So the polls say Edwards won , but some DUers are still saying he lost!

[trumad]

Not only did he win but he won with amazing numbers. So what the hell gives with some on this board who say he lost. Cantcha just except what the majority of America is saying or does that go against your agenda?

[carrowsboy]

1. Tell me about it!

Even the FAUX News poll has Edwards as the winner!

Edwards did an amazing job last night & I am extremely proud of him!

[displacedtexan]

2. I don't get it, either.

Light v dark

Hope v fear

Edwards's arguments and rebuttals caused those metered undecideds to fly off the chart while the dick caused even white men to register in negative territory (or hover around zero) every time he spoke.

[Don Claybrook]

3. I can accept and appreciate that most say he won

But I cannot and will not engage in group-think. I thought Edwards could've done better. I thought he could've done worse. It thrills me that the perception outside of DU is that Edwards bested Cheney. But if I were asked to write a rational analysis of the debate, I'd give Cheney the edge on style, filled with lies though he was. I'd also clearly give Edwards the edge on likeability. And I'd point out that Edwards made some mistakes.

Were I to do otherwise, it would go against my agenda of being truthful with myself.

[trumad]

9. That's what I don't get....

Edwards did not make mistakes.... He clearly told the truth on everything he said and Cheney lied with a great deal of what he said.

Style? Are you fucking kidding me? Cheney looked old and at the end he looked as if he didn't even want to be there.
This isn't grou think...this is common fucking sense!

[Don Claybrook]

11. Thanks for letting me know...

...that I'm posessed of no common fucking sense.

Aside from that, I'd agree with you that Cheney lied time after time in the debate. Try to make yourself one of these undecided voters for a moment. I think you'd have to concede that if a voter is still undecided at this point, they're not very informed. Their lie-meters weren't going off every time Cheney spoke, as yours and mine were.

So yes, style, and I'm not fucking kidding you. The good news to me is that it appears I didn't weight the likeability factor enough. Sure, I knew Cheney was a vicious sonofabitch, but I didn't think the likeability factor would count for as much as it apparently is with likely voters.

In the meantime, please allow me to maintain sovereignty of thought without assuming ominous things about my character.

Thanks.

[spooky3]

12. How is it "groupthink" when most people outside DU, including undecideds,

are saying they believed Edwards won? Groupthink occurs when people take a position on an issue that does NOT reflect reality accurately. What is the evidence that that is happening here?

Of course Edwards made mistakes. More than Cheney, though?

While you are patting yourself on the back for your "truthfulness", why don't you consider that you may have your own perceptual biases or unfair standards that are causing you to judge Edwards' performance too harshly relative to Cheney's performance? How do you know that while others have biases, you are free from them? Perhaps you should write that rational analysis after reviewing a tape of the debate, and identify exactly what the basis is for giving Cheney points on "style". Do the textbooks on effective persuasive speech "style" urge lying on factual matters, looking at the floor rather than at one's audience while speaking, wasting one's time by repeating "where do I begin?", failure to smile, etc.?

[Don Claybrook]

15. This is starting to get really circular

Had someone asked me how I felt about the debate, my answer would've been very different. Instead, I was answering a question about how I THOUGHT the debate went.

And you're telling me I've misidentified "group think" because most people disagree with me, because the group thinks otherwise. No comment necessary on my part.

And yes, Spooky, I do have perceptual biases, just as you do, just as everyone else does. I'm subject to being wrong, just like you are. Should I check with the group each time I want to post something to make sure I'm right? Should I watch the tape every time I want to write my opinion? Or may I continue to post my opinion on a board where opinions are featured?

[secular_warrior]

23. Same here. I think Edwards clearly lost. Great if polls say he won.

Before I turn on the pundits or log onto the Internet, I watch closely and make my own call about these events/debates. In that way, I am able to come away with a clean, untainted opinion which is my own. Thinking for oneself is a good thing. I could care less about the rah-rah nature of some on the Internet, or the browbeating to follow the company line. I root for the truth before anything else. After all, I'm a Democrat. A real Democrat. And real Democrats don't march in lockstep with anyone. I never have and I'm not about to start now.

[trumad]

32. Yeah right

and your basing your judgements that Cheney won on what? Did Cheney lie throughout, yes? Did Edwards lie at al, no? Have you read post debate commentary by Will Saletan of Slate or even Andrew Sullivan.. Maybe you should check out Josh Marshall....

Here's the links I mentioned up above: I think you should go read them especially Saletan because it sure sounds like you're walking lockstep with repuke spin!

http://slate.com/id/2107808/
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_10_03_dish_archive.html#109703571509389481

[secular_warrior]

39. Basing my judgement on what I saw with my own eyes - unlike you

who is basing it on some articles you dug up.

Cheney is a criminal - illegal wars, Halliburton - how much blood is on this guy's hands ? There is so much hard evidence. And Edwards wants to talk to him about 'meals on wheels' and healthcare ? Edwards came out throwing softballs when he should've been firing 100mph fastballs at Cheney's head.

At best Edwards tied Cheney. At worst he was soundly beaten. Cheney was allowed to frame the debate and make himself look like the principal disciplining a wayward schoolboy. Cheney somehow managed to put the focus on KE when this election should be a referendum on the crimes he and the Chimp have committed.

Edwards is a lightweight, plain and simple. I knew that when he was picked but hoped for better. He's too optimistic and nice. Luckily the man at the head of the ticket -- John Kerry -- is a heavyweight and will take Bush down in the next two debates the way he did in the first. But it shouldn't all be on Kerry. All summer he has been dealing with all of this shit by himself. It is two against one, but Kerry will still win.

