The first debate

I think that Bush did a good job of coming out a showing that he is not the buffoon that so many have tried to make him out as.

IMO, neither really came out swinging for the fences when it comes to the swing voters.

First let me say that I'm not a fan of either candidate. So you're getting an objective viewpoint here. I'll be voting for Michael Badnarik by the way. For those of you who have no idea who I'm talking about, you really need to familiarize yourselves with some of the other choices out there. It doesn't have to be one or the other, people. To me, the distinction between democrats and republicans is similar to the difference between Coke and Pepsi.

That being said, John Kerry is clearly more articulate than Bush, and a more seasoned debater. But I still don't know exactly where he stands on Saddam Hussein, or the war in Iraq. It did seem like Kerry had more to say, more points for Bush to defend, while Bush basically had one answer for everything, "It's hard work, we can't show weakness, blah, blah, blah."

Those long pauses that many of you have mentioned, the uncomfortable moments when Bush seems to struggle may actually appeal to more voters than you think. The fact is, most people talk that way. Unless your a politician, I think there are lots of people who realize that Bush sometimes sounds like they would sound in a similar situation. In those ways, Bush may actually identify with more people. By and large, unless you're a passionate Bush Hater, I think the American people are generally forgiving for Bush's lack of polished public speaking abilities.

I was anticipating a gaffe, but didn't see one. I thought for sure Bush would stumble ackwardly through the debate, but it never really happened. Neither candidate scored big, and neither really lost it completely.

I don't agree with the war in Iraq, and I was never convinced that Hussein presented the grave threat that many conservatives were apparently so scared about. But does John Kerry really offer a clear alternative? He's not giving us that much of a different option as to how to get out of the mess that's been created.

On the points that Bush lost interest in Osama bin Laden and recklessly went after Saddam Hussein, who never attacked us, Kerry clearly won that aspect, while Bush tip-toed, and weaseled his way out of it. If Kerry really drives that point home, then that could be an effective weapon that Bush obviously has no answer for.

I'm more interested in domestic affairs, and I can't wait for that debate. Last night's round was a draw in my mind.

Of course I'm a little biased, but I saw vintage Bush buffoon last night. Long pauses where sometimes it seemed he wasn't going to be able to spit out a single word, he kept repeating himself without rephrasing, obvious looks of frustration when Kerry was speaking. Nobody is ever going to confuse him with being an eloquent speaker that's for sure. He's an average Joe, but personally I don't feel comfortable with an average Joe being the leader of the free world.

For those that want to know more: Michael Badnarik (http://www.badnarik.org/)

I'll bet a lot of potential voters fall under this (http://www.kerryhatersforkerry.com) category

People who vote for a candidate who does not have a viable chance to win are throwing away their vote. Yeah... you're making your point to youself, but in the end you're not helping to decide who the next president will be. Voting for Nader or Badnarik is hopeless. By giving one of these candidates your vote, you're helping to elect someone who is more opposite to your candidate. Ultimately the same as not voting at all.

It's like betting on the Arizona Cardinals to win the Superbowl because their your favorite team.

People who vote for a candidate who does not have a viable chance to win are throwing away their vote. Yeah... you're making your point to youself, but in the end you're not helping to decide who the next president will be. Voting for Nader or Badnarik is hopeless. By giving one of these candidates your vote, you're helping to elect someone who is more opposite to your candidate. Ultimately the same as not voting at all.

It's like betting on the Arizona Cardinals to win the Superbowl because their your favorite team.

How ridiculous. Voting your principles is "throwing you vote away"? I see.

So voting for the lesser of two evils isn't? I don't know what political ideology you come from EEich, but I know neither candidate holds true to the beliefs and principles I hold dear. So why should I vote for them?

It's people like you who perpetuate the crap that politics really is. Stubborn, lazy voters who could care less about how this country is going down the tubes, and don't take the time to search for someone who truly stands for what they believe -- and participating in this mindless popularity contest when both parties are only in it to stay in power, give in to the lobbyists, and could care less about what the Constitution says. Oh yeah, that's a really effective vote.

As to your analogy about football and Super Bowl champions, that is seriously flawed. Voting for only the candidate who has the best chance to win is like bandwagon, frontrunner fans who choose different teams to root for every year based on who is playing at their best and has the better chance to win the Super Bowl.

Voting for the lesser of two evils still gets you an evil.

Vote your principles.

Voting principles is fine...
But voting for your ideal candidate is more likely to get the greater of two evils elected.

My analogy of betting on the Cardinals is not flawed... The Cardinals have no reasonable chance to win the Superbowl... betting on them is throwing your money/vote away. It's not a matter of jumping on a bandwagon.
To prove my point, I will bet you $5 on the election and give you ten million to one odds.

Voting with your heart is fine... voting with your head makes more sense to me.

By the way... My political idealogy is this... I'm a registered Democrat, but my ideal candidate this year was McLean. Sadly, I couldn't vote for him in the primary. I've been unemployed for over a year because my job went to India. I blame the current administration and would give my principles up to get that guy out of the White House. Are things clearer now?

Who's McLean?

Incidentally, today's Republican party was once considered a "third party". It was created in the 1850s by anti-slavery activists. At the time the major parties were the Democrats and the Whigs. Abraham Lincoln is technically the first modern Republican president ever.