Cheney OFFICIALLY won the VP debate.

[Sgt Schultz]

[Warham]

I don't see how you could say Edwards won any part of the debate.

He said he's against outsourcing our jobs.

He's not against outsourcing our prescription drug plan to Canada, which would hurt drug companies in the U.S., possibly causing job loss here.

Now, is Edwards against other countries outsourcing their work to the U.S.?

You can't have it both ways, can you?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz

Gee, that's original ....

Edwards just isn't simian enough. Unlike the Chimp in Thief.

[DLR'sCock]

Actually, although this debate showed that Cheney is the true Perisedent, and Bush the puppet(can you picture Bush with Cheney's hand up his ass???) Cheney lied quite a few times, adn Edwards nailed him many times....This was much closer the prez debate, but Edwards won....

[DLR'sCock]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/

Who won the debate? * 2,192,524 responses

Sen. John Edwards
59%


VP Dick Cheney
41%


Thank you for voting. Click to send us an e-mail to share your thoughts. Plus, see past voting results.

[DLR'sCock]

Cheney, Edwards wage aggressive battle
Debate sets tone for next showdown between Bush, Kerry
Wednesday, October 6, 2004 Posted: 12:54 PM EDT (1654 GMT)



CLEVELAND, Ohio (CNN) -- Tuesday night's debate was a good one. Multifaceted, aggressive and full of one-liners -- the vice presidential debate pitted two deeply contrasting world views.

Although a relative newcomer, John Edwards performed slightly better than Vice President Dick Cheney in my opinion -- although both men delivered solid performances, and each gave his side something for which to cheer.

A CBS News poll of undecided voters show 41 percent judged Edwards the winner and 28 percent favored Cheney. An ABC News poll with more Republicans than Democrats in its sample found the vice president the winner 43 percent to 35 percent.

Edwards entered the contest needing to: prove he was fit for high office, offer a compelling vision of life under a John Kerry administration and attack the Bush-Cheney administration on national security grounds. He did all three to a varying extent.

Indeed, he was articulate and substantive across a range of issues from Afghanistan to education, easily citing statistics, using rhetorical questions well and counterpunching when necessary. His recitation of a series of things that Cheney voted against, including the Head Start education program and Meals on Wheels for senior citizens, is certain to become a familiar Democratic refrain and part of a television ad.

Perhaps contrary to expectations, Edwards may have had his best moments while discussing foreign policy during the first hour. On national security issues, he challenged Cheney and President Bush not only on policy grounds ("the mess in Iraq") but on personal integrity issues as well ("you are still not being straight with the American people"). Edwards' weakest moment came when he was asked about being a heartbeat away from the presidency.

While he did not prevail overall, the vice president also performed well. He made the case that the war on terror is a challenging issue requiring strong leadership, but he did so without coming across as a curmudgeon. In fact, he had several funny lines ("that's a lot of money even by Massachusetts standards") and even a smiled a bit.

Cheney offered a stinging critique of Kerry and Edwards, arguing that their Senate records were undistinguished and undercut any campaign "tough talk." For Republicans who bemoaned the president's performance last week, Cheney's overall solid display and his several funny one-liners gave them reason to smile and certainly gave them a boost of confidence going into Friday's presidential debate in St. Louis, Missouri.

While Edwards won the debate (the second Democratic debate win in a row), perhaps the real star of the night was moderator Gwen Ifill of PBS. She asked pointed, tough and topical questions on a variety of issues, from AIDS and poverty to flip-flopping and Iran. Her tough questions probably contributed to the more aggressive tone of the debate as well as to the enlightening nature of many of the exchanges.

While it was intriguing and diverse, given the lack of a dominant winner (this was no Lloyd Bentsen over Dan Quayle) and the fact that it is a vice presidential and not presidential debate, Tuesday night's contest probably will not significantly shift the presidential polls.

Finally, it should be noted that this week is likely to be one of the three or four most significant political weeks of the campaign, filled with a number of other important political events that may reduce the amount of attention the debate receives in the next day or two.

