VP Debate Response

[yesthattom]

I was disappointed by Cheney’s performance at the VP Debate. Cheney was smug, arrogant and mean. Some bloggers are saying he was “defensive” and I disagree. Edwards definitely had him on the run and was in control of the debate the entire time. However, he was never “defensive”. Instead, he kept repeating and repeating facts that had already been debunked making himself look totally out of touch with reality in Iraq and totally out of touch with the struggles of the middle class.
Defensive would have been an improvement.

Comments

[syringavulgaris.livejournal.com]

Overheard on the PATH:

guy #1: so how was the debate?
guy #2: They were both better than Bush.

[kimuchi.livejournal.com]

In my imagination, Cheney's mission in this debate was to reassure the informed, intelligent Republican voter that there is someone more together than Bush on this ticket. He was well prepared with the party line that the Republican voter has been hearing on all of his preferred media, and he spoke in complete sentences. He also had to wave the experience gap card at the nervous undecideds, which I think he did. I do think he looked arrogant/bored a good bit of the time, but I think that may have played into the "look, they're making me debate this whippersnapper" message for the sympathetic demographic.

Personally, I think the man is probably too smart for some of the things he said (certainly conflating every "bad guy" into one monolithic blob of "terrorists"), but he wasn't there to show off his intelligence, he was there to advance the ticket.

All in all, I don't know if I'd call this a win for Edwards. I think Edwards did a great job, and he certainly made points *I* wanted to hear, and countered Cheney's non-truths will well-prepared rebuttals...but I'm already going to vote for Kerry/Edwards, and I'm not sure a Bush/Cheney supporter would agree with me on Edwards' success.

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

Good points all.

You might want to check out factcheck.org more about Cheney's non-truths. Ironically this is the site that Cheney meant to say during the debate. He accidentally said ".com" instead, which happens to be George Soros' anti-Bush web site.

disappointed in edwards

[cos]

I was very disappointed with Edwards, but I also think he did a little better than Cheney in this debate. My biggest frustration is that Edwards was given several chances to address his and Kerry's vote on the $87 billion authorization, and he just didn't do it. why?!?! This claim is everywhere, it's really hurting them, the real explanation is simple and reasonable, and neither Kerry nor Edwards ever even try. This debate was a perfect opportunity, and Edwards totally flubbed it.

Cheney's biggest problem in the debate is that so many of the things he said weren't true - so how poorly he is considered to have done will depend a lot on how much the media concentrates on fact-checking the debate in the next few days.

[labrown.livejournal.com]

I was stunned to see Cheney admit total ignorance about the AIDS statistic the moderator hit him with during her question about AIDS management within the U.S. He admitted being ignorant of the statistic, and then went off about AIDS in Africa instead of answering her question.

[cos]

Actually, admitting he didn't know something was one of Cheney's bright spots in the debate, IMO. He came off as very knowledgeable about policy details, and it was good to see that he could admit to not knowing something. Imagine if Bush could do that.

Too bad half of what Cheney acted like he knew, was full of lies.

But I won't fault him for not knowing that particular statistic, and actually saying so was one of the few things he did that I respected.

[labrown.livejournal.com]

OK. I can see that position and respect it. Yer right that Bush would never have admitted ignorance.