(broadban friendly) US presidential Debate availible live online

David19

TomTom wrote:

The aferican american community is being urged to vote after certain happenings in the last election and there is strong reckoning that they possess the number of votes to give kerry the win as many of the polls conducted do not include their voice.

This is a good point. I agree that the polls don't show their voice. I hope they do go out and vote. As you said they're being urged to by p diddy and a few other rappers like outkast. They could be kerrys best chance of winning.

TomTom

The sickning this is the usage of firefighters and police in the campagin. Everyone really respects them and rightly so. but they are always on the tv saying one will do this and the other won't. I know it's a popularity contest of sorts but things like that sway peoples opinion for the wrong reasons

FatherTed

As a voter here in the US who is not going to vote for Bush, not that I like Kerry so much, I feel much better about voting for Kerry after last night. He moved away from his usual "if we knew what we know now" stance on Iraq and seemed to be more firm. And he has had statements such as "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it". This kind of stuff is easily attacked and be used by the repubs to show Kerry is a "flip-flopper".

He is still a poor candidate and as an ABB (anyone but bush) voter, I at least don't dislike him as much as before.

bonkey

Redleslie2 wrote:

Why did Kerry keep agreeing that "Saddam was a threat"? That was the easiest chance he had to put the boot in and he blew it. Is it because he didn't want to slag off the intelligence agencies or what?

Because he initially voted in support of the war.

Kerry has enough flak about the whole "flip-flop" bullsh1t without adding more flames to the fire.

Basically, he's taking the stand that it was right to move against Saddam, but the manner in which Bush moved was all wrong - from croneyist no-bid contracts through to mismanagement of the so-called "post-main-combat" phase that we're still in.

You can say that he blew it....but to be quite honest....almost every potential presidential candidate had already blown it when they voted to support the war way back when. From that moment onwards, they all opened themselves to the same line of "flip-flop" attack that the Republicans have repeated like a broken record.

The mere fact that these allegations have carried so much weight is also telling. People (in some numbers) don't care about the details. They don't want to know why Kerry voted for some stuff and against other stuff. Its a sad fact of life, but Bush's "steadfastness" (which I read as "don't change position even if it becomes blindingly apparent that youv'e screwed up") appeals to so many people who want the McAnswer with a side-order of the McSolution and a freebie McGoodTimes to go.

jc

bonkey

Oh...on another note....

I suppose I'm being hopelessly optimistic asking if there's a non-proprietary-format vid of the debate somewhere? I refuse to install every single bloody mainstream player just so I can view whatever is released in their proprietary formats. I'm sad like that.

jc

Hobbes

http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Real_Alternative.htm

Also download the k-lite codec pack on that site. Will cover every mainstream player

bonkey

ta Hobbes. I'd give you karma for that, but apparently I ain't spreading enough love....

jc

therecklessone

bonkey wrote:

From that moment onwards, they all opened themselves to the same line of "flip-flop" attack that the Republicans have repeated like a broken record.

This broken record?

the short guy in last night's debate wrote:

I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place.

How many times? I'm about to read through the full transcript, I'll let you know...

Redleslie2

bonkey wrote:

Because he initially voted in support of the war.

Kerry has enough flak about the whole "flip-flop" bullsh1t without adding more flames to the fire.

Basically, he's taking the stand that it was right to move against Saddam, but the manner in which Bush moved was all wrong - from croneyist no-bid contracts through to mismanagement of the so-called "post-main-combat" phase that we're still in.

I understand that but I thought that he could have said that like a lot of people he voted for the war in good faith, without realising that Bush's gang had decided to invade long ago, regardless of the existence or not of WMD, and were prepared to abuse the intelligence agencies and sink to any depths in order to mislead everyone about Saddam's capabilities just to support their venture, for which (affect oversincere tone) American boys and girls are getting their bits blown off on a daily basis. Judging by some of the stuff Kerry got in he knows all this but was probably advised against saying it outright.

The mere fact that these allegations have carried so much weight is also telling. People (in some numbers) don't care about the details. They don't want to know why Kerry voted for some stuff and against other stuff. Its a sad fact of life, but Bush's "steadfastness" (which I read as "don't change position even if it becomes blindingly apparent that youv'e screwed up") appeals to so many people who want the McAnswer with a side-order of the McSolution and a freebie McGoodTimes to go.

Dunno, I thought Kerry was trying to appeal to the floaters, people who want to believe that the president makes decisions with the people's best interests at heart, but who get peed off when it's shown that they've been conned.

arcadegame2004

Why did Kerry keep agreeing that "Saddam was a threat"? That was the easiest chance he had to put the boot in and he blew it. Is it because he didn't want to slag off the intelligence agencies or what?

I think he made it clear that while he felt, when voting to authorise war, that this was on the basis of war being a last resort, and that he had been led to believe that that was the case, to be only activated if exhaustive diplomacy at the UN did not bear fruit.

It now turns out there were no WMD. Bush's attempt in the debate to link Iraq to terrorism was effectively countered by Kerry pointing out that that Iraq and terrorism have only been linked since the invasion.

Bush's performance was simply dreadful. But I agree with him on one thing he said:

"I know everybody doesn't agree with me"

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hobbes

therecklessone wrote:

How many times? I'm about to read through the full transcript, I'll let you know...

Your better off watching the live uncut version. The transcript and edits I've seen on TV so far make Bush look much better then he was.

Why the hell did Kerry allow Bush to be the one who kept asking for the extra 30 second reply? Kerry didn't try that once, but had no problem using the time available for the next question to answer the previous comments by Bush.

Actually it was a good tactic. At one point Bush asked for a rebuttal when he shouldn't of got one. Meant that Bush got the last word each time. With putting the topic in the start of the next one it stopped Bush from commenting on it without going off topic.

