Well I don't measure Kerry's succes in percentages, but I would say that overall, he won all three debates. I never said he won them all by a landslide, but
objectively observing (I hope I still have that ability
) all three debates, it's clear (to me) that Kerry's performance (reasoning, presentation, style, charm, whatever etc.) was much better throughout. It's just that we've already talked on this issue alot and I believe I already mentioned somewhere else that Kerry's performance was best in the first debate, worse in the second (though still good enough to beat the president) and simply good in the last. And I don't believe Kerry was
that good, but moreover Bush did pretty bad in all debates. Also keep in mind that I'm used to different types of debates, and to me, one-liners like
"But perhaps the best way to keep jobs here in America and to keep this economy growing is to make sure our education system works" are not a way of debating at all, rather it feels like he's relying on his acting talents to repeat his message. It may in fact fall on right ears with republicans, and it may depict him as a resolute war president to some (thanks to his acting), but to undecided voters or democrats he was not very convincing, I would imagine. Kerry on the other hand was much more of a debater in ALL THREE DEBATES. He responded to everything the president had to say (which may have been his weakness, it cost him time), sometimes he even went into refuting the president's rebuttle. Bush on the other hand sometimes totally ignored the question, "refuted" Kerry's arguments by labeling him as
THE MOST LIBERAL SENATOR OF ALL TIMES, IN ANY GALAXY, ANYWHERE, or by implying his opponent is a flipflopper. So in debating terms, I think I can safely say he won all three debates, it's just sad that in your country, the media 'gets to decide' who won and who lost. In short: I didn't want to get into it
