EDITOR’s NOTE: A technical glitch wiped out the headline on this post for several minutes.
Did Americans watching the Vice Presidential debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Republican Congressman Paul Ryan get culture shock? It was a different world — or galaxy — from the Presidential debate a week earlier between a lethargic President Barack Obama and his streamroller of a challenger former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. The key differences: Biden answered Republican criticisms and talking points and some analysts are now saying Biden won the debate. But wait: snap polls (see Pat Edaburn’s live blogging) indicate MSNBCers thought Biden won, Fox Newsers thought Ryan won and CNN pretty much called it a draw. A CBS poll gave a decisive win to Biden
But time will tell. Will the media narrative become Biden’s smile? Will some compare that to Al Gore’s sighs? Most likely: it’s unlikely it’ll be a big issue with most voters (but look for it to be a constant theme on Fox News and with conservative talkers.)
Another consensus: Biden did what Democrats needed to refocus and be re-energized over Obama’s performance which had left many Democrats demoralized, particularly as polls showed Obama’s lead over Romney go south in many areas (including among women voters). Was this Biden’s finest hour? Some already are comparing what he did to 2004 when Vice President Dick Cheney helped George W. Bush recover from a lousy debate against John Kerry: Cheney looked like the informed, in-control elder statesman setting the record and Democratic Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards straight.
But the key questions: (1)how did this play among the increasingly small number of undecided voters who’ll likely decide the election? Just giving Democrats political psychological therapy won’t be enough. And(2) can it undo the damage done by Obama’s Debacle in Denver?
Here’s the full transcript of the debate.
Here’s an extensive roundup of mainstream and new media reaction to the debate — a cross section of many political views and perspectives.
—CNN:
A combative debate Thursday between Vice President Joe Biden and Republican challenger Paul Ryan came down to the issue of trust.
The running mates to President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney in next month’s presidential election each challenged the other’s facts and claims in the 90-minute nationally televised debate that was their only showdown of the campaign.
Ryan repeatedly criticized the Obama administration as taking the nation in the wrong direction by hindering economic recovery and weakening its influence around the world.
Biden and Ryan square off on jobs Biden to Ryan: You’re Jack Kennedy now? Ryan: Shouldn’t apologize for our values Biden: ‘You don’t read the statistics’
“We’re heading in the wrong direction,” Ryan said of the administration’s economic polices. “This is not what a real recovery looks like.”
He also repeated several times, in reference to the recent terrorist attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Libya and other anti-American protests, that “what we are watching on our TV screens is the unraveling of the Obama foreign policy.”
Biden called several of Ryan’s remarks “malarkey” and challenged Americans to trust their common sense when judging proposals by the Republican challengers.
The tax and entitlement reforms proposed by Romney and Ryan would harm the middle class and favor the wealthy, Biden said in seeking to depict Republicans as protectors of the privileged.
“You think these guys are going to go out there and cut those loopholes?” Biden asked about unspecified moves by Romney and Ryan to balance tax cuts they promise.
AND:
Privately, senior Democrats told CNN they believed a strong showing by Biden could help the Democratic ticket, but wouldn’t be enough to erase problems created by Obama’s lackluster performance at last week’s first of three presidential debates.
10.33 pm. I have to say that Biden did to Ryan what Cheney did to Edwards in style and demeanor and authoritah. Ryan was hampered by an insurmountable problem on the impossible mathematics of the Romney budget. I think his inability to answer that question – how do you pay for it? – has to be the driving question now. The only way to afford it is to cut middle class deductions and middle class entitlements much more than Obama-Biden would. I’d love radical tax reform – but I’m not crazy enough to believe you can actually tackle the debt by cutting taxes and increasing defense spending and leaving Medicare basically alone (no ACA-style cost-controls) and only removing deductions for the very rich. It doesn’t add up. They know it. And when challenged – even by Fox News – he cannot provide the details.
So this was a solid win for Biden, I’d say; as well as a competent performance by Ryan. The star? Raddatz – the woman the far right just tried to intimidate. She was tough on both, controlled the debate, and knew her shit cold. Sorry, Tucker. But you were pwned by a pro. One day, you may grow up to be a journalist half her caliber.
10.28 pm. Both have performed well, I think. Biden’s final performance was pure emotion, deep passion and classic Irish-Catholic middle-class sentiment. Ryan did well in making his case, despite being unable to make the core case that the middle class won’t get hurt in a huge tax cut for the wealthy and big defense increase.
The Kentucky faceoff was a clash of generational styles, Biden the sometimes exasperated lecturer, Ryan the serious-minded student. Biden proved the superior debater, raising his voice, directly addressing the audience and rising above the wonky arguments with greater effectiveness. But by going toe to toe against a graying incumbent, the Wisconsin congressman held his own and blunted some, but not all, of his rival’s attacks.
Biden showed considerable passion when the debate turned to the economy, getting in more attack lines in two minutes than President Obama did against Mitt Romney in an hour and a half: Romney wanted to let Detroit go bankrupt. Romney wrote off 47 percent of the country. Romney pays a lower effective tax rate than Biden’s parents and neighbors.
Ryan was rather flat in response, ticking off a five-point economic plan, then lurching into a tale about Romney financially aiding a family whose four kids were killed in a car crash—touching, perhaps, but a total non sequitur. That, however, prompted Biden to recall the 1972 car accident that killed his wife and daughter, as if he had to match the emotional card that Ryan had thrown down….
…..Biden took the fight to Ryan in the opening minutes, interrupting his indictment about “the unraveling of the Obama foreign policy” by saying—with “all due respect,” of course—“that’s a bunch of malarkey.” He landed a jab as Ryan was decrying the fatal attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya by saying that his opponent’s House budget cut embassy security $300 million below what the administration had requested.
—Some Tweets by the University of Virginia’s Larry Sabato, one of the country’s most perceptive and accurate political analysts:
Logical question: Did Biden do so well that he made Obama’s historically awful performance look even worse?
Real question is whether or how much Biden helps Obama. Dems relieved…but only Obama can restore Obama.
Pretty obvious that Biden had the edge in this debate. Ryan was workmanlike but Biden dominated.
This debate has bogged down in a discussion of serious, complicated issues. Should be prohibited by law.
Biden is treating this debate as a Sunday morning talk show. He’s done them 40 yrs, knows how to dominate panel.
Ryan comes across as earnest, knowledgeable, authoritative but compared to Biden, green. Age, experience.
Ryan is coming across well, yet Biden is cleaning up. It’s Biden’s 40 yrs of national experience.
I really do personally like Joe Biden, but he came across as a braying Biblical donkey tonight on stage in Kentucky. It was made worse by a moderator who lost repeated control of the debate.
Up front, I have to say I’m hung up on one big thing. Joe Biden said the intelligence community got it wrong in Libya, but he says we can trust those very same people on Iran. That’d be a gaffe, but Joe Biden says he always says what he means.
I really don’t think this debate changed anything and would really be surprised if undecided voters stuck around the whole time. Joe Biden was insufferable and Paul Ryan came across very earnest, but never having debated on this stage showed.
I think Ryan’s demeanor will play better at home than a rather manic and angry sounding Joe Biden who by the end was yelling and smiling at everybody.
Honestly, had I not had to watch this debate for work, I would have turned it off. I don’t really want to be yelled out for an hour and a half and that’s what Biden spent the whole time doing overcompensating for Barack Obama’s lackluster performance.
This debate changed nothing. I think Paul Ryan did a great job. But many Democrats will think Joe Biden did a great job. And I think most undecideds will have thrown their hands up in frustration half way through.
—Fox News’ (high predictable) reaction (I mean, this could have been taped before the debate since you knew it was coming):
STEPHEN HAYES: “When he thanked Joe Biden, Biden was smirking. And I just think that came across as very disrespectful.”
BRIT HUME: “It looked like a cranky old man, to some extent, debating a polite young man.”GRETA VAN SUSTEREN: “The smiles, the sneers … it made Vice President Joe Biden — someone who I typically like — I thought he was very unlikable.”
CHRIS WALLACE: “I don’t believe I have ever seen a debate in which one participant was as openly disrespectful of the other.”
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: “It was so disrespectful.”
SEAN HANNITY: “At times, it was so uncontrollable, I was beginning to worry about him [Biden].”
—The Daily Kos’ founder “Kos”:
Tonight felt great, didn’t it? Conservatives are hung up on Vice President Joe Biden being too tough and aggressive, since apparently now they’re peace-loving hippies. Or something.
Fact is, Paul Ryan was road kill, and for a party that spent the last four years claiming Biden was an idiot, it turns out he turned the GOP’s “policy wonk” into roadkill.Will this impact the numbers? We’ll always wait and see but probably not. President Barack Obama was already recovering, and convention wisdom (generally right in this case) is that veep debates don’t change broad campaign dynamics.
But what tonight did was reassure liberals that our ticket will be fighting to the end, that they won’t let the other side try to dish copious amounts of bullshit. So we base liberals are happy again, which means we’ll be productive bees because no matter what some of you claim, no one likes to work hard for the team that is 10 points down (or feels that way).
