September 30, 2004
Post DebateHow do you think George Bush and John Kerry did in the first debate?
Did either candidate make up or change your mind as whom to vote for?
My immediate impressions:
Kerry came off as a gracious man of substance, who had a command of the facts and used it persuasively to back up his position. I wish he used a better analogy to make people understand what he meant by Bush's "colossal error in judgment" [how about "if you dug yourself a hole, you have to stop digging"?]. He didn't hammer Bush hard enough but emphasized Bush misleading the nation into war. I liked hearing that he has a plan and that he can do better. He looked calm and collected and in control. He looked presidential.
George Bush took a laid back approach to answering questions. He was charismatic and passionate, but left the impression he was winging what he was saying. I got tired of him repeating the same words ["free/freedom", "hard work", "mixed messages", "resolute"] over and over for one and a half hours regardless of the question, to cover up the lack of substance. He looked fidgety and defensive, losing his composure a few times. He acted more like the challenger than the sitting President.
Obviously I'm for John Kerry, but instant polls after the debate show that people also thought he did a better job than George Bush.
+Save/Share | |
Links to this post:
(Dare to Know)
-- Epistularum Liber Primus, Horace
Wonk (noun): def. A political nerd. Know spelled backwards.
Wonky Muse is the other Filipino American female political blogger. The sane, liberal one.
Talking Points Memo
The Carpetbagger Report
The Huffington Post
follow me on Twitter
image: le sarcophage des muses, musée du louvre.
site design: wonky muse.