perfidy

Oh yeah. I'm totally biased. But I've hated W's policy towards DPRK for a LONG TIME, try about 4 years. That's a no brainer.

I note that Kerry wasn't perfect and the man is flawed. I was definitely watching in a biased crowd and I was slightly drunk and starving to death last night.

I agree on Buckethead's point that France isn't going to come running to help in January if the administration changes. But you know, we have to start making nice with them now lest some other crisis drives the wedge between us deeper. (taking bets here... Iran or DPRK?)

Style matters to me quite a lot. I have sat through some really AWFUL debates in my time which is why I lead off on style. It means I don't actually have to listen to the crap coming out of their mouths. Presentation counts.

A caller on NPR made a good point this morning. Why do we immediately label well-spoken, reasoned, and intelligent politicians as being aloof? Do we not want to be led by some of the greatest minds our country has to offer?

geez. I swear, starvation makes me say and do weird things. I'm stuck at work on late shift tonight. Rescue me... Got beer?

I think that the debate is proving to be a Rorshach test for what you think about the candidates. Those who are predisposed in one way see the flaws in opposing candidate, and vice versa. Mapgirl offers some intelligent and perceptive comments, but her bit reveals as much bias as my earlier post did in the other direction.

She glosses over Kerry flaws just as I did with Bush flaws. Which is why I think that Kerry advisor Joe Lockhart felt that the debate was a draw. I don't think that anything either candidate said will convince anyone but the vanishingly slim pool of "undecided" voters to move anywhere.