Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mml
If I had to pick a winner, I would most likely select Cheney. I say that because even though many of his statements and "facts" are inacurate and seriously debatable, he presented them in a matter of fact and clear manner that makes them seem like the truth. Edwards was a bit too excitable and ready to jump into the fray, making him appear inexperienced. Overall, I would say that Republicans generally thought Cheney won and vice versus. I do, however, think that neither side is particularly hurt or helped by this debate. What I find interesting is that CBS, MSNBC, CNN and FOX all have flash polls that say Edwards won. The closest was FOX, showing 54% for Edwards (this will change), but many polls show him well ahead of Cheney. It will be interesting to see the results in a day or two. Many, even many within the Democratic party, underestimate the connection Edwards makes with people. It may be that the polls are showing that while "experts" and policy wonks don't see him as completely credible, the general public does.
|
Except for the part about his facts being inaccurate and seriously debatable, I actually pretty much completely agree. All the MSNBC hardball guys pretty much said Cheney won, and I thought he did an A- job, but after talking to my wife and mother-in-law, they too just said they like Edwards because he seems nicer.
Cheney could have done better defending Halliburton, or talking about some mom and pop restaurant or other small business that would be hurt by the repeal of the tax cuts for those "earning" over $200,000. He mentioned this, but it's a winning issue, and should have emphasized it more. Some will be critical of his dropping arguments and declining to comment further, but I think it was actually smart. Had he said, "I voted against MLK day because we I didn't think we needed another Fed. holiday in Feb." or a similar defense of his votes, it would have damaged the campaign more by creating a side issue that has nothing to do with Bush. Similarly, his carefully worded but classy statement on the marriage amend. (which I too am against) was all he needed to say. Sometimes just shutting up is a good thing.
Maybe it's just me, but I thought this debate was far superior to the first one and would have been better for undecided voters to really become informed about the campaigns. I concede that Bush SUCKED in the first one, but Kerry had so many okay-come-on-Bush-knock-that-out-of-the-park-it's-so-easy statements that I don't think you could say he did well. The first debate was just plain ugly, like that Cowboys-Redskins Monday night game.
I was really struck by the fact that both Cheney and Edwards were poor growing up and have made it on their own, compared to Bush and Kerry who both had the best upbringing and attended the best schools and came from the best families in America. I'll go further out on a limb and say that I wish both tickets were reversed. Not only do I have greater respect for self-made men, but they are more articulate than their top of the ticket partners, and I think either vp candidate would do a better job running the country. Let the super privileged men attend funerals and fulfill diplomatic and ceremonial duties. It's an interesting sociological observation that maybe you can go a long way in America on your own, but where and to whom you are born still has such a dramatic effect. (Well, maybe Clinton is an exception) Maybe it's just me and my personal biases, though. Now that I've goten completely off-topic, I'll just say again that I thought it was a good debate, and if they're going to attack each other, I'm glad they did it face to face, and I think Cheney won, but it was close.