Cristie, Lizzie, Joe, and I watched the debates with varying levels of amusement, generally rising from youngest to oldest. (Lizzie's participation consisted mostly of a vacuous stare). Both the candidates tried to "shut the door on each others' faces", but I thought failed to deliver any knock out punches. While I thought Kerry was the clear winner in last week's debate, I give the edge to Cheney in last night's contest. I thought his shorter answers and "passes" mostly worked, especially the one where he passed on the opportunity to comment on the gay/lesbian issue.

Edward's inexperience was evident. His arguments also displayed a kind of empty passion somehow. Something he does with the corner of his mouth and his tongue also got on my nerves. I know I'm being petty and not focused on the issues with that observation, but hey, it got in the way.

I agree with Ed, Bush is in trouble. The momentum shifted with the debate last week and to get it back, he's going to have to come out swinging Friday night. He obviously was not prepared for the first debate. And Kerry surprised and impressed me with his articulateness, his handling of the flip flop criticisms, and his grasp of the issues.

Now, Melissa, I'm willing to consider Mr. Van Damn (heh, heh). I checked his website. Generic pablum. Where does he stand on the 2nd Amendment initiative? Gun control? Iraq? North Korea/Iran? Moving the state prison? (lol)

A writer in Newsweek compared the styles of the candidates. He says Bush is a "go with your gut" snap decision maker and Kerry might lean toward analysis paralysis. His conclusion is that the best presidents combine intuition with a deep knowledge of the issue at hand to make the best decision. Can we elect them both?