Utter failure

These debates are a total waste of time. They are big "gotcha" sessions for the semi-literate crowd that relies on television for its news. Laughable. Go get your news from The Daily Show.

bush will make a mess of Iran like he did with Iraq

He made some very relevant points. His anger stemmed from the fact that his strategy was to NOT go on the offensive but to instead focus on using his time to make the points he planned on making before the debate. One could see he wanted to answer the lies the "wind surfer" was subjecting us to but he decided to stick to the plan. This was taken care of in the subsequent debates and as we all know Bush won were it counted, the November elections.

He actually did better than impression suggests, but his surelly behavior throughout the debate - almost angry that somebody there was challenging his proclamations, hurt him badly. It was looking like a blow-out, but a large number of moderates lost respect for the president in this debate. His handlers got him under control for the next two debates during which he managed to appear competent. But the damage was done. That's one disadvantage to insulating yourself from dissenting opinions for four years.

Bush is an embarrasment to America!

This was Bush's weakest debate out of all of them.. He looked nervous not ready and wasn't ready.. But he still did ok..

Bush performed absolutely terribly in the first presidential debate. It is amazing that with the election appearing so close, Bush could go into the first debate completely unprepared to answer the tough questions tossed his way. He was far too repetitive, and appeared awkward and annoyed at Kerry's criticisms. Overall, a very poor performance.

Only lies and propaganda came out of Kerry's mouth in this debate.

No, he wasn't very articulate but he didn't sound like he was trying to say what he thought people wanted to hear him say. He was solid and firm in his convictions.

Can somebody say, choked? Bigtime? He had a good policy, he just couldn't deliver. Maybe the next debate will do better for him.

I was for Bush going into round one.I don't consider him to be a great speaker,and I thought he won because he didn't beat himself.

Bush just isn't a great public speaker.. this is known.

Bush came across marginally weaker than usual. He stuck closely to repeating scripted phrases, as has long been his style. It was not effective for him this time, because Kerry obviously had a great deal of mental agility, not to mention conviction, and Bush seemed caught off guard. Once he was on the defensive, he wavered and retreated time and again to his script. Kerry seemed genuinely relaxed and in a generous spirit, yet Bush was agitated. Bush wasnt ready to confront certain unpleasant facts, and was initially pretty skilled at talking his way around them, until he started falling apart in a sea of pauses and hedge words. Bush could have done worse, but he sure seemed very relieved when the debate ended.

Nothing spectacular, but more solid and less B.S. than Kerry. I hope he stops wearing his heart on his sleeve and controls his emtions. I also hope that Kerry makes up his mind and tells us what is REALLY going on in that long head, and stop giving us those wishy washy views. Be real man. I'd rather have a president who isn't as perfect composure wise, but keeps it read and lets me know where he stands, than to have a hen as a president who says everything the right way, but says nothing but B.S.

Speaking isn't his strong point.

Considering the fact that John Kerry has been debating since he was in high school, while Bush has only started debating when he ran for governor, I don't mind saying Bush isn't the best debater against Kerry. However good Kerry is at debating doesn't change his terrible senate record. Bush confronted Kerry with the flip flops he's had and proved to be a strong and formindable opponent. FOUR MORE YEARS!

Why is it surprising to anyone that he looked disoriented, distracted, lazy, stupid. Have people not seen how fast and far the country has sunk in the past 4 years. This man is an embarrassment. You can no longer save face by pretending you don't notice.

bush was unprepared, short tempered, didn't get his point across, long pauses along with several screw ups, not to mention interrupting....i'm sorry but they should had done him a favor and ended the debate in the middle!

Bush did a horrible job defending the Bush Doctrine in total. He didn't articulate a need for confronting nation states that are involved in harboring or supporting terrorist networks by analyzing mitigating criteria that are inclusive of, but not exclusive to preemptive military action to advance the march of freedom and reduce the economic strength of other nations who support terror. The doctrine exercises alliances, economics, diplomacy and military might if necessary, to root out the evil doers or Islamofascists. It was essential for Bush to lay this out last night and he did not. He allowed Kerry to circumference him by getting both to his left and right with half-truths and flat out mendacious banter points while scoring on style. The essence of Kerry's message remained unclear yet Bush looked unprepared or unwilling to attack the abundance of red meat laid on his table by Kerry. Bush repetative and unresponsive at points- looking almost confused. He made clear points regarding Kerry's statement about bringing in further alliances: what are you going to say, join us for a grand diversion? And Bush slammed Kerry on his statement about preemptive war needing to meet a global standard. But other than that Bush looked overmatched by Kerry's style though Kerry still lacked Bush's substance. Mr Kerry, Do you think you could do a better job in Iraq and why? Kerry: I have a plan that will work in Iraq... it's a four point strategy... That is basically the same strategy that Bush has already pursued no? Bush missed the opportunity to pounce on him. Mr Kerry do you have a time frame for bring home the troops? Kerry uses the word if his strategy is working after stating he should be president because Bush's strategy wasn't working and his would. Kerry complained about the costs and then said we need to spend more money. Kerry said we need to take a strong posture and fight globally while reducing the war to catching Osama Bin Laden and reducing military capacities like bunker busters and missle defense. Bush let all this go! He did't raise Kerry's horrible record on national defense once. Bush let Kerry pander his magic wand theory of global alliances as though other old World nations are going to lay down their self interests because they like him! Bush's assinine retort I work with these people, I know what they're like WELL DUH! He let Kerry dominate the debate on his side of the court all night and lost handily. All that being said let me say this: Winston Churchill once said a lie will get half way around the globe before the truth can put its pants on. The truth will catch up with Kerry and all the style in the world won't be able to fight it off. PS. Also all of those who make these ludicrous statements like it all over need to take a look at the flash poll data and the internal numbers. In the same polls that gave Kerry the overwhelming lead as to who won, when asked who did you agree with more Bush. Who did you find more likeable? Bush again. Who do you think would be better at winning the war Bush again. Consider that the number of undecideds of the 35 million that watched was very small comparatively. Then break that number into the percentage that actually changed their minds and then spread that over the states that they are actually from (many from Cali, NY and Texas where it doesn't matter) and you get very little in the way of change. Someone please put a chain on the hyperbole!

