Did we watch the same debate? Of course President Bush pointed the fact that Kerry did not vote for the 87 billion to help supply the troops.
In my opinion, I thought President Bush did very well. Kerry started off with his voice cracking and his hands trembling. But he seemed to shift from I will be a strong president and pursue the terrorists but then defamed the coalition.
The more I sit here and reflect, the more my opinion shifts in the direction of thinking that Bush did a good job. Sure, Kerry was smooth, but not memorable. Bush was a bit defensive . . . probably playing defense on purpose . . . but his lines are memorable. He spoke from his heart, and he spoke often directly to the people, and he had a good closing. And I can remember what he said. Kerry's words are all becoming a blur. He did not "connect" on that level. Bush did.
The President came across, well, presidential and friendly. He brushed aside the personal insults and spoke to statesman issues: strength, certainty, etc.
Kerry sounded informed but petty, making little snipes all night. The questions were very favorable for Kerry, but he couldn't cash them in.
I took particular note of Kerry's appeal to nuclear proliferation as the greatest threat facing America. Bush got it right when he said the greatest threat was weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists. The much cheaper and equally deadly biochems are weapons a terrorist could more easily obtain.
But the candidates weren't speaking to those of us with a lot of information and/or a political prejudice, they were speaking to the undecided voters who make their decision on broad strokes - personality, leadership traits, etc. Bush won that contest, IMHO.
If the Freepers here had a problem with Bush not tearing into Kerry, imagine how the anti-war Democrats will be upset with Kerry for not promising to cut-and-run from Iraq?