Wonder if there's any way we can change things to vote for fantasy tickets? Might be a better idea. (But mix it up for the debates, too -- I'd just love to have seen a Cheney-Dean debate.)

As someone who purposely missed tonights show, I notice that you and several others thought Cheney did good and Andrew Sullivan thought Edwards won big.

Now, as someome who missed it, I can only judge from the soundbites that have been passed out since the debate, and for my money, Cheney walks away with more in his pocket than Edwards did.

Cheneys line of " I just met you tonight " - that was pretty devastating against Kerry/Edwards to me. The MSNBC prattle-staff seems to think hands down that Cheney won. Fox seems giddy, so that tells me alot.

But hey, I'm biased and I made my mind up a long time ago.

The Kerry/Edwards campaign is rushing out press releases with two past meetings, one at a prayer meeting and one when Eliz Dole was sworn in. Notice that neither of these were during a regular Senate session, and only serve to emphasize Cheney's point that he's never there. Also interesting was the fact that Edwards, the trained trial lawyer, didn't object.
Not important, just interesting. Bentson's JFK line didn't do much for Dukakis, so zingers aren't everything.
I did think that Cheney won by a landslide on substance.

Edwards at the end of this debate:

Here‘s the truth: I have grown up in the bright light of America.

But that light is flickering today.

Yeah, that's a winning statement if I ever heard one! I watched with 12 committed Democrats in New York. 3 of them were so sick of Edwards after the debate that they said they would vote Republican (or rather, vote for Oprah Winfrey). The rest were pretty depressed. Does it mean anything? Especially in NY? Of course, not. Who really cares how the veeps do, but it is interesting how NY'ers of all people thought Edwards did. The ones I was with thought he did pretty poorly.

Alex

There are some who dispute Cheney's claim that this was the first time he met Sen. Edwards in person, but in general his memory and depth of experience outclasses Edwards'. The Democratic vice presidential candidate engaged in more ad hominem attacks per minute and had the disconcerting habit of straying off subject. He learned his talking points well, but was maddeningly vague about Kerry's plans for us, and often sounded as though he lived in a world quite different from the one we inhabit.

I hope that Cheney as VP sets a new standard for future elections -- I'm here to support the president, not to get my ticket punched so I can run for the big guy's chair in 8 years.

Let's face it, being a VP is not the fastrack to success. TR is probably the only VP who could have carried off 2 full terms on his own (but chose not to and failed when he tried to unseat Taft afterwards) and that was 100 years ago.

How about a consitutional amendment that the VP has to have a heart condition?

This election is starting to remind me of 1988 -- only this time, Dukakis has Quayle for a running mate.

Did Edwards really say:
Here‘s the truth: I have grown up in the bright light of America.

When I read that I thought:

"yeah, and that bright light is a bugzapper on Cheneys porch - and you just got too close"

The one point I want to hear hashed out more is the "Saddam didn't attack us on 9/11, Osama did." We've heard it several times now. This is a golden opportunity for both sides to stake out their claim to how they will approach the future.

For example, pointing out how a candidate says "Saddam had to be confronted" in one breath before stating that he didn't attack us... how do you reconcile the two? No... I mean seriously. How can you possibly reconcile the two? What does "be confronted" mean? Repealing sanctions? Or fighting those that aren't bribed, coerced, or otherwise on our side to abide by the sanctions? Hint: you can't view things in a vacuum.

OK, that's the question for the Kerry/Edwards/9-10 ticket. But for Bush/Cheney I want the same question asked in a different way. You attacked Iraq based on CIA claims that now appear questionable. How can you sign on other global partners (UK, Australia, Poland, and more--thanks to all of you!) if the intelligence is not clear? What is the tipping point on getting international partners? And what if we believe there is damning info but those partners don't agree? What then?

I'm pissed that serious questions aren't being asked or answered. Mostly because they aren't being asked, but I want both the administration to articulate what they see as their mission without being defensive, and those that want to inherit the throne to articulate (without a global test clause) what they feel is a necessity to act unilaterally... which they say they will do.

