Well, I certainly thought Kerry came out way ahead in that event but don't go by me. I have already stated that I like John Kerry and so I think my opinion really can be ignored.

Dale's reaction does confuse me a bit. I'm not really sure what the big turn off was there for you Dale. I will say I missed the first couple of questions of the debate because people kept ringing my phone to ask me if I was watching the damn thing. So, I've heard the stuff about the tentative start for Kerry but I didn't see it really. I did think as the debate went on that Kerry just kept getting better and building momentum until it was like he was just steamrolling the president. It got so bad for Bush that at points I actually felt embarrassed for the man. He is just is no good at having to think on his feet or at expressing himself. I know people often refer to him as an idiot and quite honestly this is the reason why. I actually have no idea how intelligent he is but when you listen to him speak in a forum like last nights debate he certainly comes across as not being to bright. That may not be a fair assessment of him because I know many bright people that when they have to speak in public to an audience have a real hard time...and honestly you'd probably walk away after hearing them thinking they were stupid. The thing here is, the president's lack of communication skills certainly will not benefit him in the arena in which he works.

I disagree completely with Kevin G's take that this debate was easier for the challenger. Even Bob Novak, that little Republican toad, was on the tube last night saying that all the pressure was on Kerry and all Bush needed to do was "hit singles" while the pressure was on Kerry to have to hit a home run. I have to say in this case I agree with Novak. The Kerry campaign in the way they have handled things thus far did put all it's eggs in the debate basket and put all the pressure on Kerry to have to make up any lost ground in these debates. So a bad performance from Kerry here would spell doom for his campaign. Bush had no such pressure on him. So if Kerry did start off a little tentative it's no wonder...they hung the election on how he did here. The big problem with getting a "win" in a presidential debate is that it is a very difficult thing to pull off. The media comes on after you're done and talks about how you did. People who did not watch this debate will listen or read or watch what other people have to say about it and make up their minds on who won by going by what some people in the media have to say. Like any other political event the spin machines will fire up and tell you why their side won...and a certain segment of the population will make their decision based on that and not on what these two men did or said.

I'm not going to go into all the specifics of what was said last night unless someone here really wants to discuss that stuff. My feeling is most folks probably feel my rambles are long enough but I will offer a few general observations.

First, something I thought was very telling and kind of sad. We, and I mean we as a nation, had to get all the way to this first presidential debate before we heard either of these two candidates really begin to discuss specifics of making this a safer world in terms of terrorism. Only Kerry offered specifics on this and only Kerry seemed clear on what the priorities are in terms of making us safer at home and in the world. The reasons we had to wait so long to hear this, I think, are political gamesmanship and media incompetence. In this area Bush offered, once again, nothing. Telling us that what we are doing in Iraq is "hard work" is quite honestly asinine. First it doesn't even begin to describe what it really is and second we all know what the challenges are there and that it's a life or death situation for all involved. The fact that he repeated the same tired phrases again and again was certainly a detraction for the president. 

"It's hard work"

 "my core values"

 "You know, we have to be right 100 percent of the time. And the enemy only has to be right once to hurt us."

"wrong war, wrong time, wrong place"

 "the way to win this is to be steadfast and resolved"

"you better have a president who chases these terrorists down and bring them to justice before they hurt us again." 

"denigrates the contributions of these brave soldiers"

"you denigrate the contributions of those who are serving side by side with American troops in Iraq."

"Our coalition is strong. It will remain strong, so long as I'm the president."

"mixed signals"

"It is hard work to go from a tyranny to a democracy."

"It's hard work to go from a place where people get their hands cut off, or executed, to a place where people are free."

"The only consistent about my opponent's position is that he's been inconsistent."

"He changes positions."

 "sending mixed messages"

All of these little phrases are the president's message to the American people. Notice that he does not address, never addresses what he will do or his plan.

At the end of the debate this is what the president had told us:

That he is steadfast and resolved.

That he believes Kerry changes positions.

That he believes Kerry sends mixed messages.

That he thinks the war in Iraq is hard work.

That he feels the "war on terror" is hard work.

Those seemed to be the points he wanted to drive home and they don't inspire any confidence in where he's headed from my perspective.