Imagine two dogs; one is a poodle and one is a rottweiler. In a dogfight my money would be on the rottweiler, but in a beauty contest my money would be on the poodle.
On October 5th, the Vice-President's debate is scheduled to take place. The big question the campaigns ought to be asking themselves is, "Is the debate a beauty contest or a dogfight?"
When Edwards and Cheney step up to the microphone, Cheney will eviscerate Edwards with his handling of the facts in a logical and methodical manner. Of course, this won't mean anything because Edwards is a very likable guy. He'll win over the audience with his North Carolina charm and telegenic looks. As a result, Cheney will lose the debate.
Yet another reason for him to retire and allow Bush to name someone else as his VP.
Awfully shallow, isn't it? Of course the press gets to declare the winner and tell us all who it was, so what does it really matter?
Posted by: Tim at July 7, 2004 10:41 AMThis is not without precedent. Nixon "won" his debates against Kennedy ....on the radio. He *lost* the same on TV. Kennedys good looks, ease in front of the camera, and lack of a sweaty upper lip, gave him the edge.
This could also happen when the VPs go at it.
Posted by: Guy S. at July 7, 2004 01:58 PMDebates are funny things...What do you remember from the 2000 debates...All I remember is that Gore lost the election when he rolled his eyes in the debate, and betrayed himself as a stuck-up stickybeak. What do you remember from the 1992 debate? All I remember is Bush losing the election when he looked at his watch.
Posted by: Douglas at July 12, 2004 10:40 PM