Very good point, Michael.
Now, for an assessment of the Veep debate, to the extent I could stay awake. Lieberman is very whiny. Although I know that some people have unfortunate voices, I can hardly believe he has made no effort to compensate for the problem, having been in public life for sometime. It is rather like refusing to correct bad grammar or grunting while you are eating.
Cheney is a bit too low key, and it took him awhile to raise his voice adequately, but he is clear, concise, to the point,and exudes an aura of strength and competence that contrasts sharply with Lieberman, whom one can see as an introverted mama's boy who gets good grades by grinding his way through school. Eventually, Lieberman hit a sufficient stride to make it credible he was in the Senate, but just barely.
When they argued, Cheney came off as knowing what he was talking about better than Lieberman. On the other hand, it had the air of a press briefing, and did not inspire. He is the sort of person one reposes confidence in, but who does not generate enthusiasm. He is the perfect chief of staff, not really a leader.
Still, one would have more confidence if Cheney ascended to the presidency than if Lieberman did. Don't get me wrong, Lieberman could pinch hit if necessary, but the mismatch would be too glaring. The President is our chief diplomat, for example, and Lieberman is more the fellow who holds the briefing book. He is the Commander- in- Chief, not the assistant principal of a middle school, which is what Lieberman seems.
Anyway, Cheney pretty clearly won, but I am not sure it makes much difference----- yet....... |