Wish I could use drunk blogging as an excuse for the rambling nature of this post, but it was more of a result of driving home during the debate and realising that I truly no longer gave a flying f. The right questions weren't being asked, and even if something close to the right question was asked, they weren't being answered.

But I didn't call it a draw. I gave the edge to Cheney because the war is the #1 issue and Edwards didn't/couldn't deliver.

Cheney won!?

but,but ...Halliburton...evil...Hitler...Halliburton...Oil...evil...hair...don't you see?

Okay I just couldn't help it... I had to fisk Edwards. Yeah, I know, it's just a minor debate among the VPs and nobody will watch it let alone care to read the fisking, but... Edwards sounds good enough while you listen to him, it's only when you read the transcript that you realize exactly how screwy a lot of the things he says are. I am surprised that you thought Cheney won on points - I thought in some parts Edwards got massacred. E.g. when Cheney pointed out that our Iraqi allies have been doing more than 50% of the dying, and that for Edwards and Kerry to ignore that was "beyond the..." (beyond the pale, I presume). Also noteworthy: I counted fourteen(!) repeats of "no connection" between Saddam and Al Quaida. I guess they really want to hammer that in. But that doesn't make it true.

I wrote this elsewhere and I'll repeat it here:

I thought Cheney won the debate as well. Yesterday, Andrew Sullivan mentioned that he would be doing a shot every time Edwards mentioned Halliburton. They must have been huge shots and AS must've gotten completely canned to say that Edwards won the debate hands-down.

Edwards's upside is that he is a good-looking, smiling man who seems very nice and appealing to Americans. Simplistic? Yes. Irrelevant? Hardly. Voters are that superficial.

Unfortunately, his downside is that he continually used talking points and couldn't argue facts. While Edwards was spouting talking points (effectively, I think) he was unable to match the VP when it came to actually explaining his reponses.

That's the upside for Cheney. He barely stumbled at any of his responses. And when he gave them, they were clear and thought out. It's almost as though he didn't have to think about them because he just knew them. I see him as a man who knows what's going on and as someone who can explain policy easily.

THAT'S ALSO HIS DOWNSIDE:

After last night, I was more convinced than I have ever been in my life that Richard Cheney is the guy in charge in Washington. It really does appear to me that the Vice President is the "man in the know" on the ticket. When asked questions, he didn't bumble over his answers. He didn't start repeating himself because he didn't know what to say. He didn't explain the relationship between Al Qaeda and Hussein by stating that "It's hard work. We're succeeding. I work hard. I see casualty reports. It's hard work."

Cheney should be the one running for president. I think after last night, I would vote for him if I could!

I wonder if Cheney does damage to the ticket because the contrast between he and President Bush is so obvious? Here you have a president who couldn't explain his way out of a paper bag on Thursday running with a man who is so clearly the thinker that it only serves to accentuate the president's faults?!?!

Michael, no I don't think so. There are lots of excuses that Bush could've used to dump Cheney if image alone determined his decisions. The strength of any manager is the people he hires to work for him, and a good boss is never resentful of his employees' strengths. Bush is very often inarticulate, but don't fall into the trap of thinking that makes him a dummy (in either sense).

A man of action and principle who relies on a methodical, deep thinker for balance and support is a strong combination. Just look at Kirk and Spock. ;)

Cheney won for two reasons.

He utterly demolished Edwards on Iraq. Not because he answered every charge Edwards threw out, but because he invalidated the entire Kerry/Edwards plan for Iraq. He showed that they have no consistent position, and that their utter disdain and negativity about the war makes it extremely unlikely that they could get all this international support they keep promising. Cheney didn't just beat Edwards, he pounded the Democratic ticket hard and scored some real points.

Second, Cheney looked like he can be President. Edwards answer to the "can you be President" question looked very weak, and something that a made-for-TV movie actor would have given. "Senator Gone" was also devestating. He's barely even shown up to do his job in the Senate, how can he trusted to be President? Cheney also passed on an opportunity to really lower the boom on Edwards when they were directly asked about each other's qualifications, but by then the points had been made. Cheney probably wanted to avoid overkill.

