What worries me about the debates is not that Bush did so badly, but that Kerry came off as being more capable, intelligent, confident, and well-read. I am coming to the conclusion (from reading American websites from the right) that Americans just don't appreciate a smarty-pants. They find Kerry to be scary, and not just because of the Herman Munster thing. Bush's inability to articulate coherently is actually an advantage. Kerry's still the guy who is going to take away the guns and make homosexuality mandatory.

gwb's handlers need to tell him - "just think of all the money you and your dad have made in the past 4 years" this will put him in a good mood and stop him from scowling and acting like a child.

as i said in another post, there is only a 2-5% swing vote in the us. so , IMO the presidental debates are somewhat meaningless. the majority of american voters have decided long ago. the love fest that the democrats are having over Kerry`s debate "win" is pathetic. There is really only a few degrees of seperation between the two. does Kerry really expect the world to come to his rescue in Irac JUST because he comes to us with hat in hand? what a lark. he voted to go into irac just to save his political ass. while the rest of the world said "lets wait for the inspectors" he voted to bypass the UN and stride right in. so I`ll take your bet on Kerry. Bush is going to win one way or another. either by real votes or by theft. the Bush admin has FAR too much to lose this time around. now, in a untainted election, the real debate to watch is going to be the vice-presidential on tuesday(?) this is where the "real" president is going to debate the real issues. we will get to see Cheney in a less controled arena. Edwards could attack Cheney on several points easily, like Halliburton, if he has the ability. we shall see if he has the guts to ask some real pointed questions.

Charlotte, I agree with you entirely about "Going Upriver" -- quite a wonderful flashback to the sixties and seventies, and a great picture of Kerry which has somehow got lost n the shuffle, but which seems to have re-emerged in the debate to some extent. Clearly Kerry is after all a good choice. Might be better off for the Democrats to lose the election though. They inherit a huge mess with no way out that is acceptable to the American public. Not only Iraq, but their huge deficit too. If Kerry wins. he'll get vilified for withdrawing (best option) or for carrying on a impossible war (likely option) and being unsuccessful. Buyng a war on a credit card didn't work for vietnam and won't work here, and the economic resuts willl be as bad now as they were then. Buh and the right deserve to win and get held clearly responsible for the disaster they're creating.

One of John Kerry's biggest strenghts/assets that will bode well for his leadership as President is the very thing that the Bush 'bandits' point to as weakness: to change his opinion. It is a wise person who can take "a second look" (as former Premier W.A.C. Bennett was famous for) based on new information, change his perspective and take a different avenue. Bush appears to me to be a nice but naive man totally controlled by his father's good old boys. Here's to a new and better way with John Kerry.

Wow, all this talk about "manhood" and who is more the a man... now if the American populace could just figure out once and for all that many women are capable of being just as or more "of a man" (what the hell does that MEAN??) than an actual physical man, perhaps they could have a wider range of options for leader and finally get their sorry act together.

Fi, you've nailed it right. What's with all the he-man bullshit? From the sound of it, the upcoming election has more to do with emasculation than anything else. Nuthing else to think about, it seems.

I for one hope that Kerry wins but is there really that much of a difference between these two men (or perhaps that should read the puppeteers that control them)? I think it's partucularly telling that both of them have very similar backrounds, and are (were) members of Yale University's "Skull and Bones" society.

Can either of these two religous zealots be trusted with the capability to destroy the world? Oh well at least Kerry can pronounce nuclear (nucular really frosts my tonsils). It's also funny that 'Marika is more comfortable with an idiotic Bush, does anyone really beleive this man is stupid (Yale graduate/multi-millionaire/oil baron, oh yeah he's so everyman)? I for one don't think he's stupid, he may have problems speaking in public and may come across as an idiot but I think he's very cunning and sly.

Voting in the States closely resembles voting in Canada, just choose whoever is the best of the worst.

