- Amnesty International report brands Libya's militias 'out of control'
- Obama proposes bringing jobs home from overseas. Would his plan work?
- Obama's NASA budget: Mars takes a hit, but space science isn't dead
- Payroll tax deal close: Why did Republicans back down? (+video)
- Israel says Bangkok, Delhi, and Tbilisi attacks all linked – to Iran
- Rick Santorum's new machine-gun ad: Will it work? (+video)
- Honduras prison fire kills more than 300, highlights regional problem (+video)
- Angry Birds joins Facebook in bid to reach 800 million users
Q&A: Vice presidential debate
Cheney was 'serious, sober, even-keeled' but Edwards more than held his own and scored some points as well.
The Christian Science Monitor's Liz Marlantes attended the vice presidential debate in Cleveland Tuesday night. She gives her thoughts in this Monitor Q & A.
Did the debate unfold as people expected it might?
There were two things everyone was looking for that did in fact play out: A definite contrast in styles - Cheney came across as serious, sober, even-keeled. To some extent, I thought he was even less animated than usual - mumbled to the point where it was hard to hear him in a few spots.
Like his boss, he's a man of few words who gets right to the point: On several questions, he declined to use up all his time - at one point, was asked by the moderator if he wanted to respond to something Edwards said, and just shook his head "no."
Edwards came across as sincere, empathetic. The trial lawyer in him was evident - he repeatedly picked up on things Cheney said, and appealed to viewers as though they were a jury, using emotional and sometimes personal anecdotes to make his case.
This was a format that was supposed to favor Cheney - and it is a good one for him - but Edwards did just fine with it, much better than he did with sit-down debates during the primary season.
The other predictable aspect of this debate was that both candidates were strongly on the attack. Cheney spent a great deal of time ripping into Kerry's record - both calling him a flip-flopper and also portraying him as an anti-defense and pro-tax liberal who wants to expand the reach of government.
He also portrayed Edwards as inexperienced and shallow - hitting him for missing votes in the Senate, saying pointedly that as Vice President, he is also president of the Senate and that tonight was the first time he ever met Edwards (Democrats later released an old photo of the two men shaking hands).
Edwards hit back on the administration's record on jobs and Iraq. He attacked Cheney repeatedly for implying there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and hit him on Halliburton's no-bid contracts in Iraq. Interestingly, he even hit Cheney's record as a congressman and Secretary of Defense - pointing to votes he made against the Martin Luther King holiday, and the weapons systems he cancelled.
Did Mr. Cheney and Mr. Edwards help or hurt their campaigns?
It probably won't have a huge impact either way - vice presidential debates typically don't unless someone makes a huge gaffe, which didn't happen tonight. For partisans on both sides, it probably reinforced impressions that they already held - Cheney likely came across to staunch Republicans as experienced and tough; while to staunch Democrats he likely seemed dour and out of touch; Edwards likely struck Democrats as compassionate and sharp, but Republicans probably saw him as shallow and glib.
For undecided voters, it's hard to say - but my instinct is that Edwards may have helped his ticket somewhat more, by coming across as the candidate more in touch with average people's concerns. Snap polls showed a mixed picture, with an ABC poll showing Cheney winning and a CBS poll of undecided voters showing Edwards winning.
Page: 1 | 2 



