A 'sitting-down' debate is nothing unusual if you remember.

Last night, a guy I never heard of before (I'm housesitting again, so I have access to cable right now), Joe Scarborough says he believes that Cheney will win this one. I haven't seen John Edwards speak but I'm hoping he will be forceful and effective. It's no wonder the administration distrusts him- he made a fortune proscecuting big business.

About Bush's first debate, he said that Bush 'didn't show up' and that his people will have to tell him that he has to do better or John Kerry will be the next president of the United States. (Nice ring to that.) I have no idea of Scarborough's politics.


I like what Time Magazine's Joe Klein had to say in the September 27 edition:

"And so there is one significant question left in this presidential election year: Can John Kerry hold George Bush accountable for this mess? My guess is, probably not. The Republicans, with a strong assist from Kerry, have successfully painted the Democrat as a flip-flopping incompetent when it comes to national security. It will be hard for Kerry to change that impression. In fact, he has only one chance remaining, in the presidential debates.

"And that won't be easy. I've never seen George Bush lose a debate. He is a brilliant minimalist. Kerry by contrast is all oratorical flab - although he did begin to show somes signs of life last week in a solid speech to the National Guard convention in which he blasted Bush's "fantasy of spin" about Iraq. It is a powerful fantasy, though. And it is easy to predict Bush's response to any Kerry criticism about Iraq: "My opponent is too pessimistic," the President will say. "See, what he doesn't understand is that the President of the United States has to stantd firm. We can't show weakness. And we won't on my watch." Unless Kerry can come off with a succinct, and lethal, response to those vaporous but compelling platitudes, he will lose the election."

Go, Kerry