Last night there was another debate between Bush and Kerry. Now, I haven't had the time to download it, but I have seen some clips and commentary (some was partisan and some not). Some was simple, some detailed, some from newspapers and some from online news sources. Several online polls had Bush the winner at first, but then several of them were published before the debate was over. The poll mentioned has now had nearly 900000 votes and is now 68% for Kerry.
Bush was quite short with the interviewer in quite an unpresidential manner (site is obviously democrat, but the clip is straight from the broadcast). Its not quite as bad as the posts I've seen make out, but it does seem rather petulant and uncontrolled - he seemed rattled and I think he may be regretting this.
For a while factcheck.com redirected itself to georgesoros.com, an anti-Bush page, oops. He should have refered to factcheck.org. The top article on factcheck.org is entitled Cheney & Edwards Mangle Facts. One paragraph here reads: Edwards was also slightly off when he said Halliburton paid millions in fines "while he (Cheney) was CEO." What he meant was that it paid fines for matters that took place while Cheney was in charge..
Is Bush trying to help his opposition? Edwards only mentioned that the fines were levied on Halliburton with Cheney in charge, but the article says that it was the offence which gave rise to the fine which happened - the fine came later. The rest of the article makes for an interesting read.
There has been some commentary from students at the campus (lots of Kerry supporters, some Bush). Some of the comment inevitably directed at Bush's stumblinb on words
In other US electoral news, Diebold (who make controversial voting machines, which have problems with auditting) are in a district where one of the local candidates is campaigned against them... in order to try and get them to add an auditable paper trail. Oh, and Michigan may well be the next Florida. There is also comment about Gerrymandering.
On languagelog, there is an analysis of the language and pauses in the recent Bush-Kerry 'debate'. The level of the analysis is phenomenal, and I can only wonder at how much time was spent putting it together!
Apparently Kerry used sentences which were 17% longer than Bush. He did this to a small extent by using fewer sentences (less than 2% fewer), but in the most part by using more words. Bush paused for longer times, where Kerry tended to pause for shorter times, and did so more deliberately.
The 'debate' between Kerry and Bush is available for download at the BBC. The 'debates' are closed (between Republican and Democrats). True that these two parties are the only parties with a current realistic shot at power. With a restriction to these two parties this is unlikely to change - its not in the interest of these parties to open it up.