For the most part, nobody cares what we post here. It's a message board of opinions. So what if some Republican internet surfers may happen in on here and see us expressing our opinion ? It's not the official word of the Democratic Party or the Kerry/Edwards '04 campaign.

Some people on the Internet have an overinflated view of their own importance.

[trumad]

41. Lets try this agian...go read this link .. Saletan destroys your argument

http://slate.com/id/2107808

[MercutioATC]

42. And exactly how does one "destroy" an opinion???

Lighten up, Trumad.

[Bucky]

43. Groupthink destroys opinions plenty good. We saw that w/McCarthyism.

There are always little Lenins among any community or popular movement who feel compelled to ostrasize those who deviate from "proper thinking". The church lady who tut-tuts the innocent risque joke at the church picnic, the stern teacher who objects when the school choir uses hiphop music in a recital, the historians who angrily denounce the evidence that Thomas Jefferson fathered children by a slave, the cop who has to humiliate you when he gives you a speeding ticket.

Every community has people like this, it's human nature. So I'm not surprised when DU has a few people who question the loyalty of Democrats who think Edwards didn't do good enough. I still think it's borderline McCarthyism, but ultimately these people are only annoying, not harmless. In the big picture this is a pretty tolerant online community.

[MercutioATC]

45. Agreed.......I think.

"I still think it's borderline McCarthyism"

If you're referring to those who say that people holding a different opinion are freepers, I wholeheartedly agree.

[Joe Chi Minh]

96. The purpose

of an open mind is to close on the truth, Mercutio. Do you think all opinions are equally valid? that your opinions should go unchallenged? And if they're atrocious, not duly vilified?

Edwards dealt in irrefutable facts; Cheyney in highly tendentious claims and evasions and plain waffle. And you people don't seem to be able to tell the difference.

[bloom]

62. some excerpts...

" Cheney seemed to think most viewers were tuning in to judge the vice presidential nominees. Edwards seemed to think they were tuning in to hear about the presidential nominees.

If Cheney guessed right on that question, he probably won. But if he guessed wrong—and I suspect he did—Edwards kicked his expletive. If you watched this debate as an uninformed voter, you heard an avalanche of reasons to vote for Kerry. You heard 23 times that Kerry has a "plan" for some big problem or that Bush doesn't. You heard 10 references to Halliburton, with multiple allegations of bribes, no-bid contracts, and overcharges. You heard 13 associations of Bush with drug or insurance companies. You heard four attacks on him for outsourcing. You heard again and again that he opposed the 9/11 commission and the Department of Homeland Security, that he "diverted" resources from the fight against al-Qaida to the invasion of Iraq, and that while our troops "were on the ground fighting, lobbied the Congress to cut their combat pay." You heard that Kerry served in Vietnam and would "double the special forces." You heard that Bush is coddling the Saudis, that Cheney "cut over 80 weapons systems," and that the administration has no air-cargo screening or unified terrorist watch list.

As the debate turned to domestic policy, you heard that we've lost 1.6 million net jobs and 2.7 million net manufacturing jobs under Bush. You heard that he's the first president in 70 years to lose jobs. You heard that 4 million more people live in poverty, and 5 million have lost their health insurance. You heard that the average annual premium has risen by $3,500. You heard that we've gone from a $5 trillion surplus to a $3 trillion debt. You heard that a multimillionaire sitting by his swimming pool pays a lower tax rate than a soldier in Iraq. You heard that Bush has underfunded No Child Left Behind by $27 billion. You heard that Kerry, unlike Bush, would let the government negotiate "to get discounts for seniors" and would let "prescription drugs into this country from Canada." You heard that at home and abroad, Bush offers "four more years of the same.""

[saracat]

111. It is not true that no one cares what we post here.

o my chagrin I found one of my posts quoted in the WSJ to make the campaign look bad. I have been careful since then. That being said I did watch the debate very closely and I would have to say it was technically mostly a tie. If Edwards hadn't screwed up on one of the rounds about mentioning Kerry's name and didn't let Cheney go unanswered a couple of times, when Gwen didn't give him his 30 sec, rebuttal, he would have won. I also think Edwards was better toward the end and his closing statement was wonderful. While Cheney might be criticized for never mentioning Bush, Edwards mentioned Kerry too much. He seemed to be more in defense of Kerry then explaining why he should be VP. I agree with the pundit poll on CNN. You would have to give it to Edwards on content but the presentation was tied. As far as the polls go, we were all voting as fast as our fingers could move within ten minutes of the debate as instructed, and we were smoking! What I can't understand was the freepugs were instructed by the RNC to freep the polls and they didn't appear to do much. This says one of two things. Either the repugs aren't as dedicated as we are and don't have as much commitment to their candidate or a lot of the repugs and indies genuinely liked Edwards! Either way. its good for our side! And BTW, all my repug friends think Edwards won!

[MADem]

61. ANDREW SULLIVAN SAID

...that EDWARDS WIPED THE FLOOR WITH CHENEY, before he even wrote that.

He called in to CSPAN right after the debate finished, and he did not listen to the lamestream media groupthinkers.

He watched at a college, and he called it for Edwards.

[NNadir]

108. Edwards went up about 5 notches in my estimation.

He could have gotten by by simply matching Cheney, but he demolished Cheney. I thought Cheney was going to blow a fuse and several major circuits.

I wasn't fond of John Edwards during the primaries, but as someone who supported neither him nor Kerry, I am thrilled to have been proven wrong. This is the team to restore Democracy to America!

