I thought the debate was a draw, but...

I admit, after the debate last night, I thought it was either a draw, or a slight Cheney win. I know how evil and corrupt VP Jabba the Hutt is. However, I thought Cheney explained his positions (how awful they may be) well enough to convince the unconvinced voters. I thought Edwards didn't hit him hard enough.

However, after today, after watching the media report on Cheney's lies, I think that Edwards won by default--Cheney lost the debate after the debate finished because he lied.

I hope many previously unconvinced voters are now convinced that Cheney is a crooked liar. :)

convincing if you don't know better.

That is what you always have to worry about but luckily there is videotape now to prove the lies.

Edwards lacked the background information for a coup de grace on Cheney. I was especially disappointed that he let Cheney get away with his misleading factoid about Zarkawi being in Iraq and setting up a WMD biolab. Apparently, there's no definitive evidence of that. And Zarkawi was in a zone controlled by Ansar Al Islam, not by Saddam, making a war against Saddam pointless if based on that fact.

But Cheney was his own worst enemy. With his boundless hubris, he lied to America last night but this time he didn't do it with impunity. Those lies are the big story. Edwards didn't disgrace himself at all and gave a good effort. But Cheney lost his own debate.

Primarily in the 20-30% range in most of the polls I looked at today.

Invariably that means both participants were judged to be very capable and have performed very well. People are much more inclined to choose an even outcome if they thought both sides deserved to win, while in a sloppy or disappointing event invariably they isolate someone as the winner, even if it's not clear cut.

I've seen studies on that regarding debates and also boxing matches. Boxing promoters discourage scoring rounds a draw now, but years ago rounds scored a draw were much more prevalent in high level or title fights than cheap preliminaries.

He's pretty much the best the GOP's got. Who could the GOP have put up against Edwards or Kerry in any form of debate that would be tougher than Cheney? No one. Edwards more than held his own, which says a lot about Edwards.

most of the bad moves by bush have come from the brain of dickie.

I felt Edwards did well and made no major gaffes but that the advantage was to Cheney..although I have to admit...every time Cheney used his whole two minutes, he put me to sleep. Edwards went heavy on him at the start but then backed off which I thought was good...but I felt at the end Cheney was going to be declared the winner even though I liked Edwards...guess I was pleasantly surprised when most of America liked him more too...and even MORE pleasantly surprised when Cheney scored three major fuckups...two by lying (I never met him til today, I never said that) and ONE by invoking FactCheck.com and then EVEN better when FactCheck.ORg weighed in.

This was the discussion at work today - is it a lie if you believe it to be true? Isn't it then just a delusion? Without a doubt Cheney knew he was lying about or seriously distorting Kerry's Senate record, BushCo's jobs records, etc. However, I'm starting to believe that he really believes his Saddam/Al Queda stuff. He might be able to pass a lie detector on that one, as psychopaths often do.

I thought the "debate" was a draw and I thought Edwards fluffed too many opportunities to smash CrashCart.

However, Cheney is loosing the debate about the debate -- Big Time. For some unknown reason, the (cable) media has been talking about his lies all day. Liar, liar, pants and debate win on fire. Hey!