The super-magical VP debate vs MR genius thread...

[blackfox]

With nine hours-and-counting till the VP Debate between Cheney and Edwards, I thought I'd start this thread to discuss:

A. Premonitions of what will happen
B. What you'd like to see happen/be discussed
C. Likely/Smart strategies for each Candidate to take
D. Likely media response
E. Voter reaction
F. Effectiveness in overall Race.

Then later, we can all come back and pat ourselves on the back for being so smart or rationalize our way out of our mistakes. This in addition to Debate critique, of course...

I personally am looking forward to this one...

[mischief]

Hmm...

Volatile egomaniac versus successful populist trial layer at the top of his game...

How long do you think it will take for Cheney to be cussing Edwards out and losing any coherent ability to talk?

I'll give it ten minutes. :D

[blackfox]

something like this?
(esp. relevant to me w/ St. Helens right out the window...also, is it just me or is Edwards depicted as a Jimmy Carter look-alike?)

[mischief]

something like this?
(esp. relevant to me w/ St. Helens right out the window...also, is it just me or is Edwards depicted as a Jimmy Carter look-alike?)

I thought he looked more like Robert Kennedy... particularly oce he opens his mouth (accent aside).

[blackfox]

I meant solely in the cartoon...

[Mike Teezie]

I am praying for an "F Bomb" to slip from Cheney's mouth.

[mischief]

I meant solely in the cartoon...

Okay, sure.... I can see that.... I just thought I'd say what the comment brought to mind too....

[makisushi]

A. Premonitions of what will happen
I think that most of the questions will parallel the first presidential debate. Like a rehash.
B. What you'd like to see happen/be discussed
I would like to hear some of the issues that Edwards feels is important, but I think it won't happen. I think that he will stick to John Kerry's agenda, and rightly so. I would also like to hear the VP's honest response for the kickbacks from hallaburton.
C. Likely/Smart strategies for each Candidate to take
Cheney will be blunt, Edwards will be eloquent.
D. Likely media response
no comment.
E. Voter reaction
being that the race (according to the polls) is so close, that those who support kerry will think Edwards won and those who support Bush will think Cheney won.
F. Effectiveness in overall Race.
I think it will have a noticable effect on how we view each campaign's platform. Especially if they talk about domestic issues. They haven't been brought up in the debates yet, and it will set the tone for the next tow presidential debates.

[IJ Reilly]

Well, it's a side-show the main event. It could be an interesting match-up because of the very different personal styles of the two men -- though honestly I doubt it.

Forecast: Cheney will try to paint Edwards as callow and inexperienced. He will mention trial lawyers at least twice. Edwards will attempt to corner Cheney on his remarks about terrorist threats being increased if Kerry gets elected, but he will successfully evade a direct answer. Edwards will mention the "two Americas" at least twice (which makes four Americas, please check my math).

[3rdpath]

smiley vs. mr. mumbles....it should be interesting.

i think cheney's got a tough evening ahead of him. iraq, job losses, a massive deficit...cheney had it easy during last election's debate. ntm, most houseplants have more charisma than joe lieberman.

cheney, of course, will try to portray edwards as the reason for tort reform and edwards will counter that he's proud of defending the little guy against sleazy corporations...such as halliburton.

edwards will directly discuss the issues while cheney will spout the same tired personal attacks as bush did. i can only hope edwards cites the blatant lies and misrepresentations of cheney during the last year...including his infamous " meet the press" fiasco..."we have found mobile biological labs" and " i can see how people associate 9/11 and saddam".

we may actually see cheney attempt to smile which will probably look more like a grimace.

i also expect cheney, if he's getting his butt kicked, to dramatically grab his chest, say something like " this debate is more important than my life or death" and go for the sympathy vote.

let's face it, edwards is young, likeable and looks like a kennedy. cheney looks like the grumpy rich uncle who gave you a crappy used and broken toy every christmas.

edwards wins it.

[solvs]

Hm, a corrupt industrialist vs. a trial lawyer. I realize he represented that kid who lost half her intestines because of a known problem with pool filters when a corporation decided to "cut corners", but he's still a lawyer. Neccessary evil, I suppose. I see Halliburton brought up a few times, as well as Edwards inexperiance. Cheney will mention flip-flopping indirectly, and Edwards will throw it back at him. Cheney will try to focus on things Edwards doesn't know much about. Iraq, of course. A lot of Iraq. I'm hoping for a few surprises.

