No that I've slept on it...

[HFishbine]

Edwards lost. Sure, he scored some points here and there, but he wasn't consistently on his game.

1) Too many of his answers were unfocused.

2) He failed to convey the passion that so many Americans have in their attitude toward this administration (I think that's because he doesn't share it.)

3) He failed to inspire for the alternative of a Kerry/Edwards administration. On the one question that should have been all his, the one were he and Kerry have a clear advantage and the Bush administration has zero, he fumbled the ball. Asked about uniting the country after years of division, he gave a brief and forgettable answer, then quickly changed the subject to health care.

He didn't do any damage. But he didn't win. He could have landed some solid punches by studying DU instead of whatever prep he did. How many of us knew, for example, as Edwards apparently didn't, that Cheney had indeed made a 9/11 Iraq connection on Meet the Press?

[MercutioATC]

1. I think they both looked good, but Cheney edged Edwards out.

I really did respect Cheney's "non-answer" of Edwards' gay marriage question. Cheney can't contradict the President, so he just thanked Edwards for the kind statements and shut up. I don't like Cheney, but that was the respectable thing to do.

[unfrigginreal]

2. I don't think that you've woke up yet

but when you do, you'll hear all about Edwards victory last night.

[HFishbine]

8. Ha!

Okay, I admit, I'm coffeeless.

[Hello_Kitty]

3. Edwards did better with the people

Remember, the average viewer is not as critical as the typical DUer. They are more concerned with how they feel about a candidate. Ask yourself, if you were Joe or Jane Sixpack, who would you like better? That's what matters and the polls bear it out. So don't worry, he won. :-)

[booksenkatz]

4. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth

The media is awash in an Edwards Lovefest. Let's win the election first, and then there will be time for all of this traditional Democratic self-loathing.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. I think the problem is

that Edwards had an opponant who could talk in complete sentences and not have a meltdown on stage. The contrast between Cheney and Bush was so stark that Cheney appeared to be a winner. But my contention is that Cheney didn't beat Edwards, he beat Bush hands down as a debater!

[bullimiami]

6. i dont agree

cheney started strong but i feel on balance edwards got the best of him.

"where do I begin?"
cheney talked a lot about himself and the one time he had to tell you how great bush was it was painful.
it made it more obvious how weak bush is.

it wasnt a "slam dunk" or a "slaughter". cheney is a tricky devil. i do agree that edwards could have done better but so could have cheney.

no, i think its edwards in a close one. like a 17 - 14 football game, decent offense decent defense neither perfect for either.

[HFishbine]

9. Oh, I agree

No, it wasn't a slam dunk or slaughter and Cheney certainly had his failings.

[tishaLA]

7. Edwards won for several reasons

1. The Cheney lies will be the big story from the debate
2. Edwards exposed Cheney as cold vis-a-vis his votes on MLK Jr. day and against Mandela. This will not play well.
3. He struck the right tone for winning women voters--between sternness and compassion--that will resonate with so-call "security moms" (democratic women who want a rason to vote for the ticket)
4. He was more photogenic, which wins with people who are not politically engaged but watch the debates to make up their minds.

I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

[HFishbine]

11. Okay, you rasie some interesting points

I may be wrong too. I have my own filters and expectations. I tried to be objective, but maybe the points you raise will carry more weight.

[Pepperbelly]

10. totally wrong you are ....

No matter what test you apply to the debate, Edwards comes out on top. On a purely forensic basis, it wasn't even close. Cheney left massive, specific attacks lay while trotting after inconsequentials. He was bleeding from scores of thrusts that went to the heart of their mendacity, their inhumanity, their greed, their corruption and their incompetence.

Edwards rocked him back so hard with his Halliburton thrust, so concise, so factual, so pointed, that Cheney spent 2 or 3 speaking opportunities on trying to refute it (unsuccessfully I might add) that Edwards responses to the questions went unanswered (remember Israel and Palestine?)

Edwards on style AND substance. Not even close.