Among the significant political events this week are comments from Paul Bremer, the former U.S. administrator in Iraq, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; violence in Iraq; the upcoming presidential debate; Friday's unemployment report; and Saturday's Afghanistan election. These will likely lessen the impact of the vice presidential debate.

One other event to watch for that may make waves this week -- the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday. Depending on the winner and what he or she says (remember Jimmy Carter's stinging critique of war with Iraq two years ago), that announcement could have an unexpected impact on the election.

So to summarize, Tuesday was a good night for both sides. Edwards, although the newcomer, was a little bit better. But Republicans got a good performance from their candidate, and Friday night should shape up to be the most contentious debate yet.

[Big Train]

Nice spin Clinton News Network....keep those plates spinning...

Cheney smoked him, period. Edwards was the little boy trying to get the best of Daddy. It ain't happening. Where did Cheney lie? Edwards was the constant shifter of questions, even the moderator herself ragged on him for his non-response to an Isreal question...the man has no experience on a national stage and the seams were showing last night.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Big Train
Where did Cheney lie?

Normally, I would say "any time his lips were moving", but with his face frozen in that permanent angry sneer, they really DON'T move!

[FORD]

Incidentally CNN "accidentally" erased their poll from last night, because it showed Edwards as the clear winner. If you think there's any thing remotely "liberal" about that network, you obviously haven't watched it in years.

[Warham]

I heard that the DNC sent out spam e-mails to Dems yesterday giving them the websites for all these polls, so they would vote in force last night, making it look like Edwards was the big winner.

No wonder Clinton News Network erased it. They probably got the same e-mail from Terry McAwful, and figured that these polls were even less reliable than usual.

When MSNBS had their poll at 80% Edwards/20% Cheney, I knew something was at play, and also because Republicans didn't sit on their computers last night waiting for an e-mail from Ed Gillespie. Now that a day has passed, they've voted, making it a little more realistic, but not quite.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
I heard that the DNC sent out spam e-mails to Dems yesterday giving them the websites for all these polls, so they would vote in force last night, making it look like Edwards was the big winner.

No wonder Clinton News Network erased it. They probably got the same e-mail from Terry McAwful, and figured that these polls were even less reliable than usual.

When MSNBS had their poll at 80% Edwards/20% Cheney, I knew something was at play. It's now gone from that to 60%/40%, because Republicans didn't sit on their computers last night waiting for e-mails from Ed Gillespie. Now that a day has passed, they've voted, making it a little more realistic, but not quite.

But when Republicans did this in 2000, and Junior was declared the "winner" of his debates with Gore (and his performance was just as awful as it was last Thursday), then that was OK, right?

If I think Edwards did a better job, I'm gonna vote for him. If ABC's admittedly Republican slanted polls won't call me, it's not my fault.

[ODShowtime]

That would be funny if I voted for Cheney and Kerry because they were good at debating.

I didn't watch the whole thing, probably the last half-hour and Edwards did not get whupped or anything. And Cheney wasn't on the ropes either.

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
But when Republicans did this in 2000, and Junior was declared the "winner" of his debates with Gore (and his performance was just as awful as it was last Thursday), then that was OK, right?

If I think Edwards did a better job, I'm gonna vote for him. If ABC's admittedly Republican slanted polls won't call me, it's not my fault.

Problem is FORD, even the Dem spinmeisters admit Gore lost two of the three debates, so it doesn't matter what the polls said. Of course, they were correct. Bush did club Gore four years ago.

[Lqskdiver]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
That would be funny if I voted for Cheney and Kerry because they were good at debating.

I didn't watch the whole thing, probably the last half-hour and Edwards did not get whupped or anything. And Cheney wasn't on the ropes either.

They both got in their shots and talking points.

It was a draw. Although there were sometimes I felt that Cheney could've nailed Edwards more.

Also, when Cheney called him out by stating it was the first time he met him, I didn't see Edwards go back and remind him that they were introduced. My guess is that Edwards did not make that much of an impact on Cheney.

[Mezro]

Cheney right after the debate.

Mezro...hungry for the truth Dick?...