THE VEEP DEBATE


Here are my quick thoughts on the veep debate



Cheney won the first half of the debate, for now. If points are deducted for Cheney's egregious prevarications (He NEVER linked Saddam to 9/11....nope, never happened, never, ever, ever, well, OK, a little, but he had a good reason for doing it), then he loses, which he still might in the post-debate re-evaluation if the Kerry campaign effectively follows through.
The dynamic of the foreign policy part of the debate was dramatically different than Thursday night. Cheney delievered the administration's talking points far more effectively than Bush, keeping Edwards on the defensive, where he was not particuarly impressive in defending the Dems "consistent" position on Iraq.

The problem of course is that the Kerry campaign can't decide whether or not to focus on Bush's decision to fight the war - attacking the claims of linkage between Iraq and the larger war on terror, the deceiving claims made by the administration, the disingenuous diplomacy (which would appeal to the Dem base); or rather to focus Bush's incompetence in conducting the war - failure to put in sufficient number of troops, abandoning Fallujah to Zarqawi, Abu Ghraib, etc. (which appeals to hawkish swing voters). Kerry didn't do a particularly good job on this front either in the Miami debate, but the combination of Bush's weak, non-sequiter attacks and Jim Lehrer's passive moderating let him get away with crisply delivered soundbites that sounded at lot more coherent than they were. Edwards did not have that luxury; Cheney's attacks were head on, moderated Gwen Ifel would not let Edwards dodge the issue. Edwards played the good soldier in spending much of this portion rebutting Bush's distoritons of Kerry's positions in the Miami debate. Still, especially on a day where Bremer's recent admissions were still fresh, for Edwards not to focus on the incompetence conduct of the war was a missed opportunity.


Cheney's pot-shot at Edwards absenteeism from the Senate during a campaign season was a cheap shot that the TV pundits were giving far too much credit for afterwards. Edwards countered this brilliantly by invoking Cheney's radical record in Congress, which he has effectively hidden under his cool, CEO-demeanor.


I thought Gwen Ifel for the most part did a solid job, but why on earth did we have to endure 2 questions on gay marriage? If the Bush campaign wants to distract the rest of the country from its national security and economic record by peddling their attempted stain on the Constitution, that's their choice, but I don't see why the media has to play along. Then again, along those line, why did we need 2 questions on medical malpractice reform. I feel Edwards did an excellent job digging out from the hole this framing of the health-care issue put him in.


Edwards crushed Cheney on domestic issues, but by that point in the debate, most everybody had zoned out. The tele-pundits especially overlooked Edwards effective attacks as the debate wound down.


Oh well, its now on to a fun Iraq-free town-hall for Kerry-Bush 2 on Friday, which easily has the potential to be the least memorable debate in the campaign. I'm dozing off already thinking about it.