My first thought on hearing Edwards mention Cheney's daughter was that it was just like kind of like the Rove attack machine saying that McCain's adopted daughter wasn't white. While true on the surface, it aims to take a dig at a fairly ugly base. I thought the Daily Show did a good send-up of this, with the "you have a G-A-A-A-A-A-Y D-A-A-A-A-U-U-U-GHTER" bit.

Kerry and Edwards have a point here, where the party and the president say one thing, but where the vice president should be saying another, but it's a bit of a dirty trick that KE04 uses the phrase "Lesbian" and "Gay Daughter" purposely to rile the Bush/Cheney base.

Personally, I thought the worst part of the debate were all the lame ass questions. How many times were they asked to describe how big their cock for God was? It was like a faith-based penis contest with the "oh I pray 74 times a day, and I'm praying right now, and I'll pray right after this, and maybe again in the car on the way home" and "faith guides my every move and I don't take phone calls until the pope says it's cool."

Boy, I was with you up until the last sentence. If faintly dazed, bored looking action-hero astronaut Mark Wahlberg showed up unexpectedly in DC right now, they might rope him into running for office--and I'd have a hope of voting for a third candidate who at least interested me a little.

See, I can see how the Bush/Cheney base would be riled by the lesbian reminders. Perhaps that's what Kerry and Edwards are going for, but I chalked it up to pointing out hypocrisy. Maybe I'm just being naive.

Frankly, though, I'm not at all upset at what's being said--I'm upset at the reaction it's getting. Everyone seems to think it's a "dirty trick" rather than thinking "big deal, who cares?" It's the truth. Cheney's daughter is open about it. She doesn't see it as a big deal unless other people make it into one, so why should we?

Two moments stood out for me. When Bush didn't answer the minimum wage question and went into a rant about education that was full of ignorance and bordered on racism. And just following that question was his 10 second angry tangent about a litmus test when Schieffer asked him about overturning Roe v. Wade that left both Schieffer and Kerry completely confused.

no comments on "it is against the law to hire workers illegaly"?

For a fun read, go to www.felbers.net. On the FAnatical Apathy side, Adam has a wonderful rant on how the spittle was a liberal plot. (It's only fair to mention his site, 'cause he's the one who led me to you, Matthew.)

The mention of Cheney's daughter met with pretty harsh disapproval in the post-debate analysis on CNN and MSNBC, almost to the exclusion of any other analysis. I just thought he was answering Bush's "I don't know if homosexuality is a choice" with "if you'd ever spoken to YOUR OWN VICE PRESIDENT'S DAUGHTER you'd know". But, as usual, Kerry said it in a ham-handed way that leaves him vulnerable to misinterpretation. (cf. "global test")

Kerry's Soprano joke was lame but I cringed when Bush made the "Gosh, I sure hope it's not the administration. " joke when asked who is responsible for health care costs. I thought Kerry would come back with "yes it is your administration's fault" or an "it's no laughing matter".

I also thought Bush should have come back with "I've met Mary Cheney, she's a great lady, and you shouldn't presume to speak for her" or something like that, after Kerry's "..talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian," line.

Overall, though, I was unimpressed with Kerry's top one percent mantra throughout the debate. He promised to use that top one percent to pay for health care and social security and after school programs and tiny American flags for everyone.

So, like, the fact that Cheney has paraded around his GAY DAUGHTER isn't exploitation?

For the record, I don't give a rat's ass if your daughter is gay, votes Libertarian or wears chaps to church. But it's pretty funny that Cheney, who STARTED IT ALL by going on tv with his daugher and bringing it up a few times is now pissing and moaning about how the OTHER SIDE is taking advantage of her gayness. Whut...ever.

Now, if she's filming girl-on-girl action in the oval office, then as a nation we have the right to view the film and buy a copy for ourselves.

Re: the gay daughter thing. It's be much more cringe-worthy to me if Cheney himself didn't parade his own "look, I have a gay daughter!" schtick around on the campaign trail.

I'm still wondering how Shrub managed to keep a straight face when he said he doesn't believe in legislating his religion on anyone. I guess botox paralysis but he smirks too much.

The questions asked were pansy-ass. I mean, NOTHING about the environment was brought up by the moderator. You mention Stem Cell research was avoided and Chris Reeves would have been name dropped -- him or perhaps Michael J. Fox who was sitting next to Teresa Heintz Kerry during the debates.

I also gave this debate to Bush because he didn't come off like a flaming idiot -- and no astounding Bushisms were given out like int he first two debates (www.youforgotpoland.com says it all).

As for the Lesbian news dropping -- no biggie to me.... Though I have seen people get upset. Matt made a great comparison with the "G A Y DAUGHTER!" Bit from daily show. If they had brougth up Kerry being Divorced, it wouldn't have been a big deal with me either. But that's me...

And can someone explain to me why I have seen Bush talk about workers and workign overtime and yet this son of a bitch has wanted to cut overtime pay?

Um, I think I must be watching a different campaign than the rest of you. When did Cheney "parade his gay daughter" around? He answered one question posed to him and she WASN'T EVEN THERE! One old guy on a stool does not a parade make. Honest to God, the guy stands up for his daughter, reaffirms his love for her knowing he's gonna take heat for it and somehow he's in the wrong? What was he supposed to say, "We knew there was a problem with our little girl when she asked for a strap-on for her 13th birthday." