I Know You Don't, But I Thought Edwards Sucked

I had a college debate coach, a champion NDTer himself, make me spend several hours a week reading entries in the yellow pages so that I could speed up my delivery. No, that didn't make my arguments any more valid or my persuasion more illucidating. It did help make me a formidible competitor. But, I digress ...

Because of my experience, I understand that I look for things in debates that most people don't. And yes, I know. These aren't real debates.

Yes, Cheney "Cheney'd up" by sending thousands of Americans to FactCheck.com (a redirect to George Soros' site!) instead of FactCheck.org. He also told a couple of big, fat ones, which most media outlets pointed out to viewers immediately following the showdown.

Nevertheless, Edwards left too many of Cheney's charges on the table, not answering them very effectively. I thought his gaffes were obvious to the naked eye, but apparently they weren't. CBS News has Edwards with a commanding lead among undecided voters.

I heard it said that folks used to come far and wide in North Carolina to hear Edwards' summations in court. Where was that guy last night?

Comments

[eRobin]

Really? I thought he did well within the contraints of the event. He followed up on the $87B question - although neither Kerry nor Edwards explain what really happened with that vote. I think they think it's too complicated. He hammered the Halliburton issue well. He only looked nervous (bad) to me when he was discussing the gay marriage question. That should be a homerun for K*E and it never is. But still, he revealed the Hate Amendment as the divisive false issue that it is.

I posted about the lack of energy questions. Of course, that's Ifill's fault, but Edwards should have wedged in references to Kerry's energy plan every chance he got. That ball was dropped.

Still, I was pleased. He fought hard and stayed on point.

[Roxanne]

You bring up something interesting. I thought Ifill was also awful.

[Night Owl]

Generally he was fine, though not up to Kerry's standards. The important point is that he appeared at least as 'Presidential' as his the old hand Cheney, so that they couldn't hammer the 'stature gap'. He passed that test - a tie is as good as a win here.

But he could have been much better. I think the problem is that his lack of policy experience means that Edwards hasn't yet internalized the issues - he is reciting points like a lawyer makes arguments instead of really understanding the implications behind the stances.

Two answers were truly disappointing: on Israel and Edwards own experience. On Israel, K/E must be scared of losing the Jewish vote to come out with such a one-sided response (perhaps a mistake since the Arab vote in swing states can be a potential tipper if they say ANYTHING to motivate them to go to the polls.)

But at least on Israel there seemed to be a plan. By contrast, I can't understand how Edwards could flop the 'do you have the experience to be VP' question so badly. He knows he's getting it (Dan Quayle syndrome), he's answered it countless times during the primary, and it's a great opportunity to pull out the ol' sonofamillworker line about how he has been fighting for working class people his entire life. Yet for some inconceivable reason he ran away from it - twice. We're just lucky the question came about 3/4 of the way thru the debate when Cheney was getting too tired to hammer him on the weak response. Dodged a bullet there.

[Moi ;)]

I don't know that you have the right take on it. Were you expecting a more "shark-like" attack from Edwards, since he's a trial lawyer?

I posted to this on my blogg this morning. What what came out of Cheney's mouth was lies. And he's a good liar, so he can snow you. It doesn't mean that intelligent people think he won the debate. ;)

[ricky]

I thought he was okay. But I pretty much feel like you do. I was disappointed. Cheney went out of his way to let Edwards kill him. And Edwards never closed the deal.

[Ron Brynaert]

I think Edwards missed a few openings...but he hit some mighty big ones. 1. The "How many countries are we going to invade?" line 2. Dick's record with Halliburton 3. Dick voting against MLK day. 4. The no Iraq-Saddam retorts...which played even better than they did in the Bush-Kerry debate since Dick was caught in an out-and-out lie onstage.

I wish he reprimanded Dick for claiming to not know about he high rate of African-American women infected with AIDS. If he never heard that...than he knows absolutely nothing about AIDS in America...since this has been talked about a lot the past few years. He could have said something like, "See, that's what I meant about 2 Americas. I belong in the America that knows and cares about the biggest problems that affect all Americans.

I also wish he mentioned that Dick didn't even bother defending himself against the Halliburton charges and the MLK, meals on wheels vetoes.

I think what you were probably MORE disappointed in was Dick Cheney's performance. We all expected him to be foaming at the mouth...but he mostly toned it down. And THAT was a disappointment to me.

[Rook]

Ah, but what Edwards did do was be the trial lawyer. He allowed the "jury" to hear the lies and then treated us as intelligent, competent people by letting us decide about those lies.

I think the poles show that his tactic worked.

[tas]

I noticed that Edwards left some of Cheney's charges unanswered, too. I assume that he would have responded to them if it were an actual debate, but when you only have two minutes to answer questions and 90 seconds to rebut your opponent, you have a hand tied behind your back.

I'm still stymied that Edwards didn't say, "Actually, Mr. Vice President, we have met before tonight."

[Rox]

He should have said, "If they lie about the little things, things that don't really matter, what else are they lying about?"