Watched the debate on Thursday. Well, actually, watched mostly the second half of the debate. I slept through the beginning. Generally, I found it to be an exercise in frustration. Unsurprisingly, George W. debates like a babbling idiot. He utterly failed to give any sort of reasonable accounting of his various and myriad failures with regard to his overseas policies. He repeated himself a lot, which got tedious fast. And his stammering, uncertain presentation--par for his public speaking skills--continued to be a resounding confidence dimmer. I'm totally sympathetic with people being hesitant, weak public speakers, as long as they're not the President of the United States. George W. needs remedial Toastmasters training.
On the other hand, Kerry missed some really obvious zingers. George W. said (about half a dozen times) that if the U.S. hadn't moved against Iraq, they would have kept doing what they were doing . . . which was nothing. Yet Kerry didn't hammer that point. And why didn't Kerry pounce on the fact that George W. refers to the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq as a victory? George W. thinks contractors being kidnapped and beheaded, and Iraqi children getting bombed when they're being given candy by U.S. soldiers constitutes a "victory"? Puhleeze.
Blah. As debates go, that was exceedingly lame. Although at least it should be obvious who won. Kerry was informed, confident, and poised. George W. was a blustering, blithering, tongue-tied fool who perpetually looked like he'd just bitten into a lemon.
On that note, an amusing link: Students for an Orwellian Society. "Because 2004 is 20 years too late"
I did another pass on the recently revived story, had Matthew first reader it, did another pass, and then lobbed it on Critters. It should go up Wednesday. I'm loving this pro, bump-up-the-queue thing.
Also wrote two critiques for my Critter Litter writers group. It was a revise and critique sort of night.