(broadban friendly) US presidential Debate availible live online

billy the squid

The BBC are showing the presidential debate live on the internet

pretty high bit rate so might suit broadband users

here is the link

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/live/nb/wm/video/now2_nb.asx

Hobbes

Is there a saved stream anywhere?

[edit]

found one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/politics/093004-15v.htm

Hobbes

Not even half way though and Kerry is running rings around him.

How the hell can Bush be so high in the polls, he can't even construct a sentance unless hes looking at his speech.

LOL Bush also asked for the rules to be changed.

tadgher

I like Bush's reference to the "pre-September-tenth mentality"

Redleslie2

Bush was hopeless, like he was punchdrunk or something. He must have the attention span of a breeze block.

Why did Kerry keep agreeing that "Saddam was a threat"? That was the easiest chance he had to put the boot in and he blew it. Is it because he didn't want to slag off the intelligence agencies or what?

Top Bush quote of the night: "I just know how the world works." Oh dear oh dear.

On the whole, Kerry is officer material, while Bush definitely is not.

seamus

Redleslie2 wrote:

Why did Kerry keep agreeing that "Saddam was a threat"? That was the easiest chance he had to put the boot in and he blew it. Is it because he didn't want to slag off the intelligence agencies or what?

I'd say he was pandering to the majority vote. If he disagreed and went off on a rant about WMDs and AlQueda, he'd lose a lot of support from that huge chunk of voters who did, and still do believe that Saddam was a threat and supported Al Queda.

Anyone who knows different isn't going to vote for Bush regardless of what Kerry says. It's win-win for him.

Redleslie2

seamus wrote:

I'd say he was pandering to the majority vote. If he disagreed and went off on a rant about WMDs and AlQueda, he'd lose a lot of support from that huge chunk of voters who did, and still do believe that Saddam was a threat and supported Al Queda.

Anyone who knows different isn't going to vote for Bush regardless of what Kerry says. It's win-win for him.

I don't think that's it. Because Kerry corrected Bush when he said that Saddam attacked the US and made it clear that it was in fact AQ/OBL. He also contradicted himself a bit when he said that two thirds of Iraq were no fly zones, ie Saddam wasn't a threat. All he had to do was point out that there were no WMD and the invasion had been on the agenda since well before 9/11, as former Bush adminstration people like Paul O'Neill have stated, and so basically the troops are getting their bits blown off daily, not in defence of the US, but for some weird reason only certain republicans truly understand. Wasted opportunity I reckon. Unless he's got a bloody good excuse.

RE*AC*TOR

"We're facing a.... a.... [looks down at speech]... group o' folks who..."

PH01

Was the debate really that good for Kerry? Gees, I hope it translates into the polls next week.
Also, was anyone watching Primetime on Wednesday night? They were covering the pre-debate thing in Florida, and they were asking a few folks on the street what they thought. Most said Bush was great and Kerry was a Flip-Flop. The Bush campaign has done a really good job tagging Kerry with that flipflop thing, he's going to have to shake that if he's going to win

Hobbes

Kerry did very well, although I felt he repeated himself a few times.

Bush was a complete mess. Getting obviously annoyed, bushisms and sitting there for a few seconds from time to time with a blank look on his face instead of talking.

"Changed how much America must look at the world." - What does that mean?

therecklessone

Hobbes wrote:

How the hell can Bush be so high in the polls, he can't even construct a sentance unless hes looking at his speech.

It did him no harm four years ago, I suspect it will do him little harm this time.

I stayed up last night to watch the debate and tried my hardest to remain neutral throughout, just wanted to judge the two candidates on their performance, and what they had to offer. Here's what struck me:

Bush has nothing to offer. Nothing, nada, zip, zilch, zero. Did he display any sense of having a clue what he was doing? He couldn't and wouldn't debate policy, and Kerry's charge of "more of the same" was bang on the mark. Bush relied on his mantra "a President can't change his mind, its the wrong message to send" looked more and more desperate as the night wore on.