Yikes, it's the meme...Yes, Kerry the closer. Turnaround time. For the next thirty days we are going to be told by an increasingly frantic MSM that now Kerry is taking the gloves off, letting it rip.

The problem with that scenario is that the pros in the Democratic party are pulling advertising in states like Virgina, looking at post debate polls which leave Bush with a 3-5 point lead and, most importantly, have already corraled the entire 43% of likely voters who would vote for a fence post rather than Bush. Clever of the Dems to have given their base that option rather than an actual candidate like Dean.)

Kerry is a compromise between the Moore Dem base and the Clinton pros. It finally dawned on him a week or two ago that he was going to lose his base if he didn't actually come right out and say that he was against the War in Iraq despite all of his prior statements of support for the invasion.

You don't have to like Bush or his policies or his deficits or his frat boy bonhomie to realize that Kerry is possibly the worst Dem candidate since Gunner Dukakis reported for duty.

The Americans, and the rest of us, need better candidates. But Kerry's tendancy to self inflicted wounds seems to have dogged him from the swamps of Cambodia, er Viet Nam, to his mondo goofy salute at the podium of the Democratic convention. Now, the best that can be said of his debate performance is that he beat Bush in the last hour when a little less than half the initial viewers were watching.

No doubt that cheered up the base and the DU/Indymedia/Moore end of the party; but the effect of that will be to deny Ralph Nader 3% in thirty states. It will not help beat Bush.

Meantime, a fair number of the Clintonesta pros have, to coin a phrase, moved on. Hillary, having passed the poison chalice to Johnny Cambodia, is hiring.

There is still precisely zero chance that the USA will elect a woman president and that will remain true in 2008. Both parties know it and neither will nominate a woman. Acknowledging this fact is not sexist though it is a saddening thing to do.

On a few US blogs I hang in there is, from time to time, speculation that the polls are mising the picture. There is a huge surge in voter registration all over the US and it favours the Democrats by something like 200%. There are informal and anecdotal things happening like counts of lawn signs and bumper stickers - mostly favouring Democrats. (Favorite bumper sticker someone's mentioned: "Republicans for Voldemort")I've read articulate speculation from intelligent people that a Kery landslide may be on the menu.

None of this necessarily translates into votes obviously but a lot of Democrats are heartened by what they are seeing and hearing around them in their lives even though the polls and media are giving them opposite messages.

I have regained a modicum of hope.

And for those who, for whatever reasons, still continue to insist that, after all that's happened, this is just another "Tweedledum and Tweedledee" exercise - shame on you. Polish up the lenses you look through. You're not seeing clearly anymore.

dana- greg palast refers to them as "mr. tall and mr. small" and my glasses are clean. he wrote a great article about the debate and what kerry "should" have said and did`nt. go to his web site and read it. i support kerry, but he is just the lesser of two evils. there is a tone in the blogosphere in which people are saying it would be better for the world if bush won again.its a like a drunk that has to reach rock bottom before he see`e the light and gets sober. palast quotes kerry from 30 years ago in which he was asked "how do we (usa) get out of vietnam?" he replied "with ships"

I have read Palast's article Bill. I disagree with him on this matter.

Under which sun in the heavens is the USA a differently ethocized (new word, I made it up) country than it has been for the past 200 some odd years? Is it expected that, suddenly based on little other than wishin' and hopin', that the USA will become more like Sweden? Of course Kerry is the lesser of two evils. But the point is that he's enough of a lesser evil to make a significant difference in the world.

As to the "maybe Bush should win again so the whole thing goes off the cliff sooner rather than later", I've repeatedly made the same point myself, here and elsewhere. Maybe it would be the best thing. Except that it doesn't have to happen, it isn't inevitable. Iraq is broken, a failing state. It's going to require a concerted international effort to counteract the effects of that in the middle east and the wider world. An international effort is ut of the question with Bush in office again. But there is at least a chance with a Kerry win.