[3rdpath]

funny thing about lawyers:

everyone gripes about them....until they need one.

if either of my daughters were permanently injured by a product with a known hazardous defect, you can bet your ass i'd pursue all legal remedies within my means to send an unmistakable message to the maker of that product.

it's trial lawyers like edwards that coerce companies to change their strategies when deciding just how many injury settlements they can pay out before they improve their products.

or maybe i should just call some bloated overpaid CEO next time i need a representative to defend the health and welfare of my family. :rolleyes:

[Roger1]

let's face it, edwards is young, likeable and looks like a kennedy. cheney looks like the grumpy rich uncle who gave you a crappy used and broken toy every christmas.

edwards wins it.

LOL! Now that I think about it, that is so true!!! :p

[themadchemist]

every time that cheney appears on television, kerry picks up points. i'm going to enjoy this.

[solvs]

or maybe i should just call some bloated overpaid CEO next time i need a representative to defend the health and welfare of my family.
That's why I said neccessary evil, and related the story about who he defends. ;) He's still a lawyer. I appreciate they exist, like reporters, but I still have my qualms with the way most of them conduct business.

Watching the debate tonight, Edwards is doing pretty well. But Cheney isn't doing bad either.

[mactastic]

Cheney's ahead on points IMO thus far. Although I am about 10 minutes behind live TV at this point.

Edwards looks like he's let Cheney rattle him a little. He needs to take some deep breaths and then let Dick have it.

[IJ Reilly]

You think? I'm not an Edward fan by any means, but I'm impressed by the way he's been handling himself tonight. Cheney made a borderline personal attack on Edwards. That was kind of icky.

[mactastic]

This is supposed to be ugly. This should be like watching two pit bulls fight to the death. Awful but compelling nonetheless. That's what VP's are supposed to do. Everyone knew Cheney would come with the personal attacks, Edwards needs to hit back just as hard. Halliburton Halliburton Hallicheney...

As it goes on Edwards is getting more comfortable, but you can tell he wants to get up and pace around the courtroom. This debate format definetly favors Cheney though.

Cheney defintely brought his A game tonight.

[IJ Reilly]

I didn't have those expectations. I think there's only so many times Edwards can mention Halliburton. Once was plenty.

[mactastic]

It's hard work not mentioning Halliburton! Hard work I tell you! :D

[makisushi]

I am a little suprised at Edwards making faces while cheney is talking...it just comes off as immature.
I do think that both men have handled themselves pretty well.

[zimv20]

i'm turned off by both. i don't like the idea of using the time for question B to continue the discussion of question B.

- cheney started strong, making made edwards looked confused and inexperienced
- edwards found somewhat of a stride and has made some good counters
- cheney has reiterated points that edwards had already countered; i thought that reflected badly on him
- edwards i thought missed a lot of opportunities to make better points

of note:
- cheney's fascinating decision to not comment further on the gay marriage issue

- why the hell did edwards use that controversial $200 billion figure? he should have known the easiest way to counter his entire argument is to dispute that one fact

[Thanatoast]

I give the win to Cheney. At least he actually answered the questions posed. Edwards didn't so much dodge as completely ignore some of the questions given by the moderator. He's trying to play the Republicans' game by staying on message, but he's sounding like Bush did last debate. Not quite that bad, but still.

I totally disagreed with Cheney's closing statement, but it came across very well. The conservative base will eat it up.

Edwards was the weak link in this debate, IMO.

Aargh.

[zimv20]

another note:

cheney started off w/ a bang, associating 9/11, iraq, and a global WoTerror in almost one breath.

his closing was based on fear mongering. edwards closing was about hope. fwiw.

[IJ Reilly]

I'm listening to Cheney's closing remarks and I'm reminded uncomfortably of Dr. Strangelove.

[mactastic]

another note:

cheney started off w/ a bang, associating 9/11, iraq, and a global WoTerror in almost one breath.

his closing was based on fear mongering. edwards closing was about hope. fwiw.

Well thanks for spoiling the surprise for me! With no commercials I've no way to catch back up to the live broadcast. :p

[zimv20]

Well thanks for spoiling the surprise for me! With no commercials I've no way to catch back up to the live broadcast. :p
soylent green is people! ha!

[Thomas Veil]

This one was almost a draw.

If Cheney was expecting to better Edwards, it didn't happen. Edwards, being a trial lawyer, was, as I expected, cool and confident.

Cheney, unfortunately, kind of kept up Bush's tendency to hammer on his talking points. I was ready to walk out if I heard that goofy "inconsistency" claim about Kerry again.

Edwards, on the other hand, did an admirable job explaining why a lot of those inconsistency claims are overblown, while pointing out some flip-flops of Bush's own.

I think what's happening to both Bush and Cheney is that they've been trapped by their continuing charges of flip-flopping. They keep bringing it up over and over, as if it were some kind of magical incantation that, if recited enough, would come true.

But now that Kerry and Edwards are out there actually giving details of some of their votes, the magic of the "flip-flop" incantation is waning. Nevertheless, they keep repeating it, because they really have nowhere else to go.

Bonus point for Cheney: mentioning that he'd never seen Edwards in the Senate.

Bonus point for Edwards: mentioning that Cheney's company, Halliburton, was a no-bid primary beneficiary of that controversial $87 billion weapons bill.

In the end, I agree with zimv: Cheney concluded by speaking to fear, Edwards spoke to hope. Because of that, and because Edwards relied less on over-used talking points, I give a slight edge to Edwards.

[solvs]

Well it hasn't changed my mind like the last debate did. I was pretty much expecting exactly what happened. I don't think Cheney did as well as Kerry against Bush, but he definitely held his own. Edwards could have been a little stronger, so I'm a little disappointed, but I wasn't expecting too much from him anyway. He's too genial, and I don't know if that works for him or against him.

Cheney did well, but it's the same arguements we've been hearing. I was impressed by some of his points, like with gay marrige, but it doesn't change the fact that the Bush administration has made a lot of mistakes they have not answered for. I will still be voting against Bush, not for Kerry. Edwards has not helped, but he has not hurt.

[zimv20]

i forgot to mention: point to edwards for using "resolute" to describe kerry, not bush's self-described "resolved". i don't think that was an accident.

no one's mentioned gwen ifill -- i thought she did a great job.

"gwen."
"mr. vice president."

she rocks.

[yg17]

Unfortunatley, it does seem Edwards lost that one. However, I'm not worried. With 2 more presidental debates where Bush will get owned, everyone will forget about the vice presidental debate when the polls open on election day

[Sayhey]

Edwards wins in a split decision. Everything in this debate was geared for a Cheney win, so Edwards would have done well to just come off looking as a plausible President. He did more than that and scored many hits on the Bush - Cheney record. Cheney not only had the format in his favor, but he is also an intelligent man, an right-wing ideologue, but intelligent nonetheless. He wasn't going to make the same kind of mistakes Bush did and he acquitted himself well. Edwards gets the win not only because he pointed out many things about the Bush - Cheney record (loved the Haliburton and voting record stuff) but also because he communicated a sense of hope. Something Cheney seems incapable showing.

[SiliconAddict]

As I was trying to say. :rolleyes: I think Edwards got eaten alive by Cheney for the first half of the debate. The number of times Cheney was razzing Edwards and Kerry with "facts" and Edwards answered with bland answers made Edwards look impotent. Or the handful of times that Edwards simply bypassed questions which IMHO didn’t score points. I think this is definitely going to negatively impact the polls. Kerry better do well on Thursday. Check that. He better do damn well.

I have a feeling though Bush is going to recoup on the next debate. He's had a week to figure out where he went wrong and where he can fix his stupidity. Stupidity can be covered with enough preparation.

[zimv20]

Or the handful of times that Edwards simply bypassed questions which IMHO didn’t score points.
to be fair, they both did. but edwards did it more. and i found it very frustrating.


I think this is definitely going to negatively impact the polls.
not so sure, we'll have to see.


Kerry better do well on Thursday. Check that. He better do damn well.
my main concern with kerry on thursday is that he's prepared for friday's debate. :-)

[IJ Reilly]

The way I look at this debate, Cheney scored a field goal and Edwards shot a birdie -- which isn't too bad for a couple of second-stringers.

[zimv20]

regarding cheney's claim he'd never met john edwards before the debate...

http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/Cheney-Edwards.jpg

from here: http://blog.johnkerry.com/

edit: according to here (http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/003152.html#more), that pic is from february 2001.

Cheney Thanked Edwards At the National Prayer Breakfast. Addressing the National Prayer Breakast, Cheney said: “Thank you. Thank you very much. Congressman Watts, Senator Edwards, friends from across America and distinguished visitors to our country from all over the world, Lynne and I honored to be with you all this morning.” [FDCH Political Transcripts, Cheney Remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, 2/1/01]

[Thomas Veil]

:p Nice find, zimv!

[solvs]

I'm surprised the polls are indicating Edwards won. Even the one on Fox's site. Especially with even the more liberal analysts giving it to Cheney. I guess the tie goes to the runner. Or people are just really pissed at the current administration, and tired of the Bush rhetoric. Edwards had his own rhetoric, and wasn't as comfortable in his own skin, but maybe people are really caring about substance over style.

I hope Kerry does a good job next time as well.

Edit: didn't even think about the hope vs. fear thing until after someone else mentioned it on another board. I'm just so used to the doom and gloom from Cheney. Did he even answer the question about whether he thinks we'll be attacked on Kerry's watch, like we were under Bush's?

[SiliconAddict]

my main concern with kerry on thursday is that he's prepared for friday's debate. :-)

DOH!!!! :o

Hmmm it would be interesting headlines. Candidate shows up one day early for debates.

[IJ Reilly]

Speaking of factcheck.org...

Rivals' Bold Assertions Are Debatable

Cheney and Edwards accuse each other of stretching the truth. In fact, both are guilty.

WASHINGTON — Meeting for their only televised debate Tuesday night, the two vice presidential candidates spent much of the time accusing each other of playing fast and loose with the facts.

They both had grounds to complain.

Throughout the 90-minute debate, Vice President Dick Cheney and Sen. John Edwards each frequently overstated his case, stretched the truth or ignored facts that did not suit his argument.

As in last week's debate between President Bush and challenger John F. Kerry, the most heated disputes between Cheney and Edwards came over who was telling the truth about the war in Iraq — especially the Bush administration's claims that the invasion was justified because Baghdad possessed banned weapons and had ties to Al Qaeda.

Cheney, who was one of the administration's most ardent advocates of invading Iraq, reasserted his conviction that Iraq "had an established relationship with Al Qaeda." However, that suggests a deeper connection than many in the U.S. intelligence community believe existed.

In its final report, the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks cited evidence of contacts between Saddam Hussein's government and Al Qaeda dating back more than a decade, but concluded that there was "no evidence" of a "collaborative operational relationship."

One of Cheney's boldest assertions during the debate was to insist, "I have not suggested there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

It is true that Cheney has never flatly asserted that Iraq was complicit in the Sept. 11 plot, but on many occasions, he has made remarks leaving the impression that Iraq may have been aware or involved.

In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" in September 2003, Cheney described Iraq as the "geographic base" for those behind the Sept. 11 attacks. "If we're successful in Iraq," he said, "then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

Edwards had his own moments of truth-shading.

In arguing that senior Republicans agreed with Kerry that "Iraq is a mess and getting worse," he quoted Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) out of context when he said Lugar believed the situation was a result of administration "incompetence."

Lugar, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, recently said incompetence was to blame not for the turmoil in Iraq, but for the fact that only $1 billion had been spent of the $18.4 billion that Congress provided for Iraq's reconstruction.

Edwards reiterated the claim Kerry made in Thursday's debate that the United States had "taken 90% of the coalition causalities" in the war in Iraq. Cheney called that assertion "dead wrong" and said the figure was "closer to 50%" when Iraqis are included.

As of Tuesday, 1,061 American service members had been killed and 7,700 wounded. Edwards' figure appeared correct when Iraqi forces were omitted, analysts said. Non-U.S. coalition forces have identified 136 deaths to date, which would make American casualties account for 88.5% of the total.

But there are no reliable figures on Iraqi deaths. As a result, Cheney's assertion is nearly impossible to verify.

Cheney's claim Tuesday that U.S. forces have "captured or killed thousands of Al Qaeda" members also is questionable. Thousands of suspects have been captured or killed in dozens of nations in the administration's war on terrorism, according to congressional testimony by former CIA Director George J. Tenet. But that figure apparently includes Taliban and other fighters who were not widely believed to belong to Osama bin Laden's network.

