Andrew Sullivan seems to think that Edwards won big in Tuesday's debate. I found that hard to believe since I thought it was a tie or a slight win for Cheney. However, his latest piece for The New Republic does make some sense as to why Kerry might have won among undecideds while Kerry played to the base.
For example, when asked about Iraq, Cheney talks about the new interim government, about training a new Iraqi army and about January elections. There is no talk about the troop losses or the need for more troops. Edwards connects with the fears of the undecideds who see and hear the stories of soliders dying on our television sets. Sully thinks Cheney's message were for those who don't need to be persaded. In their view, everything is okay. Edwards knows that there are people who are concerned with what they are hearing and he speaks to them.
Sullivan's explaination does make sense with me on second thought. And if it does make sense then it might spell touble for Bush who is losing the opportunity to connect with the middle who is worried by what they see around them.
Posted by Dennis at October 7, 2004 12:31 AMI agree with you that my first impression was that Cheney won the debate.
However, after reading simianbrain (http://simianbrain.atlblogs.com/) and the Daily Dish (http://www.andrewsullivan.com) I can see where Edwards did a better job. I have made up my mind, the debate wasn’t for me. The debate was to help the undecided voters make up their minds. Edwards did a better job of that.
Last night Kerry did a better job than Bush of offering a vision of a better future. So far the administration is 0 for 3. I had expected better from them.
Mark,
You must have read my mind because I heard that same report on NPR and was just so shocked. I will be posting on that later today.
Posted by: Dennis at October 8, 2004 09:09 AMDennis,
It's easy to lose touch with the middle when you seal yourself off from them.
NPR this morning put on an article that echoed something that had been written about in this article: http://www.progressive.org/mcwatch04/mc051904.html
The gist is, at any rally or speech for the president, the Secret Service is being used to screen attendees to ensure that no one with opposing viewpoints, of ANY kind, are allowed in. This ensures that the crowd is rabidly supportive of the president. They have turned away registered Republicans, who voted for Bush in 2000, but who chose to wear a Pro-Choice shirt to the rally. They have turned away people who were carrying old Kerry stickers in their pockets. They have even arrested and detained people who got into the rally and displayed messages that ran counter to the president's agenda - they were still Bush supporters, but any hint of dissent or difference is not welcomed.
Mind you, this is not just done at events paid for by the campaign (where they are at liberty to screen at will) but also at appearances paid for by taxpayer money, where anyone and everyone should be able and allowed to attend to see their president.
Why? I don't think it's just because they want the media to see people who are 110% behind Bush, to give others in America the impression that it is futile to support Kerry because no one disagrees with the president, although that is part of it.
I think it's also because they don't want the president to have to face that dissent, to face Republicans and previous supporters who nevertheless disagree with his agenda. He simply can't face it. That was apparent on last week's debate. For the first time in a very long time, Bush had to face someone who didn't accept everything he said at face value. He had to face his opponent, he had to face Jim Lehrer (who I very much doubt likes Bush at all) and he had to face a silent crowd, who could not and would not carry him with rabid cheers at every "hard work" sound bite. He had to appear in front of over 60 million people without anyone to cheer him on.
I understand now why Rove didn't want the debates in the first place. Rove knows what Bush's weaknesses are and has worked hard (there's that hard work again) to prevent the exposure of those weaknesses. In his mind, as we well know, any sign of weakness is an assurance of defeat.
Posted by: Mark Kittel at October 8, 2004 08:08 AM