Edwards did very well. For Edwards. That's not saying much. This debate reminded me of nothing so much as a debate between an eager high school junior and a serious, experienced Social Studies teacher. Edwards did well, for a high school junior, but he got the talking-to of his life tonight. Unlike Reagan, Cheney did exploit his opponents youth an inexperience.

I was struck by the fact that they were dressed as twins. Both had the same shade of dark suit, light blue shirts, and red "power" ties.

Isn't any other color "powerful" ?
I don't recall who was wearing it, probably Larry, but on Kudlow & Cramer a while back, I saw someone wearing a matte deep saffron tie, with an intricate golden gloss pattern on it. It caught the light, but was very conservative, and sophisticated as all get out.

That would have spiced up the debate a bit.

Let's hope Bush was taking notes and can smack around Kerry on Friday the same way Cheney smacked around Edwards tonight.

The ABC instant poll afterwards had 43% favoring Cheney in the debate, 35% thought that Edwards did better, 19% had it as a tie, and apparently 3% fell asleep.

Cheney didn't vote for MLK day ?
He doesn't like days off ?

If Cheney didn't vote to ban plastic handguns, that's disappointing to me.
It reeks of 2d Amendment nuts who claim that "the right to bear arms" means that any citizen should be allowed to store a nuke in her basement.
Like "cop-killer" teflon coated bullets, there's not much legitimate need for a handgun that can get through metal detectors.

Two moments stood out to me:
· Cheney didn't thank Edwards for appearing with him, thanking only the moderator.
· Edwards, of "Kerry Edwards and the international support team", accused Bush/Cheney of sloughing off Iranian nuclear negotiations to the Europeans !
Isn't that a good thing, getting the international community involved ?
Isn't that the Europeans' forte, "soft power" ?

The moderator was, at best, OK.
She didn't commandingly direct the debates, letting both of the candidates flounder through questions that weren't really answerable by both of them.

Apparently, neither candidate was expecting to be asked about AIDS.

Orrin asks: Other than his reputation as a brilliant trial lawyer, what's the difference between Senator Edwards and Dan Quayle?

Um, three terms in the House and another in the Senate for Danno, even if he couldn't spell.

I agree with Timothy -- Democrats will feel that their boy represented them well, but Cheney really did use Gilligan as a chew-toy.

Edwards' closer about creeping around his parents house in his pjs was embarrassing, though easy to envision.

America's light is flickering and dying? Why not just pick Jimmy Carter for the vp slot? He would have been perfect for administering the "talking cure" remedies that Kerry favors.

Global Test is the gift that keeps giving. Thank you John Kerry for so explicitly and concisely stating a position that sounds like it was invented by Republicans as a smear.

I listened to a few minutes on the radio while washing up the dinner dishes.

Don't know how the whole thing went, but Chaney's non-response to charges about Halliburton was unbelievably lame.

Did he think it wasn't going to come up?

Still beating your wife, Harry?

Egad! The first fifty minutes or so was one of the most brutal debate beatdowns I've ever heard. Cheney owned Edwards.

My favorite moment was when the Dark Lord took the standard Kedwards whine about "90% of the cost, 90% of the casualities", turned it around, pointy end first, and shoved it up pretty boy's snout, with his reply about Iraqi casualities.

I literally said "Yeah" and punched the air with my meaty fist.

So did I, H.D. Edwards is actually lucky this wasn't a boxing match; if it were, the referee might have stopped the fight before he had a chance to recover, Cheney was pummelling him that badly.

Michael:

Recall MLK Day only became law for the day off, it had been the Monday after the Super Bowl most years until they added playoff rounds--that's how they got some guys to vote for it.

Chenney systematically disected Edwards, piece by piece untill Edwards couldn't take it anymore and literally blushed - hard redfaced at the Chenney rebutal point regarding Edwards' no votes on defense. It took Johhny a few questions to regain his composure (which he did to his credit) but the damage had been done and debate to Chenney.

I still can't understand the strategy on Haliburton. This is not a "still beating your wife" question. Chenney could have ended the Haliburton conspiracy by saying something like:
In WWI, H fed the troops and saved Europe, again in WW2 and Korea and the gulf war. They were there for us when USSR threatened the world and they were there for us when Saddam burned the oil wells and turned the skies balck. Haliburton is a great american company and without them we could we couldn't pump the oil or feed the troops. To demonize Haliburton is to demonize America etc...Blah Blah.

What is so flipping hard about that? Put the pukes on the defensive and show what lunatics they are for parroting a Micheal Moore party line
Perry

No bid contracts?

Chenney: Is my opponent suggesting we bid the rebuilding of Iraq and the safety of our troops out to the french and the Germans? The very same who benefited from a corrupt food for oil UN program? I suppose this is what he means by getting respect in the world.

Perry

Chenney's two no responces were priceless

Michael,

Isn't that the Europeans' forte, "soft power" ?

With the exception of the British and the Poles, the Europeans don't have a forte. Honestly, they have dithered on oh so much the past 12 years.

Perry,

A vigorous defense of Haliburton runs the risk of turning the spotlight on a phenomenon that the legendary journalist Edgar Snow called the U.S. "auto-imperialism": The U.S., instead of being a European-style colonializer and exploiter, invades and occupies countries, invests heavily in them to build or rebuild them so that they can become trading partners, and leaves.

It's auto-imperialism becauses the U.S. taxpayer foots the bill, not the foreign populations. I am in favor of the system. Because it is a constant regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats rule in Washington, it is hypocritical of Edwards to attack defense contractors.

Concerns about the "military-industrial complex" go back to Eisenhower.

Eugene,

True and solid points, I don't disagree. But in a 30 second rebutal, I only wish Edwards would start talking about "auto imperilism". I think there was very, very little risk in uptalking H at the debate last night. - Perry

If I didn't know better, I'd say that the moderator asked the Israel question to get Edwards to answer so forcefully and drive some of the leftist base to Nader or to stay home...

brian:

A better Israel question would be: It seems possible, maybe even likely, that Israel will pre-empt Iran before it can develop functional nuclear weapons, unless the U.S. intervenes first. Would you support such intervention? Would you support Israeli strikes? Or would you allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons?

How 'bout: Senator, if Israel came to a Kerry Administration with intelligence suggesting that Iran was about to assemble a nuclear device, that the parts for the unassembled device were about to be delivered to a single installation, and that the installation is underground and could only be destroyed by a tactical nuclear device, how would your administration respond?

As to the debate, 90 minutes is just too long.

Sure, it wasn't the best possible question, but it was a better one than Jim Lehrer asked. To be honest, I think that they need to pick moderators who aren't national journalists. I'm sure the average person watching responds to nearly every question with "You didn't even address the question!", but with the exception of last night's sly comment that Edward's didn't address the Israel issue ("I did too!"), they never get called on it. Heck, maybe a really good high-school debate teacher, who doesn't have to worry about staying on these people's good side to ensure they can get interviews in the future, would be the way to go...

ya know, joe, this isn't an AOL chatroom.

Around here, when someone makes a challangable statement, the usual counter is to present other facts, or another approach at interpretation.

The o-yeah-your-mother-wears-army-boots riposte went out with Leo Gorcy movies and handsome, firm-jawed Irish priests whose interests in teen-age boys could be assumed to be spiritual.

If you have something grown-up to say, I'll be happy to address it.