Cheney/Edwards
Watched it, enjoyed it, but it was all a show for the die-hards. I'd be surprised if it changed a single vote. To paraphrase MacBeth, it was a tale, told by vice-presidents, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
It could be easy, on the other hand, to get caught up in the spin. Honestly, I enjoyed Edwards' presentation more than Cheney's, and it's mildly tempting to claim a "victory" for him. But political honesty compels me to admit that my preference for Edwards' performance springs from a preference for Edwards, not from the debate itself. Edwards was sharper and more energetic, but Cheny has "gravitas" by the boatload.
I thought the most compelling, honest and interesting moment of the debates was when Cheney struggled mightily to explain how he can support the president's use of a gay marriage amendment to divide the country for political gain, and ultimately simply thanked Edwards for extending to his family a respect that the White House does not.
posted by Dan at 10/06/2004 06:04:00 AM
4 Comments:
Not sure if you find it interesting, but I saw the Swedish commentaries on the news. They all seemed to think that Edwards did an amazing job, considering his relative political inexperience (especially compared to Cheney), but they said that his biggest problem is that he's too nice and positive (how that can be a problem). One of Cheney's functions has been to say the (sometimes) mean and biting remarks that the president can't say (since he must remain popular) and they said Edwards has got a lot to learn in that area. Seems strange to me, but then again American politics are very different from Swedish :)
They also said Edwards managed to point at the connection between the White House and the big corporations.
Regards
Flip
Great article! Thanks.
Thanks for interesting article.
Excellent website. Good work. Very useful. I will bookmark!
Post a Comment
<< Home