I can't wait to have this team running our country!

[MADem]

60. I'd give Edwards the debate just on TRUTH

It's easy to 'appear' to win when you lie like a rug, but that is not a real win, it is a stall to try to get everyone to say that he won--thank God for Rapid Reaction Responses from the DNC, and the fact that Cheney lied about stupid stuff that was easily and quickly refuted. I called the debate for Edwards immediately because I read the papers every day and stay abreast of political issues. I knew IMMEDIATELY when Cheney was lying. And I knew that even the lamestream media would eventually get around to calling him on it. They are doing it today.

This ain't groupthink on my part. It is my own, strongly held view. I watched the contest on CSpan, and eschewed the bullshit from the talking cableheads.

And speaking of cableheads, you need to understand that they NEED a tie, or a Cheney win, to counteract the horrifically bad performance of weecowboy. If there is no horserace, there are no jacked-up advertising costs. Who watches a fixed or already decided contest? No one--except maybe wrestling. It's like wrestling, in an odd way, which although fixed, has a character who is the bad guy, and then suddenly, he is so egregiously wronged that the crowd, who sat down in their seats ready to hate him, suddenly starts rooting for him. The good guy becomes the bad guy, the bad guy becomes the good guy, and people buy more tickets. The networks are trying to manage these candidates like wrestlers, to keep the stupid sheeple watching.

But through the long lens of history, Edwards will be acknowledged as the winner. Cheney acted like he could care less, he was irritated, he was dour, and he looked like he was either massively inconvenienced or sitting atop a rather painful hemorrhoid. Edwards looked bright, eager, enthused, intelligent, and ready to go to work on behalf of the American people. He wanted the job. Cheney acted like we should just give it to him because he said so. Screw that, Dick!
Lamestream media--watch the Daily Show instead, the info is better!

[Don Claybrook]

68. I, too, understood every lie that Cheney told

Like you, I am very deeply invested in numerous news sources on a daily basis. None of those news sources, however, are on cable television, as I refuse to subscribe. I'd dare say I stay more abreast of political (and other) news than almost anyone. And yeah, I understand that the "demand" part of supply and demand, in the news industry, equates to a horserace, and that you need it neck-and-neck if you want to sell cereal and insurance. Now that we've established our credentials...

It should be clear on this forum by now that "who won the debate" is far too vague a question. A better question might be "who do YOU think won the debate" or "what would you say that undecided voters would say about the debate" or "how do you feel emotionally about the debate". When I posted this, and some stuff on other threads, I was starting from the hypothetical vantage point of the undecided voter.

After all, it would be nearly useless for us at Democratic Underground to compare notes amongst ourselves about who was more likeable, who was lying, etc. We KNOW Cheney was lying through his teeth all night. This is not a surprise. This was completely expected. They have nothing else to run on.

Now hold onto your seat...as the day has worn on, I'm happy to report that my initial assessment was wrong. Not my assessment of Cheney, but of voters' reactions to Cheney. They were far less impressed with him than I assumed they'd be. I am thrilled to be wrong about this. Frankly, I cannot understand the mind of a person who is still undecided at this point, but I was trying to put myself in their shoes. The debate was for their benefit, after all. Well, I read the undecideds incorrectly (mostly basing this on the CBS poll) and I'm glad that they saw through big Dick more than I thought they would. This is all to the good.

But I still have a stubborn point that I'll stick to: John Edwards could've done better. Ask yourself this: inside John Edwards' head, how many times has he cursed and thought, "I wish I had answered this question this way and that question that way."? Was Edwards completely satisfied with his own performance? I don't think so. He's a quick study, and a man of character and conviction, and I don't believe he's deluded himself. And I'm not just referring to the post-debate woulda-coulda-shoulda's that all debaters must experience. He could have performed better. He also could have done much worse. I believe that Edwards mostly held his own and Cheney hurt himself. At least that's the way it's looking in today's news cycle. By contrast, and for comparison, I think that although Bush hurt himself badly in last week's debate, John Kerry also lorded over him in every way possible. Had Bush actually been coherent during the debate, had he not slipped up at all, Kerry still would've wailed all over him, from what I saw. Do you see the admittedly nuanced difference in the debates that I'm trying to point out?

Finally, no, I don't think you're a subject of my 'groupthink' counter-accusation. That was more directed toward posters who since that time have started threads about how they'd claim Edwards won even if they personally thought he lost. It was also directed at those who insinuated that anyone who didn't completely agree that it was an Edwards victory must have other agendas, must be right-wing plants, and so on. I've been a damned good radical liberal for a lot of years now, been on DU since 2001, and I'm just not inclined to listen to that shit from people who have no fucking idea what they're talking about. But no, I am not including you in that group. It's clear that you do your own thinking (it's just as clear that we were answering different questions vis. 'who won the debate'--it was a matter of frame of reference (undecided v. personal)).

[MADem]

89. Edwards walked a fine line

He did not want to be accused of beating up on a sick old man with five heart attacks. He did what he needed to do--push specific points that the media has not yet touched in detail, appear sunny, bright intelligent and optimistic, and counter the voice of doom with a message of hope. He was not preaching to committed voters, he's got them, they're mad and motivated--instead, he was aiming at undecideds. Cheney, by contrast, was trying to rally the base who are demoralized after the weecowboy performance against Kerry.

When you talk about who won, you have to consider what game each player is playing. Edwards won his game, Cheney only got his team to be halfheartedly happy, but the scoreboard when the whistle blew still went against him.

It's so terrible for Cheney that he's dragged Lynnie out on the stump with him today to say "prayer breakfasts are important, BUT..." and then launch into a riff about JE's time in the Senate. They need to do some polling--that shit does not resonate. They are floundering, when they have to drag Lynn out to warm Cheney up (I've met them both--believe it or not, HE is the nicer of the two, one on one).

The GOP is having a bitch of a time with their base. It's our job to keep our base motivated, and wedge or demoralize theirs. It isn't so much a question of all of us marching in lockstep, it's more that time is short, and we need to get BUSY, and not be distracted by little blips that do not matter in the big scheme of things.

Many of you are too young to remember when HHH (Hubert Horatio Humphrey) was running after Johnson decided not to seek reelection. Man, he ALMOST made it. It was SO close. Had he had TWO MORE WEEKS, he would have pulled it out. The tide was starting to turn, he just ran out of time and did not have the rapid response ability and GOTV that we have nowadays. I do not want to see that kind of thing happen this time. It is so important that we all keep our eyes on the prize. I think that aspect is part of why you are getting some testy reactions to your comments. We can't be hanging curtains and choosing wallpaper while the house is afire--we need to put the fire out first, then we can redecorate!

[formernaderite]

70. Absolutely agree....

Kerry and Cheney both display that overused media hyped word "Gravitas". Edwards, whom I personally like....seemed like a kid and a little whiney. I had the same impression about Bush vis a vis Kerry. Cheney has a very strong oratory style, which if I didn't disagree with him on almost everything would have hooked me.

All in all, it doesn't matter...we're voting for President not VP.

[hippiegranny]

104. while I would agree that Cheney usually displays

"gravitas", it was not much in evidence last night. I thought he was rambly, boring, muffled sounding and he looked down at the desk most of the time. At first I kept wondering why he seemed to get so much more time to speak, and then I realized it just seemed that way because time seemed to drag on and on as he mumbled his lies in that soporific monotone. He was SO boring, I didn't even get as riled up by the lies as I normally would have. Maybe that was the plan. But "gravitas?" I thought he came off more like "grump-i-tas", he tried to act so superior to JE. I think he came off acting snotty. And boring. Did I mention boring?

[skip fox]

93. Well, if no one else will support the self-relience of Mr. Claybrook, then

I will. When has it ever been wrong to look at something for yourself? Or to try to see things from an unbiased perspective (one that is important if we want to persuade undecideds)?

I saw Edwards's nervousness. Excessive eye-blinking, dry mouth, wanting to dring water, but somehow appearing to think that that would show weakness, etc.

What was so remarkable to me was that he so effectively punched and counter-punched even while it must have felt (if I saw it correctly) that his body was betraying him.

I, too, have my own eyes and will not abdicate the responsibility of using them.

Right on, Mr. Claybrook!

[Don Claybrook]

100. And it's not as though...

I didn't even think Edwards did a terrible job, it just wasn't the best performance of the campaign season. I think he mostly held his own. And I won't belabor the point any further, but if our only purpose here was to log on and defend every appearance, every utterance by Kerry or Edwards, there wouldn't be much of a point in even showing up to do so.

Thanks for the kind words.

Don Claybrook
aka DisgustipatedinCA
(now wondering how wise it was to quit using an alias)

[goddess40]

107. With the outright lies I don't see how anyone can give Cheney the win

You lie you lose! With all the whining and money the right threw away over Clinton's lie, about his personal life, they show themselves as the hypocrites most of us know they are by even suggesting that Cheney won.

Sorry but the win goes to Edwards by default at least. Personally I think Edwards won outright but I know he won by default.

[liberal N proud]

4. Local news in Cleveland caliming Dickless won!

I was repulsed this am and have already written a ltte

[WLKjr]

5. Ummm I can't tell who won, could someone tell me (sarcasm)

http://discussions.wsj.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=wsjvoices&tid=3301&vote=2&submit=Vote

check out that poll.

[LynnTheDem]

6. I think Edwards won...

But then, the US majority at one point thought invading Iraq was the RIGHT THING.

I disagreed then. I disagree now.

Should I have just shut up and "except(ed) what the majority of America was saying"?

So to really be a progressive, one should only post opinions that agree with the majority. Otherwise, one should just "SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP!".

And here I'd always thought the central difference between "them" and "us" was that we embraced differing opinions, we didn't slam people for them.

[Bucky]

44. Thanks, Lynn.

You're my kinda Dem.

[LynnTheDem]

57. And thank you.

It's so GREAT to know other Dems still feel dissent = a good thing, all the time any time! :)

[booksenkatz]

7. When we win in November, these same people will

say that Kerry should refuse the honor because he doesn't deserve to be president, blah blah blah. Today we're being handed a gift, yet so many DUers just can't bring themselves to accept it! Too strange. I'll take it any way I can get it. If people say they're going to the polls for Kerry just because they like how tall he is, great, I won't question it. A vote is a vote. At least we don't have to LIE to get votes.

[DeepModem Mom]

8. This was above all a TV debate, and Edwards won it on the screen...

with real-people viewers. I don't know if some here expected a blow-out of historic proportions, like Kerry-Bush, or an Oxford Union-type debate, or a refutation of everything B-C have done wrong in the last four years in half of ninety minutes, or what. What viewers saw was a stark contrast between a white-as-a-sheet guy who looks like an undertaker, whose facts were challenged almost immediately after the debate by the media, and a fresh, articulate candidate with a face made for television.

[DeepModem Mom]

10. I wish DUers would stop refuting, and let some negative threads sink!

I've never given much thought to disruptors in disguise, but I think they may be at work here today --

[spooky3]

13. good point--oops, I kicked it again but I'll stop now!

