well, it would appear to me that all of these would
have been a weakness on one side or the other. i
actually think the questions were pretty mild. i
hardly consider what i saw as being a debate of
substance. but on what i saw, i have to say kerry won
that.
maybe it was the final agreed upon format. i don't
know why i was sort of disappointed in the questions.
but, i was not asking them.

--- Kat <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Because, as I believe is one of the primary rules of
> debate, you don't tout
> your own sucesses but attempt to point out the
> weaknesses in your opponent's
> arguements.
>
> Kat
>
> On Monday 04 October 2004 09:35 pm, ken barber
> wrote:
> > okay guys, i have traced down all the leads and i
> come
> > to the conclusion that cameron had a sense of
> humor
> > that got out of hand.this guy appears to have been
> > with kerry (assigned to report on his campaign)
> for
> > more than a year. if i had to do that, i'd just
> had to
> > go out and hang myself. this is hardly news.
> >
> > now more seriously, looking at the debate, which
> any
> > objective onlooker has to give the nod to kerry),
> i
> > found it a little strange, that the prison scandle
> did
> > not come up, nor did kerry's 20 year record in the
> > senate, nor did the cia's africa investigation on
> > buying the rods, nor the 911 commissions report.
> 90
> > minutes and none of these were even mentioned.
> just my
> > obsevation.
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile
> phone.
> > http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
>




_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com