Post-Debate on PBS
Reported by Nancy - October 6, 2004 -
I watched both the debate itself & the post-debate analysis on PBS tonight (10/5). PBS did its usual excellent job.
Gwen Ifill was outstanding as moderator, neither too formal nor too informal. She was in charge at all times, without resorting to heavy-handed tactics. Her questions were direct & probing, bordering on aggressive -- but they allowed each candidate some leeway in responding.
As for the candidates, Edwards seemed much more relaxed & better-prepared. It took Cheney longer to settle in & feel comfortable. I'll leave it to others to analyze what was said, how they said it & what was meant or intended. I will say that it was absolutely refreshing to hear any public figure admit less-than-perfect knowledge on any topic under the sun, so credit to Cheney for admitting he was not aware of the AIDS rate among US black women. He will probably take some heat from the RNC for puncturing their "W is for Women" balloon.
Post-debate analysis was mercifully brief & to the point. Jim Lehrer interviewed David Brooks (conservative) & Mark Shields (liberal) for their takes. Brooks likened the candidates to a couple of boxers trading punches, & said both landed some blows. Shields said he thought Edwards' early aggressiveness knocked Cheney back on his heels at first, but that Cheney had recovered by about the third question.
Margaret Warner then interviewed Peter Robinson (GOP) & Maria Echaveste (Dem) for a more partisan perspective. Echaveste said she thought Edwards did a good job keeping the focus on Iraq, because then Cheney had to keep repeating the "Happy Iraq" scenario. Robinson noted that Edwards had been faster at first, that Cheney had been slower to pick up steam, but once he found his balance he was like a "battleship". He thought that Cheney's strongest points were his command of facts & figures, & his loyalty to Bush. Echaveste said she thought Edwards' best line was when he said that a long resume does not equal good judgment. When Warner asked about the "flip-flop" issue, Robinson said he thought Cheney did better addressing that, & cited what he called a "devastating" line, when Cheney said that Kerry & Edwards couldn't stand up to Dean.
Finally, Terrence Smith had a panel of historians for some additional perspective: Michael Beschloss (presidential historian), Ellen Fitzpatrick (prof, UNH) & H W Brands (prof, Texas A&M). Since televised VP debates have only been part of the campaign since 1976, there wasn't a lot of history to talk about. Fitzpatrick drew an analogy between tonight's debate & the Kennedy/Nixon debates in 1960 that I thought was interesting.
Summary: PBS, as usual, had both staff & guests who were intelligent, insightful & worth listening to. There was no shouting, no interruption, no ranting. Even the 2 guests who were specifically asked to provide a partisan viewpoint (Echaveste & Robinson) were civilized. No gaudy graphics for the attention-span-impaired, no glitzy sets or hideous music, just a few sane, rational adults holding an intelligent, courteous & informative conversation.