Video of (predictable) Fox News reaction (Democrats, Republicans and independents could have predicted this is what they would say, even if Biden played pattycake):
White House photo (via Huffington Post): Obama watches debate:
It was crystal clear tonight that Vice President Biden was determined not to reprise the president’s passive performance in Denver. In that, he succeeded. He also succeeded in interrupting his opponent constantly, repeatedly laughing at strange moments, and playing the ‘loud anger’ card frequently. Rep. Paul Ryan’s serenity in the face of the Vice President’s behavior was almost supernatural. On actual talking points, the two men battled to a draw. Ryan excelled on economic issues, gave a fabulous answer on abortion and closed strong. He also held his own on foreign policy. Biden scored on Afghanistan and by pointing out that Ryan requested stimulus funds for his district after the law passed. On style, I’d imagine Biden delighted the Left-wing base, but put-off most others. He was boorish, dismissive, bullying and rude. Ryan was occasionally too timid — a strong demand that Biden stop interrupting him would have done him some good, but he came across as pleasant and informed. I gather than CNN’s independent viewer “dials” were fairly unkind to Biden throughout the evening — and flat-lined during some of the lengthy foreign policy exchanges. There’s no question that international affairs are awfully important (one of the Vice President’s biggest mistakes was claiming that the administration didn’t know that American security forces had requested reinforcements in Benghazi, an outright falsehood), but most Americans are concerned about jobs, economic growth, and the spiraling debt. Precious few of the questions addressed those core concerns, which was a major shortcoming of moderator Martha Raddatz. She also seemed to ask tougher follow-ups to Ryan (not to mention cutting him off in the middle of important points), but he handled it pretty well. He did not whine — unlike Biden, who seemed to think he was getting cheated (!) on talking time. The talk clock confirmed that he talked more than his opponent, and clearly interjected far more often.
In general, both men succeeded to some extent…..
Biden was especially strong on foreign policy but one of his best moments was taking Ryan to task for criticizing the Obama administration’s economic stimulus package while at the same time asking for stimulus funds for his own congressional district.
Ryan’s goal was to build on Romney’s strong performance last week and continue to reassure undecided voters. In the end, however, he found his toughest opponent wasn’t Biden, it was his own record and the Romney campaign platform. He had trouble playing defense under Biden’s withering attacks. Ryan was exceptionally weak on the proposed Romney tax plan — “not mathematically possible”, according to Biden — while once again refusing to give specifics.
In terms of style, Ryan didn’t take kindly to being interrupted. It was almost as if Biden was coached to interrupt him.
Biden was more prepared, more experienced and the clear winner.
Finally, Martha Raddatz was a wonderfully effective moderator. She continuously pushed for specifics and forced followups to nonsense. She should be commended by both campaigns.
I expected “table-pounding atmospherics” from Biden but I didn’t expect him to act like a total jackhole for fully 90 minutes. Give him credit for knowing his target audience, though: His task tonight was to get the left excited again after Obama fell into a semi-coma in Denver, and evincing utter disdain for Ryan — grimacing, shouting, laughing inappropriately, constantly interrupting, the total jackhole experience — is just what the doctor ordered. He might have irritated independents and undecideds, but probably not so much that it’ll change people’s votes. The Democrats needed someone to go out there and clown for liberals, and if there’s one thing this guy knows, it’s clowning.
After the debate ended, Republicans were calling it a draw and Democrats were calling it a strong win for Biden. That tells you all you need to know.
Yet I don’t think any of those things compare to this: Biden made the whole Democratic argument — on policy and values and he hit Romney really everywhere Democrats wanted him to. He left nothing unsaid. You can agree with those points or not. But this was exceedingly important for recovering the damage from last week’s debate when many Obama supporters simply felt that Obama wasn’t willing or able or something to make the case Democrats around the country are hyped up to make. Why didn’t you say this? Why’d you let him get away with that?
Biden said it all. And for Democrats around the country that was extremely important.
For reasons that are complicated and juvenile, during his vice presidency a caricature has emerged of Biden as some sort of Crazy Irish Uncle, gaffetastic and corny, a risible figure. That left people unprepared for what they saw tonight. Ryan was unprepared too. Biden’s actually one of sharpest guys in Washington and has been for decades.
I suspect Ryan’s equivocations and unwillingness to give details will be the day 2 and weekend stories. But the most critical point in terms of the trajectory of the debate was that Biden left it all on the field.
While Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney were not on stage, they were at the center of the conversation as their running mates made certain the evening was squarely focused on defining the men at the top of the ticket. But, under pressure to pass the test, Mr. Ryan displayed a proficiency in areas like foreign policy and kept pace with Mr. Biden, who is 27 years his senior.
