Presidential Debate #2

Before I read or listen to any punditry, my immediate impressions:

George Bush was obviously overcompensating for his dismal performance in the first debate. He barely contained those smirks and scowls. He was shouting down the audience and jumping out of his chair in an attempt to erase in voters' minds the painfully incoherent and repetitive outing he had previously.

He didn't look presidential to me, he looked like a loose cannon. In spite of the comical posturing and false bravado, he didn't inspire confidence with his simplistic train of thought [i.e. regarding abortion], attempts at divisiveness [liberal versus conservative], refusal to see the truth [Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat] and refusal to take responsiblity for his mistakes [he didn't think he made any errors other than "tactical" ones].

He said nothing new, nothing to make me think he will do anything differently in the next few years. All I heard were excuses and a defiant defense of his failed policies. I thought his performance was worse than the first; I don't think he picked up undecided/swing voters with his condescending and combative approach to the debate nor did he shore up his credibility in the face of Kerry's substantive attacks and the unraveling of the Iraq war.

John Kerry was consistent, firm and persuasive. He unequivocally stated his positions and clearly laid out his plans to carry them out. His counterpunches at Bush were devastatingly blunt and ideologically sound.

He confidently made his assertions [no taxes on incomes below $200,000, he will hunt down the terrorists through more effective leadership, he will pursue stem cell research and allow drugs to be imported from Canada], had a better command of the facts and was more attuned to the concerns of average, working class citizens. He just inspired more confidence. He looked like a candidate who doesn't shirk from the facts and deals with them head on.

I think Kerry won in this debate. What do you think?


+Save/Share | |