« Spinning the Debates | Main | It's Close in Ohio »
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Veep Debate Open Thread
Posted by DavidNYCI'm actually watching this one, and so far, Cheney looks very snitty and angry. And he just can't keep his mouth from making that ugly curl in one corner. I think Edwards looks and sounds good. What do you think?
UPDATE: Well, we know one thing for sure: Cheney lied, pure and simple. He said he had never met John Edwards before, but he sure had. If he's going to lie about something like this, what else is he willing to lie about?
Personally, I thought Edwards acquitted himself pretty well. It wasn't the slam-dunk I was hoping for, but he seemed relaxed and pretty confident the whole time. (And I love that smile of his.) Cheney seemed angry, and by the end, tired and bored. But a lot of his answers were better than I expected. He actually managed to sound gracious after Edwards mentioned Cheney's daughter. And he was fairly adroit when he turned Edwards' silly "What was the question again?" stunt back on him; I was pretty shocked that Edwards didn't have a canned answer to the experience question, considering Dubya himself only served six years before becoming President.
Ultimately, I think a draw is a win for us, because Bushco needed to turn the tide here. I don't see Bush outright beating Kerry in any of the remaining two debates, so at worst, we're facing a 1-0-3 record. Perhaps Bush will do well in the town hall format, but as I recall from years past, people ask pretty tough questions. I remember one questioner back in 1992 who asked Bill Clinton, pretty much point-blank, how the recession had affected him. That's not an easy question for any politician, even the Big Dog, to answer - and Clinton was The Master. John Kerry is no Bill Clinton, but George Bush shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence.
Posted at 09:25 PM in General | Technorati
Comments
Let's face it, Edwards is a trial lawyer. He's used to debating (and though I don't know his record, I would imagine he's won his share). Cheney isn't a debater. It looks to me like Edwards is going to take this one.
Posted by: Mathew at October 5, 2004 09:46 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Edwards had an exceptional record as a courtroom advocate, and I have no doubt he was brilliant in the courtroom. I think you can definitely see Edwards' trial skills in action here.
Posted by: DavidNYC at October 5, 2004 09:55 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Edwards was on his toes realizing that Gwen Ifill was giving him an extra rebuttal on the NoChildLeftBehind question. He slipped right into an answer, then gracefully halted when Ifill corrected her error. That is good presence of mind.
Posted by: Jerome at October 5, 2004 10:35 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
This is painful for me to say, but I think Edwards looks awful. He's been on the defense all night. He's tripping over his words and looks uneasy and impatient. DC, the evil bastard, looks calm and serious. I think we are going to have a problem with the feedback on this one.
Posted by: Robert Farrell at October 5, 2004 10:37 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
It was a draw, and will have little impact in terms of the presidential race. If looks could kill, these two would definitely have killed each other! It won't help Kerry, but it certainly won't hurt him, either.
Posted by: pepe at October 5, 2004 10:42 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Edwards was definetly the better debater and said it as it is. He was on top of his game and for sure by far won it just as John Kerry won the first presidential debate. I I feel confident in having him in office for the next four years along with John Kerry. If they do all that they say then for sure America will be a better place.
Posted by: Yvonne at October 5, 2004 10:50 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Cheney cleaned Edwards clock. Hands down. Cheney was calm, dignifided and has hos facts straight. Edwards looked immature, sounded shrill and was the clear looser.
Posted by: bob greene at October 5, 2004 10:54 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
MSNBC has Edwards winning 75% to 25%. Check it out and vote.
Anybody seen any other polls?
Posted by: Robert Farrell at October 5, 2004 10:58 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
ABC had Cheney winning 52% to 45%.
Posted by: pepe at October 5, 2004 11:02 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
CNN has it for Edwards at 82% to 14%. God bless my total lack of understanding of the man on the street.
Posted by: Robert Farrell at October 5, 2004 11:02 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Was the ABC poll a webpoll or a scientific poll? The ones I cited were webpolls.
Posted by: Robert Farrell at October 5, 2004 11:04 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Truth be told, I think it was an absolute draw...but that's all Edwards needed to do because he successfully called the administration on the carpet for the lies over Iraq vis a vis 9/11 -- but Cheney was successful in continuing to cast aspersions on Kerry's consistency. So in the end, it was a draw IMHO.
The reason I think that's enough was that Edwards had to be able to show himself able to go toe-toe with Cheney -- the "brains" of the administration -- and he was able to do so.
