Personally I think Cheney won the debate. He knew what he was saying, and has the experience to back it up. Both candidates said things that contradicted past statements, but I still feel Cheney came out on top.
Yeah Cheney did a MUCH better job then Bush did in this debate. I do believe Edwards did a better job at explaining what they plan to do though, instead of just bashing the other canidate like Bush tried to do and Cheney followed up on.
i was interrupted and didnt get to finish the end of the debate but as hard as this is to say Cheney ( the devil he is) sounded better. But i think edwards still was in the right.. What pisses me off is when Cheney defended Halliburton once again.. sigh.
good debate...not as engaging as the Kerry bush, but lots of fun
before the debate, I thought Chaney would embarrass Edwards, but it was clear Edwards took Chaney by surprise, made him uncomfortable, and took him off his game
as two individuals, Chaney clearly won this debate
considering how much credit the vice president was given concerning his intellectual ability prowess, Edwards won for how well he stood toe to toe...challenging every thing that came out of Chaney's mouth, putting clear pressure on Chaney's failing credibility.
by the way, polls this morning give Edwards a clear win
that's interesting to me
Edwards was not as quick on his feet as he could have been...for instance, when Chaney has the nerve to include Iraq casualties as part of the coalitions numbers, Edwards should have been able to jump on the ridiculous notion of adding the Iraqi casualties along with the numbers of casualties from countries that are there to help them.
anyway, I'm surprised the polls give a huge edge to Edwards...in my mind that's because the public didn't expect him to stand toe to toe
I personally don't put a lot of weight on the debates, and I don't watch them. I only look over the highlights the following day. I have met waaaay to many "articulate" talkers who were complete a$$holes in reality, and on the other side of the coin, too many people not so efficient at public speaking but very wise underneath. Debates are too confined, to controlled. Wanna impress me? Let them go, toe to toe, no holds barred. Now THAT would be entertaining at the least! May not get any useful info out of it, but it sure would be fun!
Debates are too confined, to controlled. Wanna impress me? Let them go, toe to toe, no holds barred. Now THAT would be entertaining at the least! May not get any useful info out of it, but it sure would be fun!
Debates in my mind are useful but not really conclusive as to which person / party are better.
Here in the UK I am sure Michael Howard could give Tony Blair a run for his money if they held a televisual debate as he is a fairly effective speaker, but the problem is he is viewed as weaker than Blair in some circles - and this is despite the fact that Blair received alot of flack due to his "interpretations" of the reasons of going to war - because the backing party do not have enough strong / charismic speakers or any really strong policies to outflank Blair.
The UK times have an interesting article on the debate though that focuses on Cheny's attacks.
Another interesting thing is why is it referred to as a war? since a war involves clear sides, and Al-Quaeda isn't a traditional side as such, so how can you win a war against terror and a non traditional side?
Cheney won, hands down. After Cheney got him on not including the Iraqis in the 90% casualty numbers, all Edwards could do was jump on Haliburton over and over. Kerry/Edwards will lose. I'll bet on it =]