![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Letters to Newsweek; the Veeps debate
Oct. 6th, 2004 12:04 pm( Newsweek is not just for smart peoples lieks me... )
The VP debate was, in a word, dreadful. It took about a week for the ABC News team to come around and admit, after immediately post-debate being cautiously neutral, that Kerry had won last week's debate. They were singing the same tune of neutrality after this one, but it was pretty clear who'd won. Cheney is a bastard of an opponent because he is so good. Carrie was amazed to hear someone coherently and logically explicating the reasons behind the need for a war in Iraq because heretofore she had only heard it ranted about or told by the president, whom she holds in highest respect, of course. We all do...anyway, back to the Cheney. The guy was good. He was concise, he was calm, though his television presence has got nothing on Edwards billion-watt and easy-peasy smile. Lisa brought up the Nixon-Kennedy debates, how people reading didn't think Kennedy had done well, but the people watching had because of his telegenicity. I don't think Edwards could have been said to have pulled a Kennedy last night, but the parallels are obvious otherwise.
Cheney was really good, but Edwards helped a lot by being really bad. He rambled, he kept not letting things go that had passed before, more often than not ignoring the question directly asked altogether or saving but ten seconds for it of his two minutes or 90 seconds. The moderator was, I think, unduly harsh to him from the get-go, though I believe her frustration was justified as the debate wore on, given how both candidates, but Edwards specifically, avoided answering like any of her questions that weren't about Iraq. She just was so snippy about it, it didn't seem appropriate or unbiased. I don't know for sure, but I believe that's out of line. If a candidate doesn't answer a question, you re-incorporate it, redirect, or move on. You don't berate one candidate or the other. Lehrer didn't, not like this woman.
It didn't help that Edwards was making a lot of Bush's mistakes--jumping in, asking for more time--though he refrained from Bush's worst mistake, ie making faces. He made Kerry's repute of rambling seem inconsequential, and Bush's mangling of words (ugh, he got Osama and Saddam confused...::wrings hands::) seems to be a Southern thing. Any nice thing that Edwards said about Cheney, Cheney accepted graciously and made no argument, making him seem rather magnanimous. Edwards really is a beautiful guy to look at, but there's probably a reason he's not as high-profile as John Kerry in this race. He's such a lawyer. He kept repeating himself, making the same point without incorporating (or, at least, without incorporating well) new stuff brought up by Cheney, and never letting anything go. Sigh...
Immediately, post-debate, we decided liquor needed to be onhand for Friday. Oh yeah, debate party anyone?
::runs off to read the NYTimes to see what they thought::
The VP debate was, in a word, dreadful. It took about a week for the ABC News team to come around and admit, after immediately post-debate being cautiously neutral, that Kerry had won last week's debate. They were singing the same tune of neutrality after this one, but it was pretty clear who'd won. Cheney is a bastard of an opponent because he is so good. Carrie was amazed to hear someone coherently and logically explicating the reasons behind the need for a war in Iraq because heretofore she had only heard it ranted about or told by the president, whom she holds in highest respect, of course. We all do...anyway, back to the Cheney. The guy was good. He was concise, he was calm, though his television presence has got nothing on Edwards billion-watt and easy-peasy smile. Lisa brought up the Nixon-Kennedy debates, how people reading didn't think Kennedy had done well, but the people watching had because of his telegenicity. I don't think Edwards could have been said to have pulled a Kennedy last night, but the parallels are obvious otherwise.
Cheney was really good, but Edwards helped a lot by being really bad. He rambled, he kept not letting things go that had passed before, more often than not ignoring the question directly asked altogether or saving but ten seconds for it of his two minutes or 90 seconds. The moderator was, I think, unduly harsh to him from the get-go, though I believe her frustration was justified as the debate wore on, given how both candidates, but Edwards specifically, avoided answering like any of her questions that weren't about Iraq. She just was so snippy about it, it didn't seem appropriate or unbiased. I don't know for sure, but I believe that's out of line. If a candidate doesn't answer a question, you re-incorporate it, redirect, or move on. You don't berate one candidate or the other. Lehrer didn't, not like this woman.
It didn't help that Edwards was making a lot of Bush's mistakes--jumping in, asking for more time--though he refrained from Bush's worst mistake, ie making faces. He made Kerry's repute of rambling seem inconsequential, and Bush's mangling of words (ugh, he got Osama and Saddam confused...::wrings hands::) seems to be a Southern thing. Any nice thing that Edwards said about Cheney, Cheney accepted graciously and made no argument, making him seem rather magnanimous. Edwards really is a beautiful guy to look at, but there's probably a reason he's not as high-profile as John Kerry in this race. He's such a lawyer. He kept repeating himself, making the same point without incorporating (or, at least, without incorporating well) new stuff brought up by Cheney, and never letting anything go. Sigh...
Immediately, post-debate, we decided liquor needed to be onhand for Friday. Oh yeah, debate party anyone?
::runs off to read the NYTimes to see what they thought::
