here's my take....
they both sucked. i really expected more out of the leader (and the potential leader) of the free world. i'm one of those "swing votes" that everyone seems to be talking about, and that debate helped me nil. it seemed to me like the same old rhetoric that we've been seeing for what seems like ever from those two.
i'm sure bush's advisors told him to go after kerry's flip-floppityness, but it seemed like most of bush's 30 second rebuttals were "you can't lead the world if you send mixed messages".... personally, i would have liked to have seen bush get MORE emotional. when kerry was attacking him for going to war "so easily" and without the un, i would have liked to see bush stop, pause... look right into the camera and say "you know what, making this decision to go to war was the hardest thing i've ever had to do in my life. it kept me up at night, it still does. you have no concept of just how difficult it is for a president to go to war, to put people in harms way. but when it comes down to it, i will protect the american people to the best of my abilities. i am willing and able to make the hard decisions. it's obvious you are not."
but, he didn't. he touched on that a little when the question of if it was worth the lives of the soldiers who died, but i would have liked to have seen him get more into it.
and kerry.... was obviously more well spoken than bush, thats no suprise. i was sad to see him go into the same repeat the same b.s. mode towards the end there as well. it seems like he was well spoken but made no points.
sigh....
i wish perot were running again.
.....______
___|______\_____
|/-\_________/-\_|
.\_/...............\_/
