Non-partisan perspective of VP debate

One...I didn't think it was boring at all.

Two...I think both men did very well...but on points, Edwards was the winner on my card.

Three...the debate highlighted the fact that of the four men involved...George Bush comes in a very, very poor fourth.

Well, I did watch the nuances and body language. Chenney gave the old eye roll a couple of times. I thought Edwards' little anecdote about his dad learning math from TV was just too too, but I was pleasantly surprised, frankly, and like Frank, I thought Edwards represented Kerry much better than Chenney did Bush.

Can anyone tell me why Cheney was so interested in having the viewing audience look at the top of his head?

Or were his shoes untied?

I think he was trying to appear above it all by looking down.

I guess I fall for those kinds of things but I thought Edwards story about his dad was touching and I could visualize it pretty easy. It brought to my mind similar stories about my childhood. My dad was always studying something in the evening or helping us with our studies.

revel, Edwards' little cameo was sweet, but I think he exploited the situation. I did smile at Peter Jennings' recap. He kept getting the foursome mixed up. Loved it!

Frank, believe it or not, I think Chenney is camera shy. Folks refer to him as a private person, and that may be the reason.

All in all, neither of them changed my mind on anything.

So, where is the 'non'partisan' perspective? Did someone swipe it?

er, McG. I thought I was being quite objective.

We're relying on you for that, McG.

Me? I'm very partisan, that's why I haven't posted an opinion in this thread.

Good question, Frank, about Cheney's displaying his pate. My guess was to get the Hair Club vote.

I thought Edwards won hands down on factual points, and that for someone touted as a "debater" that Chaney was pathetic.

Edwards has a tendency occasionally to let his thoughts lead his words and he thinks fast and sometime stammers.

I thought it was a mistake on Cheney's part to bring Howard Dean into the debate. It frankly made me wish that he was debating Howard who is likely to have been aggressive with Cheney - and moreso than Edwards who was aggressive enough.

To answer a question: "I really don't how to answer that" could conceivably be a rhetorical device comparable to denying fact by saying "my opponent has his facts wrong" as a rebuttal.

It might convince the gullible that a hard question was a poor question. But more likely it would a signal that someone is evading a question - perhaps because it would allow the opposition to score.

All of Edwards points were well argued - especially focusing on Cheney's tendency to try to justify our interest in Iraq by tying the ill conceived invasion to 9/11.

Those of us who are not among the "True Believers" will prefer Edwards and Kerry simply because we're offended by the whole rubric of republicanism that makes cannon fodder of our soldiers while the public are sold an invasion for Cheney and his private interests to massacre a whole population to secure oil reserves.

Those here who say that Edwards didn't say it strongly enough may have a point. I thought the message got through loud and clear.

And who could mistake the Bush Smirk we see today for a smile. Only a seasoned republican brown nose. That's almost half of us.

Why should there be a non-partisan perspective on a debate?

Impossible.

That was a loaded question from the start, fer shur fer shur.

Why not just let it be a rhetorical question - and then behold the rhetoric that has followed?

Could your desire to control the debate be a not so subtle attempt at censorship.

Don't answer; unless you make a habit of answering rhetorical questions, which will come as no surprise.

Does Cheney use head polish? That's a question I'd like answered.

Look at the thread title, then ask yourself why you feel the need to be malefic most of the time.

Malefic, great word!

And yeah, Cheney uses head polish. To be fair, so would I if I suffered from Advanced Chromedomia.

Cycloptichorn

I thought my original view was perfectly non-partisan.

They both stank and the whole event was rather boring and disappointing.

How much more non-partisan can you get.

I'm witch you ebrown. They both stunk and lied.

I agree. And I also agree that 'malefic' is a great word.