I guess CBS was right (see post below). The debate didn't affect my vote. John Kerry looked great tonight. He was well spoken and he had a "presidential" air about him, while George W Bush looked uncomfortable and unprepared.

But it didn't change my mind. I think that's mainly because I didn't believe John Kerry. He was emphatic about defending America and fearlessly leading the military, which even included enlarging the military and making our defenses stronger. Those are all important points with me. That could have been persuasive, but it doesn't fit his history. He's a war protester who has voted against military spending in the Senate for 20 years.

So has he changed his mind about war? His nuclear freeze comments made me think not. I got the impression he was a dove trying to pretend he's a hawk because he wants to reach out to the "security moms". If he is just telling me what he thinks I want to hear, it doesn't matter how well he says it.

First debate tonight. CBS has a handy-dandy scorecard that is all about performance without addressing any issues.

Their final thought:

"A review of past CBS News polls shows debates have only a minor impact. In 1980 and 1996, the debates had negligible impact on the polls. In 1984, a majority believed Walter Mondale won the first debate but that barely dented Reagan's lead in the horserace. "

So, debates are meaningless, eh? Will I watch anyway? Definitely.

Wow. My first day blogging and somebody found me within hours of my first post. I hadn't even got around to telling anybody about my blog.

I think I want to respond to the comment from my first post.

James, you call the race a dead heat, and then link to 3 polls that show Bush ahead by 7%, 9%, and 11%. A double digit lead is a dead heat?

If the nation is "united in hating George Bush" how come he has that huge lead? The nation's pulse doesn't match the propaganda you are hearing because the organizations you mentioned are anything but grass-roots. They are well-funded 527s just like the Swift-Boat Veterans.

Yes, the extreme left wing hates George W Bush more vehemently and vocally than any president in a long time, and the extreme right wing hates John Kerry, too, but elections are not decided by the partisans and extremists. They are decided by the moderates and independents. And the more Michael Moore and moveon.org are mainstreamed by Kerry's campaign, the more the moderates and independents feel like we don't fit in with the hatred.

The democratic party has become too exclusively left-wing and moderates are left out. The reason John Kerry can't win is because he doesn't appeal to the moderates. He tries to portray himself as a moderate and a war hero, but his voting record in the Senate and his war protest activities make it impossible to believe.

On the other hand, it looks like George W Bush will get more votes in California than any Republican candidate has here for decades, and I think a lot of the reason for that is the Republican party seems to be the place where moderates are welcome these days, due in large part to the popularity of a Republican governor who happens to be... a moderate.

It doesn't look like John Kerry can win this election. As a matter of fact, it looks like not only will Bush be reelected, he will win by a landslide.

Kerry was doomed from the beginning. Nobody really ever wanted him. He won the primaries because the other candidates were too nutty. Since then he has run a weak campaign. Even among those planning to vote for Kerry now, there are few who seem to be voting for Kerry so much as they are voting against President Bush. The democrats have done a powerful job of attacking the president, but they haven't made a good enough case for why John Kerry would be any better.

At this point a vote for John Kerry is a wasted vote. Those voting against President Bush would do better to vote for an independent like Nader. Give your vote to another candidate who could use the support to strengthen their voice in the political arena. I don't think Ralph would make a good president, but he brings up a lot of issues that most politicians would rather ignore, and America would do well to consider his ideas.

The difference between John Kerry getting 35% or 40% of the vote would be meaningless. Either way it is a landslide. On the other hand, an additional 5% of the vote going to an independent would mean they must be taken seriously, and every elected official would take note that their issues are important to America.

I say if you are planning to vote for President Bush, do it. The greater the landslide, the stronger the message to our enemies that America stands united.

But if you are planning to vote against President Bush, consider voting in a way that could make a real difference.