It's Edwards!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

you're just ignoring the fact that Bush had as much to prove in those debates as Gore did

So the mere fact that he was competant means that that is why he 'won' the debate?

Gore doesn't sigh and it doesn't matter. The headlines the next day say that Bush was a disaster.

Um, what headlines? You're making things up again. And yes, that Bush was competent was how he 'won' the debate, in the eyes of the media, because he surpasses his low expectations. Again, the editorial pages were effuse with praise for how Bush didn't screw up. That's what happens when expectations are low. Keep making them low for Edwards, bub!

The 'Two Americas' thing was pilloried. Kerry killed Edwards (ironically enough) on Edwards' opposition to NAFTA.

Neither of which issues singled out Edwards dramatically for any sort of "ripping." While you may have felt so (you were a Kerry partisan at the time, as it so happens), the image given from the debates wasn't that Edwards made any big flubs. No headlines came out, "Edwards screws up at debates." In fact, pundit consensus was Edwards was fine, if unremarkable.

For a Democrat Senator to not know what the DoMA is akin to an ordinary person not knowing Roe v. Wade.

First, Edwards knew what DoMA was, he didn't know some specifics of what it said. Stop making things up. Second, it's STILL not that big of an issue. What effect as DoMA had on public policy to this day? Practically none. Even the current same-sex marriage issue is removed from it, since, as I pointed out, there hasn't even been a court challenge to DoMA. It is, as it stands now, a fairly inconsequential piece of legislation that hasn't had much effect whatsoever.

Of course he did. He was in control of the policy while Quayle was reduced to cracks like "You pulled a Clinton on me". He was totally outclassed.

Making things up again. The consensus after the debates (I know this, I was watching them and was old enough to know what was going on) was that neither candidate 'won' the debate. In fact, one common comment was that Quayle did what he had to do, which was be the GOP hatchetman. Gore certainly did not run away with the debate, as everyone thought he was so boring.

Why not actually read what people were saying?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debatingourdestiny/newshour/92_vp_reaction.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debatingourdestiny/newshour/92_vp_reaction_gs.html

"MR. SHIELDS: Well, I think that one has to put the vice presidential debates in perspective. They are the preliminary bout before the semi-main event tomorrow night in Richmond. And there's no question, David is right. Dan Quayle raised the Republicans to their peak adrenalin moment of this campaign. He energized and he - - instead of being the enthusiastic advocate and champion of George Bush, because George Bush had failed to make the case against Bill Clinton on Sunday night, it fell to Dan Quayle to do it, and he - - he made the case, or he sought to make the case on the basis of Bill Clinton's character, and he certainly, his words were welcome to a dispirited Republican Party."

and

"I think he helped himself within the Republican Party. I think the expectations -- I mean, the office of vice president is an office that has been in the purview of every citizen to ridicule always and Dan Quayle kind of raised that to a different level by his performance in 1988, and I thought that he did a long way toward redeeming himself last night. "

"MR. GERGEN: And I really feel he's now put himself -- he made it clear last night he will be a force to reckon with. Conservatives will rally behind now. They will look at that and say that's the kind of fellow we need, somebody who's willing to fight. "

"Dan Quayle stepped in last night and didn't run, didn't cut. He stepped up and took the heat and he's loyal. "

Hardly a sign of some sort of catastrophic defeat.

All of this doesn't really matter much, anyway. The VP debates have nada effect on the race. Think about it, the only memorable moment from a VP debate in the past 20 years was Bentson's Jack Kennedy cut on Quayle in 1988. And that was pretty much a cheap shot, not a real debate point. And it sure didn't help Dukakis any. So whining that Edwards might not match up to Cheney in a debate is of minimal concern--that's not the crucial test for a VP candidate.

[MrFun]

I think Edwards is an excellent choice -- I woke up this morning, and like I do every morning, turn onto CNN and started my day with pleasant news for a change.

[Boris Godunov]

See, we can agree on some things.

