One thing I love about Kerry is he seems so REAL, as in there seems

[Ruffhowse]

to be no posturing, no pretension, pretty much what you see is what you get. He exudes a quiet, calm confidence. Especially compared to Bush, who so obviously is TRYING to appear macho, that he just ends up looking and acting ridiculous. Either you're macho or you're not, but if you have to ACT the part, you just come off like a fool. Bush's strutting, his macho drawl, his head thrusts, and the tone of his voice all come off as phony.

[Skidmore]

1. But...but...but...

he's so aloof, haughty, unlikable...

Chris Matthews and his club say so.

[Mistahkleeen]

2. Kerry presents a more stable image.

Kerry won the debate, that was obvious. His answers were better,he never
lost his kool, etc. And even on a superficial level, he looked better than the chimp. Did you notice how many times Bush was blinking as Kerry was speaking, a cop said that that was one of the signs they look for when they think a suspect is concocting a story, hmm. Kerry hit a homerun, CNN and others calling this debate a tie shows how prevelant chrystal meth's use has become in newsrooms.

[Arancaytar]

4. Re: Bush's face while Kerry talked.

Conversely, did you see the expression Kerry had while it was Bush's turn to speak? He was smiling, for heaven's sake! He seemed on the verge of chuckling condescendingly. At one point, he was actually *nodding* to himself while grinning, as if egging Bush on. I've never seen such a superiorily handed debate. In the first one, Kerry was kicking ass, but he was still giving the impression of being on hostile territory (because of the issue at hand being supposedly Bush's strength). In this one, he seems to have realized that it could only get easier for him.

It must really be hard on a man of his intellect to have to run against a chimpanzee. And still be declared the loser by rightwingnut media.

[PDittie]

3. Kerry never got rattled even when * was yelling

and attacking him in a shrill and simply nasty manner.

(I suppose he was told it 'worked' for Cheney...)

This is a significant difference between the two men: composure under pressure.

Kerry (or Edwards, or others like Tad Devine)should exploit this difference by mentioning it repeatedly.

"Bush responds poorly under pressure."

(Of course we at DU already know that...) "There's ample evidence of this: in the classroom in Florida on the morning of 9/11, certainly after leaving Florida in a mad scramble around the country. He responded wrongly when we had Osama cornered in Tora Bora; he responded badly when the UN challenged his intention to go to war, an ill-advised and poorly planned war, as it turns out. And he has responded to John Kerry's critique of his record as President by attacking John Kerry personally: 'He's the most liberal senator'; 'you can't lead if you're not consistent', and so on.

The President, in word, and deed, and after four years of practice, is simply not up to the task of the Presidency."

"It's hard work, of course."

Or 'we can do better' or whatever the campaign would use.