[Joe Chi Minh]

99. Agreed

[GOPBasher]

14. Can you show me some polls? I didn't watch it.

I can't watch the debates, because I get too nervous. (Seriously, my doctor told me not to!) So I don't know who won. I've only seen one poll so far, and it said that Cheney won by a little. Can you show me some polls that show Edwards winning? Thanks. :-) Here's the poll I saw:

ABC News poll: Cheney 43%, Edwards 35%, Tie 19%.

http://pollingreport.com/wh04misc.htm

[booksenkatz]

20. ABC poll is an outlier

They admit their polling pool leaned to the Repubs. Go to the DU poll page (the yellow box at the top of every page) and do some clicking... it will put a big smile on your face and should get your nerves calmed down! It's an Edwards LoveFest out there. And not just with online polls, which admittedly can be caca. Newspaper editorials and (I hear) some media talk is in Edwards' favor as well.

[GOPBasher]

21. Thanks!

[0007]

26. Here's one with over a Million Voters - MSNBC poll

Who won the debate? * 1007318 responses
VP Dick Cheney
35%

Sen. John Edwards
65%

[unfrigginreal]

16. It's time for DU to realize that we are NOW in GOTV mode

The debates are underway, average Jane and Joe are forming opinions and we have to do everything, and yes I mean everything in our power to sway the public to vote K/E. This isn't the time for introspection when we're going up against a bunch of lying, thieving crooks that would stop at nothing to maintain power.

I still don't have a problem with anyone being critical of something in the campaign that can be changed, but being critical of a one time debate offers nothing constructive. We need spin more than criticism in this case.

You need to learn to play rough DU, even if it offends some of your sensibilities because otherwise we're going to get rolled again.

[trumad]

19. The hand wringers will always come out

they can't help themselves

[ScreamingMeemie]

17. And not only did he win in online polls, he won on telephone polling of

undecideds! That's excellent news!!!

[A-Schwarzenegger]

18. Yeah but they HATE to say it!

[snoochie]

22. I suggest we ignore such ridiculous nonsense

Better to let it sink and disappear.

For some Dems, apparently NOTHING will EVER be good enough.

:eyes:

[Joe Chi Minh]

101. Ah but

unlike Edwards, they're real pros....

[CityHall]

24. I thought so on first watching

I watched the debate a second time, and got a much better view of Edwards' performance. The first time through, I thought Cheney won on foreign policy, but it may have been that Cheney looked so good in contrast to Bush, while Edwards wasn't as strong as Kerry on the terrorism stuff.

[sendero]

25. I agree that Edwards won...

.... but it was not a slam dunk. Personally, I thought Edwards missed numerous opportunities to make Cheney look like the liar he is.

For example, when Cheney kept insisting we include the Iraqi troops in the "coalition", Edwards could have deflated that quickly by saying "we're speaking of allies who have a choice, the Iraqis had no choice, they are not part of the "coalition of the willing"".

There are numerous other times when Cheney made a point that sounded good,but was a total half-truth, and Edwards let it slide. To be honest, this surprised me a lot because I expected a trial lawyer to be able to mop the floor with someone like Cheney.

On the other hand, I am heartened by the polls. It looks like fewer Americans than I thought bought off on all the lies and half-truths Cheney dispensed last night, and that is very good news on several levels.

[MADem]

67. It does not BENEFIT EDWARDS...

...to be perceived as beating up on a sick old man. He took the high road. Mark my words, this thing will shake out for Edwards in the days ahead, and in the long-term historical view as well.

It already is doing just that--the focus is on DICK's misstatements. Flip around your dial, read USA Today...they are all focusing on the sillyDick "never met him" remark and then exploring the other "misstatements."

I'd say Dick "misunderestimated" Edwards. He was mean, Edwards was sunny--JE got people to listen to him, DC just droned.

[RetroLounge]

27. "does that go against your agenda?"

I think you nailed it right there.

They are getting nervous. Some are revealing themselves a few weeks early.

RL

[WI_DEM]

28. maybe

they are giving their honest opinion. From what I've seen it isn't that many DUers--only a few. So rather than getting all upset over a few people who don't agree with you on this board, why not just enjoy the fact that most people and many of the polls show a clear Edwards win.

[MoonRiver]

29. I think its more about the fact that people HATE Cheney and LIKE Edwards.

Cheney didn't make any bad mistakes and neither did Edwards. They both presented their side adequately, in terms of pure substance. But Cheney's style sucked. He didn't make eye contact or smile. Edwards, by contrast, shined like a star (which he always does). Edwards rocked big time on style. Cheney is simply a dour, mean old man and people don't like him. Unless Edwards had been really tripped up I think the results were entirely predictable.

This is the meme for last night's debate: Its the charisma stupid.

[trumad]

33. Cheney made numerous mistakes and lied throughout

How can you say Dick didn't make mistakes?

[MoonRiver]

91. Well, I guess I misspoke a bit. I hadn't heard all the evidence about

Dickhead's lies when I posted that. He's a POS in every way.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Cheney Did Better Than Bush...

And some folks are mesmerized by his Mr. Know It All routine... I can see how folks who are in awe of authority figures can be beguiled by Dick Cheney....

[flpoljunkie]

47. Include the hapless media, who having failed to fact check the Iraq War,

cheer led this nation to war, and remain seemingly awed by Dick Cheney, too--but then, they're easy.

[Joe Chi Minh]

98. I think

you're spot on there. Ironically, the one's who claim to be strong-mindedly independent thinkers!