Posted by: Paul L at October 5, 2004 11:09 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The ABC poll was a scientific poll.
Posted by: pepe at October 5, 2004 11:21 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Off topic - I need some help. Does anyone know the legality of having an employee fill out a complete medical history after employment is extended? My medical past has nothing to do with my job and I am afraid they may use something against me, such as the fact I have ADD or have seen a shrink. I don't like this and want to find out if it is legal for them to do this. Anyone know? Please email me, thanks.
Posted by: Michael at October 5, 2004 11:25 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Cheney won the media, but Edwards won the American people in today's debate. The media have basically declared Cheney the winner, but the people favor Edwards. On msnbc.com Edwards leads 70% - 30% with 396,000 votes cast.
I thought Edwards had some fine moments. His close was really great and I thought he did a great job connecting with the American people. Edwards also did a good job on laying out the differences between the Republicans and Democrats on the issues.
Posted by: DFuller at October 5, 2004 11:34 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The ABC poll I saw had
Cheney 45%
Edwards 38%
The sample was 38% Rep. 31% Dem. 31%Ind.
What did they expect?
I thought Cheney won but not by much. He
can tell a lie without missing a stride.
Anyone who is informed can see through
him, but I don't know how the undecideds
will see it.
Posted by: pollwatcher at October 5, 2004 11:39 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
It is legal to require a medical exam as a condition of employment, but only for the purpose of determining whether of not the person is physically capable of doing the job. To use a person's medical records in any other way may violate ADA, but first and foremost, it's a HIPPA violation -- a violation of your right to privacy.
If I were you, I'd ask specifically who is going to see this information and why. My sense is that anything beyond a general thumbs up/thumbs down on your health cannot be communicated without your consent. Don't sign any releases until you know who/when/for what, and are comfortable with the answers.
Posted by: Robert Farrell at October 5, 2004 11:39 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I thought Edwards mopped the floor with Cheney in nearly every exchange. With most Americans, I think Cheney lost the debate in his first statement when he declared the administration's Iraq policy to be the model of foreign policy perfection on the very day Paul Bremer declared it woefully insufficient. Cheney got a few good jabs in, but so did Edwards, and for the most part, Edwards innoculated himself on lack of gravitas with foreign policy. CBS' sample of swing voters showed Edwards with a 13 point lead over Cheney. ABC's is the only poll I know of that indicated a Cheney win, and that poll had a 7-point Republican advantage.
Plus, it's now coming out that Dick Cheney had met John Edwards twice before. While Cheney's claim that he had never met Edwards had some bit during the debate, it was simply not true. That means one of two things. Either Cheney is not mentally competent to handle a job that requires he remember the people he met...or he's a liar. If the media is stubborn enough to call Cheney's bluff on this charge in the days to come, it could turn out to bite him in the ass like Gore's "I visited Texas with FEMA Director James Lee Witt" falsehood did four years ago.
Posted by: Mark at October 5, 2004 11:53 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
GUYS......EDWARDS LOST,FAIR AND SQUARE! ACCEPT IT AND MOVE ON TO FRIDAY.
Posted by: WistheOne at October 6, 2004 12:14 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
how does the "ugly curl" on cheney's face matter for anything.doesnt make him any less qualified to be president than a slick slip and fall lawyer.
Posted by: john jansen at October 6, 2004 12:37 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Mark great post! I can't wait for the massess to turn out in Ohio and Florida on election day. Voter registration is up 250% in the urban areas. Yes!
Survey USA has Kerry up 49% to 48% in Ohio..
GOdfrey
Posted by: godfrey at October 6, 2004 12:48 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
CBSNews did a scientific poll of undecided voters:
41% Edwards
28% Cheney
31% Tie
Good news for us.
Posted by: Matt at October 6, 2004 12:49 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Edwards won a very good debate by a hair. He won big, however, in showing that he is qualifed to be VP and Pres. if necessary. He was going up against a very smart man with loads of experience and more than held his own. It was a very impressive performance that was more than enough to keep the momentum going.
Posted by: Randy at October 6, 2004 12:51 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The moment Cheney said that he hadn't met Edwards, I thought "That's just the sort of thing that turns out to be false and bites the speaker in the ass." Let's hope the media run with it.
Posted by: Robert Farrell at October 6, 2004 12:54 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Cheney = liar
From the debate:
"The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."
