You got served
I watched the debates last night... cus I usually follow that stuff even if I don't really blog about it often. It's not a political blog. The only reason I'm blogging about this was because, well, I was kind of stunned at the commentary I watched after the debate and I'm still not sure that they were even watching the same debate I was.
The things the commentators were saying were just kind of inexplicable. Some of the things I heard were (paraphrased):
"Edwards showed a certain gravitas..."
"People really want to know if either of these men could step in and be president, I think Edwards answered that well and showed he could..."
"I don't think it would be unfair to call it a draw..."
"I think what we just saw was similar to Kennedy, a sort of coming out party for Edwards on the national stage..."
...none of which was jiving with what I saw. I'll admit I went into this debate with some expectations, or rather, I wouldn't have been surprised to be surprised with how well Edwards would do. He's made millions off of talking to jury's after all, and it isn't as though the hype machine around his golden tongue hasn't been in full effect for ages. And it isn't like Cheney has a reputation for being soft and cuddly and congenial in public.
But this was just an evisceration. Devastating. A total blow out.
It was like watching the old Dan Quayle debate, you just sorta wondered how the hell he got there. Sure, Edwards was throwing punches fast and furious. But, to use a boxing analogy, these were glancing blows... and half the time it was because Edwards had sabotaged his own footing before he threw them while Cheney just hunkered down and landed body blow after body blow and, just for style, would throw in a bitch slap here and there once Edwards was completely boxed into a corner.
It didn't even seem to be gratuitous; half of it was akin to stepping aside and letting Edwards run into the wall. In contrast, Edwards just came off as snide and smug. I thought there might be an old versus young vibe, but generally in Edward's favor.
But how he ended up looking like a petulant teenager is beyond me. Even at the last, with his closing statement... it started out really, really well. I was all drawn in, and when he started talking about the warm glow of America I said "Ah, that's the silver tongue..." and then he started on about the light of America flickering, my stomach twisted and he became Debbie Downer.
That would have made one hell of a closing argument in a trial, and I know I was supposed to associate it with the other side. If he'd been able to successfully paint Cheney as the corporate bogeyman, it might have worked. But for the most part, Cheney had framed things so that it was very much became Edward's view of America. If Kerry/Edwards don't win, it's not like he's going to get reelected, but he's got one hell of a career as a tele-evangelist in his future.
But he was just completely sidelined from the race. He's just not a factor now, and brings nothing to the damn ticket. Kerry might as well be flying solo. After Bush's weak performance, it's interesting to wonder what tonight would have been like if it'd been Cheney versus Gephardt.
I fully admit some of this might be the Kilborn-Effect. Lots of people liked him, but I'm a Conan guy. You kinda wondered how both of them got the job, but Conan was just so un-smug about it. I really don't like smug and petulant. Kilborn does have fans though, but I could only tune in when Morrisey was on. Different strokes for different folks, I'll stick with Pimpbot 5000.
I mentioned this isn't some undecided voter's blog, so it's fair to wonder why I'm blogging it. I'm primarily just annoyed as hell, as I really just can't understand the analyst commentary I saw. It also didn't help that the democrats I was watching it with, while they weren't enthusiastic, seemed to be reaching a consensus on a tie.
It's like seeing a movie, hating it, and then looking it up online and seeing reviewers are praising it. Unfortunately I'm in a self-imposed RSS fast for today while I'm getting stuff out in a vain attempt to keep my schedule intact and this is annoying me to no end. I want my varied frames of reference, damnit. Amazing at how quickly you get addicted to the varied and concentrated stream of data RSS provides you.
Blah. I want to see the Patriot Act gone as much as your next digerati, and I suppose democrats need a Dan Quayle to call their very own. But I already am sort of dreading public service announcements about reading with your children by Mrs. Teresa Heinz Kerry and now Edwards is a little yapping dog in my head.
And I really, really hate little yapping dogs.
Posted by drunkenbatmanOctober 06, 2004, at 10:12 AM
Comments (18)
Posted by: Hyperbole does not become you at October 6, 2004 10:44 AM
Read the transcript again::
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_1005.html
'Eviscerated' is exaggering a little bit don't you think DB? I agree Cheney dominated but it was no worse than Bush vs Kerry and won't matter to the race. I will admit this was devastating:
"I couldn't figure out why that [the vote] happened initially. And then I looked and figured out that what was happening was Howard Dean was making major progress in the Democratic primaries, running away with the primaries based on an anti-war record. So they, in effect, decided they would cast an anti-war vote and they voted against the troops.
Now if they couldn't stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to Al Qaida?"
But credit the right wing think tank for that one, not Cheney.
Posted by: Duke at October 6, 2004 11:06 AM
I totally agreed DB. The upshot however is that I have a newfound relief that it's Kerry for president instead of Edwards!
Posted by: Anna G at October 6, 2004 11:17 AM
Just more lies and spin. Cheney not meeting Edwards has already been debunked
Edwards could have been better, but not the end of the world. I still think Edwards played better to undecideds. Time will tell. :) I am glad that Bush did not have those lines
Posted by: Tim at October 6, 2004 11:17 AM
I'm not going to pretend to be unbiased or undecided either. I will be voting for Bush/Cheney. Edwards is the right man at the wrong time. He was the perfect candidate to succeed Clinton. He would have stomped W in the 2000 election in a way that wouldn't have left it up to counting ballots in Florida. The problem is 9/11 changed everything, including the expectation of what a politician is. The 9/11 shift means that candidates for national offices are expected to be serious, hard hitting, and unflappable. Edwards is none of those things and Cheney embodies those things.
