Wolcott Weighs In

By this point I believe that many of us are reaching pundit overload on the veep debate and I, for one, know that I could certainly use a good nap prior to the next Bush - Kerry showdown on Friday. (Why must these be on so late? I'm an old man and I need my sleep!) However, when Wolcott speaks I am drawn by a Pavlovian response to read and usually quote. (Not to mention taking any opportunity to urge you to read his excellent book, Attack Poodles.)

Wolcott's take on the debate was different from mine, as I regrettably thought that the match was nearly dead even, with Cheney possibly taking it by a nose. However, his analysis of it is written far better than I would ever manage. A taste:

"I think we saw that [the Costanza Trap] last night. Cheney, like everyone else in the Bush White House, gets up at birdless dawn and by early evening shows unmistakable signs of testiness and snappishness. He had one good early round in last night's debate, but faded long before the finish, and his closing statement, which few of the media commentators commented upon (so eager were they to burst out of the starting gates with their spiels), was a ludicrous mishmash, while Edwards' was simple and eloquent and emotionally effective.

Like Bush last week, Cheney only fed the beast of the Republican "base." He did nothing, less than nothing, to reach out to undecideds or swing voters or anyone who wasn't already committed to the ticket. Edwards did. That's why, despite some moments of shakiness and repetition and phony tough-guyism, Edwards won."

If you don't know what "the Costanza Trap" is, I leave you to read the entire post from Wolcott. It will be worth your time.

I still believe that this debate was far tighter than the sheep to wolves defeat that Bush suffered. But reading the opinions of many others, I can see how people would feel that Cheney was speaking to none but the already converted. Friday should be interesting. I'm buying extra high test coffee in preparation.