October 06, 2004
Goddammit - I think Cheney won.
I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure Cheney came out ahead in tonight's vice-presidential debate. It wasn't the kind of "Ooh-you got served!" sort of thing that Kerry got, and, granted, the fact that he didn't sprout horns and a tail onscreen pretty much put him ahead of where I expected. But over and above not revealing himself as a minion of Baal, he actually came across as fairly reserved, policy-oriented, and clear, while Edwards, doing his lawyerly thing in the unconducive sit-down format, often seemed overslick and overzealous, to say nothing of his frequent flubs and stammers. Charming, sure, but presidential? Not in the least.
The evening's one moment of what could almost be called nobility went to Cheney, too, who calmly declined the opportunity to vigorously defend the administration's anti-gay marriage policy, which Cheney himself, despite some superficial and unconvincing rhetoric about supporting the President's decisions, doesn't seem to truly believe in (for obvious reasons). In contrast, it was hard not to read Edwards' overzealous praise of Cheney's love for his daughter as a backhanded and calculated maneuver to make the situation explicit.
It wasn't a pretty debate by any means, and the power of Edwards' closing statement was a reminder of exactly how much a lectern format would have shifted the balance of rhetorical power. But I think my opinion of Cheney actually improved somewhat - as often as he's painted as a the power and reason behind the current corrupt throne, it's easy to forget that he belongs to a branch of pre-Religious Right conservatism that, for all its flaws, is policy more than rhetoric-oriented.
Still though, when he started talking about El Salvador as a model for democratic reform, it was a firm reminder that, with or without the pointy accessories, he's still a squat, hateful little demon. Also, he did flub one small, but funny, thing (NSFW due to porn ads).
I agree. I thought Cheney was the winner on this one.
I didn't get a chance to watch the debate as I was on campus all day long, but my wife thought Cheney won as well. She said he looked confident and calm, whereas Edwards came off as charming, but shallow. Let's just hope the VP debate has little to no impact (as it should) on the race itself. Of course, given Cheney's unprecendented power as VP, who knows?
I think Cheney had the better start, which influenced the course of how people saw the debate. But on points, I don't think there was any contest--Edwards won decisively. And I don't think Cheney has much appeal outside of middle and upper class white people raised on bourgeois/military values. Most of these people have already made up their mind. From a different cultural perspective Cheney has no appeal whatever.
Cheney was rhetorically superior and Edwards was not on a particuarly good night--often coming off as swarmy and fake. Cheney had an excellent upper-cut with his Dean remark, and Edwards didn't seem prepared for Cheney's bareknuckled style. But Cheney was utterly unappealing IMO--grimacing the entire time, not looking at the camera. And he was relentlessly, ferociously, negative and aggressive--appealing to the our fears at every turn. He didn't even try to hide his hatred. And his lies--most notably on denying he ever asserted a 9/11-Iraq connection and then claiming he had never met Edwards--were pretty appalling. Too many people didn't score these lies one way or another in their assessment--this is seriously problematic, as assessments become based merely on spin and impressions and actual integrity is neglected. Cheney may have appeared more forthright and honest, but the opposite was the truth.
As is usually the case with Edwards, his charm began to work as the debate went on. Cheney seemed to weaken, while Edwards just got stronger. I think by the end Edwards had made the differences between them clear.
Suspending my own political leanings (which frequently coincide with conservative thought although I would like to think exceed the basic Enlightenment self-interest bit towards the true conception of Christian love), I would like to pose a question now that it has become clear that no matter the content of what is said in the debates ... the reaction on both sides is to use all means of dialogue as political weaponry to demean their "opponent" ... and thus exchange masked hatred and disdain for the other side (I myself am certainly not above disdain for certain positions and arguments ... in fact, I revel in it on occasion). The question is this: does anyone feel that the mutual animosity between conservative and liberals is growing in intensity and seems on track to grow to dangerous proportions? The polarization in the political-intellectual realm appears to me to be closing off all means for dialogue by utilizing the means of dialogue as weapons in a subtle and unmentioned struggle, i.e. political forums and the education system.
Honestly, I think Bush may be doing bipartisanship a big favor in the long run. He's got liberals looking back with nostalgia to the relatively sane days of Reagan and Bush I - when there was (so I'm told) a good deal more actual dialogue. So maybe once we're out of this rough patch things will get better. But we're also in a moment of real political flux, at the end of thirty+ years of conservative dominance, and on the verge of a national swing back to the left. That sort of upending of the apple cart may inevitably lead to greater partisan rancor.
Forget it.