But Seriously, Folks

Our House hosts David Strom and Margaret Martin once again hosted a house full of bloggers for the first presidential debate. I'm not sure if there were more laptops or people in attendance! But the conversation was lively, highlighted by a fine repast from chefs David and Margaret.

Many liveblogged, including our host. Follow David's links to get the scoop on all attendees analysis of who did what to whom. (Yours truly did not attempt to bring her laptop to the event. I figured that if I tried to blog while watching, either my absorption of the debaters, or my blogging - or both - would suffer!)

My short analysis is that neither candidate scored a KO - and both were decent. I did, however, think that Kerry had the better of it all. Kerry had been sinking so low lately, anything better than mediocre would seem competent. And, let's face it, Bush supporters: no matter how much you may like his policies and his character and his warmth - Bush's strength does not lie in public speaking.

My biggest concern is the dishonesty that came from Kerry while responding. This quick link to Drudge has a New York City station stating that the subways were never closed in that city - though Kerry asserted that they were - and blamed that they were on Bush! Over and over, Kerry droned on about Bush's mistakes, cuts in excellent programs, blah blah blah - though the truth of those statements certainly cannot be confirmed.

We bloggers know that it's all B.S. But - does the general public know this? I don't know.

Most of the other revelers thought either that Bush had the better of it - or it was a tie. (Though PowerLine unfortunately seems closer to my thoughts.) I hope that the blogger majority is correct!

Who really won? Whose analysis is most accurate?

In a larger sense, it is all moot. What truly matters is which man is able to garner enough votes - electoral ones, to be sure - in November. And I'm hoping that Bush's strengths, Kerry's lack of substance and Bush's record will be enough to elect him when people go to the polls.

Comments

[Kerry(yes, really)]

Who 'won' the debate. Ah. Who won? What is there to have won? Anyone, anyone, Bueller? There is no 'thing' to win. Those of us watching intently watch a bit too intently. It was not a debate, however much we hoped the President would let fly the rhetorical dunstones. Had he done so, the Haughty Norman would have taken the mud from his catapaults and loaded them with, (as the Irish pronounce it), shite. That smell and flavor on everyone's face and tongue would linger for weeks, four weeks. The ratherblather would sniffingly waft about the bouquet and nose. "Vintage debate. That '72 Kerry, what a full bodied President he'll be." The President does not need to convince the comitted. He cannot shift those mired in shite. Debate? It was poker. Dealt to the "...Well Lena, the election is a month away. Nothing else on. Better watch this debate show." And what did they see? The coiffured Frenchurian candidate lecturing,and President Bush, "I will defend America. Every time".