October 06, 2004

• Any chance we could keep the debate stuff here? No? Okey dokey then.
• more or less a draw.
• My thoughts here. Neither candidate was particularly impressive, I thought.
• Both were playing to their base, and both scored some points against the other. Overall, I think they both did fine. The one overall thing that left an impression on me was that Edwards defended himself and Kerry against every attack, while Cheney just let several pretty big ones slide right by without comment. After people have had time to digest what they saw and heard, I think he'll regret that.
• What I found particularly interesting is the cnn.com poll on their front page which asked who people felt won the contest. It was Edwards with 82, Cheney with 14 or 15, and They Were Even with 3 or 4. Edwards had 48,000 votes at that point. When I returned ten minutes later to see if he percentages were holding strong, cnn.com changed the question to: Did the vice-presidential debate help you decide which way you will vote? Gee, I wonder what the reason for the sudden change of poll question could be.
• I thought Cheney did the job one would have expected from Bush in round 1 and both candidates avoided being put on the defensive and stayed on the offense. As an old debater though, I would give the debate edge to Edwards. He was connected more with "the common man" with his stories of Isreal, defending the little girl in the lawsuit, and the closing statement while portraying the Republicans on the side of the insurance companies and HMOs (etc). I think he also gave more credit to the voters ("they don't have to be told what they saw in the first Presidential debate", "i trust the voters to see the differences"). His attack of Cheney's House voting record went aimed especially at minority voters, while his story/answer on Isreal appealed strongly to the votes of Isreali supporters. I think both played very strongly to their bases, but I think Edwards may have given the swing voters more positive things to think about, while Cheney left them with an image of Halliburton and a nuclear weapon going off in a major city. I would score the debate very close but a slight edge to Edwards. Given Cheney's experience and the fact that he is the incumbant, I think even a tie would have been a bad for the current administration.
• I agree with STP that Cheney's inability to use his rebuttal time in several instances was also bad debate form and results in the loss of debate points. Edwards also played the gay marriage question perfectly, leaving Cheney to thank Edwards for his kind words and little to say in defense of the President's position.
• Fox News's website poll, in response to Who won Tuesday night's vice presidential debate?, has Edwards in a slight lead, 52% to 47%.
• This debate felt to me like a Magic the Gathering game. (I kept waiting for them to get into a Counterspell war. Wouldn't that be sweet?) I think Cheney actually doesn't want the constitutional ban. He even said it is a states-rights issue.
• Bernockle, the CNN question is still there and the results are here. It may be possible that CNN has revolving poll questions, but I reloaded the page several times and got the "Which candidate won the Vice Presidential debate" each time.
• He doesn't want a constitutional ban. He's been fairly clear on that issue. This is really the only major issue on which he strays away from the GOP's party line. It is, I think, to be commended.
• Fair enough. I am still getting the other question for whatever reason. Damn. Am I going to have shelf yet another of my conspiracy theories?
• bernockle, don't give up your conspiracy theories yet! I'm in a strongly Bush state, so maybe they are skewing it by allowing in only IP address to geographical areas that might level out the poll to some degree. Others get diverted to the poll you see. : ) : ) : )
• Slight edge for Edwards. But no one votes for vice president, not even thier mothers.
• Slight edge for Edwards. But no one votes for vice president, not even thier mothers.
• Slight edge for Edwards. But no one votes for vice president, not even thier mothers.
• Great blow-by-blow, round by round scoring by Keith Olbermann on MSNBC.
• SO, it seems that the 'tell' is that Edwards wanted to drag Cheney's daughter into the mudpit, and Cheney valiantly took the high road. This clearly shows that Edwards is unfettered by decency. Would you, America, vote for a man who would use your own children as weapons against you?
• But wait, here is Andrew Sullivan's early take: "If last Thursday night's debate was an assisted suicide for president Bush, this debate - just concluded - was a car wreck. And Cheney was road-kill. There were times when it was so overwhelming a debate victory for Edwards that I had to look away." Does anyone else feel that way?
• fuyugare, in a word, yes, especially when your own father can't take a stand on your rights. Let me rephrase that, FUCK yes!
• PS: Unlike Edwards, Cheney didn't drink a sip of water. In fact, Cheney doesn't need food or drink at all, as he is an automaton.
• fuyugare, I don't understand why you're painting this as a right/wrong thing. Couldn't both men be respected for their positions? It's not like they differ in any substantial ways. Edwards stated that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, only he says individual states should be able to decide the matter for themselves. Cheney pretty much takes the same position -- only I haven't heard him say whether or not he believes marriage ought to be strictly heterosexual.
