The Veep Debate--who really won?

A day after the VEEP's debate (10.5.04) polls are running 2-to-1 in favor of John Edwards. Much as I like to see that the mainstream audience is siding with the Kerry-Edwards ticket, which I prefer by far to the GOP, there is something bizarre about this outcome. I'll tell you why: In my view, Edwards didn't win this debate. At best he tied Cheney to a precarious draw. At worst, he was trounced squarely according to the standard rules of debating. I say this with some bitterness, because I was rooting for Edwards, whom, frankly, I had credited with more aplomb and smarts than he exhibited last night. I wanted to see a second, conclusive win for the K-E ticket, putting them squarely on the road to the White House, and to ousting the current GOP mafia impersonating a responsible government in Washington. Here's some of the reasons--sure to strike an unpopular reaction in many quarters--that I think Dick Cheney managed to hold the upper hand for much of the debate. First, Edwards, for all his vaunted expertise and sang froide as a trial lawyer had clearly not done his homework well. Imagewise--and, regrettably, these debates are heavy on superficialities instead of substance--he often looked tentative, on the defensive, flustered, whiney, scrambling to shoe in the points that he had clearly rehearsed who knows how many times, or been urged to make at any cost. In that, hate to say it, he reminded us of our Alfred E. Newman president. The effect was one of general uneasiness, of playing catch-up to the cool, unflappable demeanor of the current VP, who, sitting at the table like a cement fireplug, kept bulldozing ahead as if impervious to the quality of any broadside unleashed by Edwards.

Granted, national security was not supposed to be Edwards' strong suit. In that area, Cheney, wrapped in avuncular gravitas, had an easy time projecting what some have called the "stature gap." "We're the ticket of experience," exuded the VP's body language. Still, when it finally got to the area of domestic policies, Edwards, facing an opponent with a target literally 12 miles wide, missed one opportunity after another to score decisive points. I'm using here the word DECISIVE folks. In a debate of this kind, when the occasion presents itself, you gotta be quick on your feet to see it, grab it by the neck, and use it to the hilt. You gotta have the tactical nimbleness to literally kick your opponent off the canvas. I'm afraid Edwards fell short of that mark. It was, again, a matter of style, but in a nation where most voters are woefully uninformed, and therefore subject to frivolity in their leanings, style is all there is.

Consider the question of Bushite/GOP hypocrisy toward our folks in uniform. While the Republican crowd will miss no photo-op to proclaim their unwavering devotion to our soldiers, they apparently see no contradiction in rushing up Capitol Hill to cast a vote to torpedo their benefits. Surprising? Not at all. Trawling for votes is one thing, delivering on promises to the unwashed masses--even when risking their lives to carry out their misguided agendas--quite another. For when it comes to the wallet, the GOP is always a class-conscious party. So, folks, here was an issue where Edwards should have driven a tank through, nailed Cheney and his brethren for an instance of disloyalty so revolting as to liquidate any remnants of their credibility. Did our man do it? Not quite. He threw the accusation in Cheney's face, all right, but he did not dwell on it, he did not use the type of delivery calculated to make it stick. The charge merely rolled off Cheney's back.

A broader area where Cheney--surely the Darth Vader of American politics--was vulnerable was domestic policy and the corporate scandals. Here Edwards was on firmer ground and it showed. Cheney is literally dripping with all the symbols objectively despised by most Americans (many of them, ironically, at the instigation of right-wing propaganda masters, like their hatred for Washington "insiders"): He's a quintessential insider, a lifelong corporado with close career ties to one of the most mendacious and cynical corporations around, Halliburton, a shameless wartime gouger and demonstrable recipient of Administration favoritism. As shady corporations go, you can't get much lower or incriminating than that. And here was a man who, while most Americans struggle to hold on to their hard-earned middle-class stability in the face of rapidly-eroding job security, got a $36-million dollar handshake from the same corporation, emblematic of the huge gap between the corporate class and the rest of us. Sure, guilt by association is unfair, but too much has happened and, as Kennedy once said, it's an unfair world. It was a point worth mining--skillfully, that is--but, again, Edwards could not touch it. And he didn't. It wasn't until the closing statements that Edwards didn't seem to recoup some of his footing to really dent the VP's armor. It may have saved his butt. He did that by reciting a long litany of betrayals by the Bush administration, easy considering how much ammo this administration has provided.

So, am I being too hard on Edwards? Maybe. As I said before, I expected more from Edwards. Judging from this debate, he clearly has a long way to go in finetuning his style. For one thing, he better lose--prontissimo--that penchant to speak robotically past his adversary, as many attorneys do when arguing their cases in court. In that venue, ignoring what your adversary just said may be tolerable and even a winnable strategy; in a televised debate it's a recipe for self-destruction. Or maybe what really bothered me in the Edwards presentation was his craven sucking up to the Zionist lobby [he glibly informed us that all Palestinians are terrorists!] and his totally unnecessary bellicose statements (something observed in Kerry, too) toward Iran and North Korea. Folks, we are backing the Democratic ticket because it is supposed to be the more mature ticket in matters relating to foreign policy, not the saber-rattling bullies in the corral. Judging from Edwards' utterances last night, there is really no distinction between the inane warmongering of the Republicans and that of the easily-baited, gotta-prove-our-manhood-at the first-challenge Democrats. Phew! What a choice.