09 October 2004

Debate Impressions

1. This is a good format for debates. The public ask much better questions than the press, it seems to me. Kudos to them, but then brickbats for being "undecided" in the first place. People who are undecided at this point are just morons, really.

2. Bush seemed off his meds at times. Not very presidential in my view.

3. Kerry might actually be boring people by being so consistently good. People love surprise, and you're not going to get much of that with Kerry -- OTOH, he surprised me by taking the bait on that "pledge not to raise taxes" question and running with it. No hestitation. That's leadership.

4. Turns out Kerry was absolutely right (right down to the dollar amount) on Bush's part ownership of a timber company. Bush is so out-of-touch he doesn't even know this, even though he reported it on his income taxes? That's disturbing, and really undercuts Bush's (laughable) claim that Kerry isn't "credible."

So let's review:
First "debate" (not really a debate at all), Kerry just destroyed Bush. Out of the water.
Second debate, Kerry merely "won," but if you subtract points for Bush's more obvious lies and other oddities (like not knowing he owned a timber company), it was a very clear win for Kerry.

Bring on the third debate, I say.

No comments: