well after listening to the entire vice presidential debate; all that i can say is im again, unsatisfied by what i heard. what did surprise me, however, was the willingness and abilitiy of both parties to resort to statistics... dizzying in both their spread and redundancy in depth. in my opinion, and its just me thinking outloud, we should be selecting the president [or his runningmate] based on who is best at recalling the most facts in general statistician form. i was hoping to hear more from chenney about himself. he did mention briefly that he doesnt talk about himself, and he doesnt. he needed to open more as a person to drop that cold stern image that has been projected about himself. the few issues where he did begin to speak about himself he abruptly stopped. it could have been a tide turning moment that people would have remembered, that he didnt capitalize on. nor did he follow up on points of view where appropriate. 4 times he offered no rebuttal when given one. not once did edwards let his time go. its something that anyone with practice in debate will have drilled into them.... saying nothing is conceeding to your opponent. i remember a round once, early in high school where i did that same mistake. and i was hammered for it. not by my opponent, but by my judge, and by my teammates, for failing to realize the effect that has on the audience.
edwards [who has a plan for that], made several mistakes [weve got a plan for that too]. one was continually dogging ontop of statistics his opponent had rebutted.... id have drawn him across the flow for that [debate terminology for an opponent that abandons and issue when confronted] and instead, continues using his 90%-90% statistic when directly critized; but edwards gives no alternative nor defense of his contention... poor skills. i, in chenneys position, would have zinged away at that opportunity. edwards, surprisingly, had no plan for that. im guessing it was only pursued for effect on the audience, something i had little practice in, but in the course of constructing an argument; thats bad. really, baaaaaaaaaaad people. edwards major annoyance, in my mind showed 2 ways. first, everything had a plan. ive got a plan for that. john kerry and i have a plan for that. lets check out this plan we have. over, and over and over. while ovbiously being coached to drag on with certain statistics and phrases, his coaching staff overlooked his reluctance to phrase responses in the same manner. not only is that boring to listen to [and it was], but it just opens up a logic driven attack by your opponent; where anything you say is going to be challenged along the lines of your syntax, and thats a terrible hole to dig for ones self. his second major err, was his cuteboy coy smile/smirk, and shuffle. similar to chenneys scowl, lift hand, left eye squint and reply. mannerisms matter in a televised debate. which is why both parties had stipulated to ban dual camera views, in the side by side format the debates were shown in. after awhile i couldnt stand it; and switched over to the radio broadcast because of it.
over all. as orators. id rank them low. edwards clearly held an advantage with the comfort of his particular manner of questioning and responding. his method of response is probably something he perfected as a trial lawyer, talking not in court, but to the media and during mediation agreements. chenney held true to form, as a cold stoic man falling into the defensive on nearly every snap. im sure it was also [according to plan!] that edwards sought this, but being constantly on the attack brings about the image of viciousness. what both candidates needed to come across with tonight was a mix; of a bold and empassionate response against the most dire of criticisims against them, as well as the open shit eating grin and yarn spin about the world that will be, under their administration. i think edwards was more successful at projecting that, but i wouldnt call it in his favor. i think, if answered on paper, chenney better argued and defended the points as they arose, in person if faltered for him. he had several great points to pursue and thoroughly give rout to edwards, but he chose not to. [particularly on edwards absence from his senatorial duties, and reliance on challeneged data without offering more contentions to show for its precision]. compassion was shown, with edwards soft words about the chenney family "gay" matter and public policy problem; however, it was out of true respect... i think the media wanted that question in there, not the public nor the parties. policy is fair game. ad hominem to someone's family matters should be left out; and the question was clearly articulating at a point against that.
again. its a draw. no clear winner. on paper, chenney would get my vote; on tv edwards is going to be seen to be a victor. television is a bitch my friends. its quite a gamble.... the pay off is great... but the odds are youre going to loose a fight on tv, much more often than youll win one; the question is how do they react now?
on second thought.. never mind.. what do i know about a good debate? those plaques on the wall, that national recognition gavel, the newspaper photos, and the box full of trophies means nothing in the realm of POLITICAL debating. this is indeed a different game. the stakes are much higher than points on a wall, stickers on a degree, or the winning cash in my pocket. whats at stake are people voting for a block of mixed signals, and whoever comes out cleaner than the opponent. it is politics friends. lets not confuse it with anything else.
