Kerry Kicked Bush's Butt So Royally It Hurt to Watch (ouch!!)

[freedomburns]

The debate last night was a make-or-break moment in our campaign to win back the White House. Today the verdict is in: with confidence and conviction, Kerry made the case against Bush's disastrous foreign policy -- and Bush couldn't take the heat. Today's editorial by the Boston Globe sums it up: "Ladies and gentlemen, you wake today to a whole new presidential race. Last night, John Kerry won as clear a debate victory as we've seen since Ronald Reagan outdueled Jimmy Carter in 1980…The Democratic challenger seemed more serious and substantive, more knowledgeable and confident, than the man who holds the job."

It's become a truism that the post-debate spin matters as much as the debate itself. We've got a running start today -- the reaction last night nation-wide was overwhelmingly in John Kerry's favor. But it's critically important that we all get out there and help seal the deal.

Over the weekend, Americans will look to the letters-to-the-editor pages of their local newspapers to confirm their perceptions about the candidates and their performances. Please take a few minutes today to write a letter highlighting how Kerry confronted Bush with the truth and the way that it rattled and angered him. We've set up an online tool that highlights some key talking points and makes it easy to find your local newspaper.

John Kerry's performance was very strong. But what sealed the deal for many commentators was how rattled Bush got when confronted with the truth about his policies. The Washington Post derided his "stammering and pausing," the New York Times said he was "scowling and grimacing" and "petulant," the Boston Globe noted his "sighing, clenching his teeth, rolling his eyes," the LA Times said he seemed "tired and annoyed," and CBS News described Bush as "scowling at times and looking away in apparent disgust at others." Mark Halperin of ABC News summed it up: George Bush was "remarkably angry-seeming."

Kerry has said before that George Bush lives in a "fantasy world of spin." Last night that fantasy world began to crumble. Bush appeared angry that anyone would dare to challenge his view of the facts. Faced with the reality of the mess he has created in Iraq, and challenged for repeatedly misleading the American people, he retreated, falling back on his trite slogans over and over and over.

One of the most compelling moments of the debate came when George Bush once again tried to connect Iraq and 9/11. But Kerry wouldn't let him do it, and Bush scowled at his powerful response.

Even the conservative pundits gathered on Fox News had to admit that Kerry looked pretty good last night. Bill Kristol said, "I think Kerry did pretty well, and…we're going to have a real presidential race." And right-wing commentator Joe Scarborough conceded: "I don't see how anybody could look at this debate and not score this a very clear win, on points, for John Kerry."

And the voters agree. ABC News said, "John Kerry won the debate," pointing to a poll of independent voters who declared Kerry the winner, 45% to 36%. CBS News said, "John Kerry won the debate," and found Kerry up by 15 percentage points among uncommitted voters. Even Gallup, a polling firm which has consistently skewed Republican, found Kerry winning by 16 percentage points, with a whopping 46% of the viewers saying that the debate made their opinion of Kerry more favorable. On the web, clickers delivered a landslide: with over 250,000 votes cast on the CNN website, 77% of the viewers thought that Kerry won, as opposed to only 19% for Bush.

Kerry's win last night will transform the presidential race. As voters get to actually meet the man Karl Rove has demonized, they realize he presents a serious alternative to Bush's reckless policy of endless war.

With a month to go, this race is turning around. Kerry is building momentum. The polls are narrowing. And on November 2nd, we're going to win.

freedomburns

[Kodratos]

Every focus group the networks brought in said they thought both candidates were equal. Kerry just didn't mess up, you call that kicking Bush's butt?

[freedomburns]

Are you an idiot?!

Every focus group the networks brought in said they thought both candidates were equal. Kerry just didn't mess up, you call that kicking Bush's butt?

No Kodratos, I'm not an idiot, but you must be if you think that Kerry didn't eat Bush's lunch for breakfast last night at the debates.  Bush was left floundering like a stuck halibut on the beach by Kerry's points and his clarity of vision.  Kerry did far more than not screw up.  He made Bush look like the retard he is.

When you are surrounded by yes men all day, youi just lose it when some one attacks your failures with concise facts and well thought out, workable solutions to your failures.  Bush totally lost it.  He could not have done much worse, nor Kerry much better in my opinion.  But I do leave room for Kerry to do even better at the next debate.  Oh what fun THAT will be!!

[AuH2O]

It's all spin.

As a former debater, Bush clearly won on substance. Everyone knew Kerry was smoother already.