Kerry on the other hand had something to offer. His attacks on Bush hit home, especially his claim that Bush has four words to offer, "more of the same". That should have resonated with voters uneasy with the conduct of the war in Iraq. Of course he couldn't claim Saddam wasn't a threat, or he'd be denying everything he's sid up to now. That would have been suicide. Instead, his emphasis that OBL was still at large, that Afghanistan was the theatre they should be involved in, the threat of N.Korea and Iran, and nuclear proliferation showed a grasp of events sorely missing from Bush's repetive drone.

Of course, Kerry still has the flip-flop thing to get over. I thought he tried last night to address it by saying something along the lines of "there's nothing wrong with adapting to the situation and amending your plans as you go along", I just don't know if that'll be enough to win him enough support.

PH01 wrote:

Was the debate really that good for Kerry? Gees, I hope it translates into the polls next week.

Who do you think won the first U.S. presidential debate?

President George W. Bush 18% 42239 votes

Sen. John Kerry 78% 180847 votes

Evenly matched 4% 10118 votes

Total: 233204 votes

CNN poll.

One final thought. I cringe at the thought of the conversations that go on in the Oval Office.

Dubya: These folks are nasty folks, Dick.
Cheney: Yeah, sure are. Now sign here, here, and here...no George, not the crayon...

therecklessone

I meant to add..,

Why the hell did Kerry allow Bush to be the one who kept asking for the extra 30 second reply? Kerry didn't try that once, but had no problem using the time available for the next question to answer the previous comments by Bush.

quarryman

Bush is embarrassing, real cringing stuff at times. Support for him sometimes makes me wonder at the mentality of the American population voting for him.

Redleslie2

"We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace."

:eek:

therecklessone

Excerpt from NY Times article on undecided voters:

Missouri: A Strong Turnout by College Students

WEBSTER GROVES, Mo., Sept. 30 - So many people showed up to watch the presidential debate at Webster University here that surprised organizers had to bring in more chairs.

Many of the nearly 100 people who gathered before a large-screen television at a campus student center said they thought that Mr. Kerry came across more effectively. They did not all say, though, that they would vote for him.

Kerry backers said the debate strengthened their support. "I was probably going to vote for Kerry anyway, but I definitely will now," said Maggie Gardiner, a 21-year-old senior. "I have a better idea of what he wants to do, especially in Iraq. Bush definitely turned me off. I really don't like his idea of America always being on the offensive."

One of Mr. Bush's supporters, Brandon Glen, an 18-year-old freshman from Wyoming, agreed that Mr. Kerry performed better. He quickly added that he didn't care.

"President Bush isn't really great at debating," Mr. Glen said. "He's not the best at thinking on his feet. But in theory and in practice, he's a great leader and commander in chief, and that's what this country needs now."

Another freshman who is leaning towards Mr. Bush, Peter Fanson, said the debate raised his doubts about Senator Kerry.

"Bush didn't strengthen himself tonight, but Kerry's the one who needed to, and he didn't, or at least not enough," Mr. Fanson said. "He does seem like he changes his mind a lot. It doesn't give you confidence."

Several audience members complained about the candidates' criticisms of each other. "They spend most of their time cutting down the other guy," said Jessica Neal, a 20-year-old junior. "To me, it doesn't seem like they're getting the priority right."

My emphasis in quote

Goes to show the problem Kerry has to overcome. People appear to have made their minds up (or had them made up for them) about his indecision (I used to be indecisive, now I'm not so sure... ), and regardless of how he performs he won't be able to change their minds.

PH01

therecklessone wrote:

People appear to have made their minds up (or had them made up for them) about his indecision (I used to be indecisive, now I'm not so sure... ), and regardless of how he performs he won't be able to change their minds.

You're probably right. People usually make up their mind two weeks to 10 days go to polling day.
Wonder how the polls will look next week as they don't look good now for Kerry.

Carpo

therecklessone wrote:

Goes to show the problem Kerry has to overcome. People appear to have made their minds up (or had them made up for them) about his indecision (I used to be indecisive, now I'm not so sure... ), and regardless of how he performs he won't be able to change their minds.

In fairness, partisanship has entrenched both sides so much that they wouldnt change thier votes even if theyre candidate announced they eat raw babies, simply because they hate the other side so much. The whole aim is to cater to the swing voters who, thankfully, seem to be the ones who actually listen to policies and issues rather than towing any particular parties line.

