What a brawl it was: The Democratic/Republican debate between vice-presidential candidates John Edwards and Dick Cheney was everything last week's Kerry-Bush debate wasn't — ugly, bitter, confrontational. I swear, if the two had not been seated the entire time (to pacify the preternaturally sneering terrorist), it would have been unsurprising to see the Dickster go for Johnny Smooth's throat.
I would call the night a draw, at least on the surface. Edwards gave a strong performance, underscored the differences between his side and the other's (at least on a few key issues), and made his points quite clearly. He even rattled the selected veep on a few occasions. Edwards deserves kudos for much of the job he did. I don't think he did anything to hurt the Kerry effort and he may have helped. The same could be said for Bush's second. But the good news for libs is that big, bad Cheney, the one with the experience and gravitas, did not achieve any knockouts — Edwards absolutely held his own.
Unfortunately, though, the viciousness of Cheney overwhelmed much of the verbal duel, which perhaps will lead some — Bush supporters and people inclined to believe statements only because they are repeated angrily and ad nauseum — to call Cheney the victor.
Truth is, while both candidates stretched facts here and there, Cheney lied deliberately, repeatedly and constantly. And while Edwards was well prepared, able to anticipate what his opponent would say, composed, and yes, smooth, he missed some opportunities to nail the Squatter's number-two man to the wall.
Some examples:
- Cheney, dissing Edwards' performance on Capitol Hill:
Senator, frankly, you have a record in the Senate that's not very distinguished. You've missed 33 out of 36 meetings of the Judiciary Committee, almost 70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee. You've missed a lot of key votes, on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform. Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you "Senator Gone." You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - bhw
Nice round-up, Natalie. I recorded the debate and will probably watch it tonight.
2 - Eric Olsen
Very fine job, Nat - I agree it was more or less a tie, but I think the edge goes to Cheney since people don't see that much of him and he was much more measured and gracious than the image most have of him.
3 - Milos
Nice round-up. I am voting for Kerry, and it was clear that Kerry easily won the first debate, but honestly now... it was also clear (at least to me) that Ole Chaney spanked Edwards last night - not that it makes any difference...
4 - Craig Lyndall
I thought that Kerry clearly won the first presidential debate, but it baffles me how people think Edwards won this one. In terms of debate alone, Edwards answered the wrong questions and deflected in his 30 second responses. You can call Cheney a liar, but in terms of debate performance, I don't think you can call him the loser of this debate unless your politics backed that up before the debate began.
5 - Dawn
Natalie,
Excellent job and I think a very fair assessment of the debate.
While there are few humans on earth I despise more than Dick Cheney, I think for once he came across as human and even approachable at times.
Edwards' lawyering skills helped him tremendously as he was able to think on his feet and not be caught off guard.
While I think in general it was a tie, I do believe that Cheney came across more as more presidential, and by that I mean, disconnected, unmoved and very robotic.
Edwards was kind of goofy at times and made me nervous with his spastic like behavior.
When you compare the two traits between stiff and goofy I call it a wash.
6 - Mac Diva
I thought Cheney lost points for lack of eye contact. He rarely looked at the camera or even Edwards. You would have thought the table had even more gold he could add to his bulging cache the way he focused on it. Okay. Cheney is an ugly old fart. But, still, looking at people is reassuring to them.
Edwards managed to stop short of turning smooth into smarmy. Good going. I thought he should have smacked Cheney down in regard to the subliminal message 'You're just an ambulance chaser' embodied in the largely pointless emphasis Cheney put on personal injury lawsuits. Instead, he unconvincingly laughed it off.
I think the degree of knowledge people had before the debate influenced opinions, Craig. Many politically aware people know Cheney is a sneaky Daddy Warbucks who would sell his offspring for a good stock tip. He would have had to shed a lot of baggage to come to the debate 'clean.'
7 - Natalie Davis
Mr. Lyndall wrote:
I never said Edwards won; my stated opinion is that this was pretty much a draw. Many of my criticisms of Edwards are noted above (and you're right -- ignoring an asked question to talk about something else is not proper debate behavior).
Yes, I call Cheney a liar, but in my book, a liar is a loser. In terms of debate performance, in judging Cheney, one would have to take his demeanor into consideration: his sneer, his scowl, his "superior" and condescending air, his almost-total refusal to make eye contact with anyone but his desk... And then there is the content: Nothing he said compelled me to change my view of him or of the squatter; YMMV. But there is no getting around the FACT that the nasty old man LIED. So did he give a great performance? You decide.
There will be those who believe the faux veep won. And there will be those who do not. The only poll that counts is the one the Supreme Count will ignore when it decides. ;)
8 - D.I.
I thought Edwards should've brought up Cheney's six deferments to dodge the draft during the Vietnam War, only because it would inderscore what a hypocrite and a phoney he is - promoting and supporting warfare, as long he himself does not have to go.
9 - Duane
Natalie, your vehemence at Cheney's lie concerning whether or not he had met Edwards prior to the debate seem a little disingenuous. Yes, it's a lie, but so what? What about the meat of the comment, that Edwards has had a poor attendance record? Is that a lie? Isn't that about six billion times more important than whether they had met before? It reminds me of when one person says to another, oh, let's say, "You probably think I'm a totally worthless, mean-spirited, narrow-minded old geezer!" The other person says, "I don't think you're old."
10 - Mac Diva
Natalie, you have a link to this entry for A&O at Mac-a-ro-nies.
Duane, Cheney was rather unclear. Purposely, one suspects. He may have focused on Edwards' absences while campaigning. All candidates miss votes while campaigning. Also, there are minor and major issues to be voted on. If Edwards missed insignificant votes, but was present fot the big ones, that matters a great deal. Furthermore, Cheney is said to spend more than three-fourths of his time fundraising. He is hardly in a position to complain about absences from Congress.
11 - Duane
Good points all, Mac D. I guess it wouldn't really matter if Edwards missed the vote on whether they should have Jell-o or popsicles at the Senate picnic.
12 - Natalie Davis
Mr. Duane, "it's a lie, but so what"???? I don't know about you, but I don't want a liar -- and worse -- in the White House.
As to your comment, of course the fact that Edwards missed a lot of time in the Senate is worthy of consideration. So is the fact that Cheney's attendance record as Senate president is at least as bad -- he has presided over the body only twice in the last four years.
Uh oh -- Cheney lied again: "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."
Is that lie OK with you too? Are you as eager to overlook bin Cheney's rotten attendance record as you are to slam Edwards for his?