CNN just aired a video of Cheney and Edwards together at a prayer breakfast in 2001. They were actually sitting next to each other. This needs to be spread around.
Posted by: Matt at October 6, 2004 12:56 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I'm glad to see a few of our conservative brethren have made their way over here tonight. The ugly curl of Cheney's lip matters no more than Gore's sighs or allegedly "orange" makeup - in other words, it matters a whole hell of a lot to the shallow media.
Posted by: DavidNYC at October 6, 2004 01:06 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Although I tend to agree with some in the media that Cheney had a slight edge in this round, he may of screwed up quite considerably in the long run. He told ameerica to go to www.factcheck.com wich is a very anti bush site. Even if americans go to www.factcheck.org (the site he meant to mention) they will still see a non-partisan site that clearly (and with a link on the main page) shows that the whole idea of Kerry being a flip flopper is not true. Most Americans now have online access. This could be interesting
Posted by: Aaron W at October 6, 2004 01:44 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Funny - the factcheck-dot-whatever angle reminds me of when Jerry Brown was mocked for announcing his campaign's 800 number on TV. It turned out to be a very successful move, and everyone started to ape it. Then of course people started doing it with URLs. (I liked Kerry's quip at the convention, "Now I'm going to tell you to do something that Franklin Roosevelt never could have asked.")
And now we're seeing it backfire. Could be interesting indeed.
Posted by: DavidNYC at October 6, 2004 01:47 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Edwards was FANtastic! He's a real star compared to the scowling, disgruntled, angry, misleading, secretive, ethically challenged vice president.
The warm, caring, truth-telling Edwards really held his own.
Edwards clearly won the debate.
Posted by: Shar at October 6, 2004 02:58 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Thanks for the factcheck reference DavidNYC.
After visiting those sites I can't believe that the Vice President would mention a web site at all.
I was also surprised to hear him claim that he had never met Senator Edwards before.
Methinks something fishy is going on here. Perhaps the Vice President is attempting to subtly sabotage his own campaign. Does Mr. Cheney know something that we don't???
Posted by: bogato at October 6, 2004 03:12 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think the more important lie told by Cheney was when he claimed he had never tried to link 9/11 to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. NBC played a clip from an interview with Cheney where he very clearly did make the connection.
And a far more effective comeback to the "I've never met you..." statement would have been something like this:
"Perhaps if you'd ever taken the time to meet with Democrats in the Senate, we'd have been much better acquainted. Unfortunately, you've elected to meet only with members of your own party, which is a pattern with this administration. You never speak to anyone who might disagree with you."
Posted by: PonyFan at October 6, 2004 04:58 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
It was a draw, and I wouldn't trust any poll showing it too far one way or the other. Surely, Bush supporters thought Cheney was the victor, while Kerry supporters can just as confidently argue that Edwards was the winner. Those sitting on the pot are, I'm sure, still sitting on the pot--only God knows why!
I absolutely loved Edwards' melliflous Southern accent, and I hope we'll be hearing a lot more of it! :~)
Posted by: pepe at October 6, 2004 06:41 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Of course I meant mellifluous! Hey, I haven't had my first cup of coffee yet!!
Can't wait for Friday's debate, which'll be here before we know it.
Posted by: pepe at October 6, 2004 06:43 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Edwards was up against the Dark Lord himself here, not that nincompoop Bush. Holding your own against the Dark Lord is pretty darned good, even trained Jedi have fallen before him.
Posted by: Rob at October 6, 2004 07:55 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
You're right, Rob. A draw against the Dark Lord is really a victory, when you think about it. I was very pleased (but not at all surprised) by Edwards' performance last night. He held his own, indeed.
Posted by: Pepe at October 6, 2004 08:40 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I think that who won the debate depends upon the perspective of the viewer, and I don't just mean party affiliation.
Edwards looked better. Cheney almost always looked down -- not at the camera and not even at the moderator -- when he answered questions, which is symptomatic of, uh, lying. Or at least of not entirely believing what you're saying.
Edwards did come across as less experienced, which of course he is. I'm not sure how aware people are of this -- I suspect not very aware at all -- but among people who know that Edwards is a first term Senator, I think he doesn't lose any points that he hadn't lost already. Still, he looked agitated when Cheney slammed his Senate attendance, and it looked like he knew very well that experience was his weak point.
