Intermission Entertainment: The Veeps

The Vice-Presidential debate this evening was, like it's 2000 counterpart, a calmer and tangibly less tense meeting than the Presidential candidates' last Thursday. Not that it was kinder or gentler - each went for the jugular with ad hominem attacks halfway through.

Gwen Ifill was terrific and totally in charge. Coming across as a cross schoolteacher, she cowed both the Vice President and Senator into submission with tough questions and a sharp tongue. Precisely what's needed in a moderator. The debate had a much different veneer, as each candidate knew he was performing for a much more limited audience than last Thursday's. Motivating their own tickets and framing the previous and upcoming presidential debates was as important as the 'victory' in the current contest.

Cheney, I think, won the issues debate, demonstrating an ability to recite complex policies and point to work his administration has done and is planning. He gave the right impression: that Kerry and Edwards are interrupting a busy administration which is working overtime to meet a variety of goals. Edwards, on the other hand, came down hard in a few places, and that was all he needed to do to stay even in the debate. He effectively questioned Cheney's credentials, including not only his shameful congressional record but his equally questionable Halliburton ties. Cheney attempted to match Edwards mudsling for mudsling, but Edwards got off the last salvo and effectively won that part of the debate. How many voters will be enticed to the Democrats - or simply kept away from the polls - by Cheney's dirty laundry remains to be seen.

In other news, The Daily Show continues to be the most effective media I've yet seen. Unlike most of the outlets, which report the candidate's words and deeds, but rarely give the background or do appropriate fact-checking, Jon Stewart is not afraid to debunk the media myths o' the day.

Today's brew: the "global test" phrase uttered by Kerry in Thursday's debate. It was, needless to say, a terrible political mistake on Kerry's part. However, in context it was a harmless, even meaningless, phrase, implying that each intervention would be viewed in the context of American interests worldwide. The instant I saw it, I knew at once that Kerry did not mean what "global test" implies to many, and I also knew it would be harped on by the Republicans. However, the major media have simply reported on the GOP's harping; they should follow such coverage by saying, "those who heard Kerry's statements understand that's obviously not what he meant, but the Republican we just interviewed knows it's an effective phrase to pin on Kerry." And vice versa for mischaracterizations of Bush. Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks the media should be an independent voice, not a mouthpiece for the spin doctors, as Jon Stewart refreshingly mocked the spinners for misusing that phrase.

Tonight's assignment for the professional media is to fact-check on the debate. What is the actual spending figure in Iraq? $200 billion or $120 billion? That's my money - I want to know! Also, have Cheney and Edwards really never met? That's difficult to believe, what with the photographic evidence and all.