[MrFun]

holy sh*t

[Boris Godunov]

And the NY Daily News is indeed having a ball with the Post:

Or did Kerry really pick Dick Gephardt? In another of its "Dewey Defeats Truman"-style "exclusives," The New York Post reported on its front page and website Tuesday that Missouri Rep. Gephardt was Kerry's choice. The struggling tabloid's site pulled the embarrassing image of its flat-out-wrong front page and swapped in a wire story instead of its sure-to-stay-exclusive original, but thousands of copies of the baffling Gephardt front page were already on the streets.

Editor and Publisher magazine, long considered the bible of the newspaper biz, said in a story Tuesday that the Post had become "an object of ridicule," and that copies of the botched front page were already available on the Internet auction site eBay. Last October - in yet another celebrated Post blooper - the paper mistakenly ran an editorial bemoaning the Yankees' loss in the American League playoffs. Problem was, the Yankees had defeated the Boston Red Sox.

[The Mad Monk]

There you go -- doomed to failure.

[GePap]

Well, the Post deserves it

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
And lest anyone miss it:

Only me, or is that picture terribly gay?

[Guynemer]

Edwards strikes me as a bizarre mixture of Dan Quayle and Bill Clinton.


As for being a vapid dullard, why should that matter for veep? We've had one in the Oval Office since 1-20-01.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Um, what headlines? You're making things up again.

Read the sentance again, will you? Gore doesn't sigh, headlines say Bush messed up. Notice I said the headlines the next day 'SAY', not 'said'.

No headlines came out, "Edwards screws up at debates."

Since he ain't a front runner, why would headlines come out? Did Kucinich have headlines after he said some of his kooky things?

Edwards knew what DoMA was, he didn't know some specifics of what it said.

Yeah, I know the law... I... uh... have no idea what it is about.

Come on. He said he was against DoMA, because he was for every state deciding for themselves, which is EXACTLY what DoMA is! I mean that is kind of a big deal. Getting a piece of legislation wrong that everyone else on stage was intimately familiar with (meaning that most people in Washington were probably the same).

Why not actually read what people were saying?

Why not?

http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/mediawatch/1992/mw19921101stud.html

"But on October 14, the evening after the vice presidential debate, ABC and CNN both scored Quayle for lying about the Clinton-Gore record. On World News Tonight, ABC reporter Jim Wooten declared "The blue ribbon for factual flexibility goes to the Vice President. More often than Senator Gore, Mr. Quayle was either mistaken or misinformed."

CNN reporter Brooks Jackson agreed: "It was Quayle who repeatedly twisted and misstated the facts...The political reality is that voters don't score campaign debates on the basis of who gets the facts straight. But if they did, Dan Quayle would have lost Tuesday night's debate hands down.""

Basically the media was hammering the fact that Quayle lied about this and lied about that. The pundits said if the public knew how much he lied they would agree he was trounced, instead of just barely beaten, and then kept telling the public how much he lied. And it wasn't just left-wing biased sources but mainstream sources like CNN and ABC reporters, who harped on how much Quayle lied and thus lost the debate badly. You don't think that had an effect on the public at all?

According to media reports on the debate, Quayle came across as a lying, belligerant candidate

[Imran Siddiqui]

As for being a vapid dullard, why should that matter for veep? We've had one in the Oval Office since 1-20-01.

Cheney is actually a very smart person. Hardly an intellectual dullard.

[Guynemer]

I was refering to Dubya. It it doesn't matter that the President is a dullard, why should people care if the Veep is a wee-bit dim?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because you want the strongest ticket to beat an incumbant. Bush sneaked through due to Gore's incompetence. I don't think Karl Rove will allow the same thing to happen to his candidate.

[debeest]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Cracker states which are half black?

The Carolinas aren't half black; they're both roughly 70% white. If they were half black, then given the overwhelmingly Democratic voting of blacks, the Carolinas would be very Democratic states. Jesse Helms alone demonstrates that ain't the case. I think "cracker states" may have been a reasonable appellation.

[Ramo]

Watching "Inside Politics" right now. Gillepsie's claiming that Edwards is the 4th most liberal Senator (and of course that Kerry's the most liberal Senator).

He's also accusing Kerry of flip-flopping because he picked a guy who he was running against in the primaries.

That cartoon che posted in the Gephardt thread was incredibly apt.