Post-debate analysis
It was a treat to have the opportunity to be on 790 KABC with Al Rantel to comment after the debates. In the 8:30 half hour, Mr. KABC joined in, as well -- which was fun.
My analysis? The best simile would be that of a grave Great Dane sweeping a yappy Chihuaua aside with one sweep of his mighty paw (it's hard to believe there's only a 12-year age difference between the two men). Edwards didn't collapse -- but he certainly did nothing to further the illusion of momentum that the Kerry campaign has been trying to create since last Thursday's debate.
It was clear that, for Cheney, none of this was "about him." He didn't waste time responding to Edwards' inaccurate attacks on Halliburton -- or on his own Congressional record. And he didn't use all his rebuttals, which seemed to signify an attitude of confidence in the efficacy of his own previously stated answers.
The best moment of the debate was when Cheney, in righteous wrath, rebuked Edwards for failing to count the lives of Iraqis that have been lost in the effort to establish a terrorist-free democracy. And brought up Kerry's disgraceful treatment of Prime Minister Allawi.
"Rebuke" is the appropriate word -- where Edwards appeared to "attack" repeatedly, Cheney seemed to scold Edwards from a position of superior experience and authority. Nor was it a great moment for Edwards when Cheney pointed out his record of absence from the Senate; it highlighted just how little experience in public affairs Edwards actually has. Edwards' attack on Cheney's record didn't get him far; frankly, that's old news.
Edwards' mantra/soundbite was designed to be that experience doesn't equal judgment (clearly, he was expecting Cheney to tout his own experience more than he did), but the problem is this: He couldn't explain what Kerry's now-famous "global test" is, and he kept insisting that "we have a plan" -- without ever stating ANY plan's particulars, either on the domestic or foreign affairs side. When pressed, the two points he presented for the Iraq "plan" was to speed up the training and speed up the reconstruction. That's the best they've got???
Cheney speaks to the American people like they're adults; it's actually refreshing to see someone who isn't worried about how "nice" people think he is, so long as he gets the job done. In contrast, Edwards approaches voters like they're a jury that can be convinced by honeyed words alone. For all the press who has tried to document the President's alleged use of "code words" to appeal to people of faith, it's worth pointing out that Edwards subtly picked up on Dean's appeal ("you have the power") in his closing statement -- a clear extended hand to the Deaniacs who might be disenchanted with the ticket.
The upshot? A clear and convincing Cheney victory -- or at least a performance decisive enough to return Kerry/Edwards to the defensive. For me, at least, after awhile, Edwards' "southern fried schtick" started to wear a little thin. And he certainly didn't look like someone who should be sitting at the head of the table in the Situation Room. Which, again, reminds us that he was picked not for his knowledge or experience, but for his "charm." And that returns us to the point that Kerry is more serious about winning the election than winning the war on terror.
My analysis? The best simile would be that of a grave Great Dane sweeping a yappy Chihuaua aside with one sweep of his mighty paw (it's hard to believe there's only a 12-year age difference between the two men). Edwards didn't collapse -- but he certainly did nothing to further the illusion of momentum that the Kerry campaign has been trying to create since last Thursday's debate.
It was clear that, for Cheney, none of this was "about him." He didn't waste time responding to Edwards' inaccurate attacks on Halliburton -- or on his own Congressional record. And he didn't use all his rebuttals, which seemed to signify an attitude of confidence in the efficacy of his own previously stated answers.
The best moment of the debate was when Cheney, in righteous wrath, rebuked Edwards for failing to count the lives of Iraqis that have been lost in the effort to establish a terrorist-free democracy. And brought up Kerry's disgraceful treatment of Prime Minister Allawi.
"Rebuke" is the appropriate word -- where Edwards appeared to "attack" repeatedly, Cheney seemed to scold Edwards from a position of superior experience and authority. Nor was it a great moment for Edwards when Cheney pointed out his record of absence from the Senate; it highlighted just how little experience in public affairs Edwards actually has. Edwards' attack on Cheney's record didn't get him far; frankly, that's old news.
Edwards' mantra/soundbite was designed to be that experience doesn't equal judgment (clearly, he was expecting Cheney to tout his own experience more than he did), but the problem is this: He couldn't explain what Kerry's now-famous "global test" is, and he kept insisting that "we have a plan" -- without ever stating ANY plan's particulars, either on the domestic or foreign affairs side. When pressed, the two points he presented for the Iraq "plan" was to speed up the training and speed up the reconstruction. That's the best they've got???
Cheney speaks to the American people like they're adults; it's actually refreshing to see someone who isn't worried about how "nice" people think he is, so long as he gets the job done. In contrast, Edwards approaches voters like they're a jury that can be convinced by honeyed words alone. For all the press who has tried to document the President's alleged use of "code words" to appeal to people of faith, it's worth pointing out that Edwards subtly picked up on Dean's appeal ("you have the power") in his closing statement -- a clear extended hand to the Deaniacs who might be disenchanted with the ticket.
The upshot? A clear and convincing Cheney victory -- or at least a performance decisive enough to return Kerry/Edwards to the defensive. For me, at least, after awhile, Edwards' "southern fried schtick" started to wear a little thin. And he certainly didn't look like someone who should be sitting at the head of the table in the Situation Room. Which, again, reminds us that he was picked not for his knowledge or experience, but for his "charm." And that returns us to the point that Kerry is more serious about winning the election than winning the war on terror.
posted by LadybugUSA at 10:05 PM
1 Comments:
Ann Althouse had a post yesterday about Cheney's not caring if you like him. She said it was comforting to see a politician telling the truth, IIRC. Said it was the only time she wavered from supporting Gore in 2000.
Post a Comment
<< Home