[A18]

What was clear about it? He's against the war, but for "finishing the job." (so in other words, he agrees with Bush on the important part)

That's really going to rally the troops. "I'm the commander in chief...and I want you to die for the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time..."

[raggage]

Are you an idiot?!

Every focus group the networks brought in said they thought both candidates were equal. Kerry just didn't  up, you call that kicking Bush's butt?

No Kodratos, I'm not an idiot, but you must be if you think that Kerry didn't eat Bush's lunch for breakfast last night at the debates.  Bush was left floundering like a stuck halibut on the beach by Kerry's points and his clarity of vision.  Kerry did far more than not screw up.  He made Bush look like the retard he is.

When you are surrounded by yes men all day, youi just lose it when some one attacks your failures with concise facts and well thought out, workable solutions to your failures.  Bush totally lost it.  He could not have done much worse, nor Kerry much better in my opinion.  But I do leave room for Kerry to do even better at the next debate.  Oh what fun THAT will be!!

You're the only one who thought Kerry ate Bush for breakfast(aside from pessimists and kooks). Apparently the American people don't think so.

I certainly don't think Bush was trounced, but I do think Kerry won. If this were a boxing match, Kerry one on points, not on a KO

[A18]

Well, going on what other people have felt, Kerry clearly won. But:

A. Agreed with you more on the issues you care about
46% Kerry
49% Bush

B. Expressed himself more clearly
60% Kerry
32% Bush

C. Had a good understanding of the issues
41% Kerry
41% Bush

D. Was more believable
45% Kerry
50% Bush

E.  Was more likeable
41% Kerry
48% Bush

F. Demonstrated he is tough enough for the job
37% Kerry
54% Bush

I don't see Bush losing any ground, but Kerry may gain some. Don't know how long it'll last.

Kerry can still win. But if he wins, I'm 99% sure it'll be because of current events.

[Dr. Cynic]

Since I took Public Speaking, and we were taught how to keep score for debate, I did so. Kerry won by four points, which isn't big. But, this was supposed to be Bush's strong point.

[ATFFL]

Since I took Public Speaking, and we were taught how to keep score for debate, I did so. Kerry won by four points, which isn't big. But, this was supposed to be Bush's strong point.

Did you dock him for not addressing the audience directly?  He spoke to the moderator and not to the camera.

Just curious, because I did a similar thing (but only for the first 30 and last 20 minutes).  I had Bush up in the first 30 with Kerry meandering a bit in his answers and Bush on topic and at his best in teh debate.  last 20 were pretty even, slight edge to Kerry.  Bush was saved by some very good responses to Kerry and the better closing statement.

The middle 30-40 minutes is when I had Kerry doing well and Bush really off, but was too busy to seeing to my guests to score.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Are you an idiot?!

Every focus group the networks brought in said they thought both candidates were equal. Kerry just didn't  up, you call that kicking Bush's butt?

What focus groups are you talking about?  I was watching MSNBC and CNN.  MSNBC didn't have their usual Frank Lunzt focus group, but had a small group of undecideds in Ohio and Florida, and they almost unanimously said Kerry won, and a few switched their votes to Kerry.

CNN seemed to have a more formal focus group, but they showed them for like two minutes and never asked their overall opinion...they just showed the dial scores from a couple very short clips from what I could tell.  I was very disappointed by the lack of focus grouping for this debate, to tell the truth.

[Dr. Cynic]

Here's how I kept score:

Each time the candidate began to ramble his answer, I docked a point. Long pauses I docked two points, Addressing the moderator and not the camera, minus 1. Each time a candidate is interrupted -1. I added a point each time the candidate got through his question and rebuttal without doing any of the above mentioned things.

[AuH2O]

Since I took Public Speaking, and we were taught how to keep score for debate, I did so. Kerry won by four points, which isn't big. But, this was supposed to be Bush's strong point.

But it's not a speaking competition.

If I were judging it like an academic debate, I would have turned a ballot in like this:

Speaker points (15-30)

Kerry: 26
Bush: 19

* Low speaker win

Bush plan: democratize Iraq
- disadvantage: US shoulders burden

Kerry counterplan: same as Bush + summit
- no solvency: other countries won't send troops anyway
- disad: 'wrong war' talk hurts morale, hurts plan solvency

=flows Bush

Bush advantage: North Korea
- bilateral failed empirically
- Libya shows solvency w/ international pressure

Kerry reponse
- multilateral hasn't worked yet

= flows Bush

Kerry disadvantage: Bush wrong to invade Iraq; Bin Laden escapes
- wrong war at wrong time
- shows inadequate judgement

Bush response
- democracy in the Mideast solves terror

= draw to slight Kerry

Bush wins on Iraq and North Korea. Iran doesn't figure in decision.

