|
Is it me…
Tuesday, Oct 12, 2004 - Posted by Rich Miller …or did Alan Keyes win that debate (more than partly due to the types of questions asked)? Yes, Keyes got a little testy with one of the questioners, but at the very least he held his own, suppressed his loonier tendencies, and talked like a fairly normal human being. At worst, it was a tie. He certainly beat the extremely low expectations of his performance. More in the fax tomorrow.
|
 |
|
|
- ArchPundit - Wednesday, Oct 13, 04 @ 2:09 am:
This is why I wrote most of it before I came looking over here–yeah, he won because he didn’t explode, but in any sane world–he’s bizarre even when not exploding. So he’ll win because no one but political junkies listened and they expected much, much worse.
- Phocion - Wednesday, Oct 13, 04 @ 8:30 am:
Rich and Archpundit,
You both have done fine jobs reporting what turned out to be an unremarkable debate. Both candidates were clear and articulate. Their opposing views were laid out for all to see, and from which voters might make a real choice.
The frustration level was best summed up by Zorn this morning - the bloggers and pundits got no Mt. Etna eruptions, or even a Mt. St. Helens poofter, to write about. This U.S. Senate campaign has turned out to be a real dud.
I’d say focus on more meaningful races, and save your ink on all this til after the election to see the fallout in the Illinois Republican Party. I would hope that long after Keyes is back in Maryland the right wingers in Illinois will be put back under the porch where they belong.
- Greg - Wednesday, Oct 13, 04 @ 1:04 pm:
Keyes won. He had better control of his arguments and his facts. Obama was agreed with him on something like three occassions. If Keyes is so crazy, why is Obama agreeing with him?
The “uh’s” suggested Obama didn’t have control of his arguments and was having difficulty pulling up his facts. His attacks on Keyes fell flat because of his monotone delivery.
Will it make a differnce? No. Does it change my opinion of Keyes, no. However, it does suggest that the argument that Obama is untested has somce credence. If his performance doesn’t improve in the next debate, then people will begin to re-think there early impressions — that is the pro’s; not the voters.