I really don't see any way you give the debate to Edwards unless you make the pretzel argument that Cheney being so strong makes Bush look bad by comparison and that somehow helps Kerry.

Pretzel.

Bryan,

I won't argue with your main points, because I largely agree with them. I don't think Bush is stupid.

But I DO think he comes off that way. Even most Republicans believe he doesn't come off as the brightest bulb in the box. And they know that hurts them.

I guess the point I was making could be summed up by using an "office" analogy.

Your boss is a brilliant man, but can't explain even the simplest concepts without stammering all over himself. You, on the other hand, are and excellent speaker who is called to the table every time things need to be clarified. Your boss cannot explain the budget. He can't explain strategic decisions he makes (even if he makes the right ones) but you can.

No matter how well the office is running, people are going to look at the management teams and wonder how the hell the guy in charge is the guy in charge!

I'm sorry, but I really don't have the faith in the electorate that they will be able to rationally consider that "The strength of any manager is the people he hires to work for him."

I think people look at Bush and Cheney and compare the two and wonder what the hell is going on!

But don't fall into the trap that this means I think Bush is a dummy! :-) I don't. I just think he needs a lot of coaching and perhaps a Dale Carnegie course or two so he can stop looking like one compared to his sub-ordinates.

And Bryan... Bush.... isno..... Captainkirk.

Blasphemy!!!!

People looked at BC 4 years ago, now it's the question of whether the Breck Girl is ready for Prime Time, to sit in the big chair.

I was reminded of the Cheney-Lieberman VP debate where Cheney was also very impressive, and again, I want to vote for that pair (I don't much care which is on the top of the ticket) rather than the current offerings.

htom you just stole my idea.

Let's roll.

I think Edwards never really had a chance. I heard one of his supporters today describe him as "a little boy." That was the visual I think most carried away from the debate. Partisan Democrats want to make it look otherwise, but it doesn't. Edwards was blown out of the water the minute he stood beside someone with stature.

And I thought Bush clearly lost the first debate on style, so please don't chalk this up to partisanship.

One more thing, and perhaps I missed it: did anyone catch Cheney's implication Edwards is simply running for president in 2008, and the senator's less than strong denial?

TO: Stephen Green
RE: Nice To Know...

...that the man who is CURRENTLY one-heart-beat away from the big job seems better prepared and more capable of handling that job than the one some people would like to foist off on US as better.

But you'd have to expect that, as the current guy has had years more experience in matters such as executive management, as former SecDef, and international affairs, as former SecDef in a major war.

We wound up with a 'war cabinet' after the dust had settled in the 2000 election. And it was in place in time to deal with the war that came upon US.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

I don't understand the love-fest for Lieberman. While McCain's talent is his ability to act as a "maverick" while being ideologically in line with his own party, Lieberman manages to be ideologically slightly more conservative than his own party while cultivating a sense of being entrenched in his party's estbalishment. The only explanation I can come up with for Lieberman's appeal is that a bunch of adults need to fill a void left open when they moved out of the house and stopped being scolded by their mothers.

As far as the debate, there weren't any moments in which to say one of the two pulled ahead. The Bushistas call the debate for Cheney. The pro-Kerry faction calls the debate for Edwards. Edwards had to avoid coming across as inexperienced, and I think he did that well, especially when articulating the dual concerns of falling compensation and rising malpractice insurance costs that that doctors face much better than Cheney who, like Bush, has a strange fixation on OB/GYNs (many physicians dislike Edwards, so I was impressed that he made a pitch for their votes). On style, Cheney avoided the screwup that was Bush's debate performance.

So it will all come down to which party handles the post-debate spin, better. I'm sort of irritated that it comes down to this.

I think that the most significant lasting development of this debate is that the K/E mantra of "90% of the casualties; 90% of the cost" is now verboten. They won't dare say it again. This was a major part of their case against the war in Iraq. Read here for more.

The main thing I like about Lieberman is he seems reasonable. He leaves with a somewhat weasly feeling, but I think he's resonable, somewhat moderate not a sill ideologue.

But I also think alot of the power brokering in the Democrats have been taken over by fairly crazy progressives and Leiberman can never get the pres nomination.

I generally wind up center right I guess. More non-isolation libertarian than anything else. Its possible I might vote for lieberman. I would never vote for Dean or Kerry.

Short note...Cheney was awesome. Edwards reminded me of the landshark from Saturday Night Live that repeated phrases to get into a locked apartment. Substitute "Pizza Delivery!" and "Telegram!" with "Halliburton!" and "Millions and Millions!".

Well, well, if those debates are the debates with all its chosen and set up questions decide elections in america, then I'm really blessed and glad to recongize that america leads the world, at least it thinks it is. However, back to the point i was trying to make, personal differences should not decide on an election, yes Bush/Cheney may not like Kerry/Edwards and vice versa but the differntiator should be a concept for your self created Iraq problem and your bugdet deficit. Concepts should decide an election not personalities, how much is a personality worth if the concept behind this personality is crap? You should know, you just experienced one of your worse presidents for the past four years. But hey, I'm talking from a perspective outside the US, so we get to know the uncencored news. Good luck with your next president who ever he might be.

Most pundits are saying last night's Veep debate won't mean much to the outcome of the election.

I beg to differ.

Debates are largely won and lost on the basis of prior expectations. That's where I think a lot of media and blog pundits are missing the boat about what really happened last night.

Consider:

1. Cheney came into the debate portrayed as Darth Vader, and with the lowest poll numbers of the four ticket candidates. He had no place to go but up. So all he had to do was come across as a sympathetic human being, and he would raise his stature with the public.

He did. The question about his gay daughter, probably intended by the liberal interviewette as a trap to position him awkwardly in opposition to Bush on the gay marriage issue, actually backfired against the libs. According to the focus group meters, Cheney's personal reply drew him some of the highest audience response marks of the evening. He instantly became a sympathetic father to liberal and moderate swing voters, on one of their hot-button issues.

2. By contrast, Edwards came into the debate with the highest approval ratings of any of the four candidates. He had the most to lose, and could do so simply by not dominating Darth Vader. He utterly failed to do so, dashing high expectations. In fact, if you used the time-tested method of "hit the mute button and just watch the visuals," what did you see?

Calm, assertive Cheney. Nervous, twitchy Edwards.

Edwards' face often looked strained and tense; his gestures seemed sharp, not relaxed. He misspoke and had to correct himself a number of times. By contrast, Cheney reminds me of Clint Eastwood's minimalist "Man With No Name" from the spaghetti Westerns: he is so low-key that anyone exhibiting even normal animation around him look hysterical. Next to the ever-placid Cheney, Edwards' eager mannerisms and emphatic gestures looked excessive.

In sum, Edwards was nervous, and it showed. It made him look not like a nation's leader, but like a Veep wannabe. Or a used Lexus salesman. He just didn't exude Cheney's gravitas.

Not reassuring...and this election is all about reassuring Americans that they have steady leadership in scary times.

3. The reason Edwards was nervous was that Cheney rattled him repeatedly, winning the battle of the sound bites. Cheney's jabs about Edwards' no-show Senate job were almost as effective as the real haymaker of the night: Cheney's zinger that Kerry-Edwards' couldn't even stand up to Howard Dean, so how can they stand up to al Qaeda? That one forced Edwards to take a standing eight-count.

Can anyone remember a comparable zinger from Little Lord Fauntleroy?

4. Finally, and most importantly, there was the substantive matter of the War on Terrorism (okay, Islamism). Bush, like his dad, had lost ground in articulating that issue in Debate #1. As the subsequent polls indicate, because of Bush's inarticulate performance some voters became uneasy about his rationale for the war. Voters don't mind so much that Bush himself is inarticulate; they DO mind it if his RATIONALE for Iraq is incoherent.

So what Cheney accomplished last night was to remind everyone, clearly and forcefully, of that rationale. By doing so he reassured the electorate that, no matter how rhetorically clumsy his boss may be in expressing the case, there were and are sound and important reasons for the war in Iraq.

