For the record i describe myself as a moderate.
First the Pro's:
Bush, he made continued use of his campaigns label for Kerry of 'flip flop' without ever using the term. I do think he's closer to right on negotiating with North Korea on anti proliferation.
Kerry, was prepared, he stated decisively (as defined in politics) what his vision is for foreign policy. He clarified his positions. Was crisp, clear, and appeared confident.
Kerry: For the purpose of swaying the middle ground he probably should not have leaned so heavily on the UN walking stick.
Bush: Appeared defensive, his body language was very closed. He relied on the same several lines. Instead of answering several questions or rebutting the Jr Senator from Ma, he jumped back to "What kind of message", or one of the other canned Kerry Bashes.
Two more debates between these two, and one between the undercarders.
What in the world is with professors who feel the need to see the bibliography for papers that have yet to be written? Seriously, this is like asking a builder to give you an estimate before they even take a look at the building site, or even the blueprints for your house. I can almost understand it for first year level classes. But in my less than humble opinion anyone taking second year or later classes that can't pick reasonable sources deserves to fail. Period. If you don't know that Grampa Ned's diary, who lived " 'round the hollar " in Toadstoes Tennessee and refers to anything past third grade as 'higher education'. Believes that Lincoln was personally running around with a pair of bolt cutters freeing slaves, swiving widows, and spitting in the faces of True Southern Gentlemen isn't a good source for your history paper you flat out don't need to be in college and should probably consider a career in politics since you are already divorced from reality.