Bush looked meek and lost this one without question. He said the same thing over and over again without providing any information and making only emotional appeals that were not grounded and that Kerry was easily able to exploit. There is no way anyone can claim that Bush won and the only people who are giving him high raings are just sticking to their guy or are absolutely incapable of rational thought and totally unfamiliar with the art of debate and logical reasoning. Kerry made clear, direct accusations about what Bush has done and what he would do differently, Bush was unable to even speak clearly about what he had done. Kerry crushed him, he exposed the President's absolute ignorance in governance and foreign policy, and Bush's handlers had insisted on this as the first debate because they consider foreign policy his strong suit!. I think that one needs to ask this question: How can we give this man four more years, entrusting him to defend our nation, when he can't even defend himself or his policies?

He started off fairly well but ended up on the defensive. When Kerry discussed the mistakes made his administration handling Iraq, Bush looked angry. When Bush criticized Kerry, Kerry took notes or showed no emotion. Bush also reverted to his ideology of fear--about how the big bad old terrorists are gonna get us if we don't get them first. Meanwhile, North Korea has nuclear weapons and Iran is getting them but I guess this is not important. Bush apparently knows more big words than I gave him credit for, but all in all, the debate was a victory for Kerry. UPDATE: Axelrod, didn't your parents tell you it's wrong to hit a girl?

Bush did not do well at all in his presentation, style-wise, although I believe that substantively he did better than did Kerry. Bush missed several opportunities to challenge Kerry (one that irritated me was that although Kerry constantly made reference to how few allies we have, Bush mentioned only the UK and Poland as coalition partners, when he should have had a laundry list of countries to rattle off - UK, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Spain (before the terrorists managed to influence the elections there), etc. Kerry can carp all he wants about how few troops other countries are providing, but the fact is that there are very few militaries in the world who can field forces the way we can - Kerry either knows better, or, if elected, will soon find out. At any rate, Bush had best prepare better for his next debate, and stop being so damn Aw shucks plain-folk laid back.

As usual, he just repeated the same things over and over. He also showed obvious signs of frustration.

I know where both of them stand and I know what both of them have to say already so my reaction to last night's performance is based solely on what I saw.. and not what I heard. As for Mr. Bush... I noticed that whenever Senator Kerry was speaking and the camera would cut away to the President he looked tired, mean, and angry. Well, at least annoyed if not angry. Leaning on the lectern rather than standing up straight didn't help his image either. All in all I thought he came off badly. In his defense, he apparently had just put in a very long day. His handlers should have seen to it that he was rested and alert before such an important event.

I dont mind admitting that Kerry is clearly a more charasmatic speaker. At some point you hear a lot of blurbs being repeated from both sides. It seemed that both would rebut each other with the same statements over and over again. When its all said and done, I see myself kind of like a child looking up at both to see which one I would grab the pance of to shelter myself if I was scared of the enemy. That person is Bush without a doubt. He is the man who I see as the one who has a tougher and more American view on things. The debate did not sway my thinking on who should be in the oval office one bit. Kerry is still a pure politician who will change his views to suit his agenda. Bush is the man he claims and seems to be. Go Bush.

The President did a good job of standing up to Kerry's assaults but he did come of a little hesitant and for a wolf in sheep's clothing like Kerry it was a feeding fest. I was hoping the debate was going to be about issues but Kerry turned it into mud slinging.