That reassurance alone is worth several points in the polls. The humanization of Cheney, and his body blows against Kerry-Edwards, are worth at least two more.

Summing up, let me therefore buck the conventional wisdom and offer this prediction: by Friday, Bush will be leading Kerry in the national polls again, by at least 6-7 points.

Can Bush blow the lead again in the Friday night debate? Sure. But not entirely, I think. I suspect most of the apolitical sorts who are still "Undecideds" will be doing things on Friday night other than watching Debate #3. Unless there is a very damaging and memorable anti-Bush sound bite or two from that debate, I think that--thanks to Cheney--the Big Mo has swung back to Team Bush on the one issue uppermost in everyone's mind: national security.

And that should be enough to clinch the election.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Uncensored news - right....

Worst president ever - once again a Europeans shows he knows US history better than we do.

Oops, my mistake, I assumed Mickey was a European, he might not be.

Someone posted on Roger L. Simon's blog that his a-political, non-blog-reading, not interested girlfriend by the end of the night yelled at the TV, "What's your $%(&(*&*^^*&* plan??"

I think a new drinking word has been added to the game.

Confused about Cheney website reference.

You mentioned three zingers that "stand out". 1) "Senator Gone" 2) "I've never met you", and 3) "stand up to Al Quaeda".
As I'm sure you're now aware, Mr. Cheney had met Mr. Edwards on at least three documented occasions. In addition, Senator Edwards hometime newspaper has now stated that an archival search finds no reference to "Senator Gone", contrary to what Cheney stated.
Now that you are aware of these facts, does it change your opinion of the zingers?
Just wondering.

The adoration for Edwards (really at the top of the polls?) escapes me, unless it is proof-positive that we live in a nation of idiots! We are not voting for class President of the 8th grade, where good looks and promises of soda in the water fountains will garner the vote--or maybe we are? What qualifies that little boy to sit in the co-captain's chair on this flight? So, is this how our nation is divided? It seems that some people are more adult than others in their considerations, while others are in a retarded juvenile state, perpetually selfish, demanding and entirely uncomprehending of what is really going on in the "grownup's" world!

Laurence, context. Not while the Senate was in session. In short, not while Breck Girl was supposed to be working. Liddy Dole's swearing in, IIRC???

I consider just about anything written by Andrew Sullivan to be about as impartial and credible as if it were written by Michael Moore now.

Andrew, like Charlie in Flowers for Algernon(sp), had his brief moment of lucidity before slipping back into the abyss of moonbattery. Not surprising considering he is thinking with his weenee not his beanie.

Cheney got that wrong, .org.

Sandy,
Unfortunately, this is the kind of rationalizion I expected to hear.

When I say this: I've been to John's house many times, but I've never met his wife.
I mean this: I've never met his wife anywhere.
I don't mean this: I know his wife, but I've never actually met her at his house.

It's pretty simple english and it has nothing to do with context.
If you insist that your political heroes cannot lie, I suggest that you would be better off arguing that Cheney had forgotten his meetings with Edwards. That would be easier to swallow. Just my two cents.

And I never had sex w/that woman, Miss Lewinsky, Laurence.

Because she had sex w/me or my cigar. Or well, even if I did, it's not sex, or it shouldn't matter, my wife doesn't care, why should you?

As AWW wrote on another blog:

This was too good a point to let them Dems spin away. Jim is right - Cheney should apologize by saying something like "Apparently Senator Edwards and I were both in attendance at some social or minor events. My point related to the business of the Senate and Senator Edwards poor attendance record as evidence by....."r, whichever you prefer.

----

Our rationalizing has a long way to go.

Edwards may be an accomplished trial attorney but television was quite cruel to him last night. He came across as a tiny man in an empty suit--an appellation that certainly applies to Kerry but not to him. Last night's horrible performance plays into the Dick Morris description of Kerry and Edwards as "backbenchers."

The question is not whether Cheney "met" Edwards, but why he wouldn't remember it--and why Edwards wouldn't confront him with it. But if that's the primary question the Left is asking, it speaks volumes about their choices this time out.

