Couple of thoughts about the debate

[ewagner]

I've had a little time to think about what happened last night and a few observations should be made.

1. Cheney is quite possible the toughest opponent in the entire misadministration. He has tons of experience and is completely brutal. He has no conscience. Edwards more than held his own against a really tough opponent.

2. Any "points" that Cheney scored last night have been completely overshadowed by revelation that almost everything he said was a distortion, misrepresentation or outright lie.

3. The entire nation saw last night just who is REALLY running this country. Cheney's competence (in an evil, lying sense) makes Dubya look like the mental midget he really is. This cannot be good for the Bush/Cheney campaign.

4. Kerry/Edwards Campaign has some "cleanup" work to do this morning. They need to counter the "Senator Gone" statement from Cheney and expose his distortion of Edwards' attendence record.

Aside from that?

Those were two heavy-weights going at it last night. It was one helluva battle.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. i thought edwards did really well

we just got used to how kerry shattered bush. but cheney is no bush. i think edwards seemed sincere, honest and charming. cheney seemed more presidential than bush but still a liar.

[Boredtodeath]

2. It's really very simple

In Edwards, we saw hope, optimism and charm.

In Cheney, we saw more of the same mistakes.

In terms of voters not like us (heavily involved, politically astute) it was a big Edwards win.

[camby]

3. Cheney scored some points on Edwards' record

I also think he scored points on Kerry's voting against the first Gulf War. Edwards, however, scored points on the Halliburton connection. Cheney also scored points on the gay rights issue, because he kept his mouth shut and seemed (for an instant) almost human. But so did Edwards, so in that case it was a draw.
Cheney scored points with his putdowns, he's a real pro at that. Edwards scored points with his delivery style.

Cheney LOST with his delivery style, which was boring, monotonous, and at times downright sleep inducing. The mumbling into his folded hands bit was a real zero. He also lost points with his blatant or easily disprovable lies (the Iraq-Al Qaeda link denial, the claim to have never met Edwards, etc).

Edwards lost points because of the times he DIDN't go in for the kill (why oh why when Cheney was talking about his disappiontment at the administration's failure to bring the country together, did Edwards not mention the Leahy F*you incident? Why didn't he mention that he and Cheney had met before?). Edwards lost points when he did not defend his record in the Senate.

I think this debate is one that Republicans will see Cheney as winning and Dems will see Edwards as winning. I'm thinking that undecideds will go more for Edwards, just because he was a lot more engaging and easy to listen to. Cheney was utterly without charm, and as I said - a bore.

[goju]

4. A draw?

Am I the only one who saw a tie? I think cheney did alot better than I thought he would. That Edwards was able to fire back and hit on all the important points is a credit to his talent. But, if you look at it from an average joe position, I see a draw.

What did the pundints say?

[Supersedeas]

5. There is a stature gap & Edward should not have been close to holding

his own.

Not only did he hold his own, but following your boxing analogy, Edwards scored a TKO.

[BlueNomad]

6. Good stuff said...

To my eyes, it was a decent bout with both guys getting a fair amount of hits in (although I had a very difficult time with the low slow drone of Cheney which I think is employed to keep a hair trigger temper under control...). In my mind:

(1) Edwards had to do one thing and one thing only. Appear articulate, as though he had a grasp of the fundamental issues and arguments before the country, and to manage Cheney's ballyhooed "gravitas" (if I hear that f--cking word one more time I will dig a hole and jump in.) As far as I am concerned, he accomplished that fairly well. And frankly Cheney should have been able to slaughter Edwards and he did not remotely come close. Edwards gave him a tough run for his money.

(2)Put aside the who won argument for a moment and consider the following. Cheney has had some of the worst favorability ratings this country has seen in a VP in decades. In a nutshell, he is not perceived by the majority of Americans as a likable guy. Last night he used a splashy knife jab by saying he had not met Edwards until last night.

That lie--which is being refuted on TV. Bill Hemmer showed the full video on CNN this morning) with not merely the candidates in the same room but literally sitting next to each other and Cheney thanking Edwards for attending said breakfast is unreal. Obviously Cheney was arrogant enough to decide the juiciness of the jab was worth it.

The problem with us here (DU) is that we forget that who really matters now are the undecided, mostly women (and even the Democratic base NOT the republican base--they are sewn up and have been for a while).

It seems like such a small thing in comparison to troops and Iraq, Haliburton, etc.., but I cannot imagine that "Lie" along with the others are not going to seriously impair this duo with the fence sitters.

Folks who have not made up their minds are not the ones scared shitless to go out of their houses in the morning for fear that a bomb is going to blow them up and their kids in their SUVs. ... It's the disappointed, the distracted and the somewhat disaffected. Those persons are very likely to react negatively to pomposity, arrogance and overt lies. While Pat Buchanan and Jay Severn can say who cares and then laugh about it, I think it's a mistake--a big mistake. it screams arrogance which fuels the desire for change--change now.

(3) I also would not underestimate Edwards slamming the Bush Cheney administration on topics such as Meals on Wheels, job loss, the soaring costs of health care and voting against a Martin Luther King Holiday. etc... recent CBS polls --from the last debate--show respondents tiring of singular discussion on Iraq.

I know I have become an echo of myself, but the closer it gets to Election Day the more people will be thinking $2.00 gallon gas and $10,000 year health care and less about car bombs.

PS The funniest part of the night to me was watching Cheney attempt to extricate himself from his chair, a scary sight.

[donco6]

7. Point 3 seems to be resounding . . .

. . . which is odd, because I felt it was kinda low key during the debate. I keep hearing people ooh-ing and tsk-ing that fact.

[ewagner]

8. Good points....

nice analysis

You're right..........Cheney's ultra-conservative record will not resonate well with the people you described.

[BlueNomad]

9. the other thing

is two can play this game. I am not a baby by any means . I know what Cheney's congressional record looks like and it's not pretty. I think What Edwards is getting at is: Hey we can lay out some of your votes and the average moderate, hard working centrist is not going to go for it. I have already heard the word arrogant a few times this morning.

As of now, this is a game--- a delicate dangerous game. In the end one man's "gravitas" is another man's arrogance. When folks start saying, "Hmmm.... well, if you have so much experience, why are we in so much trouble?" You've got a real problem on your hands. That's the forest not the trees.

Cheney's whole wise old beach whale cum balding fat dowager appearance to me is not a good look. There is an --I am resolute look and then there is an I'm squatting here and nothing you can discuss with me --as the bombs fall down on my head--is going to make me give off my fat duff and rethink my error is another look. You should never look like you can't be reasoned with and given new information. Not good. And don't send the universe to factcheck and get only partial relief. That was arrogant and stupid.

[wardunn28]

10. good points <eom>