It was Mr. Biden who sought to quiet the rising clamor among Democrats that the president was not assertive enough with Mr. Romney at their debate last week in Denver. A day after Mr. Obama conceded he was “too polite,” Mr. Biden showed no hesitation in hectoring, heckling and interrupting his challenger.
Within a single minute, Mr. Biden worked in three attacks on his Republican rivals, referring to Mr. Romney’s opposition to the bailout of the auto industry, his statement that the nation’s foreclosure crisis would have to “run its course” and his comment about “47 percent” of Americans who he said were overreliant on government benefits.
“These guys bet against America all the time,” said Mr. Biden, whose temperature was running close to boil for most of the evening.
Mr. Ryan, who kept his composure for most of the night, suggested that Mr. Romney misspoke when talking about the 47 percent. He added pointedly, “I think the vice president very well knows that sometimes the words don’t come out of your mouth the right way.
Well, can’t see anyone calling this a big win. Ryan will, as I predicted, get props for “holding his own” re foreign policy. He was also fluid and stuck to the Romney plan of making the ticket seem reasonable.
….There were relatively few missed opportunities for Biden. He got all the obvious hit lines in, with the exception (that could be important) of refuting Ryan’s claim of a commitment to bipartisanship.
With the possible exception of the abortion issue, Ryan managed to avoid impression of sounding as extremist as he actually is, and that was a biggie.
If the strategic importance of this debate was to end the endless discussion of Obama’s “rout” by Romney, it happened. Now we’ll see what the spinmeisters and pundits say.
—The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza has his winners and losers list. Here are a few (go to the link to read them all):
WINNERS
* Joe Biden’s last 15 minutes: Biden was measured, passionate and heartfelt when talking about abortion and why he thought he and President Obama deserved a second term. He made his points forcefully but without any or the sarcasm or the nasty edges that characterized his performance for the bulk of the debate. (More on that below.) The question for Biden (and Democrats): Were people still watching? And why didn’t he flash a little more of that trademark empathy earlier?
* Martha Raddatz: Moderating a rhetorical fistfight is no easy task. Raddatz did well to try to give both candidates equal time, keep them on the question asked and insert her own expertise — particularly on foreign policy — when it was necessary and appropriate. A job well done under remarkably adverse circumstances.
LOSERS:
* Joe Biden’s first 75 minutes: As we noted above, Biden’s aggressive performance is a sure winner for him (and the president) within the Democratic base. But, it felt to us like he went a little bit overboard and, at times, bordered on bullying Ryan. Biden’s derisive smiles and laughs while Ryan tried to answer questions weren’t great optics for the vice president and his repeated interruptions won’t make those who think politics should be more civil happy. Biden’s agenda was clear during the debate: he was set on erasing the passive performance of Obama last week. That he did, but in so doing it felt like he went a bit overboard.* Undecided voters: If you came into this debate hoping to find a civil discussion of the differences between the two candidates, you, um, didn’t get what you wanted. The bulk of the debate was Biden and Ryan slamming one another for not telling the truth, being misinformed or simply being clueless. The bickering that dominated the middle section of the debate — ok, the whole debate — is just the sort of stuff independents/undecideds don’t like. It’s easy to imagine they simply turned off the debate — if they were watching it at all.
—The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein:
But what’s unquestionably true is that Biden succeeded tonight. He had a simple job: Stop the bleeding. Buck up the troops. Make all those Democrats out there who’ve been fighting for the Obama campaign feel that the Obama campaign is also fighting for them. And so Biden came out tonight and picked a fight. He did everything Democrats wished Obama has done a week ago. He called out Ryan’s “malarkey” early and forcefully. He returned again and again to the 47 percent comments. He fought for core Democratic issues like protecting Medicare and Social Security.
The post-debate spin told the tale. The Romney campaign argued Biden was too aggressive, too bullying, too mean. The Obama campaign argued that Biden had destroyed Ryan. Judging from my Twitter feed, most Democrats agreed. They saw the fight in Biden that they’d wanted to see in Obama. They felt the Obama campaign had learned from last week and changed their strategy. That was Biden’s job tonight, and he did it.
But if it was Biden’s job tonight, it’s really Obama’s job going into the homestretch in the election. Biden gave Democrats hope tonight. But the real question is whether, in the next presidential debate, Obama will give them change
—National Review’s The Corner:
Ryan held his own with Biden, the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, when it came to Iran and Libya. He was well prepped and ready to explain the Romney position. On Libya, he criticized the Obama administration’s failure to “acknowledge that this was a terrorist attack,” and he blasted the White House for “projecting weakness abroad.”