Although I doubt Kerry won too many of the swing voters this time around I still think this debate was good for him. He has been suffering a lot for the past month or two from the swift votes and the 'flip-flopping' accusations, so he came to the debate as somewhat of an underdog. To be able to to achieve what was, at worst, a draw, could be considered a minor victory in the overall view. Even if he hasnt won too many new voters, he has consolidated what support he does have into backing him more enthusiastically (more people will vote for him rather than against Bush now I think) and can now build on this over the coming month and the rest of the debates. In short he has become a realistic candidate again, and if Bush cant do better in the next debate then voters will start to move the the Kerry camp.

Redleslie2

You know, I think about Missy Johnson. She's a fantastic lady I met in Charlotte, North Carolina. She and her son Brian, they came to see me. Her husband, P.J., got killed. He'd been in Afghanistan, went to Iraq.

You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can, knowing full well that the decision I made caused her loved one to be in harm's way.

Freudian slip? Or plain gibberish.

therecklessone

Redleslie2 wrote:

Freudian slip? Or plain gibberish.

A little from column A, a little from column B perhaps?

therecklessone

therecklessone wrote:

Dubya: These folks are nasty folks, Dick.
Cheney: Yeah, sure are. Now sign here, here, and here...no George, not the crayon...

Following on from this (and Sceptre, even I'm still laughing at it... ) I can't help but feel that Dubya looked like a tongue-tied little kid on his first day in school last night.

I wonder did Rummy and Cheny give him a wedgie after the debate and steal his lunch money?

sovtek

Do a google on Bush/Kerry debate and you'll see the parallel universe the US media lives in where Bush is a "good debator".

David19

I don't think Bush was as bad as you are all making out. Certainly not to the American public. I watched the debate last night and I was impressed with kerry. It was a very important debate for him. He could have lost the election last night. Still, some of his ideas and answers on Iraq weren't entirely convincing. He's in a hard position because many democrats support the war in Iraq and many don't. He has to please both sides. Bush on the other hand talks simply and effectively. He gives the impression of a guy who has beliefs and will stick by them for the good of America. It doesn't matter if we all disagree with him, a big proportion of the American public believe in him, or at least believe in him more than kerry. This is what the polls show. Kerry was better than bush last night but whether he was good enough or not we'll see.

pork99

I only saw a few bits of it for about 5 minutes each time but my initial impressions are;

Kerry: Smooth and eloquent. Sensible moderate foreign policies while still maintaining the strength of the US in a dangerous world. (Might summarize it as "Speak softly and carry a big stick" who said that originally?)

Bush: Inarticulate mess. Still bears a disturbing facial similiarity to a chimpanzee.

sovtek

pork99 wrote:

I only saw a few bits of it for about 5 minutes each time but my initial impressions are;

Kerry: Smooth and eloquent. Sensible moderate foreign policies while still maintaining the strength of the US in a dangerous world. (Might summarize it as "Speak softly and carry a big stick" who said that originally?)

Bush: Inarticulate mess. Still bears a disturbing facial similiarity to a chimpanzee.

Teddy Roosevelt

Of course the "strength" of the US is so widely on display in Iraq at the moment. Of course neither is proposing to get the hell out of Iraq anytime soon....nor allay fears of instituting the draft.

dahamsta

Hobbes wrote:

Is there a saved stream anywhere?

[edit]

found one.

Nice one Hobbes. Here's a direct link to the RAM (stream) for the incorrigible tweakers amongst us.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/politics/093004-15v.ram

adam

Lex_Diamonds

It's really frustrating to think none of this will matter in the end, and those dumb fools will vote him in because after all, he's so great and not a flip-flop and he has done wonders for the country. :rolleyes:
Frustration isn't the word!

And even if Kerry gets a slim majority those Diebold machines will insure a Bush victory.

seamus

David19 wrote:

He gives the impression of a guy who has beliefs and will stick by them for the good of America.

See, that's what worries me, and maybe a lot of other people in the rest of the world (although I can't presume to speak for anyone else). Beliefs are fine, you need to be rigid to a degree, but his complete and utter unmoving stance on things like foreign policy, corporate policy and terrorism, despite evidence when he's wrong, and massive protests, is what worries me.
To press on with something that will cost a lot of lives, despite opposition and proof from most of the rest of the world, is a pretty presumptuous move about one's righteousness and beliefs. That's what scares me - "I'm right, no matter what anyone says." You can't run a country fairly with that ethos.

I wouldn't vote for someone who stood by his beliefs no matter what. I'd prefer someone who had some general principles and stood by them, but who was willing to develop and rethink his beliefs in the face of quantitative proof and public pressure.
By the same logic, you don't want someone who doesn't seem to have any stance on anything, and changes his position to suit the person he's talking to at that particular instance.

Moriarty

sovtek wrote:

Of course neither is proposing to get the hell out of Iraq anytime soon

.. because they both recognise that - along with most people that have their heads screwed on properly - that simply isn't an option.

sovtek wrote:

nor allay fears of instituting the draft.

Bush made a specific reference to an "all-volunteer" armed forces when he mentioned military reform. Can't remember anything from Kerry about it.

David19

seamus wrote:

See, that's what worries me, and maybe a lot of other people in the rest of the world (although I can't presume to speak for anyone else). Beliefs are fine, you need to be rigid to a degree, but his complete and utter unmoving stance on things like foreign policy, corporate policy and terrorism, despite evidence when he's wrong, and massive protests, is what worries me.
To press on with something that will cost a lot of lives, despite opposition and proof from most of the rest of the world, is a pretty presumptuous move about one's righteousness and beliefs. That's what scares me - "I'm right, no matter what anyone says." You can't run a country fairly with that ethos.

I wouldn't vote for someone who stood by his beliefs no matter what. I'd prefer someone who had some general principles and stood by them, but who was willing to develop and rethink his beliefs in the face of quantitative proof and public pressure.
By the same logic, you don't want someone who doesn't seem to have any stance on anything, and changes his position to suit the person he's talking to at that particular instance.

Thats exactly what worries me too. Unfortunately it doesn't worry a lot of American voters. I think they feel safer with a more offensive president, who is going to stick to the task of getting the terrorists before they strike. You have to remember they are in a different position to us. Americans feel in danger and a lot of them think bush would protect them better.

TomTom

You see it's not just war that all the american voters are thinking about. Down in areas like texas there is a very strong bush backing but up here in new york there is a strong kerry backing. It was explained to me last week that this is not only to do with view on war but views on immigrants. Alot of american residents are weary that kerry will be leniant on immigrants and grant easier medicare and social security, where as under bushes tenure they said they have felt he had a strong hold over the situation.
I though kerry won the debate last night hads down, and afterwards nbc went to several colleges and asked their opinion and it was majority kerry, with even a few saying that the debate changed their mind.

Also the drive for peopl to vote is scary. P diddy is on the tv urging to vote with big letters saying "vote or die" beside him. I walked past the gap last week and there were bit vote or die logos in the window.
The aferican american community is being urged to vote after certain happenings in the last election and there is strong reckoning that they possess the number of votes to give kerry the win as many of the polls conducted do not include their voice.

GuanYin

seamus wrote:

That's what scares me - "I'm right, no matter what anyone says." You can't run a country fairly with that ethos..

Well he changed his stance on the environment, he now believes in global warning, he just doesn't believe he should do anything about it! :rolleyes:

It also depends on whether you feel a dictatorship can be fair.

I've pretty much given in to the idea that Bush will win. I hope otherwise, I really really do. The world is in for a dark 4 years if he does.

David19

TomTom wrote:

The aferican american community is being urged to vote after certain happenings in the last election and there is strong reckoning that they possess the number of votes to give kerry the win as many of the polls conducted do not include their voice.

This is a good point. I agree that the polls don't show their voice. I hope they do go out and vote. As you said they're being urged to by p diddy and a few other rappers like outkast. They could be kerrys best chance of winning.

TomTom

The sickning this is the usage of firefighters and police in the campagin. Everyone really respects them and rightly so. but they are always on the tv saying one will do this and the other won't. I know it's a popularity contest of sorts but things like that sway peoples opinion for the wrong reasons

FatherTed

As a voter here in the US who is not going to vote for Bush, not that I like Kerry so much, I feel much better about voting for Kerry after last night. He moved away from his usual "if we knew what we know now" stance on Iraq and seemed to be more firm. And he has had statements such as "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it". This kind of stuff is easily attacked and be used by the repubs to show Kerry is a "flip-flopper".

