OK, be honest, who won the debate last night?

I was watching the baseball games & didn't see the debate.

Shrub has improved in his performance. Objectively speaking, I would call it a draw.....

A draw?

"What's you solution for job outsourcing?" "We'll help you go to your local community college."

"I never said I wasn't concerned about Osama."

Looking you in the eye and saying "you got more money in your pocket! If you're a veteran, your health care is good enough!"

Vaccinations? "Don't get sick."

Kerry: "There's a lot more loving of our neighbor to do", after he explained the declining living standard under Bush -- from job losses to the fact that the newly-created jobs pay less than the ones lost, to healthcare, etc. "Faith without works is dead.". That was a nuke.

etc,etc,etc.

A draw? You're not being objective. You're just choosing a word that you think makes you _seem_ objective. IMO, of course.

From an undecided persons point of view, it would seem that he has improved on his performance from his previous debates. (I think you and I would agree on that.)

As an example notice that that Shrub used the abortion issue to shore up his base as did Kerry. Same with the gay marriage issue....And when you look at it from that point of view I think you would also agree that both candidates did a good job.

Kerry. Bush has improved over three debates, I'm not going to dispute that, but Kerry was in command of the facts and Bush once again decided to argue that the earth was flat. The gap between them wasn't as lopsided as the first debate (or even the second), but it was definitely there.

One of the biggest lies was about OBL...Bush said that he had never tried to marginalize the threat bin Laden posed to the country, and the DNC has called him on it with a new ad.

Bush was better than usual, but I think he lost it when he said the answer to job loss was education ans something about community college. Kerry rebutted that one. Bush insulted every unemployed American. And then Bush was not impressive as he overreacted to the mention of McCain's name getting strident and pounding the lectern.

Was still presidential, and delivered some killing verbal blows to Dub.

Dub was repetitive, had the laugh of a character in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", and to top it all off, he drooled--a LOT!:eyes:

In short, Kerry won going away--and I suuure hope it soon will be reflected by his "pulling away" in most polls. Heck, when even GALLUP had Kerry winning the debate by a 52-39 margin, that's a "statement" victory!:D

:kick:

B-)

The Connecticut Cowboy from Crawford lost miserably.

then I suppose one could make a point that Wireboy won. However, if one goes by the actual substance of the debate (not even mentioning which of the two was coherent and looked presidential), then clearly the drooling, incoherent, cokeheaded fratboy squatting in the White House got his ass handed to him.

debate, but "Dumb" was not debating "Dumber" from the first debate. He was debating John Kerry, who put in another consistent strong preformance. U.S. media are having a hard time calling it "strike three" but the Australian press had some great headlines:


John Kerry's on top again
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,11075409%5E663,00.html

Kerry guns down Bush with zinger
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,11078479%255E401,00.html

Kerry wins third presidential debate
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2004/s1220289.htm

I think * did worse in this one than the second debate. More smirk, more evasion of the questions asked, more nervous laughter, poor attempts at humor. Throw in "paygo", the stroke face, his several outright lies, and his not remembering that he decided OBL wasn't important and you come up with his second performance, while not a winner, as being only slightly better than his first.

No question.

He overwhelmingly lost in substance and style.

In the interests of full disclosure, I thought Edwards did a terrible job against a quite beatable Cheney, but Kerry won all three debates, period.

the smirk Shrub had on his face all night. Actually, it was an improvment over the first debate grimace. Note to Bush. Kerry can pull off the 'Look directly at the camera and speak to the public' move. You can't - it only highlights your negative facial expressions.

Both sides got their message to their respective audiences.

Dubya spoke to his base.

Kerry spoke to America.

If Dubya's base isn't enought to carry him, it's game over.

These are his issues. Bush is all terror, all the time. Most americans feels he has done a good job of keeping the country safe, but most feel he has dropped the ball on healthcare, edication and the economy (at least according to the polls I've seen lately).

with this in mond, Kerry should have beaten him badly. He didn't. If Kerry won, he only won by a few points, and the spread was +30.

Only because I found the entire debate to be so incredibly boring. Kerry seemed sedated and Bush was frequently incoherent. I don't think anyone had their ass handed to them. Kerry had the better moments, but frankly, his responses to questions seemed a tad...verbose. Bottom line, I don't think Bush was helped any by this debate. Plus I was too distracted by whatever it was on the side of Bush's lip. I'm guessing it was drool? I can just imagine Karl Rove down on the front row, looking up at Bush, and Rove pointing to the side of his mouth in an effort to get Bush to wipe off the drool from his lip. And I can just see Bush, off camera, continuously wiping off the other side of his mouth, the droolless side, with Rove finally giving up in frustration.

Sorry our network isn't letting me get to that picture anymore.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1067204