I was, frankly, disappointed in Bush's preparation for this debate. My expectation was that the true character of each man might emerge in a head-to-head discussion about topics both men have been sound-biting to death for six months. Kerry certainly was able to distract Bush by annoying him, which is always his tack. How Bush did not have a kick-ass closing statement which included the emotion of standing in the rubble of 9/11 and looking into the faces of those men sifting for body parts of their neighbors' and survivors, looking into the faces of family members so crushed by their misfortune in our national catastrophe, was such a missed opportunity. He wasn't presidential enough for me and I hope the pundits tar and feather him this week so he goes in to the next debate better prepared. His side of the story is so valid and Kerry's is so stilted, it screams to be pointed out. I hope the Bushies huddle up and ask him, Look, do you want to win this thing, or not? Let's get to work.

Loved the stammering and hesitation on answers. Without his handlers nearby, Kerry won handily. Bush can't think on his feet. Half the country believes he can't think period.

I think Bush did a good job last night. He ivented a couple words, stuttered a lot, and laughed kind of like a keebler elf, but he came out of it all as the likeable guy that he seems to be. He got his zinger in there too (The only consistent thing about Senator Kerry is his inconsistency!) which I'm sure he's pretty psyched about, but showed restraint on the loaded question about character. People point to some of Bush's stumbling and pauses to find the right words like they're signs of unpreparedness but, really, that's just the way this guy talks. He's not eloquent. Definitely repetitious, harping on Kerry's mixed messages, but credibility is obviously a big theme for both candidates. In a nut-shell, Bush defines credibility as keeping your word and Kerry associates credibility with the way the global community perceives you. Both views are legitimate and, maybe for that reason, I didn't see a clear-cut winner in last night's debate.

President Bush more than held his own and Mr. Kerry looked like the flip flopper he is.

Nothing spectacular, but he held his own.I agree with Bush that our military personel would not follow a leader who was indecisive and wavering.Another good point was that bilateral talks with North Korea WILL NOT WORK!!

With style and the occasional smile, Bush defeated Kerry handily in this, the first of three debates. Bush truly showed that America has allies in the war on terror (f.k.a. Operation Infinite Justice - which includes the liberation of Iraq) and that America is a safer place now. Bush, unlike Kerry showed some emotion and poked fun at Kerry from time to time.

Let me try to put into words exactly what Bush was saying the whole entire debate on the 30th. Bush: Umm... yeah... well... *looks down at his notes*... well, the homeland security...

I thought Bush gave a solid, but unspectacular performance. He came across as someone who believes in the decisions that he's made, and he certainly has the gift of sounding like a regular Joe. Whenever he got in trouble, he retreated with some variation of I just don't think you can send mixed messages and be Commander in Chief... which was unimaginative, but smart. All in all a safe, on message performance. I appreciated the personal remarks he made about Kerry and Kerry's family. If I didn't disagree with just about every policy decision which he has made, I could almost (but not quite) understand what people see in this guy.

I will try to avoid the so-called tyranny of perceptions in judging the individual performance of each candidate--however that will admittedly be tough. An objective analysis will show that Bush was soundly defeated by Kerry in the debate. Basically he spent the entire time on the defense. Bush tenaciously stuck to one point while Kerry went at him from a variety of fronts. Bush clearly didn't have command of the facts--indeed the only question he answered with certainly was on the Darfur question about peacekeepers in that war-torn region of Sudan. I sense that Condi Rice prepared for this foreign policy debate being that his positions were mostly the same ones she articulates. However Bush didn't answer most of the questions clearly. On the questions about Iraq, Bush couldn't get off of the flip flopper charge while Kerry gave a very clear answer about his position, one that I'm certain many Americans share. Yes Saddam Hussein was a problem, but we went about it the wrong way. Bush tried to use emotional appeal and repetition, however it really fell flat. When Kerry landed a precise strike on Bush over doing war on the cheap in Afghanistan and Iraq, Kerry struck back with specifics: near anarchy in Iraq, the loss of Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora, the new opium trade in that same country. Bush simply fell back on good intentions and soft sentimentality. And when he doesn't, he plays on the people's fears of a dark enemy. Kerry is right, terrorism is a real threat, but there's a right way of fighting it. Isolate the fundamentalists through a more benign foreign policy and promote genuine economic growth. Sure it's fine to have good intentions, but one must question whether or not our foreign policy is legitimating working. Rather than hit the big picture, Bush began swatting small flies by consistently harking back to negligible successes like disarming Libya, a country which could not even feed it's own people, who stopped being a threat after Reagan bombed Quaddafi's tent in 1986. Stylistically, Bush seemed very uncertain: there was a point there were he seemed like a deer staring into the headlights when Kerry answered Bush's claim that he flip-flopped on Iraq. His answers weren't very clear most of the time. Clearly he was very uncomfortable debating Kerry--I would suggest to Bush that he prepare better for the next round with solid facts, statistics and substance, not just mere abstractions. Bush had a big goal: portray Kerry as weak. I think he failed, in fact, he looked very weak himself.

In the first round of the debates, President Bush showed himself to be the man we portray him as..inept, pigheaded and incompetent. He was clearly unable to answer to the facts as laid down by Senator Kerry and at times his smirk curled up with impatience. I only hope that the next two rounds will show a Kerry both stronger, leaner and clearer about his initiatives to help him win.