Without going into who I think should win the election, who I think won the debate?
Hands down, Kerry. He looked more presidential, he spoke with greater authority, he seemed less redundant. Bush looked like he had gas pains or was sucking on a lime or both.
If only a debate actually had something to do with who was worthier of my vote. But it doesn't. The ability to debate and hold one's own in a discussion is important but not the only value I look for when seeking a leader of the free world. Character and principle are more important; what is the driving force behind the person who seeks my vote? What does s/he want for the country? For him or herself? What kind of effort are they willing to put forth on behalf of the USA? The free world?
We are a sad sort of world if a single debate or three debates were enough to make us choose our leader. I do think that is how some people decide, but I can't believe it is the way of most of the country.
Or do you think I'm way off base?
Posted by Rachel Ann at October 3, 2004 08:20 PM