• Dick Cheney is a Sausage-Eating Giant Monkey with a battle rating of 7.2. John Edwards is a Rock-Eating Surrender Monkey with a battle rating of 0.0. Bummer. However, George Bush is a Plastic-Eating Sumo Monkey with a battle rating of 5.6. John Kerry is a Plastic-Eating Attack Monkey with a battle rating of 5.8. George W Bush is a Dirt-Eating Attack Monkey with a battle rating of 5.9. Hmm... I'd say it's in the margin of error. Tied race, too early to call it.
• Who cares who won when Andrew Sullivan is hot for Chenron's bod? "They'll both be seated at a table, immediately allowing Cheney to do his assured, paternal, man-of-the-world schtick that makes me roll on my back and ask to have my tummy scratched. (Yes, I do think that Cheney is way sexier than Edwards. Not that you asked or anything.)"
• "And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam Hussein worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait [in 1991], but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq..." -- Dick "Fuck Yourself" Cheney, 1992
• Cheney lied about meeting Edwards
• Cheney lied about meeting Edwards
• I thought it was pretty even in terms of the debate, but I felt that I was getting a lot of insight into Cheney. I've come to the conclusion that he doesn't like George W. Bush, and probably hasn't for such a long time that faking it comes naturally. And did anyone else feel sorry for Cheney for a split-second when he was discussing the rift between dems and repubs? As you'd feel momentarily sorry for a bully who is just realizing that the other kids don't like him? Good of Edwards to snap me out of it by pointing out that the rift was entirely planned for by the administration. Bonus comment from the other thread: "Freedom means freedom for everyone - except Nelson Mandela."
• Anyone watch it? What's your take? And do you think it will affect the vote? I saw it. Santana looked ok but got lucky with all those double plays. Yankees could be in troub...huh? what? VP debates? Ohhhh. Never mind.
• Freen, it isn't okay for people to change their positions after they receive new information or the situation changes? Not saying it isn't true, but this strikes me as the same brand of stupid the Republicans have been slinging.
• My instant reaction was that Cheney won on foreign policy- not on the facts, but rhetorically. Edwards won on facts and debate technique on domestic policy, I thought. When I saw the photo of Edwards and Cheney together in 2001, though, it meant that tomorrow's post debate will be focused on Cheney's trouble with honesty, which is great. Even that wasn't my favorite part, though- it was reading that Cheney accidentally sent millions of viewers to Soros' strongly worded anti-Bush site, factcheck.com
• Now that's schadenfreude.
• jimbecile, that's frickin' awesome Cheney did that. But I do feel some sympathy for the prick, since I can't keep track of whether a site is .com, .net, or org.
• I fell asleep. Again. What I did see, didn't impress me much - Cheney was his usual master of evil, evading questions, etc., while Edwards was like a yippy little attack dog. Cheney was a bit more articulate. Edwards should have been a bit more organized.
• Even factcheck.org isn't going to help Cheney much. As of today, the top article is "Bush Mischaracterizes Kerry's Health Plan", and not "Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton".
• Smo: That's precisely my point. Cheney is himself guilty of that curse of democrats everywhere, Thought. He must, however, make up for the failure that is his boss, whose little mind is suffering from the hobgoblin of a foolish consistency. I think last night was a step closer to retirement for that old crook.
• For me, Edwards had Cheney on the ropes at the beginning. His attacks were powerful and his statemtent of the problems in Iraq was clear. Then Edwards reminded me why I can't stand him. His good-ol-boy routine grates, which is something of an achievement, considering he really is a good-ol-boy. I watched it in a local coffeehouse. When he started evading questions at the 75 minute mark to work in his remaining talking points, everyone got bored and stopped watching. Verdict: marginally for Edwards in my book, because it's hard to lose an popularity contest with Terminator 4.
• I must now go stab my eyes out with rusty knitting needles while muttering "Curse you, Tinfoil Sorting Hat". The horror ... the horror ...
• I completely disagree with fuyugare's take on Edwards' mention of Cheney's daughter. IMO, Edwards was not at all using Cheney's daughter against him. Rather, he seemed to me to be, of all things, kind in that moment, to be acknowledging the difficult position Cheney was in, what with Cheney disagreeing with Bush on the no-gay-marriages Constitutional Amendment issue. Contrast this with Cheney's rudeness during the closing-statements portion of the debate, when, after Edwards had thanked him in his closing statement, our Vice President pointedly ignored Edwards while doing his own thank-yous. What an ass! But I shouldn't have expected anything more from a politician who has said voting for Kerry makes it more likely the terrorists will attack the U.S. Mark my words: The pollsters have got it wrong this time. The Bush/Cheney ticket's positions on the war and the tax cuts are basically indefensible, the American people know it, and the influx of newly registered voters into the picture is going to mean Kerry will win handily, perhaps even by a landslide.
• FactCheck.com Gold. I know he meant org, but it's too funny that he said com.
• At one point, I stopped hearing the words and could only focus on their ties. Did anyone else notice that Cheney's tie looked like it was tied by a bumbling teenager while Edwards' tie looked perfect? /pointless observation
• pivo wins.
• On style points alone, it was a draw. However, if Edwards's point that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 finally sticks in the days to come, Edwards will have won in retrospect. I was endlessly fascinated by watching Cheney. It was like watching satan himself. I don't think I have ever seen a better liar. The man can say virtually anything and sell it with unshakable conviction.
• Now I'm a big Kerry/Edwards supporter--not just an ABBA guy, but seriously a Kerry supporter--but I have to say I don't think Edwards came off that well last night. His constant repetitions of the "The reality is" construction seemed knee-jerk and scripted, much like Bush's statements Thursday. But mostly, let's face it--Chaney may be evil, but he's smart, and he has a certain gravitas that Edwards frankly lacks. Cheney's ability to actually quote statistics and facts (even when distorting their interpretation) was impressive. Edwards, to my mind, often seemed kind of slight. Agreed though that my favorite moment of the night was after Edwards had gone on for two minutes about how the Gay Marriage ban was unnecessary, was being used as a political tool to divide the nation, and we shouldn't be closing off the possibility of civil unions, Cheney's only reaction was a thank you for the kind words about his daughter. That's what those in the business like to call TACIT AGREEMENT. It was the only point in the evening when I even started to suspect there was a human being lurking under there. Like I say, I wanted Edwards to win. I wanted Cheney to explode in a shower of sparks. But it didn't happen--hate to say it, but I think Cheney came off better. :(
• I also enjoyed Cheney's plug for Soros's site. I think these guys are subtly trying to throw the election without pissing off their contributors. I mean, after securing huge forward American military bases in the mideast (outside of Saudi), and Halliburton on the ground in Iraq, why not get out now and let Kerry deal with the mess? /Conspiracy
• Tenacious Pettle. Dang, you just wrote the post that I was about to write almost word for word. I also didn't think Edwards came off that well, despite being a firm Kerry/Edwards supporter. Cheney was unflappable, and Edwards annoyed me the several times he got confused by the debate format or debate question, and how we kept saying "I hope we will get to talk about X at some point tonight". I think Edwards did get some important points across, but I would give style points to Cheney simply on the basis of his polished and calm debate style. He certainly has a great command of language, and is very precise in his speaking. In fact, when Cheney had to go "on message" and deliver the stock phrases like "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time" it just sounded false, because he is so clearly capable of expounding on the subject more eloquently in his own words. Anyway, I am glad others had a more positive reaction to Edwards last night. Did anyone else notice that when Edwards is speaking, it always appears that the words are out of sync with his mouth?
• I would so do Edwards... oh yeah, and he won.
• I'm also a kerry/edwards supporter, and so are the other people I watched the debate with. The general concensus last night was along the same lines as kimdog and pettle. I'm a little surprised at how many people perceived edwards as winning. Maybe we're just being harder on the guy because we're vested in the outcome. In Edwards's defense, he was more charismatic. I know he stumbled a bit, but he looked like a pro compared to bush. And cheney, on the other hand, was calm, but completely devoid of personality. So, if you're looking for edwards to deliver a knock out, you may be disappointed, but if you're a casual viewer, I can see how you'd come away with a much better view of edwards than cheney. I liked the part at the end when edwards talked about nice warm fuzzy family stuff, and cheney told scary stories about chemical weapons being brought into the country.
• Read an article earlier saying the real shock was not the difference between Cheney and Edwards, but the difference between Cheney and Bush. And they wonder why people think Dick is really running things...
• Yeah, I tend to think Cheney is one of those intelligent conservatives that just sees the world differently, as Bill Clinton suggested, whereas I'm not sure Bush sees the world at all.
• I'm kind of curious about Cheney's comment that a nuclear weapon blast in the US would kill "hundreds of thousands" of Americans. Doesn't that seem kind of low, especially if a bomb hit NY or LA?
• I think I know why Cheney didn't defend himself. Defending yourself puts you on the defensive, which is a position only the weak and lowly take. I don't agree with this chain of thought, but I'm sure that's how his mind works. Cheney can't even concieve of answering to dem, or to the rest of the US, since we're all beneath him.
