http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/05/opinion/polls/main647648.shtml (CBS) John Edwards continued the Democratic ticket’s winning streak in Tuesday night's vice presidential debate. He was judged the winner by uncommitted voters who watched the debate, just as John Kerry was last week. Forty-one percent of these uncommitted debate watchers said Edwards won the encounter, while 28 percent chose Vice President Dick Cheney. Another 31 percent thought it was a tie.
I watched part of it on CNN and while I think Cheney comes across as an old crook, I have to say I would have thought Edwards could do better than he did. He played into Cheney's hand way too much by constantly defending Kerry. He was put on the defensive from the beginning by Cheney.
I really liked Edwards in the primaries, but Cheney was very good and composed with his "facts" - of course I disagree with his interpreations... and he's just so darn EVIL or
it's official: i have no idea what WINNING a debate means...is comprised of...how it happens. no idea. if anyone watched that last night and thought the cheney "lost"...then i have no idea what losing is. i like edwards...i like edwards a lot. but cheney came across as more genuine and exceedingly presidential, himself. i can't imagine anyone watching that last night and thinking that edwards beat him.
they both did a fine job and both had strong arguments, and both hit their opponent at their weak points. They also both catered to their constituents, and if anything, confused the undecided voters with their double talk and different takes on the issues.
Cheney certainly didn't "lose" from an argument standpoint. He certainly pushed his message quite well. I thought he probably did better than Edwards, even if I disagree with most of them. But the guy came off like an arrogant ass. Edwards certainly got a big edge in terms sheer charisma, especially when you're talking about undecided independent voters.
I thought occasionally Cheney appeared arrogant and dismissive, but I thought on the whole, he seemed authorative, and like he knew exactly what he was doing. To me he seemed to be an experienced veteran of the government talking about what he knew well. The fact that at times he did come off as arrogant, only made it a draw rather than Cheney edging out a win. Edwards didnt' do bad, but it just seemed like he lacked the stature of Dick Cheney. I was shocked by polls showing Edwards the winner. I then figured the polls might show that but the media would talk about Cheney more as the winner. Instead many of the articles are focussing on the fact that Cheney made a zinger of a line, based on something that wasn't true, and it over shadowed his otherwise, solid performance.
One thing I know is this - Cheney did not lose the debate. It was not even a tie. Cheney did better IMHO. But all of that is mute point if you know what I mean.
I can't imagine anyone watching last night and thinking Cheney won. They both straight up lied but some of Cheneys' lies were just plain ridiculous. "I've never met you before", "I never said iraq had something to do with 911" I'd like to think that most people actually saw this although it's probably wishful thinking. Some of the messages on the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/3717918.stm
Madmax; I'm one of those who thought it was an Edward's blowout. To summarize. I looked at the debate as like a basketball match where I felt Cheney came out strong while Edwards struck me as being tentative and unfocused. By the second half though Cheney seemed to flag. In the fourth quarter I had the impression that Cheney was tired of the debate and was just going through the motions. While Cheney is never very active he seemed to slouch more, stammer more and fall back to reciting rote phrases than compared to how sharp he was in the first quarter. Also him failing to follow through on rebuttals I thought was weak because even if he thought he said what needed to be said in a political campaign it never hurts to use your time to repeat your message. Something that GW Bush does quite well and Edwards did masterfully. As for looking presidential I don't think either did. Cheney first looked like a bitter old man (as he often does) and then just a grumpy tired old man and Edward's struck me as trying to be too glib and cutesy at times. To borrow a cliche neither seemed ready for primetime.
I see it this way, either it was a tie, or Edwards won. If you're just watching the debate for point and counterpoint, it seems that both had their moments, and both appeared confident etc. From this viewpoint, seems like it was a tie. But standing back from the picture, you see some ridiculous comments on Cheney's part and some stinging blows from Edwards. I think Edwards' highlight was when he was attacking Cheney on Iraq. Cheney really had no chance in this position. Recently there have been all these reports from the government about all of Bush's failings, Colin Powell and Rumsfeld admitting mistakes, and then the Vice President says he wouldn't change a thing if he did it all over again. This was a huge defeat in my opinion, Cheney simply had no chance to win in this situation simply because of the recent news media going on. But more than that, Cheney is left with some ridiculous comments that he made. Many people realized that he was flat out lying the moment he said, I never suggested a connection between Saddam and Al Queda. This was ridiculous comment #1. Later, we find out ridiculous comment #2 was when Cheney said he never met Edwards. This WAS Cheney's brightest moment in the debate, but now it smears his credibility and it leaves everyone talking about what a liar (or senile) Cheney is and how mean he is. You don't want people talking about that after the debate. Most people prolly didn't even watch the debate, but the things they are hearing from the media is how ridiculous Cheney's comments are. Yes, Edwards stretched the truth just like Bush, Kerry, and any politician does, but to flat out lie on those two things I pointed out? To get caught on stretching the truth isn't that bad as getting caught in a flat out lie. They weren't even good lies, they were caught immediately by ordinary citizens like me. This is why I believe that Edwards wins because in the midst of the debate it seems they are tied, each going back and forth at each other, but stepping back from the debate and seeing the whole picture, Edwards wins for sure. That being said, Cheney did better than Bush and did well in revitalizing the Republicans again. Republicans are sure to be happy with this, but I think the Democrats are okay with that because the undecided voters have sided with Kerry/Edwards on this one.
I thought it was a tie. Cheney was more composed. That irritates me a bit as Edwards has been making his bread in front of juries, and I assumed he'd be spectacular in the point/counterpoint. Cheney clearly was in a bind trying to say they had done a good job the last four years. Poise to Cheney and substantive to Edwards. Also I am flabbergasted that Kerry/Edwards cannot seem to come up with a good soundbite. Edwards wasted no time in heavy hitting with the 'btw Cheney raised a gay daughter' bit and the haliberton comeback to Cheney's 'tax cheater' accusation but his answers came out almost as if he either couldn't remember what his responses were supposed to be or his on the fly adaptation was horrible. Question to Edwards: how do you respond when people say you are the least experienced? - 'I have more experience than George W. Bush did when he took office.' OR 'Bush's experience was composed of running companies into the ground before he became Governor, so what's your point?' Yes, I realize the second would not go over well, but the first is fine and to the point. Instead he says he's met with leaders of NAY-toe as if the average citizen gives a crap about that. Discouraging that the Democrats seemingly have forgotten to play hardball. As if being liberal means you have to be soft.
Bottom line: Who cares who won the debate? However, I think Cheney won, especially when he crucified that jackass Edwards on the fact he set himself to reduce his Mediscare taxes and yet complains about the "rich" like himself who don't pay their own fair share. Busted! Edwards came off as expected, slick, stylish and lacking of any sort of substance. He was owned, especially here: Edwards' response was so weak as to be meaningless. "I paid the taxes I owed" and what about Halliburton does not constitute a valid response to a strong set of facts. Doesn't he see the hyprocrisy in his claims that the rich aren't paying their fair share when he uses loopholes to not pay and yet his presidential candidate voted for raising the premimums on those less able to pay? Kerry and Edwards for the little guy? I don't think so. It just shows the plutocratic Dems for what they are: an aristocracy who plan to keep the serfs poor and voting for them.
