We will get to see it here, about an hour after I get home from work, in fact. Yay.
:D
I haven’t been impressed with what I’ve seen of Edwards to date. He’s a bit like Clinton but nowhere near as sharp, as fluid, as adaptable.
I guess he must be good from his trial lawyer days; just saying I haven’t seen it yet. Debate should be interesting but I think Cheney wins this one. A lot of people respond to his persona as “a serious dude in a serious time.”
Ultimately it comes down to the fact that Cheney doesn’t have a record to run on.
People think that they have another option besides attacking, but they don’t. And the kind of word twisting and semantic games are exactly the kind of lies that lawyers eat for lunch.
I don’t doubt that we’ll see some counter-spin from the press to try and keep up the “horse race” meme.
NBC had Edwards on right after the Bush-Kerry debate to provide Democratic spin, and he didn’t do such a good job. I’ve watched him speak a couple of times and never been that impressed.
Wow, great debate so far.
“Gwen, I’m sorry, this question was about jobs? I could have sworn you said it’s about jobs, but it seems the VP spoke about education.”
Scowly VS Blinky. FIGHT!
Poor, poor, Dick Cheney. That is all.
You watching? Do you really think Edwards is doing well?
Edwards is a lawyer, the truest of “my cause for hire” types. He’s onboard with whatever they tell him.
Too close to call. Interesting debate…but strange. Lots of weaving and bobbing. Lots of tangents and ignoring the specific question. Which is understandable considering the strange questions. Too many factors working in both directions to give one person a convincing win.
To the spinmobile!
You watching? Do you really think Edwards is doing well?[/quote]
I think he’s winning… marginally. It’s really back and forth though, so it’ll probably end up a draw.
Edwards is a lawyer, the truest of “my cause for hire” types. He’s onboard with whatever they tell him.[/quote]
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH
They’re seriously kicking the shit out of each other.
You watching? Do you really think Edwards is doing well?[/quote]
I think he’s winning… marginally. It’s really back and forth though, so it’ll probably end up a draw.[/quote]
I think Edwards is definitely more charming, but he’s also fucking up more.
You watching? Do you really think Edwards is doing well?[/quote]
Yeah, and as you know, Jeff, I’m fairly biased as it is but Cheney’s just getting whupped. He’s got some catch phrases and a couple one-shot streetfighting moves but ultimately he’s getting painted as a guy who misrepresents consistantly the reality about the war in Iraq. And that’s just the least of it. He’s the former CEO of a corporation that did business in Libya and Iran as late as 2000 while also lobbying for lowering sanctions against Iran. Cheney’s old congressional voting record also looks similiar to that of Darth Vader’s now: against freeing Nelson Mandela, against a Martin Luther King Holliday, against Meals-On-Wheels for Seniors and Headstart. Oh, and one of only four voting against a law to ban the sale of plastic firearms (the X-Ray invisible type).
Edwards has also done a pretty credible job defending Kerry and clarifying positions.
That said, Cheney had a couple good moments when he fired off statistics or statements that Edwards didn’t seem prepared to counter. On the other hand, he was forced into avoiding topics or just not responding himself as much or more often.
Some will probably call it a draw and that’s a defensible statement but I tend to think even a draw isn’t good enough for Cheney. He’s getting crushed on every really serious issue and only getting in licks on minor points.
Only if you take everything Edwards says as perfectly true and assume everything Cheney says is false and twisted. The average voter won’t. The average voter will conclude that they’re both twisting facts to suit each other, that Edwards has managed the seemingly impossible feat of making Cheney look like an optimist, and will have switched over to watch the baseball game halfway through.
Chris Matthews seems to think Cheney “obliterated” Edwards so what do I know? On the other hand CNN’s commentators seem to think it was a draw or favored Edwards. I guess we’ll have to wait and see which way the bump falls when the polls come out.
Only if you take everything Edwards says as perfectly true and assume everything Cheney says is false and twisted. The average voter won’t. The average voter will conclude that they’re both twisting facts to suit each other, that Edwards has managed the seemingly impossible feat of making Cheney look like an optimist, and will have switched over to watch the baseball game halfway through.[/quote]
I don’t necessarily take everything Edwards says as true but Cheney’s got a pretty good track record of completely distorting reality so that is factored into how I interpret things. Like I said, I’m biased. But I like to think that bias comes from having paid close attention to the issues for the last three or four years.
Along with the ‘bump’ another thing I’ll be very much looking forward to will be the fact-checking stories that come out.
From flip-flopping around the post-debate coverage, I noticed an interesting theme that has nothing to do with the debate itself…a subtle mockery of spin. Not even so subtle on ABC. I wonder if the extreme partisans from either side will catch on to the fact that their credibility is declining dangerously close to zero, and decide to tone things down a notch.