Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Vice Presidential ebb and flow

Cheney had an attitude of, "We're going to win, and this is a waste of my time." He didn't seem all that interested. It was noteworthy Cheney didn't really know much about Edwards cases as an attorney -- so much for adequate background-checking.

Interesting Cheney asked several times, "Where do I start?" when responding. Not sure why he's asking the public.

Neither gave a satisfactory answer on African-American women's challenge with AIDs. This despite the moderator saying, "putting aside the overseas factors."

Cheney didn't really hit any of the questions "right on" -- he seemed to be mentally going through "all the staff papers he had read" searching for an answer.

Edwards didn't have a very solid response to the "experience issue." Not that "lack of experience as President" stopped Bush from running in 2000.

Didn't walk away with any solid feeling that Cheney had specifics or a plan; while the Democrats referred to their plan. Thought it was good to point out the deficit would only be cut by half "at best".

Not getting a clear sense of "how a trial lawyer's experience or lack of experience" is necessarily relevant -- that's the point -- I'm not seeing how a trial lawyer's ability to think on his feet is necessarily a negative, yet at the same time thought Edwards did a better job of addressing Cheney's comments, and then summarizing and narrowing in on the question.

When I heard Kerry's question about the "Global Test" I walked away with the sense he was simply referring to international rules of norms like the Geneva Convention; standards of international affairs that nations can be reasonably be expected to abide by.

This is not to say that the US is deferring sovereignty, as Cheney-Bush would like the interpretation to be; rather, that the US as a global leader needs to spinally do that--lead, not rewrite the rules in an imbalanced way. A global test is simply on of, "If the US is still in Afghanistan in 5 years, that doesn't pass the smell test."

I thought Kerry showed a greater inclination to engage, listen, respond, and be responsive; while Cheney had more of an "take it or leave it approach." Fine.

If you want change, vote Kerry; if you want responsive leadership and someone who is going to do less of what isn't working, vote Kerry.

But if you want someone who appears to be living in a bubble, vote Bush.

We need leaders, not people who are hiding in the closet. The lightbulb is indeed flickering. He has to come out, eventually.