leher had asked. Also, Bush looked shorter for a reason. He is shorter. Had Kerry finally answered many of my questions about him, as I had hoped, I may have finally been able to leave the "undecided voter" category. As it stands now he has not, and I find his unclear views disconcering.

Did he talk about his plans? All I heard from Kerry was that things would be better under him. Excepting bilateral talks with North Korea, I don't remember hearing anything specific that Kerry wanted to do to change things. It was pretty much an hour of Kerry saying "Bush doesn't know what he's doing but I do" and Bush saying "We will find success if we maitain our current course". Like most things polictical, it took 90 minutes to say 20 seconds worth of substance.

He also said he will increase the active military size by 2 divisions. Besides that all you got from either candidate was "we'll stay the course" or "i could do a better job".

I was driving back from St. Louis last night so I had to listen to it on the radio. Basically, Kerry stated President Bush was dealing with terrorism and Iraq wrong and he would do it better. How? By getting permission from the rest of the world before we defend our borders and interests? Take pre-emption out of the equation? Eliminate nuclear weapons research? Boy, that sounds like someone I want to head up the most powerful nation and military in the world. Bush has it right. You can't win a war by being on the defensive. You have to take the initiative and take the fight to the enemy. Keep them off balance and on the defensive.

Why should we talk to North Korea about their nuclear weapons program? They don't listen to anyone but themselves, so what good would talking do? If you look at history for the last 51 years, you'll notice we've lost well over 100 soldiers along the DMZ to NK military activity. Now, I understand we are still in conflict with them and it is merely a truce, but they have broken that truce more times that we can count. If they are willing to kill soldiers, kidnap civilians etc, does anyone honestly think talking to them will make a difference? The only way things are going to change is through military action. When does that happen? Don't know, but it's coming. Who would you rather have leading the nation at that time, someone with courage enough to stand by his convictions or someone who committs treason and turns his back on his fellow soldiers? Take your pick. I know who the rest of the world would rather have in office. Someone they can manipulate.