Friday, October 01, 2004
Kerry Won
To any voter who had any question about which of these two men is the best candidate to lead our nation, this debate should help lay that question to rest. Senator Kerry won with a grandslam. He was better prepared, far more articulate, far more cool and made sense. Pres Bush came off as angry, grasping for soundbites and even seemed childish or scatterbrained at times.
Unfortunately, Kerry had to defend his Iraq record at least five times in the evening.
This is exactly what Carl Rove and the republican strategists planned back a year ago during the Iowa caucuses. At the time Howard Dean was the frontrunner. The republican party actually took out anti-Dean adds during the primaries in an effort to help stop him from getting the nomination.
Rove even went on the talk show circuit and told everyone how "great it would be to face Dean" - the democrats, of course, fell for this thinking "oh no, if Rove says he'd be easy to beat we better not nominate him". Oh sure, Rove was doing those talk shows as a public service. Maybe it was a slip of the tongue seven times in a row...not. Dean was Bush & Co's greatest fear: a candidate who could completely and unequivocally challenge the administration about the lies that led to the failure of Iraq.
Anyway - Rove got what he wanted : a candidate who has a much harder time challenging the failed mess of a war than someone like Dean would have been. As I predicted, the debate was not able to challenge Bush on his weakest points. Despite this, Kerry won the debates hands down. Sen. Kerry is the superior candidate, has a superior intellect and was the better debater. Bush's great strength is that his people run a brilliant campaign - unfortunately its mostly lies and manipulation. Bush is also very good at reaching out to stupid people, which make up a large part of the population.
Senator Kerry is a great American and a great patriot - his environmental record and service to the nation is outstanding - we can only hope that he defeats Bush next month.
¶ 1:47 PM
To any voter who had any question about which of these two men is the best candidate to lead our nation, this debate should help lay that question to rest. Senator Kerry won with a grandslam. He was better prepared, far more articulate, far more cool and made sense. Pres Bush came off as angry, grasping for soundbites and even seemed childish or scatterbrained at times.
Unfortunately, Kerry had to defend his Iraq record at least five times in the evening.
This is exactly what Carl Rove and the republican strategists planned back a year ago during the Iowa caucuses. At the time Howard Dean was the frontrunner. The republican party actually took out anti-Dean adds during the primaries in an effort to help stop him from getting the nomination.
Rove even went on the talk show circuit and told everyone how "great it would be to face Dean" - the democrats, of course, fell for this thinking "oh no, if Rove says he'd be easy to beat we better not nominate him". Oh sure, Rove was doing those talk shows as a public service. Maybe it was a slip of the tongue seven times in a row...not. Dean was Bush & Co's greatest fear: a candidate who could completely and unequivocally challenge the administration about the lies that led to the failure of Iraq.
Anyway - Rove got what he wanted : a candidate who has a much harder time challenging the failed mess of a war than someone like Dean would have been. As I predicted, the debate was not able to challenge Bush on his weakest points. Despite this, Kerry won the debates hands down. Sen. Kerry is the superior candidate, has a superior intellect and was the better debater. Bush's great strength is that his people run a brilliant campaign - unfortunately its mostly lies and manipulation. Bush is also very good at reaching out to stupid people, which make up a large part of the population.
Senator Kerry is a great American and a great patriot - his environmental record and service to the nation is outstanding - we can only hope that he defeats Bush next month.
¶ 1:47 PM