[DemocracyInaction]

31. Edwards wins whether it's an outright win or a split decision

Just came on line. The news this a.m. keeps calling it a toss up but they are citing only two polls: ABC that had Cheney up and CBS that declared Edwards the winner. I've seen no others yet. However, it makes no difference. He certainly did not lose. A tie is also a great victory for him if it turns out that way because it means that Cheney could not stand up to him and put him away and that the people look at Edwards as just as capable as Cheney of taking over the presidency. Bottom line is that Cheney DID NOT win and so did nothing to bail out Giggles the President. I'm elated this morning and it's going to get even better come Friday.

[Libby2]

34. Yes for someone with no experience

he kicked Cheney's ass with facts.

What does this say about Cheney?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. I thought it was a boring tie.

I managed to watch all of it, but the temptation to switch channels was very strong.

Cheney did better than I expected. Edwards wasn't as good as I thought he'd be. It's the first time I've seen Edwards at length and I don't get all the hoopla about him. Cheney still came off as the Prince of Darkness but not quite as bad as usual.

[MercutioATC]

36. I hope this is a joke, Trumad...

I'm not allowed to have an opinion that differs from the media without having an "agenda"? Is this the same media that gets bitched about when they back a Repub?

I thought they both looked good but I thought Cheney edged Edwards out (a caveat...I missed the last 10 minutes of the debate).

I'm thrilled that most people didn't see it the way I did, but to accuse people who have differing opinions of being freepers is just insulting.

[AngryAmish]

37. Don't insult my intelligence

Edwards won because of his pure magnificence.

BUT, do you see that yellow box on the top of your computer screen? We were gaming the on-line polls (and not just by DU). Which is fine. Online polls are never representative because of the self-selected response problem. Remember Time mag had an online poll for the person of the century in several categories? Kemel Ataturk won in every category. Time's online poll had Mick Foley win man of the year several times. While I enjoy a good mandible claw as much as the next guy, this just illustrates that the online polls are crap.

[Bucky]

49. "gaming the on-line polls". I like that

I think of the online polls as a sort of pep rally. It won't win the game, but it's a good hi-tech way for us to trashtalk the other side.

[Nicholas_J]

38. The results of the undecided polls

Are running in percentage on the high end of the historical trends for undecided voters in the last 3-4 weeks in a presidential election.In most elections, the percentage of undecided voters who decide for the opposition usually runs from 75-85 percent but the polls that have been taken of undecided voters after this debate are indicating that about 85 percent are starting to move towards favoring Kerry/Edwards.

[AP]

52. Whoo-ha

(to quote Lieutenant Colonel Frank Slade.)

[LynnTheDem]

40. So ok, we march in lockstep

Just as the rightwingnuttery do.

NO ONE who has any opinion that differes in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM from the group majority may post their opinions.

If you have an opinion that differs in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM from the group majority, you should just SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP.

Later, after the election, we will revert back to being progressives and Democrats again.

[AP]

53. What's wrong with marching lock-step with the truth?

[LynnTheDem]

56. Whose truth?

Yours? Mine? People who feel Edwards didn't win or only did a draw?

Who decides the truth we lockstep to? You? Me? The majority?

The same majority who thought invading Iraq was the right thing to do?

I don't belong to a Party that believes in marching in lockstep. I know John Kerry and John Edwards don't believe in marching in lockstep.

So I won't march in lockstep for "God" or for "truth" or for whatever.

Say what YOU think the truth is. I will do likewise. If they're two different truths, I'll respect your truth, and I expect respect for mine. Not agreement; respect. Not insults and denigration and ridicule; respect.

Coz that's MY #1 TRUTH aboutbeing a progressive. :)

[AP]

109. There is such a thing as an uninformed opinion that is held by few people.

And look, you're entitled to your opinion, and nobody is deleting your posts.

It's seems what some people are complaining about is really just that they don't like their opinions to be criticized and challenged.

And I think the truth is that a striking majority of people saw that Edwards was the winner for reasons that are easily supported by references to the debate itself.

[Joe Chi Minh]

102. Bingo

[redqueen]

46. Hmmmmmmm

Apparently these people would be the ones that grok what the media is talking about when they discuss 'style'. IMO it sounds like complete gibberish.

:eyes:

[no name no slogan]

51. Oh Yeah!!!!

Yes, we must ALL drink the Kool Aid!!! NO DISSENT IS ALLOWED! THINK LIKE GROUP! OR WE SQUASH YOUR HEAD LIKE A MELON!

Let's get real here: we all may think Edwards won, but the man is not God and does not walk on water. His performance was good, but it was not a slam-dunk.

Cheney did score a few points against Edwards, and there were several questions where Edwards could have nailed Cheney to the wall that he missed.

Because so many of us have declared this such a huge victory, we run the risk of hubris. Don't let these debate wins make us too cocky-- the election is still four weeks away. That's still a lot of time for things to change.

We need to keep on keeping on, and celebrate the victories where we have them-- but not dwell on them, either.

[redqueen]

64. Um... what? Few strawmen there, NNNS

IF we all agree Edwards won, I have no beef with anyone. I admit he could have done better - that is not the issue.

I'm not insisting everyone cheer him as having accomplished the most triumphant debate victory EVER in HISTORY... just admit he frickin won. I did not say he was God. I did not say he walked on water.

Whatever points Cheney may have scored, Edwards still won.

You have a good point about hubris, but that's a far cry from what you said above.

And I happen to think dwelling on victories for a modest amount of time... say 24 hours, at least? Is just fine.

