Friday, October 01, 2004


Blicero writes:

I think mana-T makes some good points about why Kerry seems to have come across so positively to viewers (or at least to the viewer-opinion-makers talkin' on the TV):
Most important, Kerry appeared to be sincere. He gave the impression that he thought the issues were worthy of debate, and he genuinely wanted to share his views with Americans. God knows he avoided being compared to Gore -- the only valid comparison is that he was more knowledgeable on some of the issues. He clearly doesn't think he's entitled to the presidency.

Bush, on the other hand, seemed like he wanted to get the thing over with. His impatience, and exasperation, suggested he thought it was 'absurd' that he be required to discuss such things with someone whose ideas weren't worth listening to. At times, when he was dismissing Kerry's criticisms, the president even seemed shrill.

Kerry presented himself as a man who truly cares about the future of this country, while Bush simply defended his own policies, appearing self-centered and out of touch. I think, I hope, that Kerry has managed to trick Bush into more blatantly revealing his true nature, in front of the entire country. Gore didn't have the discipline to do this; Kerry does.

Also, Scats provides this gem:

Andrew Sullivan's priceless line tonight:

"No president who has presided over Abu Ghraib should ever say he wants to put anyone on a leash. That's all."


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?