Tuesday at 7, the Vice Presidential Debate. On all the major networks. Cheney and Edwards square off.

I agree that Bush didn't really lose any of his base last night. I was very interested in seeing Kerry's demeanor for myself. I thought that he seemed very presidential. He did a good job of explaining away the whole "flip flopping" issue IMO. It is plain that Kerry is a much better debator than Bush. I think that quality is important in a president. It will be a vital part of bringing the other world powers into a dialogue about stabilizing the volatilty in Iraq. (Terry)Bush's soundbytes which he repeated over and over. No kidding!!! Finally, at about 9:45 on his 3rd or 4th 30 sec Re-rebutal that he wasted with "wrong, war, wrong place, wrong time" I started yelling at the TV. I suppose that if you're someone like him, who can't think on their feet, your best defense would be to repeat that crap ad nauseum. That way he avoids more new topics that could trip him up

As the night wore on, Bush was obviously running out of gas.....stumbling over the same 4 sentences he says repeatedly everywhere, having to obviously and not very confidently refer to his notes more often at the beginning of his answers/rebuttals, leaning all over that podium more and more. And occasionally he looked frustrated in the split screens when Kerry was talking. Glad the networks didn't follow that crap in that contract made up by both sides of not showing the other candidate while one is speaking. Maybe the media is finally finding a few cojones when it comes to this President. Maybe too little, too late, though. Anticipating the Edwards/Cheney debate. *What* a contrast in styles!

Bush may have been playing to the short attention span crowd. Someone who isn't paying attention and just walks by the tv would probably hear Bush saying this catchphrase, or one of the other ones ("he can't make up his mind" etc.). The man Bush was criticizing just wasn't the man on the other podium. Bush got thrown off his game. He was hunched over, looked fidgety, you were wondering if he was thinking "please go on red light, do I have to say more". Bush does better in front of partisan crowds where he's getting a lot of positive feedback. The next debate with the town hall meeting format should favor hime more with undecided voters asking questions. It was a good "debate" last night in spite of the 32 pages of silly rules. The rules actually helped Kerry. Lehrer's questions seemed right on and appropos. Lehrer did an excellent job. Though Kerry "won" the "debate" there wasn't much movement in the polls. Both went up by 1% in the poll I saw. But even the Republicans were agreeing Kerry pulled this off. If nothing else, he kept his chances alive.

OK... pre-warning: this post isn't about the debates. It's about the election. All this talk of different voting methods around the country. Why isn't is standardized. What does it take to get one technology, be it punch card, touch screen or in the case of my voting place fill in the dot a la SAT tests? Is the technology used a state legislated item? Shouldn't the election process be domestically uniform? This would be worth an ammendment don't you think? Or not? On the yes side, with uniformity, troubleshooting issues would be made much easier. Immediate archiving could happen (if computerized), the archive on a separate secure server. At the end the files could be compared for validity. To simple... Am I so technologically impaired that I've missed a glaring problem? Or is it all "politics"? *Terry, if you can create a topic in politics named simply "U.S. Election Process" and move this there, it would be cool. I hate to hijack topics.

Shouldn't the election process be domestically uniform? i agree completely... whatever it takes, there needs to be debate, some kind of consensus... and a national election system that every voter can not only understand, but have confidence in... let the local yokels continue to control state, local elections... but the idea that the federal election process of the united states is at the mercy of partisan hacks (and worse) is unacceptable...

I think ALL elections should be using the same method. Otherwise it's like when you go shopping(simplistic example, I know); Every store has a different payment device... it's confusing from store to store, state to state. If all elections were subject to the same voting method, I think it would help eliminate some of the "local yokel" shinnanigans.

I think ALL elections should be using the same method. i agree, but i'm not sure that's doable... all politics really is local, to a certain degree... it'd be difficult enough to pry federal election authority from the entrenched interests (especially with all the states-rights pablum that is so en vogue with the pinheads on the right)...

I understand... and agree to the difficulty involved. But idealist that I am, creating a secure universal means of voting in ANY election seems to me to be the only way to eliminate all the B.S. -- from both sides of the aisle. Yes, I'm a Dem. Yes, I was born in TX. Yes I now live in MA. I am also over 45, white, female, gay (read "single" by the I.R.S.), and more inclined to vote "how does this effect me" over "partisan". How's that for demographics?

an addendum: I realize that my particular demographic profile is one of the most ignored in the political process. I also realize it is due to the historical political apathy of single white females (both Dem & Rep). It is my hope that this election begins a turn of the tide.

Maybe the next election will be your turning point. I got a very cleverly disguised spam disguised as coming from you today, Gena and I almost fell for it!