The golden tongue, youthful appearance, and flashy style of Edwards doesn't play well in a job interview that may include dealing with another 9/11. But its those exact traits that would have led to a landslide in 2000.
Posted by: eco2geek at October 6, 2004 11:19 AM
"Debbie Downer"? It must be a law that our candidates for high office must always present an optomistic picture. If America was the Titanic, electing a captain after hitting the iceberg, we'd certainly not elect the one that told us the ship was going down. Too pessimistic. We just can't have that.
You want snide, smug and petulant? Listen to your current president talk sometime.
Wake up.
Posted by: Jeff at October 6, 2004 02:21 PM
I agree, DB. It's like the press (print and broadcast) wrote their stuff before the debate, already knowing what Edwards needed to do. The press's agenda has been clear for a long time, and its reactions to the debates so far just confirm it.
I just thought Edwards seemed so wet behind the ears, over-eager to please, and at times even giddy. (Did anyone else cringe when he kept freaking out about mentioning Kerry's name despite instructions to the contrary by the moderator?)
In terms of the content of their statements, both held reasonable and tenable positions, but Cheney definitely was more succinct and forceful. On the other hand, Edwards's point about Cheney's voting record in Congress (he voted against the MLK Jr. holiday) was no "glancing blow."
Posted by: Ross at October 6, 2004 03:47 PM
I heard that Cheney was asking people to visit factcheck.com that redirects to a Don't vote for Bush page. Is this true?
Posted by: Dave at October 6, 2004 04:19 PM
I listened to the debate on the radio and thought it was a draw, or poss a Cheney win on points.
No idea where your "evisceration" impression comes from.
Posted by: Snotnose at October 6, 2004 05:28 PM
From the days when Dean was unbeatable I've felt Bush does not deserve to be re-elected (and I'm a life long republican!). But IMHO Kerry has 2 major issues. First, he's gonna raise my taxes. Forget the $200,000 thing, they always start like that. It will be more like $50k when they finally do it.
Now, I can live with that considering Bush's Stem cell position, if nothing else. But I don't want Edwards anywhere near the oval office, unless he's serving the beer or emptying the chamber pots. This guy just plain creeps me out. It was hard to watch last night, the guy is even worse than I thought.
So maybe I'll vote for Nader, who knows.
Posted by: Jay Tuley at October 6, 2004 08:22 PM
George Bush is more like Dan Quayle than John Edwards is, but I agree that Edwards came off looking too young and inexperienced in the debate. Most of the media gave the debate as a tie with Cheney winning because of stature, that is until today.
Specifically because:
* Cheney and Edwards had met several times with pictures to back it up
* Cheney not only implied but actually stated on Meet the Press that there was a connection with Iraq and 9/11,
* And he messed up the URL for the FactCheck website that he used to has his defense, instead of org and he said com and com got redirected to an anti-bush blog, but if you actually get to factcheck.org, the first thing it says is "Cheney wrongly implied that FactCheck had defended his tenure as CEO of Halliburton". So it didn't matter that he got the url wrong.
So the media is now giving Edwards the tie breaker, because this is what is being talked about in regards to the debate today on TV & Web, tomorrow in newspapers, and friday is the next presidential debate.
Posted by: Roger at October 6, 2004 11:48 PM
Undecided voters are a bunch of pussies that can't make a stand. On 60 minutes II they had some dork (undecided voter) that instapoll the vp debate. He said "I'm still undecided, the candidates are like rice krispies and cornflakes." Bitch slap that idiot. Friggin' fence sitters and the politicians pander to them??
Give me a break!
Posted by: tim at October 7, 2004 09:32 AM
I like the cut of Roger's jib.
Posted by: Mindflayer at October 7, 2004 12:43 PM
DB knows I have already decided, and I am bucking the pseudo-intellectual, liberal, Democrat-effete superiority complex that many Mac users seem to adopt. I find the demagogue platform that Kerry has adopted repulsive. I do not agree with many of Bush's positions, but at least I know where the hell he stands.
Posted by: Aco at October 7, 2004 03:06 PM
Pimpbot is teh gay!
Posted by: Aco at October 7, 2004 03:25 PM
I have never heard Cheney say there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. I HAVE heard them say there is a connection between AL QAEDA and Iraq. I have watched the blogs and seen the same crap.
Cheney says at debate: That isn't right. I did not say there is a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. I said there was a connection between AL QAEDA and Iraq.
Bloggers giving transcript: Cheney is still trying to say there is a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. Are these guys in a dream world?
I want to see him actually saying it. Show me a real news item.
Posted by: IXLNXS at October 8, 2004 03:08 AM
Have to agree.
Edwards did badly. Cheney "looked" the better man in the debate.
Now a more informed person might be aware of the lies both spouted and want to add or deduct points for that, but from where I stand Edwards should have been informed enough to counter the simple lies Cheney tossed out and shouldn't have parroted Kerry, nor repeated himself so often.
It was an Edwards loss and all those who deny it are as bad as those who deny Bush's failings.
Posted by: Auraelius at October 24, 2004 02:42 AM
You're right. You shouldn't do political blogging.
Egh. I say a draw but Edwards did creep me out when he talked about Cheney's gay daughter. So drunk don't do politics it is not why I come here.
But for now, I bask in the Pimp Bot 5000 reference. Kilborn sucks. Glad he is gone.
"My software is free of glitches and my stable is full of bitches"
Classic! Bring back Andy!
Pen
^^^