Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: AurumRabosa who wrote (50815)	10/1/2004 9:03:11 AM
From: ChinuSFO	Respond to of 81568

This bews report shows very clearly that the right wings way of conceding defeat is to call the debate a tie. The same press was putting the election away for Bush before the debate. Yepsen: Kerry scores, but there's no knockout There was plenty for backers of each to like in their man's performance. By DAVID YEPSEN October 1, 2004 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Score it a narrow victory for John Kerry. Tuesday's first presidential debate between Kerry and President George W. Bush offered a useful illustration of their differences in foreign policy approaches and styles. Neither candidate committed a major gaffe that would hurt his candidacy, and neither landed any oratorical haymakers that will live forever in the annals of presidential debating. Kerry was cogent and focused, something he needed to do to look presidential. He went on the attack early and kept Bush on the defensive through much of the event. Bush sometimes look peeved and fidgety and his twitching mouth and blinking eyes indicated a nervousness. Advantage: Kerry. Bush was resolute and firm in his defense of the war on terrorism. He hammered Kerry for voting to authorize the war in Iraq yet not supporting $87 billion to pay for it. Kerry admitted he made a mistake in his explanation of his vote. Advantage: Bush. Kerry didn't turn in the boffo performance he needed to put Bush away. He gained stature just by being on the same stage and holding his own with the president. Kerry also seemed smart and articulate, while Bush appeared halting at times. Occasionally, Bush looked confused as he flipped through his pages of notes. The time limits on the answers, ordinarily a nuisance to a candidate, served a useful purpose for Kerry. They forced him to be more focused than he has been on the stump or in interviews. That lack of focus and his nuanced answers have led to the image that he's wishy-washy - and so Tuesday night's need for succinct, declarative answers made him look decisive and presidential. Kerry's poll ratings should improve some. That said, his performance wasn't the sort that would close the sale. Many undecideds will like what they saw but will still want to watch the coming events before making any final decisions. One thing debates do is whip up supporters, and there was plenty for backers of each to like in their man's performance. Kerry people will like their man's brains and cool. (They'll be chuckling at Bush's referring to Iranian religious mullahs as "moolahs.") And Bush fans will like their man's tough determination. (They'll get their yucks out of the fact Kerry got himself a manicure before coming on stage.) Inspiring supporters like that is an important thing to do in a close election where mobilizing workers and coaxing backers to the polls may determine the outcome. Americans who spent 90 minutes with this event saw two political leaders do well. Their civility toward one another when they talked about their daughters was refreshing to see in the midst of a campaign that has been so bitter. It also helped humanize each man at a time when they are often demonized by opponents and critics. Bush led off with the generous comments. They were gracious and marked one of the high points of his performance. Kerry responded in kind. They also cleaved their differences well: Bush promised to continue a vigorous fight in the war on terror. Kerry promised to do it better. Bush said Kerry wasn't determined. Kerry said Bush had made mistakes and argued a new commander in chief would have a better chance of winning the war. The format of Tuesday's debate was a frustrating one. It was not a debate in the traditional sense of that term. There just wasn't enough opportunity for the candidates to question one another or interact. When they did, it was useful. In one sense, perhaps too much is made of these presidential debates. Debating isn't a very important skill for a president. Debating is a skill for members of a legislative branch. But communication skills are important ones for a chief executive trying to lead a country, and Tuesday's face-off gave each candidate a chance to show Americans the style he would use in the coming four years. Despite the limitations on the joint appearance, Tuesday's confrontation was expected to have some impact. According to a poll taken last week by the Pew Research Center, 61 percent of likely voters said they planned to watch the event. That's compared to only 43 percent who said they planned to watch the first debate in the 2000 campaign. About a third of this year's likely voters said Tuesday's event would have an influence on their vote. If the debate produced no hands-down winner, perhaps that's because of the difficult choices the nation faces during the next few years in the war on terrorism and the Iraq theater of it. There are no simple answers for the country or the president. Voters looking for that sort of clarity are probably still frustrated. There are no winning answers. desmoinesregister.com