I think it was Chomsky who described the Dems and GOP as the left and right wing of the CIA, with foreign policy bilateralism rendering the distinction pretty much moot. But as regards Iraq, there is finally a meaningful distinction to be made in the way the parties will be addressing the issue. If Bush 43 continues his neoconservative agenda, they'll strike Iran and Syria next. Kerry would not. This is not a meaningless distinction.

I dunno if I agree with you about Bush invading Iran and Syria. How about a different question, does anyone believe that Kerry would not have invaded Iraq? I know it seems like he may not have, he won't give a yes or no, he did after all vote to give the prez the power and he has stated that if Saddam didn't conform to UN resolutions he would have to go down.

Don't mistake my Kerry-criticisms for Bush support, I sure hope Bush doesn't win but I see Kerry as offering very little in the way of hope. Of course these comments will probably draw the ire of people who think Bill Clinton is great.

Kerry would not have invaded Iraq. Kery would have made a Powell doctrine like committment in Afghanistan, and perhaps to wherever else was necessary, to track down bin Laden and get down to the nitty gritty business of dismantling AlQaida. That is the mission in which the US's traditional alliances would have held and which would not have sidelined the UN. It is also the mission that most urgently needed and needs doing.

I am not as well read on this issue as many of you seem to be, but why is all of this discussion surrounding the middle east? I would like someone to bring up china and india and tell me that this is NOT the most pressing international disaster waiting to happen....Do we know how Bush/Kerry stand on this issue?

Wendy, China and India don't have any US troops on shore. During election cycles in the US international issues only crop up if US troops are there. If they do crop up it's in reference to the possibility of US troops being sent there. So don't, please, expect erudite discussions of issues of concern to the international community. To borrow a phrase from former PM Kim Campbell, US elections are the worst possible time to discuss matters of important policy.

Both Palast and Chomsky have fallen victim to their own admirable idealism when they talk about this particular US election. Unfortunately pragmatism, not idealism, is what is needed right now. Anything that prevents a Bush defeat by splitting the vote or confusing the undecideds or making people stay home (like an elevated terror alert, for example) will be assisting the furthering of the neo-fascist agenda in the US. Period. Full stop.

Dana your on crack, Kerry and Bush are nearly identical, perhaps the people who control Bush are slightly different than the people who control Kerry but that's about it.

if not now, when dana? its hard to beleive that you suggest that policy should not be debated in this PARTICULAR election. this is the most important time for debate. Chomsky has been trying to bring foriegn policy debate to americans for decades, so your acusation of his having "fallen" for his own "idealism" is bent. better not to confuse the joe six packs is what you`re saying and it stinks. is it idealist to ask what Kerry`s stance is on Venezuela? Cuba? North Korea? these are questions that need to be asked before ANYONE votes for Kerry or Bush or that other Guy

This site is one of the best measures of how the race is going in the US http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/markets/ http://128.255.244.60/gr aphs/graph_Pres04_WTA.cfm http://128.255.244.60/graphs/graph_Pres04_VS.cfm Think of the first graph as the % chance that Bush or Kerry will win. The second is the current best estimate of popular vote.

Lets see if these links go in better now http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/markets/ http://128.255.244.60/gr aphs/graph_Pres04_WTA.cfm http://128.255.244.60/graphs/graph_Pres0 4_VS.cfm

Let us see if the links go in better now http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/markets/ http://128.255.244.60/gr aphs/graph_Pres04_WTA.cfm http://128.255.244.60/graphs/graph_Pres0 4_VS.cfm

Go ask. Get an American acquaintance to attend an event and ask. Beg a network to ask.

Do you think you're going to hear anything substantive?

No, you're going to hear, at the absolute best, a soundbite devoid of policy or committment. You're going to hear something that won't disturb the respective bases. You're going to hear pap.