But it wasn’t a knockout performance. Ryan is at his best when he’s talking about the fiscal crisis, and he only spent a few minutes on that issue. When he did, though, he shined. Ryan also impressed when he discussed his Catholic faith and his pro-life views near the end, with a warm recollection about his first child.
It seems Ryan wanted to spend more time touting Romney, even mentioning how Romney is a “car guy.” He just didn’t have much time to do that. This was a foreign-policy debate, moderated by a foreign correspondent. Ryan didn’t stumble, and he was serious, but he rarely found his groove.
Biden won, and had more compelling and, to use the politerati’s favorite word, brutal monologues and quips. When the vice president was talking about 47 and 30 — the percents of Americans that are mooching layabouts according to Romney and Ryan, respectively — he was superb, and nearly everything Obama should have been but wasn’t more than a week ago. (I write nearly because Obama simply could not — not, as the president, should he — exude the same level of disdain as Biden did when addressing the Republicans’ entire “maker/taker” paradigm.) What I’d been waiting to hear from Obama-Biden was the integration of the Republican policy platform into the 47 percent narrative. Biden gave it his best shot throughout, but I think he resonated most when talking about Medicare and government support for veterans. Biden’s able to say of the 47 percent, “I know these people” in a way that nobody else on either ticket can. My intuition is that this matters to voters, especially since, by and large, Romney-Ryan has been unable to convince them the economy is getting worse.
A finger-jabbing Joe Biden assailed Paul Ryan tonight in a high-octane vice-presidential debate but failed to deliver the knockout blow on his young rival that President Obama’s campaign desperately needed.
Democrats were heartened by Biden’s spirited performance in the brutal 90-minute confrontation after Obama’s poor showdown with Mitt Romney last week.
But the restrained, reasoned and mature outing of the much less experienced Ryan limited any clear claims of victory on either side.
The big question in the next few days will be whether Biden’s energetic display will be enough to turn around the Obama campaign, which has been struggling ever since the President’s limp performance in Denver.While Biden’s animated demeanour, punctuated with his trademark laughs, smirks and wild gesticulations, won plaudits from liberals and hard-core Democrats, his performance ran the risk of being seen as bullying and condescending, alienating swing and female voters. Ryan complained that he was being interrupted too much and was clearly irritated by Biden’s in-your-face approach.
Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin tangled over the Middle East, the economy, taxes and more in a scrappy back-and-forth Thursday night in their only debate.
It was a remarkably lively exchange of scoffing, eye-rolling, smirking and mocking chuckles as the vice presidential rivals argued at a table in the 90-minute face-off at Centre College in Danville, Ky…
–-Some Tweets by columnist Dick Polman:
More tweeting evidence of right-wing angst over Biden’s evisceration of icon Ryan: “Raddatz was a complete disaster.”
Oh man. When debate is over, Biden should say to Obama: “You owe me in 2016.” Ditto Bill Clinton to Obama: “You owe me and Hillary in 2016.”
Biden is “condescending.” Biden is “a jerk” — two more tweets from right-wingers acting out the abject defeat of their Big Brain.
Best evidence that Ryan has been slaughtered & that the GOP brand has been eviscerated: Conservative tweets whining about JoeB’s “rudeness.”
I give Ryan credit for calmly sustaining his role as the adult Eddie Munster, despite the fact that he has already been drawn and quartered.
Maybe Biden can go on stage for Obama next Tues. Democrats should be so lucky. Remember, Biden debated well as a losing primary candidate.
I begin to think I’m not a good reader of debates. While not looking at commentary, I was afraid that Biden would be laughed off the national stage. He shouted nonstop until his voice gave out; he grimaced far too much and failed to look at Ryan when confronting him (though I may have been misled in that by the C-Span split screen; when I switched to PBS he seemed more natural in this regard), he interrupted incessantly, and I thought he was often incoherent on domestic policy (though generally effective on foreign), failing to answer Ryan’s allegations systematically and jumbling a bunch of not-fully-articulated assertions together. Ryan, on the other hand, struck me as methodical, systematic, unruffled and precise — never mind that his characterizations of Obama administration policies — and Romney’s — were wildly misleading.
Toward the end, Biden was structurally shut out of rebutting a concentrated and wholly fallacious and infuriating indictment — that Obama failed in bipartisanship, that he blew up yearly deficits when in fact he reduced them modestly, that he raised taxes on the middle class, that Obamacare was causing people to lose their employer-provided insurance, that Medicare Advantage was being savaged. Which leads me to the moderator, Martha Raddatz: she’s getting universal raves, but I found her over-assertive, very frustrating in the way she cut off debate to change topics. Perhaps moderators can’t win: partisans, thirsting for perfect rebuttals, always want another round, yet if the moderators let exchanges go on too long they get savaged for not asserting control.
