![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thebratqueenOkay, finished watching the VP debate.
I would honestly feel comfortable saying this was a much closer debate than the Bush/Kerry one of last Thursday. This is partially due to Cheney being a better speaker than Bush and Edwards not being as much of a commanding presence as Kerry.
Both Cheney and Edwards were good with the talking points. Cheney actually showed how talking points are supposed to come across, which is a vast improvement on Bush. I once read one of Bush's handlers who said something to the effect of how Bush is good with staying on the message, because you could ask him "What time is it?" and he'd respond "It's time for us to win the war on terror." Which is nice for the repetition and all, but actually makes Bush come across like he's mentally deficient, especially when he's right next to somebody like Kerry who can actually talk on a variety of topics that also happen to relate to the question.
So you gotta give props to Cheney for being able to put the talking points out there and make them sound like actual information (other than the usual clunkers of "After 9/11" and Saddam=terrorists=WMDs). Was some of what he said completely factually incorrect and/or misleading? Yes. But sadly half if not more of this battle is how you get the information across, not in what the information actually is. You can't say that Cheney didn't do a better job of it than Bush did (not that Bush set the bar very high here).
On the flip side you've got Edwards, who unfortunately has the fact that The Daily Show has pretty much accurately pegged him as "Presidental Candidate John Kerry, and his young ward." He's cute and sweet, which does go far when the guy in the #1 spot looks and talks like Lurch, but he does look like a young boy in Daddy's clothes when sitting next to somebody like Cheney who can carry himself like a respectible and mature businessman (nevermind that said business is that of doing evil).
Then we get to what the men said. Both of them were good with stating something, then backing it up with either a fact or something that sounded damn close to one. This is a contrast to Bush who often fell back on things like "That won't work because I say so. This did work because I say so." In a debate you want to be able to cite things. With politics you very often then want your audience to never look up that citation. Again, it's all about appearance.
There were a lot of snaps and blows in this one, which was impressive on both counts. Edwards in this instance earns some extra points because pretty innocent boy manages to handle the heavy punches Cheney throws at him without once being thrown by it. In that case Edwards' weakness actually works for him, because you wouldn't expect somebody like him to handle it that well. Whereas for Cheney it makes him look like he's beeing pissy like Dubya, though this might only be to people who already think that Cheney is a cyborg sent to destroy us all.
Edwards did good, though, on how he fought back. What especially impressed me is how he used his boyish nature to his advantage to point out how often Cheney never answered the question. Now did Edwards dodge questions just as often? Sure. But again, all about appearance.
I've been asked by people to comment on the gay marriage questions. I thought Edwards did a wonderfully sneaky bastard move by commenting on Cheney's daughter. It was a fabulous way to get that in there without looking as though there were any agenda behind it though of course there so was.
Cheney's response was a beautiful bit of doublespeak. "I'm for the states deciding. Except in Mass., where that was judges disagreeing wtih the president, so obviously the president had to decide for them." Okay!
Edwards comes out in support of civil unions. I've said it before and I stand by it: I am fine with civil unions. Is it separate but equal? Yes. Do I wish I could get "married" under the law? Yes. However, the reality of the situation is that some people freak out about the word "marriage" who don't freak out about civil unions. I am not going to sit here and argue about semantics when I could be getting my legal rights. So, like I've said before, you can call it Franklin Steve Watermelon if you like if that means I get the rights. Let's get the rights first, then dick around with what we call it later. So I have no problems at all with Edwards' answer on the gay marriage question.
I know I'm forgetting stuff, but those are my general impressions at the very least. Much closer debate than Kerry/Bush, but the flip side is that I think Edwards did a great job of keeping the ball afloat for Kerry to use in the final two debates. Conversely I think Cheney is only a tiny uplift that's going to be completely blown away once Bush gets the mike again and makes an utter fool of himself.
So my hopes remain high.
I would honestly feel comfortable saying this was a much closer debate than the Bush/Kerry one of last Thursday. This is partially due to Cheney being a better speaker than Bush and Edwards not being as much of a commanding presence as Kerry.
Both Cheney and Edwards were good with the talking points. Cheney actually showed how talking points are supposed to come across, which is a vast improvement on Bush. I once read one of Bush's handlers who said something to the effect of how Bush is good with staying on the message, because you could ask him "What time is it?" and he'd respond "It's time for us to win the war on terror." Which is nice for the repetition and all, but actually makes Bush come across like he's mentally deficient, especially when he's right next to somebody like Kerry who can actually talk on a variety of topics that also happen to relate to the question.
So you gotta give props to Cheney for being able to put the talking points out there and make them sound like actual information (other than the usual clunkers of "After 9/11" and Saddam=terrorists=WMDs). Was some of what he said completely factually incorrect and/or misleading? Yes. But sadly half if not more of this battle is how you get the information across, not in what the information actually is. You can't say that Cheney didn't do a better job of it than Bush did (not that Bush set the bar very high here).
On the flip side you've got Edwards, who unfortunately has the fact that The Daily Show has pretty much accurately pegged him as "Presidental Candidate John Kerry, and his young ward." He's cute and sweet, which does go far when the guy in the #1 spot looks and talks like Lurch, but he does look like a young boy in Daddy's clothes when sitting next to somebody like Cheney who can carry himself like a respectible and mature businessman (nevermind that said business is that of doing evil).
Then we get to what the men said. Both of them were good with stating something, then backing it up with either a fact or something that sounded damn close to one. This is a contrast to Bush who often fell back on things like "That won't work because I say so. This did work because I say so." In a debate you want to be able to cite things. With politics you very often then want your audience to never look up that citation. Again, it's all about appearance.
There were a lot of snaps and blows in this one, which was impressive on both counts. Edwards in this instance earns some extra points because pretty innocent boy manages to handle the heavy punches Cheney throws at him without once being thrown by it. In that case Edwards' weakness actually works for him, because you wouldn't expect somebody like him to handle it that well. Whereas for Cheney it makes him look like he's beeing pissy like Dubya, though this might only be to people who already think that Cheney is a cyborg sent to destroy us all.
Edwards did good, though, on how he fought back. What especially impressed me is how he used his boyish nature to his advantage to point out how often Cheney never answered the question. Now did Edwards dodge questions just as often? Sure. But again, all about appearance.
I've been asked by people to comment on the gay marriage questions. I thought Edwards did a wonderfully sneaky bastard move by commenting on Cheney's daughter. It was a fabulous way to get that in there without looking as though there were any agenda behind it though of course there so was.
Cheney's response was a beautiful bit of doublespeak. "I'm for the states deciding. Except in Mass., where that was judges disagreeing wtih the president, so obviously the president had to decide for them." Okay!
Edwards comes out in support of civil unions. I've said it before and I stand by it: I am fine with civil unions. Is it separate but equal? Yes. Do I wish I could get "married" under the law? Yes. However, the reality of the situation is that some people freak out about the word "marriage" who don't freak out about civil unions. I am not going to sit here and argue about semantics when I could be getting my legal rights. So, like I've said before, you can call it Franklin Steve Watermelon if you like if that means I get the rights. Let's get the rights first, then dick around with what we call it later. So I have no problems at all with Edwards' answer on the gay marriage question.
I know I'm forgetting stuff, but those are my general impressions at the very least. Much closer debate than Kerry/Bush, but the flip side is that I think Edwards did a great job of keeping the ball afloat for Kerry to use in the final two debates. Conversely I think Cheney is only a tiny uplift that's going to be completely blown away once Bush gets the mike again and makes an utter fool of himself.
So my hopes remain high.