Billk, why is it important to you that either of these guys say anything other than what they and their handlers determine the US voters want to hear? As to why not now - because it's an election. Elections are the worst possible time because of the shallowness of the venues and the life and death importance of the issues. Rather like something Henry Kissinger once said: "University politics are so vicious because the stakes are so small."

Geek, you're either very young or too ideologically entrenched to communicate with.

It continues to amaze me that there are people who insist that it's realistic to evaluate US politics through lenses that have no relevance to US politics. Progressive politics in the US has been marginal more or less throughout their history. Stop assuming that just because it makes sense to you that it should de facto make sense to either the US political parties or the US voters. It ain't gonna happen. And you'll sleep better.

Whew! Thanks for that Dana, I've got my blinders on now and everything is a-ok. Your so right, why start evaluating politics realistically now? Shit it's been so F'd up for so long it doesn't matter anymore, don't ask and they won't tell.

So Dana why do you think that less and less people vote as time passes? Give me some kind of regurgitated answer that all of the so-called political experts are giving, please. I'll tell you why people don't vote, its because the candidates all suck (yes it is that simple). So why shouldn't we, on a website which has no relevance to US politics, put forth ideas that are progressive? If not here than where?

Perhaps I am an idealogue, I'll take that insult (I mean compliment) anytime. People are disenfranchised, get with it.

And by the way if I'm the one who is to entrenched to communicate with why are you disagreeing with several people at once?

Boy, I HOPE that debates don't matter...because in my opinion, Edwards got his ass handed to him by Cheney.

Kerry would have invaded Iraq if WMDs had been there. However, they weren't and Kerry would have known that if he was president and therefore would not have invaded. Read the 15 page article in the NY Times the other day about how the administration went with a low level CIA guy's theory on Iraqi WMDs and suppressed dissenting views.

Obviously not invading Iraq is a big difference between the two parties, at least it is if you're Iraqi.

Why don't people vote? Go ask them to explain why. They're ignorant that's why. I'll happily name my friends who don't vote. They pay no attention to politics, can't explain how parliament works and have no clue as to the history of the various parties. But if a party leader goes on MTV or Jay Leno they'll think that's cool. People are disenfranchised because they disenfranchised themselves. If they actually find the time to read a newspaper editorial or watch a debate and they still don't like the choices available they can start their own party or take over an existing one (Gordo did it). But they won't because they wouldn't know what to do after that.

Noam Chomsky wrote that While listening to sports radio in his car, he notes that many people have the time and the interest to memorize an enormous amount of technical detail and are unafraid to offer pointed, intelligent criticism of highly-placed professionals. The idea, then, is to get people as interested in politics as in football. Perhaps someone should point out that tax monies are a form of gambling.

Yeah Ron I would be as interested in politics as football if I could see a 250lb linebacker knock the snot out of Paul Martin or George Bush. Now that would be entertaining!

"And its an open field tackle, Ray Lewis just flew up and POPPED Paul Martin! You could hear that crunch all the way up in the booth, I don't think he's getting up from that one."

Geek, when did disagreeing, with one person or 200, become a mark of lack of communication?

Y'know for the most part I've found your posts to reveal a thoughtful, critical intelligence even though I don't agree with all your political positions. But on this, the Kerry/Bush distinction and the implications for the US and the world of the election of one or the other of them, I see only a certain progressive-socialist ideological rigidity.

I'm not even going to try to change your mind about the importance of Kerry defeating Bush because you've made it clear that you see no difference between them. Which, in my opinion, is precisely the point at which your ideological blind spot occurs.

It appears that you see two suited middle-aged rich white men and then you stop making distinctions. That's the rigidity I refer to.

As to numbers of people voting, at least in US elections, almost every states election boards are reporting being overwhelmed with people registering to vote. Most for the very first time. That's what Michael Moore's "Slacker Tour" is all about. Moore's put his own progressive leanings temporarily aside this year because he recognizes too the urgency of getting BushCo out of office and revealed as the criminals they are. For Moore, this year, Kerry is good enough.