Perhaps too my craving for perfect systematic rebuttal is insatiable, and perhaps I don’t appreciate aggression enough. Biden clearly went in with a mission to compensate for Obama’s passivity by going on the offensive, and he did land some hammer blows: on voucherizing Medicare, on the impossibility of paying for 20% marginal income tax rate cuts by closing loopholes for the wealthy (though he was not clear as he might have been on this), on Ryan seeking stimulus funds (though that was a diversion; I would have preferred a more substantive defense of the stimulus), on Ryan voting for Bush’s budget-busters, and on Ryan-Romney savaging Obama foreign policies — withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2014, the sanctions regime against Iran — that they essentially agree with. All that’s not nothing, right?
Biden’s response to Ryan’s proposals to reform Medicare into a “premium support” or voucher system was a typical refrain for the vice president: “Folks, use your common sense: who do you trust on this?”
Ryan stuck largely to familiar and well-studied talking points used often by Romney and the GOP ticket on the campaign trail, but showed no interest in shrinking from the vice president’s bombast. The congressman stuck to his expertise as a budget wunderkind to explain reforms to entitlements and taxes and balancing the budget.
Biden has been a frequent critic on the campaign trail of Ryan’s two budgets for their proposed changes to Medicare. The most recent version of the proposal would offer seniors a rebate to buy insurance on the private market, or opt into a Medicare program as it’s more traditionally known.
“A voucher is you go to your mailbox, get a check, and buy something. Nobody’s proposing that. Barack Obama four years ago running for president said if you don’t have any fresh ideas, use stale tactics to scare voters,” Ryan said. “If you don’t have a good record to run on, paint your opponent as someone people should run from – make a big election about small ideas.”
Biden’s determination to be the aggressor shone through the debate, though, to his exchange with Ryan on the topic of taxes. As Ryan cited tax cuts sought by Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, Biden seemingly attempted to channel the famous Lloyd Bensten line used against Dan Quayle by quipping, “Oh, now you’re Jack Kennedy?”
Joe Biden was always going to be an attack dog tonight. After the presidential debate, the Democrats needed him aggressively to promote their post-debate excuse that Romney is all smoke and mirrors. Moreover, Biden is well suited for the attack dog role.
I didn’t expect, however, that Biden’s demeanor would be so off-putting. The ridiculous toothy smile didn’t come as a shock. But the smirking, mocking, laughter, constant interruptions of Paul Ryan, and cranky interaction with moderator Martha Raddatz, whom he chided at one point for allegedly misstating the facts, did.
My sense is that Biden’s demeanor cost him the debate. Substantively, both candidates did pretty well. Ryan got a boost when Raddatz began the debate with a question about Libya. Biden was poised to play offense, but had to play defense on this issue, in the face of a very effective line of attack by Ryan.
Obama campaign manager Jim Messina had two words for critics of Vice President Biden’s demeanor at Thursday night’s debate.
“He’s a happy warrior,” Messina told reporters in the red-carpeted spin room immediately after the debate. “That’s fine. That’s who Joe Biden is. And what people got from him was passion for the middle class. What people saw tonight was facts versus index-card talking points, and Ryan couldn’t go anywhere past index-card talking points.”
Deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter echoed that point, telling a swarm of reporters as she exited the spin room that “Joe Biden is 100 percent authentic, and that’s what the American people saw tonight.”
If spin room arrival times are anything to go by, the Democrats felt as if they had the upper hand after the vice-presidential face-off: the Democratic spinners arrived at 10:24 p.m., several minutes before most of those on the GOP side did.
(10:44 PM) I’ll give credit where it’s due. The Vice President won this debate, in the sense that a VP debate can be won. He dominated stylistically, was the more assertive of the pair, and pulled no punches. The guy’s a natural.
But let’s not kid ourselves. Paul Ryan’s no pushover, and while he was certainly the Beta male on that stage, there was nothing in his performance that will be pointed to as a dire failure.
TLDR: Biden wins, Ryan average, VP debates don’t matter unless it’s a blowout. This wasn’t.
—The Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes:
You don’t win a nationally televised debate by being rude and obnoxious. You don’t win by interrupting your opponent time after time after time or by being a blowhard. You don’t win with facial expressions, especially smirks or fake laughs, or by pretending to be utterly exasperated with what your opponent is saying.
That’s why Vice President Joe Biden didn’t win the one and only debate last night with his Republican rival, Mitt Romney’s running mate Paul Ryan.