[no name no slogan]

66. celebrating == good, gloating == bad

In general I agree with you. Edwards won, it's true, but it wasn't Cheney's Waterloo-- not by a long shot, unfortunately.

IMHO it gets bad when everybody plays 'dueling pundits' or 'dueling instant polls'. Most Americans truly don't give a rats ass about what Andy Sullivan or Josh Marshall or even the talking heads on cable say who won. Hell, most didn't even watch this debate.

I agree we should celebrate our wins, but in doing so we should not lose sight of the only REAL victory we have to win: November 2. Celebrating a debate victory (even the small ones) is good, but gloating about it does nothing but give some of us a false sense of security.

PS: like the Zoo Records logo in your avatar! One of my alltime favorite bands (Killing Joke) records/recorded for them! :)

[carolinayellowdog]

48. It's the sneering, insulting *way* they said he lost that got me

During the debate, several posters were attacking anyone who might even *be privately thinking* that Edwards was winning. That was demoralizing. Why can't people express their own *opinions* without preemptively attacking anyone who might have a different opinion? They were sneering bullies, just like the guy they think won. I logged off in frustration.

Overnight I see that the "Edwards won faction" has had some snotty bullies too :)

[dumpster_baby]

50. edwards won, but as a Republican

"A Pyrrhic victory. A victory gained at too great a cost "

He basically accepted and reinforced the tenets of the neoliberal propaganda machine.

Every other sentence out of his mouth was something glorifying the idea of lowering taxes, or glorifying war in some way.

He won the battle, but in doing so, lost the war.

[no name no slogan]

55. Maybe that's what bugged me

I thought if I heard another "we're gonna track the terrorists down and KILL THEM" I was going to puke.

What about bringing them to justice? What about making them (or their organization) pay reparations? If we kill one off, who's to say another ten won't pop up to take its place?

What about a foreign policy that PREVENTS the creation of terrorists, instead of encouraging it?

:shrug:

[bloom]

63. "KILL THEM"

yeah - that is one thing the Democrats need to be careful of - if the Democrats become too much like the Republicans to win - THEN we have all LOST.

[sangh0]

54. The circular firing squad never sleeps

Some people are more concerned with the personal glory of being right, than they are with the anonymous satisfaction of contributing to solving the problems facing millions of Americans by working well with others.

[demokatgurrl]

58. Edwards DID win, obviously, but, for those of us who

set up very high expectations for him, he came a little short. Just a little- he missed a few opportunities to respond to Dick attacks but he chose to use the time to make substantive points. For that he gets "moral" credit but when playing to a TV audience allegedly full of undecideds, sometimes the rebuttal/counter attack is more important. All in all he did fine, he did win, and it's really gratifying to see that most real people thought so.

[The Wielding Truth]

65. Dick Cheney used his switch blade to fight. I'll fight with truth& JFKerry

[Joe Chi Minh]

97. Do you not think

that second-guessing Undecideds is far more speculative and hazardous than sticking to appraising verifiable truths, demokatgurrl? If Undecideds are impervious to plain truths, do you really think that guessing at their thought-processes is the best way to reach them? This is not meant offensively or as a rhetorical question.

[Forkboy]

59. Inspector Trumad of the DU

sniffing them out whether they are there or not!

[LoZoccolo]

72. I have to agree with Forkboy on this one.

I think when you look at things like who made cheap attacks or declined to speak to accusations and what not, Cheney comes out losing some. But I wasn't completely satisfied with Edwards, how he did things like use the question about divisions in the country to talk about health care, and I think he did refer to last week's debate a bit too much, even if it might have been the only focused opportunity to respond to afterattacks on Kerry's performance there. This is complex stuff. A friend of mine from work is very anti-Bush* and thought that Cheney won or it was at least a draw - does that make him some sort of real-life troll stealth Republican who operates in real life rather than the internet? Please. People have that opinion in contexts where trolling doesn't happen, so it's just so much paranoia to accuse them of that here.

Anyways, I don't even see the point of this whole thread other than to enforce groupthink and try to intimidate people. Honestly, trumad, I like a lot of your threads and often your sense of humor, and am kind-of surprised you'd be involved in a rah-rah rally or this type of credibility lynching.

[Forkboy]

77. Uh oh,what kind of of odd planetary allignment is going on?

;-)

[Ksec]

69. attention whores; Ignore em Tru

[Ripley]

76. EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's not too difficult to figure them out. They're the drama king/queens who need validation of their life from the DU Lounge for Keerist's sake!

[rinsd]

71. News flash....DUers don''t follow polls results like lemmings.

"Cantcha just except what the majority of America is saying or does that go against your agenda?"

LOL...yes c'mon praise Edwards, all the cool kids are doing it.

I thought he did well but if others feel differently they are actually allowed to feel that way. In fact I thought that was to be encouraged especially around these parts. Crazy stuff, I know.

[Ksec]

73. News flash. Its called loyalty.

People should try some

[LoZoccolo]

74. This two-line post changed my mind about the whole thing.

No it didn't.

[rinsd]

75. Yes....maybe we should all take an oath.....

:eyes:

Like I said, I thought he did well. If others felt differently that is fine with me.

[Forkboy]

78. News flash

bush supporters show loyalty too...go praise them for it if you think it's so hot :eyes:

[Ksec]

81. Oh I see/ Loyalty is a bad thing...OK whatever you say.

[Forkboy]

83. no,blind loyalty,which is what the poster is asking for,is bad

[rinsd]

84. Blind loyalty is....

As is questioning others loyalty solely because they don't agree with the group assessment.

