mage67 (mage67) wrote,

2004 Presidential Debate 1

This debate dealt with Homeland Security and defense. While most people give the debate to Kerry, this topic was Bush's strength in discussing, so it's a bad reflection on Bush that Kerry did slightly better at it.

Some new things in this debate was that they finally found a way to stop candidates from going over their time. In the past, when a candidate ran over their allotted time, they just kept talking over objections as long as they liked. After all, how could you stop them?

They finally found a way. If the candidate goes over their time, they would be buzzed loudly. It's very hard to talk over that and it would be kind of embarrassing to talk over the buzzer. Neither of the candidates risked it, at least this time. However Jim Lehrer allowed himself to be influenced greatly on his discretionary dispensing of an extra 30 seconds of debate for each candidate. His questions seemed to be more pointed this time also.

There were less sound bites this time, but both candidates did well in their own way. We saw many intelligent points brought up by both. We also saw a lot of obvious deception too. They were both skilled debators who technically never lost a debate (Though many would claim Gore won the debates in 2000 and the election).

I think Kerry did a little better on facts, but Bush did a little better in trying to sway emotions and using the debate rules to his advantage. While they both gave somewhat deceptive statements, I think Bush's were a little more deceptive.

What do you think?
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.