[ATFFL]

Here's how I kept score:

Each time the candidate began to ramble his answer, I docked a point. Long pauses I docked two points, Addressing the moderator and not the camera, minus 1. Each time a candidate is interrupted -1. I added a point each time the candidate got through his question and rebuttal without doing any of the above mentioned things.

Curious if you matched mine in terms of scoring in the first 30 minutes, the last twenty and the middle.

I take it Bush got hammered on the long pauses and Kerry almost always lost the talking to the moderator until the end.

Bush would have done much better if he had not filled in all of his 2 minutes.  Several times he was done in 60-90 seconds.  At least one of his pauses was actually an end to his answer, but the moderator did not pick up on it.

[mddem2004]

Ya know, what is really informative is how thre Right Wingers on this site blather in the face of REALITY.....

This was Bush's Best/Last hope of putting Kerry away early well before November 2nd and he CLEARLY failed to do that.

KERRY KICKED GW's ASS HANDS DOWN - BY ALL ACCOUNTS!!!! GET A GRIP......

In fact, the debate was won by Kerry so overwhelmingly that it was an obvious boost to his campaign's morale and prospects for further energizing his base.

Will it be enough? We don't know that YET, but, the debates from here out only move into more Kerry friendly turf....

1) The town Hall format of the second debate should favor Kerry who obviosly thinks and speaks better on his feet as a former prosecutor.....

2) The Domestic Issues of the third and last debate is where Kerry has a much better case for 'change' and the issues (Health Care, Jobs, deficit, etc) all favor Kerry's perceived strengths.....

At any rate, thursday's debate will likely be the most watched debate this election, and the most widely viewed 1st debate historically, if won by the challenger, only bodes well for a Challenger victory in November.

Just look at the 4 most watched 1st debates.....
1960, 1980, 1992, and 2004

All were won by the challenger, and in 60, 80, and 92 the case for CHANGE was made and the challenger won the election.

[Democratic Hawk]

Bush lost the first debate - and on his strongest suit I might add! Given his abysmal ecomonic record I doubt he'll win that one either.

Will Bush play his party's reactionary platform up or down in the domestic debate, I wonder?

Bush is too polarising an ideologue for me. Give me a consensus building pragmatist anyday!

Dave

[AuH2O]

The person that won the first debate has lost 4 of the last 5 elections.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

The person that won the first debate has lost 4 of the last 5 elections.

It's not really fair including Perot in that list...he did well in the debates and doubled his support by doing so, but never had a chance of winning the election after his re-entry.

And can someone please tell me where they saw a focus group that said the debate was tied?  The Washington Post has a story today about a group of undecided voters, and they all said Kerry clearly won.

[mddem2004]

The person that won the first debate has lost 4 of the last 5 elections.

The person that has won the most watched debates has gone on to win - ie 1960, 1980, 1992......and now 2004!

[khirkhib]

Look like the apologists do their thing and excuse away and spin.  Bush invites all his cadre to the fantasy land.

[freedomburns]

Yes Khirkhib, the emperor has no clothes, but those who are blind cannot see.  They will themselves to believe that this bumbling, blathering, floundering, flailling idiot is a worthy leader and representative of our country to the world.  He makes us all look like idiots because he is so bad.  

It's that deer in the headlights stare, that blank, vacuous, hollow, empty stare; that's what kills me.  How did this guy ever rise above the level of air conditioner repair man?  I just can't figure it out...

freedomburns

[??????????]

Yes Khirkhib, the emperor has no clothes, but those who are blind cannot see.  They will themselves to believe that this bumbling, blathering, floundering, flailling idiot is a worthy leader and representative of our country to the world.  He makes us all look like idiots because he is so bad.  

It's that deer in the headlights stare, that blank, vacuous, hollow, empty stare; that's what kills me.  How did this guy ever rise above the level of air conditioner repair man?  I just can't figure it out...

freedomburnout

Explain Clinton.

[khirkhib]

Clinton may be a lot of things but he is no idiot.

[Democratic Hawk]

Clinton may be a lot of things but he is no idiot.

Beats the current incumbent hands down.

Dave

[A18]

You mean at being an idiot?

[Lunar]

Wow, the partisanship and hate is absurd here.