Absolutely worth seeing. This was better than the first one.

[Arancaytar]

(PS: I wrote this text at 7 and a half hours ago , but my internet connection got cut, and I could only post it now. For simplicity's sake I'm not making any changes. Also, I lost the file this was in, and had to recover a slightly mangled version from my keylogger. I straightened out most of it, but if there are any weird sentence structures in there, you know where they came from.)

__________________

Okay, it's 5:30 AM in the morning here in Germany. I've pretty much given up trying to sleep now. It was absolutely worth watching. Kerry didn't just defeat Bush, he flattened him. I saw the recording of the first debate just before this one started, and I still can't decide which went better.

Bush looked lost in the first one. Forsaken, unsure. Kerry defeated him, but it looked like shooting a fish, not in a barrel, in a *glass* of water. Easy. In this one, Bush seemed better than in the first debate (it's hard not to improve on his performance in the first). But only because he was angry. He was more quick in his responses only because he thought about them even less. He was more forceful only because he was yelling. That's not how you win a debate.

Really, I was anticipating him losing it any moment. Start to scream, to attack Kerry directly, verbally and perhaps even physically. I kept wondering, 'is this question going to push him over the edge? Is this subtle jab from Kerry going to?' I was convinced he was done when he said something to the effect of having the impulse to scream in response to Kerry's argument. He didn't (thank Rove and his earpiece feed), but he said he felt like it.

It was good to see that in spite of fears uttered before the debate, the audience seemed composed, indeed, of undecided and of weak leaners in either direction. The questions made sense. None of the questions seemed to attack a candidate openly (though some were phrased like a challenge). The woman leveling the abortion question at Kerry was not a rabid fundamentalist (and heaven knows there were probably enough applicants with the same question out there who were, and were refused). That was probably Kerry's most difficult question to answer, the more so because it had been asked in a rational, non-hostile manner. I could tell that a great deal of thought went into answering it, and I am quite certain that none of the response had been prepared, or a canned reply. He could have handled it better perhaps (she looked not entirely satisfied), but it was the only point he could make: Individuals' opinions should be respected, but a government representing all the population must clearly separate religion from law.

The way they kept getting at each other for the tax cut question offered some foreshadowing of what is to come in the third debate. Kerry once again picked up his "It's us who get the tax cut" line, and, I was glad to see, took the time to explain it further, as he couldn't do last week. Bush looked flustered at Kerry attacking him from all sides basically at once, stroke for stroke, and dismantling him. Did you see Kerry's superior smile when Bush spoke? His nodding and grinning, seeming almost to say 'Yes, yes, yes, you idiot, ramble on, I've got you bagged now', at the same time furiously taking notes?

It looked like a duel, in which one of the two had learned his movements so entirely by heart that the other one could see right away how he was going to strike next. Pathetic.

I was a bit nervous that they gave Bush the last question, since he could have made a strong point by lying that could not have been refuted in such a short time, but it turned out that with Kerry vs. Bush, it doesn't matter who strikes first or last, Bush is quite capable of tripping himself.

When she actually read her question, I actually shouted. 'YES!' This was the singularly best place to put this question, and after this I now believe that ABC indeed favors Kerry. Fact of the matter: Bush cannot admit a mistake. In his world view, admitting the mistake is thrice the crime of making it. The question asked about three (3) examples (e-x-a-m-p--- do I need to go further?). What he gave was a response so canned, you could smell the conservant in it. Whether he had memorized it or was fed it by his earpiece, it had no bearing on the question. Well, at least someone got through to him about the importance of self-criticism, though he doesn't seem to accept the idea yet - he uttered it like a concept totally alien to him.

Q: "Could you give three examples for things you might have done wrong during your administration?"

A : "Of course I have done things wrong. I'm admitting I did a few things wrong. A president has to admit it if he made mistakes. I've made some tactical mistakes I think." After which he shut up about the subject. No examples. They can feed him whatever they want, saying, 'I did this wrong' is a tongue-breaker for him.

Leaving, of course, the side wide open for Kerry, in his rebuttal, to get in another slash by actually *mentioning* an example , answering Bush's question for him.

The closing statements, again giving the Chimp the advantage of last and chief place, were another wasted opportunity. The advantage of going second is only an advantage if you react to your opponent's speech, not directly respond, but take it into account. Kerry would have. Bush did not; he recited his memorized message once again and finished.


--------

I'm waiting to hear what the freepers wilhowaim cheating this time? Will they accuse Kerry of having another secret pen in his pocket that dumbed down Bush? Will they accuse the audience of being unilaterally picked Liberalist Commie Pinkos? I'm sure they will. Absolute landslide for Kerry here. If he gets the next one like this, he's won it hands-down.

And we know that the first one was supposed to be Bush's strength about. That the second one favored Bush as a city hall style discussion. Bush blew both his chances. He won't get a third.

And I'm hoping, no, expecting Bush to crack in the last one. He's like a tennis player who's lost two sets 6:0. He's bewildered how fast the arguments fly around him, his cozy dreamworld is being shattered by reality on all sides, and it can't be long before he's finished. What will he do? Burst out yelling? Punch Kerry or the moderator in the face? Break into tears? Run off the stage? Fall unconscious? I'm anticipating eagerly.

----

Well, I really got to go to sleep now, or I'll be comatose for the rest of Saturday, which would be a shame.

Good night (or good morning here and east of here). :)

[Owlet]

1. Good thoughtful post

..and you write well, too. :)

[Crazy8s]

2. But...

it doesn't take into account the after debate spin, which is heavily in *s favor. Barely a mention of his leaping, shouting attack toward the moderator. Kerry's answers are STILL being portrayed as 'wishy-washy' on the issues by the talking heads. The scum media could not honestly boast up *s pitiful first performance, but they are giving him much higher grades in the second simply because he didn't emplode a second time (though he came close when he ran at Gibson like an enraged baboon--which the press has largely chosen to ignore).

The relentless pounding of the post debate message that * gave a 'strong, powerful' performance is intended to bury the obvious weakness that he displayed (his volatile temper--certainly not a quality I look for in a leader of our nation). The question is, how many 'undecided' voters will clearly recall this when it is obscured in the media spin.

[Arancaytar]

3. The only thing for it then...

Is to get out there and inundate the online polls, and batter the media people with letters and emails, eh? We did achieve a lot to counter the post-debate spin for the past two debates - even the VP one, which was held to be anything from a tie, to a slight victory, to a landslide victory for Dick by the RW, got tons of polls that were around 75-80% for Edwards. Perhaps the polls (even the 'scientific' ones) don't represent reality accurately - in our favor or in Shrub's. But they're sure moving in the right direction. This last week (whether it was the debates or the sudden admissions of 'no ties to Al Quaeda' and 'no WMDs') was a real bounce. And there's only 24 days left now, if I counted right...

PS: thanks, Owlet! It's a nice feeling to meet with approval when you're a newbie. :)

[soothsayer]

4. undecided voters are dumbasses at this point

They probably won't even vote. If they are so stupid as to not know which candidate will be great for the US and which has sucked for the past 4 years and will continue to suck, then they are prolly too dumb to use a touch screen anyhow.