Interesting, Bush is such a boob that I found myself starting to like Cheney simply for his appearance of competence. If the Republicans had a brain between them, they would have give Bush the heave-ho and put McCain in as the candidate.
H.
This debate made it clear that there are three capable politicians in this race.
In retrospect, I think Kerry manhandled Bush. I thought it was closer at first but I think that might have been me just being impressed that Bush was even halfway competent.
This debate… a lot closer - a tie, in fact. Edwards is a much better fighter than Kerry and he should be counting himself lucky b/c Cheney was really good. They hammered each other without mercy. As far as American political debates go, this was a street fight.
No clear winner.
I think that Edwards gets points for going onto kitchen table issues and attempting to bring out the domestic issues.
Cheney wandered off into wonkery on too many occasions.
In retrospect Edwards had a lot more to gain out of this then Cheney did. He showed that he deserves to sit at the table, while the best Cheney could do is show that he knew some stuff about some stuff. And I don’t think he did that too well. Edwards was able to have a comeback for many of Cheney’s attacks, and he kept their momentum going.
Cheney delivered the performance expected, sticking to the official line and not doing much unexpected. Edwards held his own, showed that he did deserve to sit at the same table as Cheney, and most importantly he answered the charges laid by Cheney with answers you don’t hear often in the mainstream. I am thinking especially about Cheney’s voting record and the administrations own “flip-flops”. It was a rough, mean debate.
So I call it for Edwards. He needed to make himself known and he did so effectively and got some messages through that needed to be heard.
I agree with this, except I call it for Cheney. He did so much better than Bush that lots of people will just assume that he won.
Good point antlers. I think Edwars won, but Cheney was really decent, and 1000X better than Bush was. If people compare him to Bush more than Edwards, they’ll think he won (Which, er, makes him win? or something.)
So you’re arguing that if Cheney was running against Bush he’d win?
If you want points on “people assuming” they’ll probably go for the smiling guy talking right to them rather than the scowling guy reeling off policy details.
Having said that I think we’ll see only a small shift, but it was another good night for the Kerry campaign.
Dull debate, pretty much he said, she said. Ifill did a terrible job. She couldn’t keep any order to the conversation, and let both candidates wander between questions.
Worst question of the night: “Senator Kerry is from Massachusetts. Isn’t there a tension between his view on gay marriage and that fact that the state allows it?”
Edwards kind of stammered over it, because it was meaningless point. Rephrased, it goes “Isn’t it weird that your boss is against gay marriage and that the juidicial branch of the state which he happens to represent in the Senate found that the state’s constitution doesn’t support a ban on gay marriage?”
I think Edwards was a big winner and here’s why: He’s a lawyer. He’s well versed in explaining, very clearly, issues to large groups of stupid people. That’s why he spent so much time making it clear that there was no connection between Saddaam and 9/11. He wasn’t talking to people on this forum, he was talking to the 40% of the geniuses in this country who think this to be true.
Rhetorically, I’ll give the debate a 2 out of 10, and for the first time I understood why Kerry is running to be boss and Edwards is running to boss Jr. And Cheney…I wish he’d just release the hounds already and get it over with.
Hah, apparently during the debate Cheney told the audience to go to “factcheck.com” for the truth. He was supposed to say “factocheck.org.” “.com” went so some college reference site, but billionaire George Soros did a quick little deal and bought the address during the debate. Go to factcheck.com now and it directs to georgesoros.com.
And that entire bullshit about Cheney never having met Edwards until tonight, even though he’s the president of the senate, is complete bullshit, because the Democratic National Committee is already circulating video and photos of the two together at a prayer breakfast.
And to add insult to injury, here’s what’s up on factcheck.org right now:
Bush Mischaracterizes Kerry’s Health Plan
Bush claims Kerry’s plan puts “bureaucrats in control” of medical decisons, “not you, not your doctor.” But experts don’t agree with that.
It’ll be interesting to see how the various statements made by each side tally against the actual facts. Of course, by then the substance of the debates will have been largely forgotten, so it may be moot.
It was like the first presidential debates reversed; Edwards had the better presentation (by far), but Cheney showed a better grasp of the Big Issue. I felt Edwards got his ass handed on Iraq/national security, while Cheney was meandering and didn’t really have much to say on the domestic stuff.
And that entire bullshit about Cheney never having met Edwards until tonight, even though he’s the president of the senate, is complete bullshit, because the Democratic National Committee is already circulating video and photos of the two together at a prayer breakfast.
Edwards probably should’ve said something about that during the debate, don’t ya think?
http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/Cheney-Edwards.jpg
Still doesn’t change the fact that Cheney is a bald-faced liar, dontcha think?
It was a zinger that could have been easily deflected, and Edwards made no response. That’s all I’m saying.
The most telling moment for me was about health care and trial lawyers, and I never would have guessed that would be the moment. During this, Edwards did that old political trick of mentioning a real person’s name, only instead of mentioning some stranger he met one time in Poughkeepsie, he talked of a girl named Valerie (I think) he represented as a lawyer. Even though this is an old tactic (hilariously lampooned on SNL during the 2000 debate w/r/t Gore and health care), he made the story clear, personal, and pointed.
In rebuttal, Cheney mentioned a airplane manufacturing company in Minnestota and its difficulties with liability insurance. He mentioned that “he” could hire 200 more people if blah blah blah. Cheney never mentioned who “he” was, but he did know that the company manufactured piston driven aircraft.
So…one guy is about looking after people. One guy is about looking after companies. Couldn’t be clearer.
My other favorite moment was when Edwards FINALLY called Cheney on that weapons systems thing. It’s about time someone called him on that. His response. Nothing.
Calling this as a draw is foolish. Sorry. Calling this debate dull is foolish. It dragged near the end, but overall I was rivetted. While Cheney was not nearly as lame as Bush, he lost the debate. Hands down. While Edwards was not perfect and dodged his share of questions, he clearly won. Hands down.
-Amanpour
It’s in the eye of the beholder. I’ve seen several posts on more right-leaning forums claiming that Cheney ‘destroyed’ Edwards. Yet others on left-leaning forums claiming that Edwards ‘kicked ass’. Those who are firmly entrenched in the left and right will see, hear and interpret through filters and I think it’s safe to say that none of these people will have had their minds changed by tonight’s debate. How the undecideds react to the debate is what really matters and that remains to be seen.
It’s summarized thusly:
Cheney: You’re an incompetent Senator!
Edwards: You’re an incompetent foreign policy wonk!
Audience! Yup, they’re incompetent.
However, check this out:
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=272