Vice-presidential debate summary: Edwards was better than Lieberman four years ago.
Overall, it wasn't particularly interesting. Cheney seemed a little unsteady at the very beginning. Edwards got a bit confused towards the end. At times they seemed to be talking at each other, and not engaging in what their opponent was saying.
FYI: On PBS there were no split-screen shots. The other networks showed them, no doubt hoping to get reaction shots that would make news (as Bush's did in the first debate).
This debate probably will be completely forgotten in two days when the second presidentail face-off takes place, so it's probably not worth worring about one way or the other.
posted by Quiddity at 10/06/2004 07:36:00 AM
No, no, no. This debate should be the gift that keeps on giving to the Dems. Everyday another Cheney lie debunked. From the most trivial (attendance records) to the most important (Saddam and Osama) he lied all night long. We think they made a tactical decision to lie about everything rather than stop and wonder on any given question whether this was one of the points they didn't actually need to lie about. The president's closest advisor on issues raising from tax cuts to war is a serial liar and you got to watch him caught red handed.