He is still a poor candidate and as an ABB (anyone but bush) voter, I at least don't dislike him as much as before.

bonkey

Redleslie2 wrote:

Why did Kerry keep agreeing that "Saddam was a threat"? That was the easiest chance he had to put the boot in and he blew it. Is it because he didn't want to slag off the intelligence agencies or what?

Because he initially voted in support of the war.

Kerry has enough flak about the whole "flip-flop" bullsh1t without adding more flames to the fire.

Basically, he's taking the stand that it was right to move against Saddam, but the manner in which Bush moved was all wrong - from croneyist no-bid contracts through to mismanagement of the so-called "post-main-combat" phase that we're still in.

You can say that he blew it....but to be quite honest....almost every potential presidential candidate had already blown it when they voted to support the war way back when. From that moment onwards, they all opened themselves to the same line of "flip-flop" attack that the Republicans have repeated like a broken record.

The mere fact that these allegations have carried so much weight is also telling. People (in some numbers) don't care about the details. They don't want to know why Kerry voted for some stuff and against other stuff. Its a sad fact of life, but Bush's "steadfastness" (which I read as "don't change position even if it becomes blindingly apparent that youv'e screwed up") appeals to so many people who want the McAnswer with a side-order of the McSolution and a freebie McGoodTimes to go.

jc

bonkey

Oh...on another note....

I suppose I'm being hopelessly optimistic asking if there's a non-proprietary-format vid of the debate somewhere? I refuse to install every single bloody mainstream player just so I can view whatever is released in their proprietary formats. I'm sad like that.

jc

Hobbes

http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Real_Alternative.htm

Also download the k-lite codec pack on that site. Will cover every mainstream player

bonkey

ta Hobbes. I'd give you karma for that, but apparently I ain't spreading enough love....

jc

therecklessone

bonkey wrote:

From that moment onwards, they all opened themselves to the same line of "flip-flop" attack that the Republicans have repeated like a broken record.

This broken record?

the short guy in last night's debate wrote:

I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say wrong war, wrong time, wrong place.

How many times? I'm about to read through the full transcript, I'll let you know...

Redleslie2

bonkey wrote:

Because he initially voted in support of the war.

Kerry has enough flak about the whole "flip-flop" bullsh1t without adding more flames to the fire.

Basically, he's taking the stand that it was right to move against Saddam, but the manner in which Bush moved was all wrong - from croneyist no-bid contracts through to mismanagement of the so-called "post-main-combat" phase that we're still in.

I understand that but I thought that he could have said that like a lot of people he voted for the war in good faith, without realising that Bush's gang had decided to invade long ago, regardless of the existence or not of WMD, and were prepared to abuse the intelligence agencies and sink to any depths in order to mislead everyone about Saddam's capabilities just to support their venture, for which (affect oversincere tone) American boys and girls are getting their bits blown off on a daily basis. Judging by some of the stuff Kerry got in he knows all this but was probably advised against saying it outright.

The mere fact that these allegations have carried so much weight is also telling. People (in some numbers) don't care about the details. They don't want to know why Kerry voted for some stuff and against other stuff. Its a sad fact of life, but Bush's "steadfastness" (which I read as "don't change position even if it becomes blindingly apparent that youv'e screwed up") appeals to so many people who want the McAnswer with a side-order of the McSolution and a freebie McGoodTimes to go.

Dunno, I thought Kerry was trying to appeal to the floaters, people who want to believe that the president makes decisions with the people's best interests at heart, but who get peed off when it's shown that they've been conned.

arcadegame2004

Why did Kerry keep agreeing that "Saddam was a threat"? That was the easiest chance he had to put the boot in and he blew it. Is it because he didn't want to slag off the intelligence agencies or what?

I think he made it clear that while he felt, when voting to authorise war, that this was on the basis of war being a last resort, and that he had been led to believe that that was the case, to be only activated if exhaustive diplomacy at the UN did not bear fruit.

It now turns out there were no WMD. Bush's attempt in the debate to link Iraq to terrorism was effectively countered by Kerry pointing out that that Iraq and terrorism have only been linked since the invasion.

