Incredible Assertions
The only vice presidential debate of the 2004 campaign lived up to its hype. It was a contentious affair that saw both candidates draw on their strengths -- for Vice President Cheney, gravitas and political experience, for Sen. John Edwards, masterful trial lawyer skills -- to hammer home points that they've been making for weeks on the campaign trail. In what has come to be an accepted debate tactic, each candidate made arguments based on differing interpretations of facts, and, in what has become all too commonplace in the current political climate, the arguments at times went beyond what the facts would support.
In an effort to get at the truth behind the spin, a team of researchers, editors and producers from The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com attempted to hold the candidates accountable on their assertions in a feature we call The Debate Referee. See why the Ref threw flags on Cheney's assertions about Saddam Hussein's links to the al Qaeda terrorist network and Edwards's claims about the cost of the war in Iraq, to give two examples. Read More
See Also:
• For the Record: Misleading Assertions Cover Iraq War and Voting Records
• Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing: When Cheney Met Edwards
More Debate Coverage:
• Cheney and Edwards Go Toe to Toe
• Video of Full Debate | Transcript
Instant Analysis
In his analysis of the vice presidential debate, The Post's Dana Milbank likened last night's event to courtroom drama: "The Democratic challenger, reprising his former career as a trial lawyer, challenged Cheney mercilessly, as if prosecuting a cagey and possibly untruthful defendant, all the while charming the jury -- the viewing public -- with a winning smile. The Republican incumbent, obviously disdainful of the prosecutor, responded by questioning the prosecutor's credentials, as if lecturing a dense student.
"The jury is still out, of course." Read More
"Who won?" asked The Post's Howard Kurtz in his online Media Notes column this morning. "Despite their differing styles, the answer was not immediately obvious, at least not to me. Each had a job to do -- scoring points on behalf of the presidential candidates and cleaning up their messes -- and got it done." Read More
See Also:
• Tom Shales: Cheney Turns On Heat, but Edwards Doesn't Quayle
Post Associated Managing Editor Robert G. Kaiser, in a live discussion with readers this morning, wrote: "The Republican dream for last night was a stomping that would reverse the impact of last week's presidential debate, which has obviously revived Kerry's candidacy and again made this race very close. That dream did not, in my view, come true.
"... I'd say that both men performed a public service by demonstrating to the millions who were watching that politicians running for the second-highest office can be smart, serious and purposeful. Of course, both also engaged in some of the demogoguery that is so entrenched in our politics, but frankly, I was pleased that the amount of this seemed limited." Read the Transcript
Last Week's Presidential Debate:
• Video of Full Debate | Video Highlights | Last Week's Debate Referee
• Full Coverage of Debates
Remaining Debates:
• Friday, Oct. 8, Washington U., St. Louis: Bush and Kerry Take Questions in Town Hall Format
• Wednesday, Oct. 13, Arizona State U., Tempe: Bush and Kerry Debate Economic and Domestic Policy
Bush Responds
President Bush took yesterday off from the campaign trail, but resurfaced this morning in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. The Post's William Branigin reports that the president delivered "his sharpest attack to date on his Democratic challenger in the Nov. 2 election, charging that Sen. John F. Kerry has a '20-year record of weakness' in the U.S. Senate and would 'paralyze America' in the war against terrorism if elected. ...
"Bush did not announce any new policies or initiatives in his speech, but he offered a somewhat different rationale for last year's invasion of Iraq than he has given in the past." Read More
See Also:
• Bremer Criticizes Troop Levels
• Report Discounts Iraqi Arms Threat
![]()