Edwards, by repeating Kerry's assertion that the war in Iraq had cost $200 billion, also stretched the bottom line. Edwards counted money to be spent in the fiscal year that started Oct. 1. The cost of the war to date has been slightly more than $120 billion, according to budget officials cited by Factcheck.org, a nonpartisan website sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania.

The two men offered radically different portraits of Afghanistan. In Cheney's, Afghanistan is making a recovery after years of war and privation. He pointed to upcoming elections and new rights gained by some of the country's women. According to Edwards, the country remains immersed in tragedy, with violence raging in many areas and drug production rising.

By many objective measures, the violence in Afghanistan has remained a problem or gotten worse in the last year. And in claiming that 10 million voters were registered for Saturday's presidential election, Cheney was repeating an assertion that had been widely challenged as inflated by Afghans who had registered to vote more than once.

Both Cheney and Edwards shaded the truth when the debate repeatedly turned to Halliburton Co., the Houston-based oil services firm that Cheney once headed, an issue that Democrats have tried to make central to the campaign.

Edwards attacked Cheney's leadership of the company from 1995 to 2000, seeming to blame him for alleged bribery of foreign officials and accounting errors.

Cheney denied the charges, referring voters to "Fact-check.com" — he meant Fact-check.org, the nonpartisan website. Factcheck.org seeks to clear up questions about the pay package that Cheney received upon retiring from Halliburton but does not address the issues raised by Edwards.

On the broader question of military force in international relations, Cheney accused Kerry of saying in last week's debate that he would subject U.S. policy to a "global test" before using troops to defend the nation.

In fact, Kerry said he would not allow foreign countries a right to veto U.S. decisions, but added that he believed U.S. policy should be fashioned in such a way that it would pass "the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

Cheney's charge was one both he and Bush have used in campaign stops since Friday. Edwards responded that he was taking the phrase out of context.

On the economy, both candidates cited employment figures that suited their purposes. Edwards referred to the loss of 1.6 million private-sector jobs during the Bush administration. But the more commonly used measure of employment looks at all jobs, which produced the less dramatic job loss of 900,000.

Cheney cited a figure of 1.7 million jobs that had been added since the economic low point of August 2003 — a turnaround that has enabled Bush to point to a recovery.

Arguing over congressional voting records, Edwards was both right and wrong when he charged that Cheney had voted against a holiday to mark Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday.

Actually — and perhaps to paraphrase Kerry — Cheney voted against the King federal holiday before he voted for it. The first vote was in 1979, and Cheney's 'no' vote helped block the holiday from becoming law. He voted 'yes' in 1983, when the new holiday passed.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-truth6oct06,1,2984882.story

[jayscheuerle]

Every response of Chaney's seem to start with the equivalent of "Listen here you upstart little prick..."

I'm just surprised he didn't literally explode.

Repulsed as I am by the Bush administration, I thought Chaney was very well spoken, though snide. This whole business of being resolute and having conviction in the face of overwhelming error is not a positive trait. It's denial and its' dangerous. Islamic terrorists do not hate us or our way of life. They hate our policies in the Middle East. They see our policies as being guided by the current administration, so as long as this administration is in power, we are going to have a relentlessly difficult time "winning" the war on terrorism, which of course can no more be won than an idea can be suppressed. Contained? Possibly. Beaten? Only a simpleton would think so (cue Bush pic.)...

The format of the next debate plays into Bush's strengths, connecting to the common man. The home-styled stories will be flowing. Watch for anecdotes about women named "Missy", assembly-line workers named "Hank", and the "Garcia Family". Idiots eat this stuff up and this country is full of them.... No hard facts, just a warm, rosy glow. Unfortunately, that glow is from the fires of hell which the past 4 years have been...

[diamond geezer]

Cheney said Edwards has "one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate."

In truth, Edwards has an 84.8% voting record in the Senate. In each of his first four years, he had a perfect or near perfect record:

1999 Cast 371 out of 374 votes for a 99.2% voting record
2000 Cast 298 out of 298 votes for a 100% voting record
2001 Cast 377 out of 380 votes for a 99.2% voting record
2002 Cast 253 out of 253 votes for a 100% voting record
2003 Cast 281 out of 459 votes for a 61.2% voting record
2004 Cast 84 out of 198 votes for a 42.4% voting record

OVERALL Edwards has cast 1664 out of 1962 votes for a 84.8% voting record.

link (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm)

Dick Cheney said the following:

Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.