Bush's performance was simply dreadful. But I agree with him on one thing he said:

"I know everybody doesn't agree with me"

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Hobbes

therecklessone wrote:

How many times? I'm about to read through the full transcript, I'll let you know...

Your better off watching the live uncut version. The transcript and edits I've seen on TV so far make Bush look much better then he was.

Why the hell did Kerry allow Bush to be the one who kept asking for the extra 30 second reply? Kerry didn't try that once, but had no problem using the time available for the next question to answer the previous comments by Bush.

Actually it was a good tactic. At one point Bush asked for a rebuttal when he shouldn't of got one. Meant that Bush got the last word each time. With putting the topic in the start of the next one it stopped Bush from commenting on it without going off topic.

Lennoxschips

Is it just me or is the lighting on Bush better than the lighting on Kerry?

therecklessone

Hobbes wrote:

Your better off watching the live uncut version. The transcript and edits I've seen on TV so far make Bush look much better then he was.

Yeah,I watched it live Friday morning.

Gave up on reading it due to fatigue and need to pack bag for trip away today.

sovtek

Hobbes wrote:

Your better off watching the live uncut version. The transcript and edits I've seen on TV so far make Bush look much better then he was.

Welcome to the last four years of mainstream media transcripts.
To be fair though, how many times should you repeat "ummm".

sovtek

Moriarty wrote:

.. because they both recognise that - along with most people that have their heads screwed on properly - that simply isn't an option.

I remember very similar logic from Johnson and Nixon....worked well for them dinnit (and about 58,000 US soldiers + 4 million South east Asians).

keu

I'm half afraid to comment on the debate (or much else for that matter)
but one of the remarks I saw on an alternative site went along the lines of "have I been in a coma for the last four years, is that guy really the president of the United states" in reference to Bush.
I feel the same way. Its scary.

Moriarty

sovtek wrote:

I remember very similar logic from Johnson and Nixon....worked well for them dinnit (and about 58,000 US soldiers + 4 million South east Asians).

Iraq is Vietnam now? Somone should probably inform the vietnamese that they're moving.

Wouldn't you be far more critical of the US if they did decide to up and leave by next month? I know I certainly would be. As Kerry said in the debate (hey, look at that for bringing this back on topic ), they've broken it so now they have to pay for it. That's responsible. What you are proposing is incredibly irresponsible.

dahamsta

I've only seen about 20 mins or so of the debate so far, but I was very impressed with Kerry for the first 15 of those minutes. He came across very statesmanlike (even TNR agrees) and Bush sounded very whiney to me. By that I mean the kind of whining you get when a kid's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar, you know that kind of defensive wheedling way they talk, going up at the end? There was a lot of that about 10 mins in.

He also fell into some really silly traps, such as when Kerry started going on about Home Security (sorry, I just refuse to use the word "homeland") and what needed to be done. When the debate flipped over to Bush, he immediately jupmed in with "how's he going to pay for all this", but Kerry had actually started his points on HS by saying that he wouldn't give tax cuts to "people that don't need it, like me and the President" (or somesuch).

Moreover, when the debate flipped back to Kerry again, he didn't even bother tackling this, he just ploughed into the arguments Bush amateurishly tossed out after making this amusing comment (well, he smirked, but it's hard to tell), and tore them pretty much apart.

Kerry was very good on timing too. He missed the mark very slightly a couple of times when I was watching (and I understand he threw out a bizarre "let me finish" for no apparent reason at some stage), but for the most part he was pretty much bang on, and he hammered most home with a very nice clincher.

Bush, on the other hand, seemed to keep reaching for a "strong president" line at the end of each block, occasionally completely out of context and often off the mark. In fact I think on one occasion he finished up before he hit the yellow light, and had to plough back in again!

Looking forward to seeing the rest of it.

adam

Victor

dahamsta wrote:

He also fell into some really silly traps, such as when Kerry started going on about Home Security (sorry, I just refuse to use the word "homeland")

Sounds awfully "fatherland" doesn't it?

(and I understand he threw out a bizarre "let me finish" for no apparent reason at some stage),

I haven't seen it, but this could be an assertiveness / sympathy from the voter thing making it look like people were trying to cut him off prematurely.