Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Making an honest assessment of the candidates stances and arguments - without getting partisan.... (please try to do the same on this thread)
Kerry looked the more polished speaker by far. He did well in his attacks on Bush and his mistakes in office, but also he left lots room for Bush to attack him as to his record and inconsistent stances even from the past to his statements in the debate. Kerry did not show he can make a solid decision on his own without foreign approval. He also tried be creative and to attack things that bush said during the debate, but did it ineffectively.
Bush did not look that together. He pointed out Kerry's known inconsistencies, but did not exploit the gaps that Kerry left for him during the debate, between what he had said in the past and what his stances in the debate are. He did make it clear that he can make decisions, but was too "rehearsed" and not adaptive enough in his responses.
Both candidates did a bad job in terms of putting their arguments forward and putting away their competition... basically it was a lot of doublespeak and rehashing of shit we already know and wordy answers and dodging the question- with very few fast straight answers being offered.
And the moderator sucked. You are not allowed to add more to an answer after the time is up. Also some of the questions sucked.
Overall you can see a better debate in almost any high school, even one in Mississippi....
And probably find better candidates for president too...
Kerry looked the more polished speaker by far. He did well in his attacks on Bush and his mistakes in office, but also he left lots room for Bush to attack him as to his record and inconsistent stances even from the past to his statements in the debate. Kerry did not show he can make a solid decision on his own without foreign approval. He also tried be creative and to attack things that bush said during the debate, but did it ineffectively.
Bush did not look that together. He pointed out Kerry's known inconsistencies, but did not exploit the gaps that Kerry left for him during the debate, between what he had said in the past and what his stances in the debate are. He did make it clear that he can make decisions, but was too "rehearsed" and not adaptive enough in his responses.
Both candidates did a bad job in terms of putting their arguments forward and putting away their competition... basically it was a lot of doublespeak and rehashing of shit we already know and wordy answers and dodging the question- with very few fast straight answers being offered.
And the moderator sucked. You are not allowed to add more to an answer after the time is up. Also some of the questions sucked.
Overall you can see a better debate in almost any high school, even one in Mississippi....
And probably find better candidates for president too...
Last edited:
