2nd Presidential Debate of 2004

I thought it was an even performance by both candidates. Bush was more 'likable' than he was at the first debate. However, I still did not like his answers to the questions as well as I liked Kerry's. I was surprised this morning that polls suggest slightly that Kerry won. I had thought it would be the other way around, since Bush had some good "one-liners". Maybe people really are paying attention to the issues, and not to the candidates' performances. I liked the town hall format, where the audience got to ask the questions. I liked Kerry's answer to the abortion question, where he said that his personal beliefs should not interfere with how he legislates. Bush seemed to reenforce his "country-boy" image, which appeals to some and turns others off. I still think Kerry seems like more "presidential". His political savvy is obvious. This, too, appeals to some and not to others. I laughed pretty hard at Bush's response to the "timber company" answer by Kerry. "Need some wood?" I thought this was a pretty witty reply by Bush, but in fact, he does own a timber company. I suspected that he probably did, and just didn't know about it. I tried to watch the debate objectively, and to not allow my personal dislike of Bush to skew my "analysis". I think I did a pretty good job of that. Of course, I still plan to vote for Kerry, who is obviously the more progressive of the candidates. I like his vow to fight for the middle class. Who knows if he actually will, but at least he is promising to do so, while Bush doesn't even seem to be pretending much this time around.

I also thought that Kerry missed an opportunity toward the end of the debate when an audience member asked Bush to name three mistakes he had made. Bush totally bombed on the answer to this question, and couldn't really come up with anything besides saying that he had made some mistakes with some appointments. I thought Kerry should have responded with something along the lines of:

"I don't think the president answered your questions. Since I've spent most of the night explaining what I think his mistakes are, I'll interpret your question as if it had been directed at me. I have made mistakes. Anyone in politics has, if they are honest about it. The important thing is that we learn from our mistakes. Here are three mistakes that I have made, and what I have learned from them."

I think that this would have increased Kerry's credibility and honesty rating, and he would have seemed more in touch with the American people. Instead, he simply repeated the mistakes that he thought the president had made, which everyone already had heard him say throughout the debate.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The agony of victory....a.k.a. picking my jaw up off the floor

Allright. I've now had nearly 24 hours (although its taken me a couple of days to complete this post) to calm down, reflect upon and digest the improbable gut wrenching game yesterday in which the heavily favored Colts lost to the Steelers 21-18. I wrote last year of not being as emotionally attached to the Steelers as I have been in the past. I wrote last week of how I thought that I might be spending too much valuable time following the Steelers, especially since I have absolutely no control over the outcome of their games. Let me just say this: yesterday's game was probably in the top five emotionally draining, and ultimately gratifying, experiences of my life. Ouside of my wedding and the birth of my two sons, I can't remember being as nervous, deflated, joyful, stunned and exhilirated as I was yesterday----all withing about a ten minute stretch of seemingly neverending time! What could have been a devestating loss to live with in the offseason (and, forever, for Jerome...
Read more

"The Axis of Evil and the Doctrine of Preemption Three Years On"

Jerod and I attended a lecture by Brookings Institution fellow Michael O'Hanlon last night at Park University in Parkville, MO. The lecture was part of the Jerzy Hauptmann Distinguished Guest Lecture series. As a Park University M.B.A. alum, I received an invitation to the 13th annual lecture in the series. I like going to events like this, especially since I was interested in the content of this particular lecture, of which the title was the title of this post. Dr. O'Hanlon described himself as a Sam Nunn Democrat at the beginning of the lecture. It's always difficult to prevent political feeling from entering into objective analysis, and I don't know how you measure the "objectiveness" of analysis, but I feel that most Brookings scholars are at least "fair", and Dr. O'Hanlon was no exception. His analysis of the doctrine of preemption was focused on the effectiveness of the doctrine, as opposed to any moral righteousness or implications of the...
Read more

Removing a password that was created in a previous version from an Access 2007 database

Earlier this week I was banging my head against the wall trying to figure out how to remove a password from an Access 2007 database (file extension .accdb). The database was created in a previous version of access and subsequently "upgraded" to the Access 2007 format. I believe some type of a wizard was used to perform the "upgrade." The security model is evidently different in Access 2007 than in previous versions. It doesn't appear that you can set/unset database passwords. Instead, in Access 2007, there is an option to Encrypt with Password. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be logically similar to the earlier version password architecture, but there was no way that I could find to easily remove the password that had been created in the earlier version when using the Access 2007 interface. Access security has always been confusing to me, and I need to take the time someday to understand how the security model is supposed to work in Access 2007. An...
Read more