In fact, though Ryan had several weak moments—one of them was on Syria—the only conceivable takeaway from the veep debate was Biden’s out of control conduct. It will be long remembered—and not favorably.
There’s one person who should be delighted with Biden. That’s Al Gore. He had the honor of having delivered the most over the top and weird performance in a presidential campaign debate when he sighed and frowned and acted frustrated in his first debate with George W. Bush in 2000. Now Biden has taken that crown—or dunce cap—from Gore.
The only good thing about Thursday night’s debate for the Obama campaign was that it involved Biden rather than Obama. As a result, it’s not likely to have any impact in the election and may not even affect the polls over the next few days.
What were the Obama strategists thinking? Yes, Biden’s performance may have pleased the Democratic party’s liberal base. So what? Their votes are in the bag. Obama needs to attract the small bloc of undecided and swing voters. They’re not likely to lurch his way on the basis of the show Biden put on.
—The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohen:
-Tonight Democrats got the show they wanted—and President Obama may have gotten the boost he needed.
Appearing in Danville, Kentucky on Thursday night, Vice President Joe Biden gave one of the most aggressive, passionate, and detailed debate performances I can recall. I don’t know how it played with the public as a whole and I don’t imagine it influenced swing voters one way or the other. If I had to bet, the media will spend at least as much discussing Biden’s facial expressions as they will dissecting the exchange over Iran.
But on the domestic policy questions at the heart of this campaign—which also happen to be the issues I know best—Biden made the essential points that President Obama failed to convey last week. And Biden did so in a way sure to fire up liberals, whose disappointment over last week’s performance appears to have been a significant factor in Obama’s sliding poll numbers.
When President Obama and Mitt Romney debated last week, the winner was clear. After the face-off between Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan the only thing everyone seems to be able to agree on without equivocation is that Biden did better than Obama.
The more nuanced analysis might motivate some to cut losses and simply declare it a draw. That’s what the Economist loftily proclaims, even suggesting that anyone who would think otherwise is surely letting partisanship feelings get the better of them. Yet it seems that if you read a bit between the lines, the consensus seemed to see a Biden victory.
Conservative pundits are focusing on Biden’s style, specifically his smile and laughter, while liberals are celebrating his substance. The problem is Biden might have won among political insiders and those who love a spirited debate, but not swing voters who like to loudly proclaim they hate negativity.
Although Biden managed to outshine on substance, he was also sarcastic and some even think condescending toward Ryan. “It is impossible to predict how voters will view Biden’s frequent interruptions, his tense smiles, and his derisive laughter,” writes the National Journal’s Ron Fournier. “Did they consider the behavior rude or a reflection of Ryan’s naiveté?”
The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald wonders the same thing. Although it’s evident that “from both a substantive and stylistic perspective, Biden completely dominated the debate” it’s unclear whether undecided voters “will find Biden’s constant smirking, interrupting and obvious contempt for Ryan off-putting,” he writes.
That’s what conservatives are counting on. In what can be seen as a sign that Biden did indeed come out on top, conservative commentators spent more time criticizing the vice president than praising Ryan. “Biden sounded like a loudmouth at a bar who had spent the past six hours drinking and should have been cut off by the bartender five hours earlier,” quipped the American Spectator’s Aaron Goldstein. “Paul Ryan, by contrast, was a paragon of sobriety.” The National Review’s John Fund, meanwhile, said Biden was “overbearing and condescending,” adding that “independent voters usually don’t like candidates who come off as a jerk.”
Joe Biden wiped the floor with Paul Ryan at Thursday night’s debate, but we might have to spend a day debating whether he laughed too much while doing it.
On Medicare, on taxes, on abortion, on middle class opportunity and on foreign policy, Biden made Ryan look like he was trying out for the college debate team, and on substance, he pinned him to his and Mitt Romney’s least popular policies.
With an assist from tough, informed moderation by Martha Raddatz, who actually asked whether preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon was worth another Middle East war – Ryan said yes – Biden did everything President Obama didn’t last week. In some of the debate’s best moments, he hung Ryan and Romney with Romney’s 47 percent remarks replying to a question about unemployment…
…On foreign policy, Ryan sounded even more poorly informed and occasionally dangerous. His worst moment came when he committed the U.S. to war to prevent Iran from nuclear weapons; Biden didn’t rule out war but said — predictably, safely and sanely — that it should be a last resort. Ryan’s second worst foreign policy moment was when he tried to explain how he and Romney supported the Obama-Biden timeline for getting leaving Afghanistan in 2014 – but they opposed timelines in principle. Biden, though, stumbled when he evaded Raddatz’s questions on the Benghazi attack and seemed to contradict the testimony of State Department officials that they had asked for more protection.
