VP Debate

I made a comment earlier that I think deserves airing out in its own post. You know that I called the debate for Cheney last night. This is because I tried to watch it through the eyes of someone who was unfamiliar with both men . . . an undecided voter (I'm an actor so this kind of stuff comes naturally to me). Through that lens, it was my impression that Cheney waxed the floor with Edwards. I felt DC treated him like a child, and JE had no effective counter. JE seemed less composed and more nervous, and he stammered quite a bit.

Judging from an early reaction . . . and I do not count online polls . . . the whole things seems to have been a wash. K/E supporters called it for Edwards, B/C supporters did not.

(oh, man. why could he not have been John Carrey instead? the whole BC vs. CE thing coulda made a good bumper sticker . . . but I digress . . .)

No surprises so far. What did surprise me was that the undecided voters fell to Edwards by 13%! Was I that wrong? I mean, I thought it was a disaster.

Upon further reflection, it occurred to me that I was probably just very unsuccessful in "turning off" my partisanship. Before the debate, I was hoping Edwards would draw blood. Perhaps the undecided voters had already had enough. Maybe Cheney's constant barrage of punking was more than they wanted. Could be that they just liked Edwards and took his side against the permanent-insider attack dog Cheney. I would list more possibilities, but I've run out of alternatives for the word "perhaps". Oh, wait, no. Perchance these viewers were just rooting for the underdog. Mayhap Cheney came across as too snarly and sour.

I digress again, huh?

Aaanyway, what I am thinking now is that these personal impressions are not going to stick for very long. What I hope will stick are Cheney's patently false and easily refuted statements. And it has already begun. From today's WaPo:

Early in the debate, Cheney snapped at Edwards, "The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11." But in numerous interviews, Cheney has skated close to the line in ways that may have certainly left that impression on viewers, usually when he cited the possibility that Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001, met with an Iraqi official -- even after that theory was largely discredited.

On Dec. 9, 2001, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet The Press" that "it's been pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack." On March 24, 2002, Cheney again told NBC, "We discovered . . . the allegation that one of the lead hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had, in fact, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague."

On Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney, again on "Meet the Press," said that Atta "did apparently travel to Prague. . . . We have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer a few months before the attacks on the World Trade Center." And a year ago, also on "Meet the Press," Cheney described Iraq as part of "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

In the debate, Cheney referred to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as having "an established relationship with al Qaeda" and said then-CIA Director George J. Tenet talked about "a 10-year relationship" in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. What Tenet cited were several "high-level contacts" over a 10-year period, but he also said the agency reported they never led to any cooperative activity.

Cheney suggested that an agreement had been reached on debt relief for Iraq, saying that "the allies have stepped forward and agreed to reduce and forgive Iraqi debt to the tune of nearly $80 billion, by one estimate." While there are reports of some sort of agreement, no plan has been made public. Cheney also said that allies had contributed $14 billion in "direct aid." Actually, $13 billion was pledged, but only $1 billion has arrived.

There is more. Much more. Like this:

Among Cheney's retorts was a slam at the first-term North Carolina senator's attendance record in Congress. Cheney noted that, as Vice President, he presides over the Senate, then told Edwards pointedly, "The first time I ever met you was when we walked on stage tonight."

A sly dig, to be sure. Also false: Cheney had met Edwards twice before.

And there are pictures to prove it. Tim Russert even said they met, shook hands, and exchanged words backstage on his show. He said this on the air.

Combine little untrue digs like that with his "attack dog" image, and Cheney might well have lost his ticket support among undecideds. Time will tell. But for now, I think the whole thing was effectively a wash. Despite my earlier comments.

I will let Digby have the final word in this post. He is a much better blogger than I:

Here on planet earth we have google and lexis-nexis and we can dig up all the examples of when they said things they claim they didn't say.

. . . I predict that once the full scope of the lies Cheney told tonight are artfully dribbled out by the Democrats over the next couple of days, Cheney's respectable "draw" will turn into a rout. This isn't 2000 and the Democrats are not going to stand for this shit this time.

Finally, just as an aside, we have the crappy moderator:

The biggest loser was Gwen Ifil. What an unmitigated disaster. But then, that's no surprise.

Agreed. She sucked.

OK. Back to work!

X-post