[secular_warrior]

12. I agree - no damage, but no gain

Cheney is beyond criminal - Halliburton, illegal wars - there's so much evidence it's disgusting.

I'm thoroughly unhappy with Edwards' performance last night and with Edwards on the whole. I thought the VP was supposed to be an attack dog while the presidential candidate stays above the fray ? There's no excuse for Edwards not going for the throat. The man with a lighter record has much less gravitas, but at the same time, that gives him much less of a record to attack, and much more of a reason to attack.

I just don't get what's going on in this campaign. I wake up some days wondering how we're not fifteen points ahead with so much hard evidence (non conspiratorial) against this junta. Lets start with neoconservatism. We should've villified the "neoconservative" label months ago and made it stick to them, while linking it to Halliburton and the Saudis. That is not a far out, conspiratorial, left wing charge. That is true. Everybody in America should know what a neocon is and what their true agenda is. Then let the American people decide if they agree with Iraq. Bush and Cheney were too obsessed with their neocon fantasy to be concerned with America's real national security concerns. Why isn't this an issue ?

[slor]

13. I respectfully disagree...

Edwards won, based on the facts and emotional style. In regards to the Iraq/9-11 connection, all he needed was cheney to deny making such a statement. Cheney did, and media even proved that he said it. Edwards also slammed him with the Libya and Iran business deals despite the fact that American companies were not to do business with those countries. I do not think many Americans know this, though they do now. The facts support Edwards, and he drove the points home, without seeming too aggressive, and turning off potential undecideds.

[HFishbine]

14. Maybe he was trying to strike that balance

between likeability and agressiveness. Kerry did it better though while being more aggressive. Hopefully the public will see it the way you do.

[spooky3]

16. You're right, slor.

[Lemonwurst]

15. And now that I've slept on it...

I feel a little better about last night. As a previous poster noted, we at DU are more critical of our candidates, knowing how the press willingly lambasts Dems at every perceived opportunity, and gives byes on nearly everything to Repugs.

I thought Edwards started terrifically but lost some steam about halfway through. He still made good points, but didn't finish off Cheney after having him on the ropes all through the first 1/2 hour. He didn't respond to the "missed vote" swipe, and chose not to answer the late "divided nation" question in detail, using that time to further rebut an earlier healthcare point. I know that's an acceptable, tactical approach, but bringing up the administration's absurd secrecy on everything from defense to environmental policy would have introduced a new sting that might have had more impact at that particular moment.

So I'm both surprised and pleased to find the corporate-controlled media NOT playing a hard RW bias this morning, choosing instead to allow both sides to get their jabs in and giving some credence to how "typical" Americans felt about the debate. I'm not holding my breath, but maybe Kerry's home run Thursday night has the media outlets hedging their bets a little more than they had previously. And Edwards did quite well in sustaining that momentum, even if it wasn't the knockout punch we hoped for.

[Bullshot]

17. I went to bed thinking Cheney edged out Edwards,

but between what I can recall myself and what I've been reading on this website, Cheney only sounded more assertive and in command of his thoughts. But that's because much of what he said last night were lies. His comment that his first meeting with Edwards was last night was the least of his lies.

Cheney exuded an attitude of "It is so because I say it's so." Then, after you verify his statements, you find that he spewed out enough lies to make Pinocchio look like his nose is inverted.

[WindChill]

18. After sleeping on it, I think Edwards won too

Last night I though it was mostly a draw. The more I think about it the more inclined I am to think Edwards won. A few reasons:

1. Edwards consistently noted that Kerry/Edwards had a plan and produced some major points of them in his time. Cheney said nothing about plans to deal with those issues.

2. Edwards never seemed to let Cheney have the last word. He'd often return to Cheney's previous answer to get in a final rebuttal before answering the new question.

3. Edwards pointed out Cheney's four house votes and although they weren't particularly important votes they did make Cheney look pretty extreme.

4. Edwards closing statement was substantially better. Cheney actually fumbled in the closing (unlike Bush in his first debate) and gave the impression in places that he didn't believe what he was saying.

All things considered, a stealth win for Edwards.