i'm getting the feeling nobody "won" friday night?

[michigandem2]

maybe I missed it but tim russert seemed to be hard on edwards this morning on MTP but really...haven't caught much else..who is winning the "spin"

[Jack_Dawson]

1. If Bush doesn't fall down, he wins

Overall pundits score it a tie. Every other poll scores it a Kerry victory

[Warpy]

2. Bush didn't step on his tongue

but when you tell a lie in a debate and your opponent exposes it as a lie, that's called "losing."

Only in the looking glass world of the GOP is this not true. Stating a lie is "winning." Refuting a lie is "losing."

Got it now?

In the real world, Kerry won the debate handily. His own lies were overstatements or understatements of the truth. Bush lost the debate, as his lies were complete misstatements, misrepresentations of the truth, and easily refuted by his opponent.

In Bushwa World, Bush scored "points" every time he opened his mouth to tell a lie, and Kerry lost them every time he opened his mouth to refute the lie.

Who won the debate, then, is largely a result of which world you inhabit. If you prefer a golden world of fantasy, then Bushwa world is for you. If you prefer a world bounded by sometimes ugly truth that never changes, then welcome to the world in which Kerry won the debate.

[mr_du04]

3. Kerry won

Kerry was the one who was spouting ideas while chimpy was just telling lies.

[Contrary1]

4. Kerry won this debate, and they know it...

In the media Bush went from being a master debater who
had never lost to man who has not been especially good
in debates...all in a couple weeks. They are dumbing
Chimpie down in an attempt to make Friday's and any
future performances look better.

I am hoping that the average "undecided" American is not
so dumbed down as to buy it.

[deckerd]

5. Who is "they"?

Most people did not see the debates and will accept whatever the media
tells them on Monday night prime time news. News anchors will call it
for Bush because pundits called it a draw. On the theory that Kerry
failed to prove he'd be any better than *.

Dem pundits failed to hammer on a SINGLE ONE of Bush's blunders that
we discussed here on DU. Not ONE was focused on.

As a result, they had no way to counter the excellent assertion by
several RWers that Kerry simply dropped the ball by failing to hit
on ANYTHING in the news, instead listening to his DLC base and
focusing on divisive and ultimately pointless social issues like
stem cell research (which will proceed with or without funding).

Consider the balls Kerry dropped COMPLETELY: The pundits were right,
and Dem pundits, having failed to seize on a single Bush misstep, were forced to agree. How could they not?

* Duelfer report, Little Tora Bora, Rumsfeld statement, Bremer remarks, BAD JOBS #S, EVEN THE STEM CELL BREAKTHRU for God's sakes... Kerry stuck to generalities while * was talking "specifics" to his base. Why? Is he saving it for Debate #3? I find that hard to believe.

[Demoiselle]

6. And who are you?

I can guarantee you that more people watched the debates than watch the Sunday AM pundits. Every thing you mentioned from the Duelfer report to stem cell breakthrough worked in Kerry's favor. Bush looked delusional, twitchy and barely contained. REally really bad manners as well. I watched the debate, and all the news breaking against Bush was evident in every encounter, regardless of whether the items were dissected during the debate. Kerry was fine...better than fine...once again. If Bush had stripped naked and run screaming at Charlie Gibson with a machete, many pundits would simply declare on Sunday morning that he had a bad night. It's a bias we have to live with. FOR NOW.