The wingnuts are raving about Cheney, since they sure as heck didn't want liberal blogs quoting them again. But in all fairness, Cheney is in a whole different class than the pathetic Bush. No one doubts Cheney is competent. Evil? Yes. Unfriendly? Sure. Dangerous? No doubt. But incompetent? No way.
But competence does not make a debate winner. No one can accuse Edwards of being incompetent, and no one does. Yet in 2000, the pathetic Bush "won" the debates despite Gore's far-greater command of the issues.
So with that in mind, here's some of the reaction around the country:
Washington Post
The Democrat was more effective, and more on point, in challenging Mr. Cheney on rationales for the Iraq war that have proven false, in particular connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, and for the vice president's continuing failure to acknowledge the difficulties of the Iraq mission [...] Mr. Cheney was as cutting as a school principal lecturing a delinquent student on the subject of Mr. Edwards's Senate 'attendance record.' But if the question was whether he has the grounding to assume the presidency if need be, Mr. Edwards delivered a solid performance on both foreign and domestic policy last night.
Los Angeles Times
As the evening wore on, Cheney's chin sank down his chest, his gravelly voice turned into an inarticulate rumble and he even started passing up opportunities to talk at all. When Edwards, with that boyish smile that worked magic with jurors, stuck a knife in his gut (for example, about his role as CEO of Halliburton), Cheney more than once said he didn't know where to begin, and then didn't. Some of his own demagogic thrusts, meanwhile, were bizarre. Surely many GOP small businessmen were alarmed to hear the vice president denounce so-called S corporations (a common tax-favored setup apparently used by Edwards' law practice).
New York Times
Mr. Cheney, who won over many voters four years ago with his grandfatherly demeanor during a debate with Joseph Lieberman, seemed tired and angry. He was particularly dyspeptic when he responded to criticism of his relationship with Halliburton by claiming that Mr. Edwards had a bad attendance record in the Senate.
Mr. Edwards is normally known for his wide grin and boyish appearance, but he was serious and tough last night. If his main task was to show that he could stand up to the older and more experienced vice president, he did everything he needed to do, especially during the discussion of foreign policy - the area that is supposed to be his weak suit. Mr. Edwards was particularly on point when Mr. Cheney attacked John Kerry as a lawmaker who had consistently voted against military expenditures. Much of the arms spending Mr. Kerry voted against, Mr. Edwards noted, was for the same programs Mr. Cheney had fought to cut when he was secretary of defense.
Online, the MSNBC poll drew 1.5 million responses, with 61 percent saying Edwards won, 39 percent deluded into thinking Cheney won.
Just about every other online poll gave Edwards huge victories. Scientific? Nah. But it does prove that our side is more organized and fired up, at least in the Netroots. If our GOTV operation is this good...
Most of Cheney's best zingers and points were scored on lies, and those have been getting a good airing in the pundit shows and other media.
Ultimately, Edwards played really well into the Kerry theme of "change", and no better contrast could be devised between the sunny, optimistic Edwards, and Cheney, the prophet of doom. Those apocalyptic nightmare scenarios Cheney loves to share probably resonate well with the wingers, but I'm willing to bet that optimism wins every time.
This is a debate that truly wasn't decided on the debate stage. And given the post-debate reaction, I think we're winning the spin battle. What a difference from four years ago.