Cheney planned the gaffe. He knew it would keep the story alive that Edwards hardly showed up to work. The other times the two met are the exceptions that prove the rule. "No fair! There was that one day I did drag myself out of bed to show up and we met!" is a no-win comeback. This is why Edwards stayed quiet about it during the debate.

Jim, that's a good point about why Edwards kept quiet about it--and quite possible. I forgot that Cheney coupled the "I never met you" meme with the number of intelligence committee meetings Edwards and Kerry skipped, so this may not be something they wanted to emphasize.

Again, though, if this is the best the Left can do with last night's debate it speaks volumes. I disagree with Stephen, too, about the impact of last night. This at a minimum staunched the bleeding from Bush's self-inflicted stylistic wound last week.

I'm suprised, I thought Edward did well. He almost had me believing taxing the rich was a good idea, then common sense returned.

It's just amusing listening to everyone rant about Cheney winning when not a single poll I've seen has reflected that. The only poll that showed more people thought he won was a poll of a group that had more Republicans than Democrats. Shocker. While I don't think Edwards went after Cheney as hard as he should and could have, Cheney's only defense were lies and gaffes. Even if I would go so far as to say it was a draw, which I disagree with, I think Edwards made a far better argument...it still doesn't make up for the terrible job Bush did Thursday and he still has two more debates to go.

Pej commented that Edwards' attendance was about the same as Strom's, of course Strom was pushing 100....

Dem talking heads are whining Cheney was mean?

Edwards drags in family and Cheney was mean?

Mommy, make it stop.

Been following the post-debate spin and the MSM seems to be trying to push off a draw even though Edwards got manhandled in almost every category. Apparently the biggest story is that Cheney may have indeed met Edwards sometime before the debate (and obviously made a big impression).

This is supposedly the big fact check that proves Cheney is a liar and Edwards won? Please. The fact the the Dems are clinging to this story so hard proves that they have nothing else to take away from the debate.

The one thing that told me the most was when Edwards was asked about his qualifications to be President. He flubbed it horribly, which is doubly bad since that was the one question he was 100% certain to get. He ran down his talking points in a haphazard fashion, kept referring to "we" (note to Edwards, if you're President Big John ain't gonna be there to help you out), and kept repeating the point that he would "get the terrorists". Is he planning on Kerry being assasinated by terrorists or something?

Cheney didn't win the election with the debate, but he exposed big weaknesses in the Democratic ticket. Karl Rove had better be smacking Bush with a ruler and making him study for Friday night. If Bush can follow up, he can totally devestate Kerry and essentially destroy his credibility for good.

Is it just me or does it really seem that John Edwards is yelling, using what is often called his "outside voice". Does this guy have an "inside voice" ?
If one were to score this by the points of act actually raised, deducting points for endlessly repeating (I believe that's a 13a in the Century Collegiate Handbook), most likely Cheney would have won. On the other hand if you score it by just how obnoxious one can be, then John Edwards is your man.
I suggest for the next debate that the questioner(s) look at old debates and come up with questions that the candidates have talked about before. I remember Clinton getting one in 1992 on the Federal Reserve that generated one of those "deer in the headlights" moments.

"Apparently Senator Edwards and I were both in attendance at some social or minor events.

It's not at all unusual for me to be at the same party as someone else and not meet them, especially when there's >100 people at the party.

Hey, Mike M, ever notice how the MSM doesn't fact check Kerry's claim that his Iraq position has been consistent?

While I think Bush will win this election, I again think we know who has lost--the MSM.

To 'Britton's' comment of 10/6: the polls are in, and Cheney won. Check out, for example, the Rasmussen Poll

My extended commentary is here.

Some food for thought for those opposing the war in Iraq while our troops are at risk:

From the personal memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant:

"Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupies no enviable place in life or history. Better for him, individually, to advocate 'war, pestilence, and famine' than to act as obstructionist to a war already begun. The history of the defeated rebel will be honorable hereafter, compared with that of the Northern man who aided him by conspiring against his government while protected by it. The most favorable posthumous history the stay-at-home traitor can hope for is - oblivion."