I thought Kerry edged out a little for the following reasons.

While both had good comments about the other and both did well, I feel that

1) Once or twice Bush simply dodged the question.
2) Quite often Bush simply had a week response to Kerry's criticism, rebuting statements and facts with simply "it was the right thing to do", "hey, its tough", or "we're trying hard."
3) Bush had about 50% (in my opinion) fuzzy-feely comments and hearts/rainbow type stuff. I felt he focused a bit less on substance and more and how what is right and wrong, decisiveness, morals, nationalism, and such.

Nevertheless, I feel that what could bring down Kerry is that #3, which people tend to like in Bush.

Also the fact that Kerry didn't smile that much on his own accord.

Also, Kerry failed to refute the mention about the $87 arms bill, which I thought he was about to, but didn't.

Anyways, my two cents.

Kerry... by a landslide.. and probably the election in the same manner now...

I was watching with undecided voters in the room and I could see their reactions and hear their commentary.... Bush looked like he would have rather been at home shaving his cat... Kerry was calm cool and collected....

I'm voting for Bush but I think my horse just pulled up lame....

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions... and loved it.

ahhh man cmon. it wasnt THAT bad. I mean I thought like you Right after it. But after some reflecting time. I realized that the Questions were LOADED. and It was ALL vs Bush. There was No Questions about Kerrys voting record. It was a Bore. On a Plus side for Bush, he made me feel like he really puts US before the world. Kerry felt like he would do the opposite.
All being said. I gave it a tie.
As did Joe Lockhart:
Unbeknownst to Kerry adviser Mike McCurry, a C-SPAN camera quietly followed McCurry as he found Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart on Spin Alley floor and asked him his impression of the debate. Lockhart candidly said to McCurry , “The consensus is it was a draw.”

__________________
www.typeyourmind.com
Let your Fingers do the Talking!

Perhaps... keep trying to re-assure me... it may be helping...

I agree with you bro but I feel Bush could have won with ease but was trying to take a moral highground or something....

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions... and loved it.

Hey, SOmeone tell me all about Kerrys Trip to Treblinka Square in Russia..
Considering there is NO SUCH place in Russia.
Treblinka was a Nazi death camp. He meant Lubyanka Square...

Listen. this debate was a WASH. your not gonna see ANY poll bounce or anything and as The LIBERAL Chris Mathews said tonight..
"Is John Kerry the ONLY american who believes he hasnt changed views several times on Iraq or WHAT!"

__________________
www.typeyourmind.com
Let your Fingers do the Talking!

I voted tie as I think both performed as they were expected to. I didn't see anything I consider a major mistake by either candidate.

Bush tried to imply as usual that Saddam and Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. He stated that we were attacked, and then in the same breath stated that we then had to go into Iraq. Kerry stomped all over this by reminding him and everyone else, that Osama Bin Laden and Al qaeda attacked us that day, not Saddam, and not Iraq. All Bush could say, in a very childish manor was, "I know that", "I know that". That seemed like a major mistake for Bush to me. This is what he and his administration have been trying to make the public believe since we first invaded Iraq, and now Kerry has made it very clear that he could not use 9/11 as an excuse to attack Iraq. That moment was priceless, and I think will ring in peoples heads as this war gets worse over the next month before the election and Osama bin laden remains at large.


P.S by the way, I know that Kerry won this debate. I have been saying this all along, that Kerry will bring light to each and every mistake and deception of Bush's. The next debates will be even better for Kerry, as Bush is even less qualified on the other issues. Bush won't have a leg to stand on when this is all over.

P.S.S also don't forget that Edwards will clean up on Cheney as well. Nobody likes Cheney, and Edwards is very believeable as a speaker. These debates will as I've stated before, mark the downfall of the Bush administration.

The comments I heard this morning from commuters all pretty much said the same thing:

First it was a very informative and intelligent debate and the candidates did a very good job of pointing out their differences.

Second, that Bush looked angry when John Kerry was speaking. One commuter said it was probably because Bush had never been told to his face in his entire life that he had made a mistake. Whatever it was, that easily was Bush's major flaw. Matt Drudge is already posting excuses that Bush was tired from seeing hurricane victims earlier in the day -- if so, what a colossal blunder by Bush's handlers -- the time the debate started already was a negative against Bush who's usually in bed by 9:00 pm ET. As the debates move to St. Louis (CST) and Arizona (MST), that disadvantage will decrease.

Third, that the debate rules that Bush forced through for his advantage (including the lights which Republicans were all in a dither over yesterday) backfired and actually worked to John Kerry's advantage. It kept his answers taut and short, whereas Bush looked confused by the lights and by the rules -- early in the debate Bush was raising his hand to make his rebuttal like he was in a classroom.

The most interesting discussion for me was the discussion on North Korea and whether to have multiple party talks or bi-lateral talks between the US and N. Korea only.

Boy, I don't know what debate you guys were watching....but the one I was watching Bush won on substance Big Time. Once when Kerry was asked to specifically outline his time table for bringing troops home and getting out of Iraq.....all he could do was talk about was Bush. He totally avoided the question. Kerry didn't do anything to dispell the notion that many already have about him: that he's an internationalist first. Bush could have rebutted Kerry better a couple times......like when Kerry said the 9/11 Report showed no connection between Saddam and 9/11. Bush should have said.....that while the report showed no collaboration between Saddam and 9/11, that it showed DEFINITE links and connections between Saddam and al Qaeda. And he could have stressed that Democrat Lee Hamilton.....one of the Chairs of that commission....has emphatically stated so many times. Bush also should have found a way to point out how many Intelligence meetings that Kerry missed when he was on the Intelligence Committee...thereby questioning just how important did Kerry see the Intelligence problem if he missed all those meetings.

While some have pointed to Bush's facial expressions during Kerry's talks........Kerry was seen scribbling like mad on his papers and smiling and nodding all the time. I felt that was just as distracting.....but for some reason the press seems to be willing to give Kerry a pass on it.

I think Kerry did better than the Democrats expected and therefore he may have kept some of them from falling off the wagon......but I doubt he changed anyone else's mind. My paper....the Dallas Morning News.....said "Bush wins by not Losing." Said that they both held their own....that it was Bush's to lose...and he did not lose. I pretty much agree with that. Also....Dick Morriss' assessment was fair: said that Kerry won on style....and Bush won on substance. I'll take "substance" over "style" anytime......

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

I didn't see the hand-raising at all. I saw him try to get the moderator's attention so he could rebut a couple of times.

Yeah....I found the N. Korea discussion pretty interesting too. Kerry.....who normally wants other nations besides us involved, for some reason....doesn't want that when it comes to North Korea. His position, therefore, doesn't make any sense.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007