from Tom Shales's review of the debate

[winterbadger]

One longtime political observer -- among the friends canvassed by this critic -- was more irreverent about the debate and how the two debaters came off: "It was Andy Griffith meets Barney Fife," he said, with Kerry in the Griffith role -- solid, sanguine, sensible -- and Bush as the nervous Fife.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64102-2004Oct1.html

I couldn't have said it better. :-) Bush didn't drop his notes on the floor or turn puce, but he dried up, tripped over words, and made faces that the cameras caught. He failed to come up with effective responses on a number of occasions, often stringing together pat phrases with (as Doreen put it) his own very nebulous and incohernt thoughts. He repeated catchphrases his campaign had trained him in, often when they made little or no sense at all. He didnot look presidential. He looked, as Curtis and Elton put it, like a monkey that's been put in a suit and strategically shaved. And this was the debate on his strongest subjects. If he doesn't improve in later debates, roll on November!

Comments

[peaceful-fox.livejournal.com]

I put my thoughts in my LJ about the debate, but I wanted to mention here that I have been talking to a co-worker who usually votes with the Republican party and believes the party line. Before the debate he thought that Kerry wasn't trustworthy or prepared. This debate changed his mind and he was impressed. He said that he is seriously considering voting for Kerry as Bush didn't inspire confidence. He said that he could live with the financial disagreements that he had with the Democrats if it meant having someone in office whose thoughts about the miliary and Iraq matched his. In this case, he said Kerry's did. :::fingers crossed:::