Cheney's lie about never meeting Edwards has been exposed repeatedly and by many sources. However, the first part is actually a much bigger lie. As Senate attendance records show, in the 126 Tuesdays the Senate has been in session during Cheney's tenure as Vice-President, he has actually only presided over the Senate as President on two occasions. During the same stretch, to fill in for Cheney's repeated absence, Edwards has served as acting President of the Senate on two occasions.

[Mike Teezie]

Cheney said Edwards has "one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate."

In truth, Edwards has an 84.8% voting record in the Senate. In each of his first four years, he had a perfect or near perfect record:

1999 Cast 371 out of 374 votes for a 99.2% voting record
2000 Cast 298 out of 298 votes for a 100% voting record
2001 Cast 377 out of 380 votes for a 99.2% voting record
2002 Cast 253 out of 253 votes for a 100% voting record
2003 Cast 281 out of 459 votes for a 61.2% voting record
2004 Cast 84 out of 198 votes for a 42.4% voting record

OVERALL Edwards has cast 1664 out of 1962 votes for a 84.8% voting record.

link (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm)

Dick Cheney said the following:

Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.

Cheney's lie about never meeting Edwards has been exposed repeatedly and by many sources. However, the first part is actually a much bigger lie. As Senate attendance records show, in the 126 Tuesdays the Senate has been in session during Cheney's tenure as Vice-President, he has actually only presided over the Senate as President on two occasions. During the same stretch, to fill in for Cheney's repeated absence, Edwards has served as acting President of the Senate on two occasions.

:eek:

This was the only part in the debate I got kind of scared, was when Dick called out J.E. on his record. What a crock!!

[blackfox]

Looks like I am a little late with my impressions of the Debate...oh well.

I was very dissapointed in the Debate, outside of the Moderation. Both Candidates did a poor job of answering the questions posed to them and their answers were full of factual innaccuracies to a degree the Pres. Debate was not.

That said, Cheney had a very strong showing and came off very professional, assured and competent. His obvious experience and intelligence shone through in the manner which he answered. Edwards did not fare as well, but as the Debate progressed, he improved.

Particular things that bothered me (as a Democrat, mostly):

1. Edwards not being able to refrain from mentioning Kerry's name in a response to a question that asked him not to. He did it twice.

2. Edwards referral to the need to "kill" "destroy" the terrorists. I understand the political need to talk tough in the Race, but it still rubbed me the wrong way.

3. Edwards unconditional support of Isreal. Again, probably Election politics, but I was hoping for better.

4. Cheney's comment about Edwards voting record. Pretty devastating, but also completely false.

5. Edwards insistence on using the $200 billion pricetag for the Iraq war, when that includes money not yet spent.

6. Cheney's initial comments about gay-marrige being a "States" issue, then talking about the need for a "federal" solution in a Constitutional amendment.

I found Cheney's declining to reply to several issues (30-second),including Gay-marriage, to be puzzling. I look forward to Friday.

[wwworry]

why would he say he presided over the senate "most" tuesdays when he only did it twice? or that he never met Edwards. That sentence was a complete lie.

Why would the vice president lie like that?

also I thought the love fest for Israel disappointing by both.

[zimv20]

Why would the vice president lie like that?

to win.

[Toe]

I thought the VP debate was fairly low-quality and didn't resolve much, but I was very impressed by one of Edwards' tactics...

If you've ever been involved in high school or college debate, you may know that it is considered quite a no-no to bring up new arguments in rebuttal, as your opponent doesn't get a chance to respond. Not being constrained by high school debate rules, Edwards used this technique to great effect. In numerous cases where he had the last rebuttal, he spent the last part of his rebuttal bringing up completely new, extremely damning arguments. And Cheney had to just sit there and take it.

Nice tactic, eh? Kinda like when Kerry kept writing vehemently while Bush was talking. This served to provide a silent refutation of Bush's statement, to distract viewers from what Bush was saying, and to fluster Bush, who was visibly startled by Kerry's writing more than once.

Republicans are noted for coming up with this kind of tactics. I guess they were simply out-thought in these cases. :D