Veeps Slug It Out

I saw the VP debate at the bar in Hollywood. My guess is that the audience was mostly pro-Bush-Cheney but they weren't a very vocal crowd. They listened pretty carefully and didn't hoot and hollar at some of the verbal fireworks.

One viewer said before the start, it is going to be a lot more brutal than last week's Presidential debate.

He was right.

Edwards charged that the Bush Administration isn't telling the truth. This is, of course, the polite way of saying they are a bunch of liars.

Cheney charged that Kerry's pronouncements in last week's debate is not consistent with his record. This is, of course, the polite way of saying Kerry will say anything to get elected and is an untrustworthy liar.

On style:

Edwards is a smooth talker. I'm sure on radio he comes across better. However, on screen, I found his finger jabbing and bobbing around a bit distracting. At times, Edwards bobbed off the screen. The bar had CSPAN on the big screen. CSPAN opted for the split screen format for the whole evening.

Cheney is like a bulldozer. He just sits there and speaks evenly. Even when he is on the attack, and he was on numerous occasions, he speaks the same way. On one occasion, he did seem riled when Edwards continued on about the 90% of the casualties in Iraq being American. Cheney countered that the other side was discounting the sacrifice of the Iraqis.

I saw this post-debate item on the ABC News site. The remark that caught my eye: Looking at it another way, compared with their pre-debate preference, 98 percent of Bush supporters stayed with Bush and 98 percent of Kerry supporters stayed with Kerry.

In the final analysis, barring a total collapse in a debate, the supporters will stick to their candidate. They may be happy or unhappy about how they performed but their views are fixed. The question is: just how big is the undecided vote?

If the undecided voters want somebody who comes across well, then they will like Edward's performance. If they want to feel assured they will be drawn to Cheney.

On substance:

Both sides went on the attack.

Edwards mission was to continue to boost the notion that Kerry is strong enough for the job and to detail the criticisms of the Iraq war.

The criticism of the war again was mounted fairly effectively as it was last week by Kerry.

However, when he stressed that he and Kerry have been "consistent" throughout, there was a chuckle in the audience at the bar. I suspect this will be a continuing problem for Kerry-Edwards because their position of attacking the Iraq war so strongly and then claiming they would do it better just doesn't wash. I was watching the PBS show on RFK last night and RFK eventually came out against the Vietnam war completely.

Cheney's mission was to defend the administration's decision to go to Iraq and to cite Kerry's record as inconsistent. Here is where there was a moment of clarity. Edwards stressed that 9/11 was due to UBL and Afghanistan and that is what we should have concentrated on. Cheney countered that the war on the terrorists is wider than that. Cheney pressed the inconsistency in the Kerry-Edwards more effectively than Bush did last week.

IMHO: I think Cheney "won" but it wasn't a wipe-out. Edwards is a lawyer and knows how to argue and it showed. Both sides had tough cases to argue: Cheney had to defend Iraq where things haven't gone smoothly; Edwards had to thread a needle of criticizing going into Iraq yet claim they will do it better. Given these starting points, I think Cheney got an edge because the question became framed: since we both accept that we have to stay in Iraq, who do you believe will get it done? Will the side that denigrates the war and the coalition? Or the side that made the decision to go forward against the odds?

In many ways, an outright bring the troops home and it was a mistake position would be easier to make rhetorically.