From: barich@bach.udel.edu (Dewey H Barich)
Subject: Re: Debate results
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:15:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.055354.14940@netcom.com> howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey) writes:
>My impression of the debate:
>
>
>SUMMARY
>
>CLINTON: Charismatic but confused

Good observation.  Remember that one response (sorry, forget the
specific question) where he stood there for 10 seconds or so, then
seemed to remember his planned response, and started the tape recorder
in his throat?  It just seems to me that he a Bush were playing the same
old song, hurt the other guy.

On the positive for them, they did not attack Perot... I think that
would be suicide for either.

>BUSH: Defensive, weak attacks, more civilized than expected but no real point

Agreed.  He did have a point, though.  "The cold war is over and we can
put James Baker to work on the homefront"  Perhaps he does have the
answers that we need, and I think the "New Congress" would be a big
help, but I don't think America wants to stay this course....

>PEROT: Strong agenda, ready to kick ass and take names
>

I think Perot did great!   As expected, no mud slinging, no rhetoric (he
has none, yet -- a few years to go).  Some are concerned that he has no
specific plans.  I think this is fine.  I certainly have no idea how to
fix the problems we have, nor will I until I can go to DC and look
around and see what's happening.  I believe we need someone who will
take each problem and deal with it.  Some are bigger than others, some
will be easier than others to solve, but how can you have a specific
plan if you don't know the specific problem?  That's why you get into
office, to find out the specifics (or at least more of them).

>Clinton maintained his image but failed to make any real ground.  Seemed 
>visibly surprised by Perot's influence on the debate.  Made good points
>on drug (non)-issue and defense.  Thwarted lame Bush attacks.

All I've ever seen in Clinton is a man who knows what the listeners want
to hear.  Perhaps it's just me, but that's all I see.  

>Perot came off as the big winner.  Basically stole each of the other 
>candidate's thunder.  Elaborated on plans to enact immediately upon election.

I can't say he was the big winner, but certainly Bush is way behind.
Maybe Bush supporters will swing to Perot's side and make the Perot vs.
Clinton race interesting.

I was pleased to hear his "as soon as I get elected" portion.  It
suggests to me real commitment to solving the problems.  I also like
that he (unlike any other candidate in recent history) will owe nothing
to anyone (except those who voted for him).  I've heard so many people
in my lifetime say they'd prefer to see a candidate who would not owe
favors while in office.  Now they have one and they are not (YET)
supporting him.  It's like they just want to find something to blame
others in office for, but retract when they want to get someone they
want in office.   Oh, well.  So much for consistency.  


Overall, I must say that Perot has done his campaign a bunch of good
here.  I'd like to see the polls (for what little they are worth) after
the VP debates.


Lastly, is it just me or is Perot the only one that gives unpolished
responses?  His do not seem to be previosly planned, short of the
factual input.  This suggests to me that those responses are exactly
where he is coming from, whereas the others I cannot tell.  Perhaps it
is, perhaps it isn't.

I'm not willing to take that risk.


Dewey

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc