Master debaters

[dougo]

The CNN analysts seemed to agree that the vice-presidential debate was a draw, but to me it seemed like John Edwards really fumbled the ball, and may have given up a lot of the ground Kerry gained last week. He seemed discombobulated through most of it, kept repeating himself and the moderator, and missed chance after chance to call Cheney on his baldfaced lies. Cheney landed many direct hits on the voting record (and absences) of Edwards and Kerry, and Edwards did practically nothing to defend it, instead trying to attack back on barely-related subjects that made it look like he was trying to change the subject. Cheney and Bush (and the rest of the Republican noise machine) keep getting away with saying Kerry voted for the war and that he voted against supporting the troops, both of which are total lies that have sunk really deep into the public consciousness. Kerry almost managed to clear up the first one, but the biggest disappointment of the first debate was that he didn't nail it shut, and instead shot himself in the foot about the second one with the lame quip "I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?" Edwards tried to explain the vote against the $87 billion by bringing up Halliburton, which might have seemed like a good idea but ended up being a weak distraction that was easily deflected by Cheney. (Although I'm amused that when intending to mention factcheck_org Cheney mentioned factcheck.com instead, which now points to George Soros. Thanks to jadelennox for pointing out that LiveJournal feed, by the way.)

Also, I thought Gwen Ifill did a pretty poor job of moderating. A lot of the questions seemed redundant, and she was granting the 1-minute "discussion extension" way too often when they had nothing more to say about the topic, so they either repeated themselves or talked about something completely different. And the rule about not saying Kerry's name was silly, and it ended up really hurting Edwards when he broke the rule not once, but twice, making him look like he couldn't follow simple directions. Jim Lehrer did a much better job of relevant follow-up questions, and clarifying their answers, but Ifill let them get away with (for example) totally ignoring her question about AIDS among black women in America, instead both talking exclusively about other countries.

Maybe I've been watching too much of the Al Franken show lately (and listening last night, 1200/1430AM in Boston!), but it just seems like there is so much opportunity for Kerry and Edwards to simultaneously defend their record and really call Bush and Cheney on their crap and they're doing neither. I hope Kerry can realize this and really take the gloves off in the next debate, but I'm not holding my breath.

Comments

On AIDS

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

I thought it was rather lame of Gwen to say they couldn't talk about global AIDS. That is a far larger issue than AIDS here and that should have been what the question was about. I guess they had a rule that moderators had to check in their skin at the door.

Re: On AIDS

[temvald.livejournal.com]

I thought the point on that question was to try to get away from the talking points. They both had things prepared to say about the global AIDS problem, but neither of them really had much to say about AIDS here in the US--possibly because they hadn't been prepped for it. Similarly, when she asked about flip-flopping, she explicitly wanted them to address when it's ok for a politician to change his or her mind. But both candidates just listed off the standard flip-flop charges against the other side, and didn't even bother to try to answer the question asked.

I was a bit disappointed that Edwards didn't take the chance to respond to the AIDS in the US question by hitting on the abstinence-only education policy of the Bush administration, but then, Edwards passed up a lot of similar opportunities.

Re: On AIDS

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting point, perhaps it was a sneak attack to try to catch the candidates off guard and talk specifically about an issue that is no longer "hot." Overall, she was a terrible moderator, though... it's not really her place to try to catch them off guard. Her job is to ask the questions that will help the voters the most. Alas.

But as for condoms, politicians just can't talk about it like that. If Edwards said that condoms should be available in schools (hypothetically, this is just an example) they would twist it around and say that he wanted high school students to have casual sex. It's just not safe territory to get into, so it's good he steered clear of it.

[prog.livejournal.com]

Agree with your assessment, except that I don't fear that Edwards could give up a lot of ground; I didn't think that much ground is at stake, this being only the VP debates. In public perception, I think they're something more than two prominent party members debating the candidates, but far less than the candidates themselves debating.