Redstate

Does eloquence in speaking supercede clarity of thought and consistency of basic points in your definition of "being presidential" or "being intelligent"?  Based on the two quotes above, I hope you don't believe Kerry's smooth delivery and well-coifed locks make him somehow "more presidential" than Bush.

Sure, you can point out something Bush said that is inconsistent with a reality external to the debate.  But when a debater says two patently contradictory statements in the same debate, that reeks of intellectual bankruptcy of the highest order.

Good points! But in my humble opinion... I'm really troubled with Bush down-playing his lack of intellect

by means of trying to appear as a simple man.

You could say the same thing about Kerry when he down plays his true convictions in lieu of politics behind

a presidential race.

In the end, as far as the debates go,  Kerry is roughing

Bush's feathers. The president's innability to

control his emotions is responsible for drowning

his own image.

As much as it bothers you, I believe that Bush's non-intellectual style is one of his strong suits in the majority of America.

I really thought he balanced the anger and humor well to show a strong, but in-control, demeanor that would impress people.  Contrast that with Kerry, who tried to connect with people by telling them -- unconvincingly -- "I will fight for you."  He didn't connect emotively, he lectured and told people stuff, while Bush showed them stuff.