[Previous entry: "CBS ...cojones"] [Next entry: "Everything that's wrong with academia"]
10/01/2004: "The Frickin' Debate"
So we sat and watched the first debate last night, feeling as though it might be our one chance to get an honest, personal appraisal of the two candidates.
We were correct as the coverage on both sides that I've seen so far doesn't seem to reflect the 90 minutes I watched last night.
First of all, is there anyone who wasn't totally annoyed by the "mixed message" line, delivered over and over again by the President? It felt like a tape loop, programmed and ready to go. Insulting in many ways...
Furthermore, the Spin Alley nonsense was frickin' unbelievable. Kerry, for really the first time, appeared to have concrete plans, concrete ideas, and a concrete understanding of how he would proceed. Irrelevant, however, to the media---
If famed "free thinker" Rudolph Guiliani is saying the absolute same thing as Karl Rove, then maybe, just maybe, they scripted their answers beforehand. But they wouldn't do that, would they?
If we have such a "liberal media," why aren't they telling the truth about this debate- Kerry looked decisive, President Bush looked annoyed and speechless. See the Guardian for the analysis closest to my own.
I will say that the President's message of "I know, I don't waver, and I will get 'em" could be fairly effective. He also appeared to have a much better command of foreign affairs than people usually give him credit for...
And Kerry isn't taking any chances- his stance on many things is awfully close to the PResident's- he didn't win any friends in leftyworld by failing to take on the nonsensical doctrine of "pre-emption."
But this is not two new candidates- this is an incumbent. The President seemed to be defensive, even annoyed at times.