• John Edwards was Katelyn Faber to Cheney's Kobe. so wrong, and yet so funny. author On preview: Among many, many considerations, it mainly depends on the yield of the nuke as to casualty figures.
• cabingirl, that was probably a "conservative" figure. hehehe
• My favorite part was when Cheney battled Godzilla and the studio got trashed.
• On waking up this morning, the BBC were stating that Cheny "won" the debate. So, there's your international angle. It'll be interesting to see if they change this viewpoint for this evenings news.
• I'm kind of curious about Cheney's comment that a nuclear weapon blast in the US would kill "hundreds of thousands" of Americans. Doesn't that seem kind of low, especially if a bomb hit NY or LA? Oh fuck yes. That is, if the bomb had a large yield. A smaller yield bomb or a dirty bomb would kill in the tens or hundreds of thousands, even in a large metro area. So in that respect, Cheney is somewhat accurate.
• I was stunned (in a good way) when Edwards said he & Kerry would clamp down on prescription drug ads when elected. I was annoyed at the thumb-on-top fist Edwards kept making when speaking. I was frustrated when they both evaded questions, or acknowledged the question, but said something completely different (i.e. AIDS in America). Mr. K, I hadn't thought of it that way before, but it's a good point. If Cheney really thinks that way, it's wayyy past time for him to get out of office.
• Out of masochism I've been checking the "debate fact responses" on both johnkerry.com and georgebush.com this morning. It's kind of funny--on the some of the same points they're both quoting the same sources, just with slightly different edits. Does it bother anybody else that "spin" has become an accepted form of journalism? I mean, last night after the debates the news anchors were all like "And now, for the partisan spin, let's go to this woman from the DNC and this dude from the RNC. So, whadja think?" Same on the news sites today. I thought "spin" by its nature would be BAD journalism. Of course, these are the same American news sources that routinely report the results of opinion polls as if they represented facts, without bothering to see whether the American people are misinformed. "86% of respondents think the Loch Ness Monster ate Lindberg's baby. So why isn't the FBI doing more to bring this monster to justice?" >:(
• *going to the other thread as asked by Monkeybashi*
• Did anyone notice that at the end of the debate Edwards thanked Cheny, but Cheny didn't thank Edwards (and paused just long enough to make this seem like a conscious choice). There's a new Iceman in town... Oh, and neither one of them thanked the people of Ohio at the end. Um, hello, you're politicians, Ohio is a swing state, get down on your knees and grovel!
• They did the thanking at the beginning of the debate. But, they still should have grovelled a bit.
• I resume my conspiracy theory. I had previously mentioned that immediately after the debate I saw the cnn.com poll which asked who won the debate. Edwards was at 82 percent with 48,000 votes. Within ten minutes they removed that poll and replaced it with a question about whether the debate was likely to affect one's voted. Now the original is back with a fresh start. After plenty of "it was even" propoganda at cnn.com and elsewhere, the new numbers are showing Edwards with 64 percent. My conspiracy theory is that cnn is terrified of appearing or being labelled "liberal." When cnn realized how one-sided the poll results were, they were afraid that they would be labelled as being liberal because their audience is so obviously liberal to have Edwards at 82. So they took the poll off the site, ran headlines and articles touting the debate to be a deadlock, and then started up the poll again. Now it is at a more acceptable 64-36, though I doubt that they are too happy with that, either.
• It occurred to me earlier that the web polls are probably not representative, because folks from Turkmenistan or Uruguay could be logging in and casting votes.
• Senator Gone for those of you not following the other debate thread. bad monkey! bad! no banana!
• I am not claiming that there is any sort of validity to the cnn poll. I am merely pointing out that they yanked the Who Won poll quickly, and then reinstated it at a later point. One might wonder why they did this. And I have offered a guess.
• bernockle - I received a few emails begging me to hit the cnn.com and other polls in the few minutes after the debates. Each email warned that the repubs were mounting an effort to do the same thing. When I saw the initial poll results, I figured somebody must have taken it a step further and written a program to auto-vote for Edwards - it was close enough that a 70% lead was a little suspicious. So it actually seems reasonable for cnn to toss the initeal results and tally again, if they found that the original votes weren't valid.
• I'm with Bernockle. It does seem strange to keep swapping out the poll. I loaded it repeatedly during the day and it was "influence VP decision" question, not the "who won" question. Now, it's back to "who won". But then I'm becoming increasingly paranoid as we approach Nov 2.
• I cannot wait for the Daily Show coverage.