Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Pat Leahy?

I don't think there are any clear winners here, and my guess would be that by the end of the third debate between Bush and Kerry, this one will matter less and less. They both got in good jabs, though clearly Cheney's were nastier. I'll be curious to see how voters interpret this...will they think DC was too nasty and didn't connect emotionally with viewers? Or will they think he was more in command of the issues than Edwards? I liked Gwen Ifill a lot, especially her question on the domestic HIV/AIDS epidemic. It is unacceptable that two candidates to be Vice President are so uninformed about this issue impacting Americans, and particularly African Americans. Okay, but my real question is this: did Dems really think seating Pat Leahy in the front row would somehow rattle DC?


Anonymous said...


Look at this http://www.wonkette.com/archives/cheney-not-living-up-to-expectations-022793.php.

He never met John Edwards until last night? That's demonstrably false (see the above referenced link)!

Do you think along with the heart disease he also has alzheimer's? My Granny had it, it's terrible. I know she wouldn't have been fit to serve as VP. If he has it do you think he is still able to serve effectively?

Or wait! Do you think he just LIED about never meeting Edwards? hmmmm Dick Cheney would never LIE!? This is mysterious. To the Mystery Machine!

Anonymous said...

Oh my god you are so right - cancel the election! Thankfully, due to my super powers, I have total recall. I can remember with absolute certainty everyone I have ever met, including random homeless people, as well as every detail of my life. Isn't that great?

Anonymous said...

You're right. It was just harmless lapse in memory and not a political cheapshot. My bad.

I'll park the Mystery Machine back behind the 7 Eleven and get back to making out with Daphne.


Anonymous said...

The real question isn't whether Cheney came across as too nasty, it is whether the media will follow up on his statements that are demonstrably false. If the media picks up that spin, then the debate could turn out to be important.

If the media ignores that spin (or tries to balance like the lame title and first paragrapg from an otherwise good Post story this morning), then the debate is as good as irrelevant.

Edwards job was to try to get Cheney on the record and he did. The only ball he dropped was when he didn't aggressively defend the flip-flopping votes. Explaining why the votes weren't flip-flops would have been good.