In all, Edwards cleared the bar of expectations, I think. He was no Dan Quayle, and I think few people other than dyed-in-the-wool anti-Democrats would be uncomfortable thinking of him as Vice President. I think he did well at putting Cheney on the defensive early on.
Cheney also cleared a bar of expectations, I think. After this debate and last Thursday's, it really does seem that the ongoing joke that Cheney runs the White House and Bush is just carted out occasionally to put an amiable face on things, it really does seem that there's something to this. Cheney seemed like a knowledgeable, "in-charge" type of person -- not particularly honorable, but the sort of person you might not mind having on your side in a dirty fight, which, arguably, is what we are in.
Which brings me to what I think will decide the debate for people. For frightened people, who worry that al Qaeda has infiltrated the local grocery store, etc., Cheney is likely to be seen as the winner of the debate. He's not likable, he's a dirty player, he probably has agendas that he's serving that he'll never tell you about. But he'll do whatever dirty deeds he can do to stop al Qaeda, including the illegal and the immoral.
Edwards was way, way more upbeat. For those who think that, however bad terrorism may be, we still live in a sane world, and it is still important that we maintain honor and decency, Edwards is likely to be seen as the winner.
And this theme, maybe, is something that underlies the whole election. Frankly, it would say something rather unpleasant about America if Bush-Cheney wins.
Posted by: Marsden at October 6, 2004 09:00 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The VP debate went fine for Edwards. It was pretty much a draw. If Bentsen couldn���t help Dukakis in 1988, there isn���t any way that Cheney did anything for Bush in 2004. I thought Edwards had some good points during the debate. He connected better with the American people than Cheney, he did a good job of laying out the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans, and he had a much better closing statement.
Posted by: DFuller at October 6, 2004 09:01 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I was so glad to hear what Edwards had to say about outsourcing jobs. It still blows my mind that Republicans can talk about this as being a good thing. There is a difference between global expansion and outsourcing. I just wish the folks at the Dayton Daily News knew that, especially since they just endorsed OH-3 incumbent Mike Turner, who's worked for an outsourcing firm for years. I'm so glad this issue is getting national attention!
Posted by: stopoutsourcing at October 6, 2004 09:09 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Edwards had an immediate five-point edge with his opening smile, especially when compared to Cheney's opening snarl.
Posted by: stumpy at October 6, 2004 09:50 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The way I see it, there were three possibilities:
1. Dick Cheney shows up, puffs his chest out, and becomes far more personable as he uses his truths to mop the floor with John Edwards perfectly primped hair.
2. Edwards and Cheney both show up, both use a variety of facts to back up their claims, hence neither of them win.
3. John Edwards does number 1, except using Cheney's head to wax the floor with the floor shiner of truth.
Therefore, we had a 2/3 possibility of coming out of this either looking decent or very good. And I believe we had more of a #2, with Cheney's facial expressions making Edwards look slightly more appealing to voters. And Edwards didn't harm John Kerry in any way. So it's been a good week.
Posted by: Dale at October 6, 2004 11:03 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The debate was sub-standard. It brings us back to the type of debates everyone regrets even watching because they're so meaningless.
Cheney didn't stop lying, about stuff that most viewers knew. Otherwise he appeared composed and surprisingly human.
Edwards kept voicing bland platitudes and over-predictable "punch-lines" that made no impact. That was more or less what Bush tried to do in the first debate, but then Kerry forced him to raise the standard (which he couldn't measure up to). Both also rarely answered the question at hand, which turned the debate into a farce.
I truly resented what Edwards had to say about Israel/Palestine. This type of Sharonite, anti-Paletsinian diatribe you usually hear only in Israeli and right-wing talk shows. Not only did it offend me personally (as an Israeli dissenter), but he handed Cheney the opportunity to present himself as more 'balanced' on the issue. The administration with the worst record on this conflict and with the most anti-Arab slant ever, managed to look less anti-Arab than its opponent. Thank you, Johnny Sunshine.
I'd seriously advise the Democrats to do some soul-searching, for the sake of votes if nothing else. They're mortally afraid of losing the Jewish vote; but most Jews are liberal anyway (such as the manager of this site, for example...), and you wouldn't find them touching Bush with a 10-foot pole. A recent poll showed 66% of Jews now saying the Iraq war was wrong. Most US Jews would be able to stomach, and even welcome, starting to hear some truth about Israel/Palestine for a change.