Allright, allright, I got a little personal with you, sorry about that. I don't necessarily disagree with some of the stuff you've said, Dana, but I think that Kerry is fairly lame. I do see obvious differences between him and Bush, and Kerry does have my support for more reasons than being able to pronounce nuclear. What I was alluding to early was the lack of real progressive politics in North America. It's, I feel, at an all time low.

Believe me I am really hoping Kerry wins but I really wish someone else would come along with better ideas and a different plan. Somewhat related is the fact that I think Chretien and Clinton were in power for so long partially because they were the "lesser of evils", not to mention both were (are) incredibly slick.

Anyway sorry if I got personal and overly opinionated, perhaps Its reflective of my crappy mood these days.

No problem. I got a little testy too. In my case I have my impending old cootness to blame.:-)

I've found a website some of you might find of interest. It's here. Citizens of other countries can vote for the presidential ticket of their choice. All the tickets are there and you can see the results up to now if you wish.

Wow, thanks Dana. I've actually found a presidential candidate who promises not to invade Canada when I followed your link. His name is Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party and he also promises to get the boys home from Iraq the day after he's in power. Can you imagine, a written guarantee from the emperor himself not to send his legions north, the first in two centuries to actually refute Manifest Destiny in his party's platform. Well, it doesn't specifically mention Canada (a Bushism, no doubt), instead it states; "Use of the American military only 'to repel invasion at our Southern border' and not to support the imperialist agenda of 'Pax Americana.'' I guess he thinks we're not a menace despite the terrorists who, according to Bush's guys, use our border stations out here in the northern wilderness. Even that ''imperialist agenda'' stuff was pretty encouraging coming out of someone who would appear to be an aging white guy in a tie. Alas, just when I was beginning to think, hey I might want to again visit the U.S. if this attitude gets fashionable, I noticed some of his other planks, a ban on abortion, a Christian spin or ''filter'' on everything, lifting the ban on assault rifles, opposed to same sex marriage and gay rights, prayer in public school and institutions and so on. Ok, so he ain't exactly Tommy Douglas, but I'd encourage Americans to vote for him. Any votes he gets will certainly come from the same base as Dubya's and I certainly think that's a good thing. .

I find it amusing that people actually believe that either candidate will make any kind of differance. We all know it's a sham. I'm glad to see that Fellman knows the key to making this worth following: put money on the line. Bush is the favorite right now on most tickets at 1.69. Following the debate, though, the underdog Kerry line saw a sharp drop from as high as 3.03 most places down to the low 2.60s. If he keeps it up in tonight's debate and the next one, he could wind up as a favourite come Halloween. already, in anticipation to tonight's debate, most Kerry linea fell to 2.36, but you can still get it as high as 2.51, and that looks pretty juicy. Nonetheless, I'm sticking with the President. He's clearly demonstrated an ability to use powerful connections to his advantage when it counts, and I just can't count out the NeoCon crew in the clutch. This baby should come down to the wire, and I think that we're yet to see some startleing developments on the international terrorism front (probably mid to late october) that will rally support for the incumbent. Happy gambling, everyone! (up to the minute lines can be found at: http://www.oddschecker.com/oddschecker/mode/o/card/cc8859x/odds/24369 8x/sid/377975 )

from an article found here(www.pressaction.com)by Kim Petersen "It seems one could therefore state: Any supporter of Kerry who says “I don’t care if there are progressive alternatives” is basically telling poor and oppressed people in developing countries, “I don’t care if your lives are destroyed. I don’t care whether you are going to live. I just don’t care, because from my elevated point of view I don’t see Nader having a chance.” That’s a way of saying, “Pay no attention to me, because I don’t care about you.” Apart from its being wrong, it’s a recipe for disaster if you’re hoping to ever develop a popular movement and a political alternative." great article.

kerry sucks