Cheney wins battle, Edwards wins war

With even Fox News declaring Kerry the winner and poll after poll confirming it, there is little ambiguity about who won last Thursday's presidential debate. However, both candidates effectively defined the differences in their positions and set a powerful precedent, a high hill for their running mates to climb. On the night of Tuesday, Oct. 5, although Cheney bested Edwards, Edwards did more for Kerry than Cheney did for Bush.

Cheney went into the debate with guns blazing, determined to do what Bush was criticized for avoiding: attacking Kerry on his record. Edwards was obliged to discuss Kerry's record, and when given the opportunity, clearly covered Kerry's back on his "global test" while attacking Cheney on the alleged al Qaeda–Iraq connection and calling Cheney's figures "distortions." Although Kerry's name was plastered all over both sides of the debate, Cheney said "Bush" only three times, and Edwards never said it, period.

Throughout the debate, Cheney managed to redefine his positions and even humanize himself a bit. In contrast, Edwards, at times, appeared supercilious and scripted, often providing answers with few echoes of the questions asked. But where Cheney focused on himself, Edwards used his time to further define and humanize Kerry. Cheney seemed more presidential, but Edwards was more "Vice Presidential," more deferential to the head of the ticket.

While Tuesday's vice-presidential debate was in many ways more substantive than the presidential debate, it dealt with minutiae and muddied some of the earlier debate's clarity. One of the most satisfying aspects of the presidential debate was that the candidates agreed to disagree without beating a dead horse; the debate moved quickly and covered a large amount of ground. In contrast, Cheney and Edwards accused each other of distortion and inaccuracy, arguing over numbers and beat dead horses to death over and over again.

One character argument that dominated the debates was a discussion of certainty and resolve. Bush accused Kerry of altering his positions to adapt to the political climate, and Cheney even suggested that Kerry voted against funding the war because of pressure from Howard Dean. Kerry effectively defended his position by accusing Bush of being stubborn. "It's one thing to be certain," he said, "but you can be certain and be wrong." He also defended the consistency of his own record, a message Edwards reinforced on Tuesday. Coming into the debate, Kerry seemed undefined; afterwards, he had sharp edges. Cheney's hard-line rhetoric, on the other hand, did not help to dispel Bush's image of stubbornness.

In the contest of debate moderators, Jim Lehrer was the clear victor. His short, direct follow-up questions allowed the debate to flow more easily and cover a greater deal of ground. In contrast, Gwen Ifill's questions were loaded more often than not with follow-ups that focused on trivial aspects rather than the big picture. Edwards could hardly be blamed for not answering the questions asked. Ifill once gave Edwards an extra chance to respond and, at the end, allowed the debate to go on for an extra eight minutes.

After the two debates, the Democratic ticket seems more appealing. Kerry, often accused of being the pessimistic candidate, turned out to be the optimist. "The future belongs to freedom, not to fear," he said in his closing. In contrast, Bush closed by playing on the fears of the American people. "We fight terror around the world so we don't have to face it here at home," he said.

Even though Edwards seemed a little smarmy at times, he served his role by bringing a down-home populist face to the ticket. He also connected himself more closely to Kerry than Cheney did to Bush. And although Cheney humanized himself somewhat with stories of his lesbian daughter and his modest upbringing, it's hard to love a candidate who voted against Meals on Wheels.