Anybody here into world politics care to have a discussion on the Kerry Bush elections? My impression of both debates... First one : Kerry beat Bush outright, but not because his arguments were good but because Bush's were rotten. Bush was more or less stammering repeating his comments again and again and making smart aleck retorts. Kerry kept on saying he has big plans and made an insane amount of promises but never substantiated much... So, the victory was given to Kerry. However, I feel that the onus is on Kerry to show why he should be made president and not on bush to show why he should not be thrown out. Hence, it is infact Kerry who should have come out shining which he didn't. He was simply average and his views were at best conflicting and idealistic. For instance he said he didnt want to continue the war on Iraq but later he also said that he will send more troops to Iraq. This might show the urgency to finish the business in Iraq but it also shows the confusion in Kerry's stand. And in such situations confusion is a very dangerous thing. So, based on this fact I would prefer Bush based on the debates. Because I feel a country's leader need not neccessarily be the best orator amongst the candidates but the one with the potential to lead his country through tough times. Bush has shown that he can do that. That gives the americans a reason to trust him and not throw him out. But at the same time, kerry did have some sound arguements about nuclear proliferation and the North korea issue which brings one to consider if he would indeed be a good choice. I just saw half of the second round this morning... I'll wait till i see the whole thing tonight before posting on it.