THE VP DEBATE
Mr. Solid vs. Mr. Smooth was, yes, a draw.
More interesting, perhaps, was this telling comment from CNN media/political analyst Jeff Greenfield on the ridiculous "Spin Alley" sideshow that follows these debates:
This whole notion of people from each campaign pouring into this area to claim that their guy won — it would be a great idea if we could abolish that. The day somebody comes out from a campaign and says, "My guy really stunk up the joint" I will personally write that person a check for $100. This is the most useless exercise in post-modern media coverage that I know of and I think, really, enough's enough. It's a joke, and we should just cut it out.
posted by Chuck Olsen @ 10:49 PM |
| 
8 Comments:
I disagree that it was a draw.
Cheney and Edwards were much more evenly matched that Bush and Kerry (with Bush looking even worse by comparison) but I would give the slight edge to Edwards on substance and likeablity.
Plus, Cheney crapped out so many half-truths, mistruths, and out and out lies that the post-debate fact checking is going to go heavily against him.
Fighting against Cheney's lies was like Edwards fighting with one hand behind his back, but he managed to back Cheney into a corner on several issues, especially gay marriage.
On the debate itself, I thought it was terrible. Gwen Ifill was a terrible moderator and the questions were stupid. The format was also awful, and allowed whoever went last to dominate the question.
BTW, CBS's polling is giving Edwards the edge, according to Brad DeLong.
Okay, you convinced me. :-)
I think there were times when Edwards skirted or didn't answer questions, but overall did a good job of calling Cheney on his lies.
I couldn't help but think about old people watching the debate and favoring Cheney, just from his old-school crotchety matter-of-factness, Then again, if my grandma were alive, she'd be swooning for Edwards.
Overall, I agree it was a pretty crappy debate. Sitting down was a nice change of pace. Asking both candidates to comment on John Edwards fitness for VP was ridiculous. She seemed overly interested in character issues and their attacks on each other, and how they personally felt about them.
I only watched the unbearable first 45 minutes, during which Edwards just repeated the *exact* same lines dropped by Kerry last Thursday. I just couldn't believe it, I felt almost embarrassed for the guy.
Also it was stone boring, the initial questions were laughable ("What is a global test if it's not a global veto?" wha?), and Edwards didn't seem much more charismatic than the pickle-weaned bunker rodent sitting to his right.
Apparently it got better, though, from what I'm seeing in the transcript...
It was telling that Edwards had trouble not mentioning Kerry's name when he was supposed to talk about his own merits.
A disturbing Cronenbergesque thought: John Edwards was Kerry's surrogate... lierally, his handsome appendage. Conversely, Bush is actually Dick Cheney's cowboy appendage. They're hybrid freakish creatures, doing battle.
I thought Cheney looked qualified, responsible, in charge. I thought we saw the real President. His wonkish mastery of issues and bureaucratic kung-fu are his strengths. For that reason, I give him the edge in tonights debate. But it's a small edge and won't have a material impact on the election.
Edwards held his own by refusing to let Cheney build rosy Operation-Iraqi-Freedom-will-build-the-middle-east into-a-land-of-spun-gold arguments. Edwards also stuck in the knife on Halliburton. He made Cheney out to be a real ogre. I mean, did he really vote against Meals on Wheels?
I found Cheney's closing argument to be a continuation of his typical morose fear mongering. It completely turned me off. Edwards really connects with the camera. I think that was strong.
I can't wait for Friday. It will be fascinating to see if Bush can pull his head out in time to make sense.
Ifill may have made some mistakes, but no other moderator would have asked the brilliant question about black women in the U.S. and HIV/AIDS. It demonstrated the shameful ignorance on this issue of not only a candidate for the office of Vice President, but the goddamn sitting VP. In my mind, all her flubs were worth it in order to see the candidates' complete breakdown on this question and to demonstrate their complete lack of concern for critical issues confronting women of color in the U.S. today.
the only reason that it was even close was that Cheney JUST MAKES SHIT UP!
if he had been restricted to the truth he would have had his ass handed to him on a plate. i could win a debate against anyone if i could make shit up, too, and have no one call me on it until the next day (or at all). many who saw the debate aren't going to hear about the lies that Cheney told. I don't suspect that Fox is spending too much time going over them today.
They need a team of fact checkers on site at the debates so that the candidates can be called on their lies right then instead of the in the post debate discussions.
Post a Comment
<< Home