Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Debate Talk 

I think both Cheney and Edwards did well, but Dick has already been caught in some lies. Edwards looked good, and hammered home the points he had to: No link between Saddam and 9/11, Kerry can be a strong leader, No solid plan in Iraq, etc. That's what he had to do. The Human Computer..er.. Cheney, perhaps, sounded smarter, but his substance was weak.

My opinion is everyone has made up their mind of Cheney, they love or hate him, not much flexibility there. Edwards may be slightly more of an "unknown", but had to just not screw up, and solidify Kerry's position, which he did.

Check out Josh Marshall's take on last night, which I feel is right on.

Update William Saletan, a self-described Republican Kerry supporter thinks Edwards destroyed Cheney:
If you watched this debate as an uninformed voter, you heard an avalanche of reasons to vote for Kerry. You heard 23 times that Kerry has a "plan" for some big problem or that Bush doesn't. You heard 10 references to Halliburton, with multiple allegations of bribes, no-bid contracts, and overcharges. You heard 13 associations of Bush with drug or insurance companies. You heard four attacks on him for outsourcing. You heard again and again that he opposed the 9/11 commission and the Department of Homeland Security, that he "diverted" resources from the fight against al-Qaida to the invasion of Iraq, and that while our troops "were on the ground fighting, [the administration] lobbied the Congress to cut their combat pay." You heard that Kerry served in Vietnam and would "double the special forces." You heard that Bush is coddling the Saudis, that Cheney "cut over 80 weapons systems," and that the administration has no air-cargo screening or unified terrorist watch list.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?