Lennoxschips

Is it just me or is the lighting on Bush better than the lighting on Kerry?

therecklessone

Hobbes wrote:

Your better off watching the live uncut version. The transcript and edits I've seen on TV so far make Bush look much better then he was.

Yeah,I watched it live Friday morning.

Gave up on reading it due to fatigue and need to pack bag for trip away today.

sovtek

Hobbes wrote:

Your better off watching the live uncut version. The transcript and edits I've seen on TV so far make Bush look much better then he was.

Welcome to the last four years of mainstream media transcripts.
To be fair though, how many times should you repeat "ummm".

sovtek

Moriarty wrote:

.. because they both recognise that - along with most people that have their heads screwed on properly - that simply isn't an option.

I remember very similar logic from Johnson and Nixon....worked well for them dinnit (and about 58,000 US soldiers + 4 million South east Asians).

keu

I'm half afraid to comment on the debate (or much else for that matter)
but one of the remarks I saw on an alternative site went along the lines of "have I been in a coma for the last four years, is that guy really the president of the United states" in reference to Bush.
I feel the same way. Its scary.

Moriarty

sovtek wrote:

I remember very similar logic from Johnson and Nixon....worked well for them dinnit (and about 58,000 US soldiers + 4 million South east Asians).

Iraq is Vietnam now? Somone should probably inform the vietnamese that they're moving.

Wouldn't you be far more critical of the US if they did decide to up and leave by next month? I know I certainly would be. As Kerry said in the debate (hey, look at that for bringing this back on topic ), they've broken it so now they have to pay for it. That's responsible. What you are proposing is incredibly irresponsible.

dahamsta

I've only seen about 20 mins or so of the debate so far, but I was very impressed with Kerry for the first 15 of those minutes. He came across very statesmanlike (even TNR agrees) and Bush sounded very whiney to me. By that I mean the kind of whining you get when a kid's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar, you know that kind of defensive wheedling way they talk, going up at the end? There was a lot of that about 10 mins in.

He also fell into some really silly traps, such as when Kerry started going on about Home Security (sorry, I just refuse to use the word "homeland") and what needed to be done. When the debate flipped over to Bush, he immediately jupmed in with "how's he going to pay for all this", but Kerry had actually started his points on HS by saying that he wouldn't give tax cuts to "people that don't need it, like me and the President" (or somesuch).

Moreover, when the debate flipped back to Kerry again, he didn't even bother tackling this, he just ploughed into the arguments Bush amateurishly tossed out after making this amusing comment (well, he smirked, but it's hard to tell), and tore them pretty much apart.

Kerry was very good on timing too. He missed the mark very slightly a couple of times when I was watching (and I understand he threw out a bizarre "let me finish" for no apparent reason at some stage), but for the most part he was pretty much bang on, and he hammered most home with a very nice clincher.

Bush, on the other hand, seemed to keep reaching for a "strong president" line at the end of each block, occasionally completely out of context and often off the mark. In fact I think on one occasion he finished up before he hit the yellow light, and had to plough back in again!

Looking forward to seeing the rest of it.

adam

Victor

dahamsta wrote:

He also fell into some really silly traps, such as when Kerry started going on about Home Security (sorry, I just refuse to use the word "homeland")

Sounds awfully "fatherland" doesn't it?

(and I understand he threw out a bizarre "let me finish" for no apparent reason at some stage),

I haven't seen it, but this could be an assertiveness / sympathy from the voter thing making it look like people were trying to cut him off prematurely.

Hobbes

dahamsta wrote:

Kerry was very good on timing too. He missed the mark very slightly a couple of times when I was watching (and I understand he threw out a bizarre "let me finish" for no apparent reason at some stage), but for the most part he was pretty much bang on, and he hammered most home with a very nice clincher.

Bush said "Let me finish". Its his callmark when dealing with the press. I suspect Bush went over a time, because he did this a few times.


I didn't notice Kerry say this, although Kerry did say something like "I see I have more time,....".

GuanYin

Newsweek today suggest Kerry has recovered from being 8 points behind in opinion polls to taking a 3 point lead!

source

arcadegame2004

syke wrote:

Newsweek today suggest Kerry has recovered from being 8 points behind in opinion polls to taking a 3 point lead!

source

I saw that poll but remember that the poll was only of "registered voters". Most US polls distinguish between "Registered voters" and "likely voters" with the results often differing. We should not really take this poll as evidence of how the election will turn out, because it is the Electoral College which counts, not the popular vote, although I believe that such an electoral system is extremely outdated and unfair.

In truth then, Kerry needs to hold onto Al Gore's states from 2000 and win at least 1 more. We need to see polls based on the Electoral College result because that would be more relevant than a poll of popular opinion.

pork99

Ask those akward questions Bush always weasels his way out of;

http://www.virtualpressconference.net/index.html

Yoda

I just watched the first Presidential Debate on the Washington Post site. Grateful for the link above.

Kerry was measured and statesmanlike. Anyone will get flustered in a live debate, but he bounced back, and he kept up the attack convincingly and resolutely.

Bush? He was very much on the defensive, and indeed, seemed to whine at times. His summing up sounded more like a sermon than something I would like to hear from a world leader.

I am confident that Kerry will win the day, despite what the puppet media keep saying.

Now, where's that absentee ballot.....

Yoda

A link to the 5 October Vice-Presidential debate is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/politics/100504-16v.htm

Victor

Yoda wrote:

His summing up sounded more like a sermon than something I would like to hear from a world leader.

Maybe he was playing to His audience? Although any smart politican plays to the middle ground - thats how you win.