Are these people going to go out and vote for Bush? I don't think so. So what makes them disloyal? Disagreeing with people here or having a different opinion? Daring to not be cheerleaders?

That's not loyalty, that's group think. And it's BS.

So a few people disagree that Kerry wasn't the greatest debater of all time or that Edwards didn't destroy Cheney. So what, they're entitled to their opinion and the expression of it. They shouldn't have to fear the "loyalty" police will brow beat them when they don't follow the party line.

[Ksec]

88. Its not blind.

To you loyalty only begins when it suits you.

If I didnt believe in this cause I would not even be at this site. I do believe in this and I think they deserve my loyalty.

[rinsd]

90. I didn't impugn your loyalty so don't dare do so to me.

See that's the difference. The original poster in this thread and another has basically called for blind loyalty(the other thread is much worse in my opinion). You agree with the poster.

The message is "shut up if you're not going to toe the line".

Christ if that's what we've come to and we're supposed to be the hope for this country then we have a longer road than I had even imagined.

[Ksec]

92. I just did

Thats your problem. Dont put you lack of attention issues on us.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ksec]

112. at least I have one

[LoZoccolo]

80. You should be loyal to Bush, after all, he's our President!

:eyes:

[Ksec]

82. Thats a telling statement. Good one.

[Forkboy]

87. Turning your mentality back on you

It WAS a good one.

[marlakay]

79. I think he did great

but I notice some on this blog want more to the left and don't like how close to center the guys go. He was up against a very experienced slimy guy who I think is really our pres so I think the did great and made a lot of good points especially about education, medical, and halliburton.

[DaveinMD]

85. sometimes swing voters

see things that the activists just don't see. Many times, the political folk panned Clinton's speeches, but they really connected with the people. Maybe that's what we're seeing here.

[undercover_brother]

86. because the VP debate had no clear winner IMO

the VP debate was a snoozer and gained no real ground for anyone. it was made especially uneventful for those who had watched the first Presidential debate where Bush pretty much fell apart and Kerry gave a powerful indictment of the sitting President's policy decisions.

The VP debate was a run of the mill go nowhere debate which will rely on the media spin to make any real headway either way.

[ncteechur]

94. Exactly!!

We all knew Cheny would be better than Bush. We knew it would be a tougher debate because Cheney (along with KKK Rove) has been the brains all along. Edwards had to be seen as likeable. Which he did. He had to bring up doubt about Cheney's ethics which he did. He had to continue the message about the wrong reasons for a wrong war which he did. He had to begin hammering bush about domestic policy as a sedgeway into the next debat which he did. Did Cheney get in a few punches? Sure. Was it a tie? Perhaps on some points. But Edwards did his job and continued the message and the momentum. I think Edwards effectively neutralized the gay marriage issue. I think he answered well on tort reform. I think he hammered on health care. Scott Ritter, Colin Powell, Jerry Bremmer et al are helping with the Iraq doubt. So let them. Edwards I think won because he did what he had to do and came out better poised at the same time. Get off him. None of us were up there. Also, let the pundits now hammer cheney on his lies. Olberman, Tweety, et al.

Keep the faith--for a better America. Kerry Edwards!!

[athena]

103. I think that a lot of people didn't notice Edwards's strategy.

The point in these debates is not to "win" the argument. It's to make the viewers want to vote for you and not want to vote for your opponent. This is something that Edwards obviously realizes, but Cheney apparently doesn't.

Edwards did several things that were very smart (and that worked, according to the polls):

1. Many of Gwen Ifill's questions and Cheney's answers were designed to put Edwards on the defensive. After the second or third question, Edwards noticed this and stopped responding to the attacks directly. Instead, he went on the offensive. So, for example, instead of defending his own senate attendance record, he attacked Cheney's voting records and Halliburton connections. All Cheney was able to say in response was that Edwards was lying and that he needed more than 30 seconds to answer properly -- not very convincing.

2. While Cheney was openly hostile to Edwards, Edwards responded by talking about the Cheneys' love and support for their gay daughter, forcing Cheney to thank him for his kindness. By going on and on about this, Edwards effectively kept reminding the audience that Cheney has a gay daughter, something Cheney probably didn't want to hear repeated in front of millions of people.

3. Edwards came across as an honest and compassionate person. He was convincing when he talked about the poor and weak who are being hurt by the current administration.

4. Edwards successfully presented himself as the underdog. Americans love underdogs; they don't like bullies like Cheney. Appearing to be the underdog helped Bush* immensely in the 2000 election.

5. Edwards continually referred to John Kerry by name, knowing that Cheney couldn't refer to Bush* without reminding the viewers of his miserable performance last Thursday. Bush* is now a liability to the GOP campaign, and Edwards took advantage of this.

6. How good does it look when a vice president is clearly more knowledgeable about foreign policy than the president?

7. Edwards used several lawyer's tactics to undermine his opponent. He often referred to them as "they" while pointing with both hands at Cheney but not looking at Cheney. At the end of the debate, he jumped to his feet, so that he was standing and Cheney was sitting, looking up at him, as they shook hands.

It would be nice if all the people who think Edwards did badly to list precisely what they think Edwards did wrong.

[spooky3]

106. good post

[AP]

110. This is a better summary of that the debate than anything I've read by

people who get paid to publish their opinions and better than anything written by any of the criticizers.

[Joe Chi Minh]

113. Awesome insights.

[David Zephyr]

105. Edwards Won The Debate & I Was Worried.

Trumad has this right.

Edwards won and I was a worrier about it.

Edwards won. Get over it.