Biden probably smiled and laughed too much. He showed a lot of teeth, occasionally looking like he really wanted to bite Ryan, not merely reply to his arguments. During the opening minutes alone he interjected with “That was a bunch of malarkey” and “Not a single thing he said is accurate” and “Incredible!” and “Oh God!” If I had been in a control room talking into his ear, I’d have told him to calm down. At some point, I think Jill Biden or someone in the audience must have given him a cue to tell him to dial it back, because half way through, he did. Or else his 5-Hour Energy drink wore off in four and a half. Yet watching clips of the debate — which is what most people will see in the coming days — Biden won virtually every exchange.
A sober Biden hit the right tone when Raddatz, maybe a little oddly, asked the two Catholic men how their religion influenced their thinking on abortion..
—Time’s Mark Halperin gives slightly higher marks to Ryan than Biden. Here are three key parts of his analysis of each of them (go to the link to read the rest):
RYAN:
Style: Started out understandably on edge, but used his natural confidence and born fighter verve to battle past his nerves. Did a mini-Romney, throughout: firm and tough, presented his case as planned, unflinchingly hard on the Obama administration without self-consciousness or overt hostility. Waited patiently to answer questions (in contrast to his opponent), then replied cleanly with prepared statements. Clearly rehearsed, but managed to appear candid and comfortable. A strong advocate for his boss, selling Romney generally as a “car guy” with big ideas, big skills, and a big heart.
Substance: Nitpicked at the Obama foreign policy, but didn’t wrap the criticism with a tight thematic bow. Neatly and purposefully blurred lines between the parties on Afghanistan, Iraq; tried to win the argument on taxes, but went more for smoothed edges on Medicare and Social Security. Surprisingly, didn’t talk up Romney’s specific plans very much, favoring an overview defense of conservative principles and a critique of Obama….
…The main thing: Democrats and perhaps others will criticize him as light and vague, but for those who have never seen Ryan before, he came off well for a running mate. Intelligent, calm, and mature. Never took any big risks or descended into wonkiness. Added some polish to the Romney cause, although he did not supercharge the Denver momentum. His team will be happy with this performance, and Romney can approach his next debate without any residual distraction. Key for Ryan’s future, win or lose in November: solidified his hold on a top spot among party leaders.
BIDEN:
Style: Way too manic for most of the debate. Grinning, twitching, laughing, smirking, interrupting, blinking, sighing, stammering. Palpably over-rehearsed, although so innately genuine, able to get away with it better than most politicians. Didn’t show much grace, even at times arguing with the moderator (an excellent Martha Raddatz). Interjected, lectured, and showed off too much. Sometimes tried to make too many points in quick succession, speaking more to insiders than the country at large. A classic Bidenesque upshot — endearing and energizing to supporters; nails-on-a-blackboard to detractors. Calmed down for the last third of the debate, allowing his points to formulate without competition from his own theatrical verbal and physical tics.Substance: Offered strong, serious critiques of the Romney/Ryan records and plans, but often failed to link up his charges with a real-life implication for real people. Took pains to defend the President’s record and use the warehouse of knowledge in his head to indict the opposition. Left some unanswered questions on Benghazi that Republicans are sure to pursue.
The main thing: In a debate without much news or many breakthrough moments, Biden’s overheated style is almost sure to be the media, late-night laugher, and conservative takeaway from the ninety minutes. Biden didn’t commit any major disasters, but surrendered the gravitas edge. Democratic partisans will say he fought hard and schooled Ryan on every topic; many others will find his an odd, off-putting performance, far too lacking in the many attractive aspects of Biden’s personality. But his substantive strength and intense passion may soothe the frisson of agonized panic shivering through his party in the wake of the Denver disaster. Obama can borrow a few elements of Biden’s performance, but the over-the-top aggressiveness won’t be seen again on the Democratic side in the remaining two debates.
POLL: By Wide Margin, Democrats Want Biden in All Remaining Debates:
The Democrats should crush a little bit of Joe Biden into a joint and have Obama smoke it.
I believe Paul Ryan is fully qualified to represent the United States at Model U.N. #vpdebate #debate
“Next question: gentlemen, to the best of your ability, smirk sarcastically at your opponent.” vpdebate
Let’s not let cheap jokes about Paul Ryan looking like Eddie Munster distract us from the fact that he is a sociopath.
#VPDebate rule: The first question will go to Joe Biden, after which Paul Ryan will have three minutes to lie. #debate
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.