I believe you guys are voting more on who you want to have won than who actually did a better job debating.

Quoted: I believe you guys are voting more on who you want to have won than who actually did a better job debating.

I know something about debate--I was a champion debater in high school.  But Presidential debates are not like forensics contests.  They are about learning about a candidate and harvesting sound-bites for later TV commercials and campaign attacks.  Kerry did about as well as he could have (and he had a lot of help from biased Jim Lehrer) on style.  On facts Kerry is in big trouble, and I think his Treblinka Square will also be a subject of jokes.  

Bush could have done better but he did well enough.  Came across better on the radio for some reason.

GunLvr

Quoted: I believe you guys are voting more on who you want to have won than who actually did a better job debating.

Have you even bothered to look around?  He is already being nailed for being wrong about the New York Subways being closed, for saying WMDs are crossing the Mexican border, for offering to pay off Iran by giving them nuclear materials, AND his advisors were caught on camera admitting that Kerry's performence was at best a draw.

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1232139/posts

Quoted: Kerrys problem is no matter how smooth he is, he looks terrible.

true, but his ugly ass still won this debate.  

Quoted: Quoted: Kerrys problem is no matter how smooth he is, he looks terrible. true, but his ugly ass still won this debate.

His own staff does not think so....

Kerry SHOULD present himself better because that's what he is: a good public speaker. But he isn't a good leader. Kerry's problem is not if he presents a good image. His problem is that President Bush has forced him into a corner by calling him a "flip-flopper" where Kerry must display the side that he takes on important issues like Iraq. The problem, however, is that 1/3 of the people who say they will vote for Kerry actually support the war in Iraq. This means that either way he goes, he is alienating a a large amount of his voters. Besides, I think it is always easier being the challenging candidate in a time of war, esspecially in this new "soft" generation, because you can play on the heart-strings of the country and appeal to the peoples emotions by saying, "We don't want out boys and girls killed..." and yet not proposing a solution to the problem. Bush, although he may not be as good a presenter as Kerry, is definitely more qualified in the areas of decisiveness, determination, planning, and the fact that Bush surrounds himself with a good staff. Also, Kerry presents all these "amazing" plans for the future of our country and yet he presents no way to fund them. These "plans" that Kerry is proposing will cost taxpayers an innumerable ammount of money and Kerry is just throwing "nice ideas" at people to win their hearts. I think Kerry is a dog-faced ass hat that's married to a godless foreign bitch. :)

P.S. Tank Eww Come Agayne