The Right Coast

October 05, 2004
The VP debates
By Tom Smith

I listened to the debate, and I really thought X came over as more vice presidential. He had a lot more style than Y and his answers were far more cogent. My wisdom may not be the conventional wisdom, but I can be dreadfully insightful, which is why so many people visit my blog. What was Y's problem? Was he young, old, tired, worried, scared, drained, nervous or what?

I thought X really clobbered Y on the Z question. How could anyone think that Q is the answer to Z!

Here is a paradox for you. Anybody who thinks that their own opinion of who 'won' a spectacle style debate is meaningful, is displaying an ignorance of psychology and politics so profound that you know immediately not to take their opinions seriously. The polls have more information in them than Andrew Sullivan or Hugh Hewitt's gut, but not much. Hugh Hewitt is drunk on his cheerful optimism, maybe partly because he is sure Jesus loves him. Andrew Sullivan is comically unobjective, ever since he gave up on the Republicans for being anti-gay. Not to be a poop, but all this instant blogospheric bloviation on the debates is very silly. It makes bloggers look like a bunch of opinionated, self-obsessed, news junkies . . . Oh, wait! We are!

More: Too much information from Andrew:

Well, I could easily be wrong, but I have a feeling Cheney will crush Edwards tonight. The format is God's gift to Daddy. They'll both be seated at a table, immediately allowing Cheney to do his assured, paternal, man-of-the-world schtick that makes me roll on my back and ask to have my tummy scratched. (Yes, I do think that Cheney is way sexier than Edwards. Not that you asked or anything.)

One could say a lot of things about this comment. But mainly, observe that this reaction is highly idiosyncratic. Sullivan is in no position to judge what most Americans think, and probably not what most gay Americans think. At least I hope not.