[KillerGremlin]

I thought that the fundamentals of both candidates where so similar, that the basis on which they where arguing was skewed and irrelevant.

Personally, I felt that Kerry was better composed then Bush. However, that's the main thing that people are judging the winner/loser of the debate by, because it is certainly not being based off the "facts" or "ideas" presented by the candidates in the debate.

If people judged the candidates by the information that was presented, they would most likely scratch their heads, and say something along the lines of: "what the ****, these two guys are nearly identical, only Kerry has some pretty skewed short-term goals which won't get accomplished any faster then if Bush were in charge."

hostilecrayon has the right idea, but I would vote for Bush instead of Kerry. Bush, I think, knows that he ****ed up. But, he's holding steady. Kerry is going with what the people want, and unfortunately, in a time of war, what the people want may not be in the best interest of the war.

But does it really matter who wins the election? The war on terrorism isn’t going away, America still has to deal with Iraq, and Russia’s nuclear supply isn’t going to disappear during Kerry’s first year in office.