Debate over. Game on.

Hi. Welcome to a night of feverish blogging. I set up this site yesterday, and finally started writing during the Cheney-Edwards debate tonight. If you want to follow my reactions to the proceedings chronologically, kindly scroll down and start at the bottom. I wrote four entries while the debate was in progress, then wrote some final thoughts (this post) after it was over. So here you go.

*

Cheney repeatedly accused Edwards of getting his facts wrong, and Edwards countered by saying Cheney distorted the facts. This makes me call into question Edwards' preparedness. He rarely seemed to have his own facts to counter Cheney's. In many ways he appeared to be exactly what Cheney suggested he was: a neophyte who was blowing smoke but didn't have the experience or knowledge base to back it up.

The all-important style category may have belonged to Edwards, although I suspect that people who bother with the VP debate are more swayed by substance. It's so rare that we hear Cheney talk, and he came off as what he really is: the silent partner who is actually running the show. He has clear but wrongheaded notions about remaking the world in his own way -- in essence, ruling it -- and seems smart enough to be sinister if he wants to be. Edwards? He's been mostly absent for the past couple of months, and I think I saw why tonight. He really doesn't have much of his own to say.

Edwards, the North Carolinian, may have seemed like a smart choice for Kerry a few months ago, though I'm not convinced the Dems will carry a single Southern state. (Is Florida officially Southern?) But in terms of knowledge, grasp, expertise and experience, Cheney is clearly the winner in this debate. If I came in knowing nothing, I could only support Edwards on style over substance. I came in knowing more, though, and I still believe in the Kerry/Edwards ticket.