On the other hand, the Arab/Muslim vote (which is just as large, and will turn out in droves this time) is a newcomer in Democrat territory. They voted Bush and Nader last time around. It's advisable to give them some respect and not mop the floor with them, like Edwards did last night.
Posted by: Assaf Oron at October 6, 2004 12:38 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
For another view on the debate -- that MSNBC's coverage completely missed the ball -- go to http://jabbs.blogspot.com
Posted by: DM at October 6, 2004 12:41 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
OT: South Carolina senate candidate preaches the politics of hate. Says that single pregnant women and homosexuals should be teaching school:
Jim DeMint was asked about a comment he made in a debate about homosexuals not teaching school. His answer: "I would have given the same answer when asked if a single woman, who was pregnant and living with her boyfriend, should be hired to teach my third-grade children. I just think the moral decisions are different with a teacher."
Posted by: DFuller at October 6, 2004 12:52 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
correction:
"OT: South Carolina senate candidate preaches the politics of hate. Says that single pregnant women and homosexuals should be teaching school:"
Should sady:
"OT: South Carolina senate candidate preaches the politics of hate. Says that single pregnant women and homosexuals NOT should be teaching school:"
Posted by: DFuller at October 6, 2004 12:54 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I was disappointed that Edwards didn't point out Cheney's misjudgements. For instance. his comment that we would be greated as liberators in Iraq. Also, Edwards needed to hammer a little more on the Bremer/CIA/Rumsfeld admissions.
I would also have loved to hear Edwards point out all the weapons systems that Cheney tried to drop as Defense Secy.
Overall, I think the debate was a draw. Edwards could have pointed out Cheney's many lies better, in a large forum, but I think he went over well.
Posted by: erg at October 6, 2004 01:03 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Charles Duelfer to report to Senate that Iraq destroyed WMD in 1991. This shows how flawed the United States intelligence has been since Bush Sr., throughout President Clinton's administration, and onward to Bush Jr. It could be a campaign point for Senator Kerry that there was no WMD, but the one drawback is that there was bad intelligence throughout President Clinton���s administration also.
http://usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-06-wmd_x.htm
Posted by: DFuller at October 6, 2004 02:09 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Too bad Cheney, Senator Edwards won the debate.
It doesn���t matter what decided voters thought. Undecided voters favored Edwards in the debate. Let���s keep the momentum going this Friday.
CBS News Poll on undecided voters:
Edwards 41%
Cheney 28%
Draw 31%
Posted by: DFuller at October 6, 2004 03:09 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Assaf, I tend to agree with you on the Israel/Palestine matter. It's embarassing to me that, reflexively, any opportunity for a candidate for national office to comment on what might be done about the problem there is instead taken to be an opportunity to align himself entirely with Israel, as though the Palestinians are just a bunch of replicants.
Unfortunately, that's the reality of the situation right now. You probably remember Howard Dean having to recant -- recant! -- calling for the US being a more even-handed broker in the conflict. Who knew that being an even-handed broker was somehow wrong? But in American politics right now, it is on this matter.
The one thing I'm confident of is that as long as this remains true, there is no real possibility of any significant progress in resolving the conflict.
Posted by: Marsden at October 6, 2004 06:58 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I absolutely agree -- it turns my stomach, the way both parties fawn over the over-the-top, egomanical, right-of-Kach Israeli lobby.
I wish it were as simple as hunting Jewish voters, but in reality it has more to do with a well-oiled fundraising-and-mudslinging machine that makes the NRA look like a three-year-old's tea party.
Sad to say, we will hear nothing constructive from Washington on the subject of Israel until America's Arabs and Muslims organize similar lobbies and push back. And that could take decades (anyone care to bet the problem won't still be there?)
Not only are his political values in order, Marsden's entertainment choices are also first-rate. Kudos for the SG-1 reference.
Posted by: Robert Farrell at October 6, 2004 09:00 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
When Edwards started launching into that answer, I yelled at the TV, "Stop pandering to me!"
Posted by: DavidNYC at October 6, 2004 09:25 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The pressure is on Bush tomorrow.
After his weak performance in last week's debate, he must make a strong one today or risk falling behind. An ���l��� tomorrow for Bush will be huge. He must at least tie the debate. To be honest, I do not see Bush rising to the occasion. He is a man who cracks under pressure.
Posted by: DFuller at October 7, 2004 11:50 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment