I remember one point where a audience viewer asked about terrorist attacks on the US "... if elected, what will you do to assure our safety?", and he stated after a brief statement on terrorists in general that "...I agree with the president that we have to go after them and get them wherever they are. I just think I can do that far more effectively, because the most important weapon in doing that is intelligence." Which came across as a potentially direct comment on the President's seeming-lack of intelligence, but Kerry continued, "You've got to have the best intelligence in the world. And in order to have the best intelligence in the world to know who the terrorists are and where they are and what they're plotting, you've got to have the best cooperation you've ever had in the world." Which made it seem like a much nicer comment then it could've been: but that double-meaning was definitely there, and I think it was pretty clearly intended.
But I won't go on, you can read the entire transcript or analysis of the debates on NPR's web site as well as many other resources, but here they've posted the full transcript: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4078320
And, I thought another highlight of the debate was when George Bush started arguing with the moderator of the debate! That made him look horrible, but perhaps it is really how he is, and once again I was pleased by John Kerry's composure & attentiveness, and positive participation through-out the entire debate. He made many good points, and pointed out a number of errors & mistakes quite clearly that the Bush Administration has done over their term in office.
Overall, I thought George Bush was more on the defensive in this debate, even if he did do better then in the first debate.
I think it also clearly showed in a few of the poor attempts at jokes he made that he was uncomfortable with the questions & often with the topics. At such moments after he was obviously again trying to suppress a sour expression by overriding it with a blank confused stare after a moment of fidgeting mouth-twitches, often followed by random and unclear "winking" at the audience, which he seemed to do often and without any connection to the debate topic at hand.
I am looking forward to the last of the debates & I hope any of you out there who've bothered to read this much will consider coming over to our house to watch the debate! It's been much more fun & interesting to have a group of friends over for each debate, and I think some of the follow-up conversations we've had have been as informative to me as the debates, themselves.
I am a John Kerry supporter & plan to vote for him & John Edwards on election day: However, I am still disgusted by the politics that are keeping 3rd party candidates out of the media and from participating in such events as the presidential debates. Here's an out-take from a news event it seems most people haven't heard about, but of which EVERYONE really should know about:
"On October 8th at 9PM, two third party candidates were arrested for attempting to enter the Washington University complex holding the second presidential debate. The candidates, Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party and David Cobb of the Green Party, chose civil disobedience to fight the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Over half of Americans believe third party candidates should be included, yet politicians continue to funnel public funds into the bi-partisan Commission. S.W.A.T. teams were used to deny the will of the American people while mainstream media ignored this historic event, a shameless suppression of political diversity."
Here is a link to the story, at the Libertarian web site: http://badnarik.org/newsfromthetrail.php?p=1346
and further coverage at: http://www.progress.org/2004/debates08.htm
and coverage at the Green Party website: http://www.gp.org/press/pr_10_08_04b.html
Read up on all the issues, not just what the media is spoon feeding us! And, by all means, vote on election day!