the “debate”

I have seen a few drinking games suggested to accompany the debate tonight: let’s just say that taking a drink everytime the president said “steadfast”, “resolute”, or referred to Saddam Hussein as a danger would have had all but the most experienced drunks out of the game before halftime . . . .

The next debate will be on during my wife’s book club meeting: I expect the book under discussion will be shelved in favor of yelling obscenities at the TV.

If the Kerry camp’s strategy was to rattle the president and make him display his gift for malapropisms, it almost worked: he seemed at the edge of his temper. Kerry seemed relaxed but not all that convincing: if the people who need to hear how they have been misled didn’t pick it up tonight, I guess it’s hard to blame them. In the next debate, I hope he takes the offensive more: it seems likely the Bush camp will try to do that.

But I think this sums it up:

I am rethinking my lifelong Dem voting record because Bush is for God, freedom and liberty. He opposes hatred. I just had no idea.

Kerry conspicuously did not mention kittens or ponies. Some children in Iraq have kittens and ponies. Why does he hate kittens and ponies?