Reply
Tue 5 Oct, 2004 08:44 pm
That was horribly horribly boring.
Possibly the most boring 90 minutes I ever sat through (and that I sat through it shows what a political junkie I am).
All three of them should be ashamed.
I felt the same way ebrown...but John Edward's energetic personality prevented me from completely nodding off.
I agree ebrown. Very little new ground. Very few new angles.
ebrown got it right; boring and nothing new.
Really? I thought Edwards stuck Cheney in the face several times tonight over the way he personally has made misleading statements over the Saddam/Al Queda links. And I thought he was effective at puncturing some of the other gas bag pronouncements that are part of the Cheney stump speech.
I thought Cheney held his own, but he was on the defensive in spite of the rosy pictures he likes to present. That thing he tried against Edward's figure of "90% of the coalition casualties" by adding in the Iraqi forces' deaths seemed to me to be pathetic and I thought that crack about "the first time I've met you Senator..." was more so. I thought Edwards showed that any time Cheney is in the Congress his votes are against positive things for the American people and for bills that boost the insurance and drug companies power.
He didn't look happy to be there, but when has he ever?
Joe
I actually thought it was a real good debate. Edwards style will relate a lot better to the American public and I think you'll see this reflected in the polls. He painted Cheney as a stuffed shire out for business and Cheney painted Edwards as an inexperienced politician.
Either way, there was no clear winner, although I did see Matthews take some GOP spinners to the task. He was playing along with the GOP then came right out and called Cheney a liar for saying he never claimed 9-11 and SH were related. He then went on a two minute tirade chastising the GOD spinners for even claiming that there was a connection. They were all taken aback by it. It was actually pretty cool to see the old Chris Matthews out there.
Joe, Edwards struck at Cheney with "old" stuff. As an attorney, he should have done much better, but didn't. Cheney responded the same way he always does; things are going well in Afghanistan. Edwards needed to show why it's not going well in Afghanistan with new info - and there's plenty if he bothered to look for it. Most of the country is overrun by the tribal leaders, and no matter what Chenesy says about democracy taking hold, Edwards could have jumped on that like a dog in heat.
I agree CI. I think Edwards could have done better.
It was an extremely boring debate and the only reason why I didn't shut it off and kept myself from falling asleep is because I posted a thread before the debate for people to discuss the debate when it was over. It really was a very long 90 minutes, in my opinion.
I think Friday will bring us a more interesting debate. Just watching the looks on Bush and Kerry's faces makes it an enjoyable 90 minutes.
ci, i think Edwards had more to do as a good backstop for Kerry. He cantreally lose. only bush could lose because with Cheney coming off better prepared than his'boss" its time to reassess how valuable Bush is really. then , when we assess how valuable bUSH IS, WE THEN TAKE THE NEXT STEP AND SAY, "WAIT A MINIT, THE DAMN TEAMS LED BY AN EMPTY SUIT'
cheney can look too good. I dont think Edwards played it badly at all. He took the only power shots in the 2 debates and he came up pretty untouched. cheney came over as his normal mean self.
I
I agree that they both held their own, but I was more impressed with Edwards talks about health care, prescription drugs, and Social Security issues, while Cheney didn't have anything to offer that the people would be interested in. I think the health care and prescription prices are a big issue with the American people, which is why I think Edwards came out on top in this debate.
Unfortunately, the majority in congress are GOPs.
...for the time being.
They've had the numbers for quite awhile now.
But the pendulum swings both ways...
Non-partisan, funny.
Cheney had Edwards on his heels the entire time. At times, Edwards was actually red-faced from frustration/embarrassment from what Cheney was saying.
It was the difference between an experienced politician and a new politician.
I agree that Cheney had the edge. But I also agree that Edwards did pretty well considering the mismatch. Wasn't this debate more like a president vs. vice president debate?
And I also agree that it was boring. A lot of the questions were not very good. After an hour I had to fight to keep my eyes open and I kept hoping each question was the last.
I really wish Edwards would have done less campaign talk repetition, but considering who he was up against, I think he did well. Still Cheney did better and I'd give him the slim win. In the end, though, I don't think it will matter much.
LOL! Even Fox News online poll is showing a Kerry win. Currently Kerry 50% - Cheney 48%.
(Unscientific, of course!)
Squinney,
I thought the race was Kerry-Bush (and the debate was Edwards-Cheney).
What are you trying to say?
Ooops! Of course I meant Edwards 50% - Cheney 48%.
Of course,
It's just ironic since many of us suspect the real race is Kerry vs. Cheney. LOL
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace