and now for my take on the vp debate. and there are two . . . first: an inside-the-beltway look: edwards did fabulous, he called cheney out on all his lies and still maintained a positive glow. also, his haircut helped his quaff become less of an issue. cheney looked pissed off the whole time and obviously did not see the point of being there, i would agree with him, i mean who was running the country while he was on camera? in 2000 he seemed grandfatherly with lieberman, with edwards he was a disciplinarian - the post called him a school principal.

however, most of the country doesn't live inside the beltway - so here's my real thoughts: as an insider i recognize the fact that edwards was calling cheney out on some lies - but that's not how it came off. it was all he said/she said. and the two came out looking like bickering kids in one of my swim classes. "i can stay under water longer than you can" "no you can't" "yes i can, watch!" "no fair, he cheated!" blah blah blah. i though this debate was extremely nasty overall - much more so than when the big kids fought last thursday. i don't think the american people will look at the debate and see no positive answer, i guess edwards seemed the least shitty - but i don't think that's something to be proud of. and as a proud democrat i have to admit that i am pissed at what the DNC is doing today. they are calling cheney out on his lies - and yes, they should do that - like on his lies about iraq and saddam (hello, does anyone remember how iraq was NOT on the terrorist countries list when reagan was in office, anyone, anyone??) but no, the dnc is calling him out on lies like the fact that cheney had indeed met edwards twice before, briefly, and that it wasn't actually edwards' hometown paper that called him "Senator gone" but a paper a few towns over . . . - things like that - which don't matter to regular people!! i recognize that this is what the republicans did to al gore in 2000, but that doesn't make it right. and al had a record of these little white lies, cheney doesn't - cheney has a record of HUGE lies, so let's stick to lies that matter. 40% of this country still believes that saddam was involved in 9/11 . . . 40%.

and on a slightly different note - what is the point of these vp debates anyway? would they actually affect how anyone would vote? no one picks a candidate based on their vp. it was just the top 2 surrogates going after eachother. but they never even talked about themselves really - it was a huge "my dad is better than your dad" fight and seemed pretty useless to me.

what did you think?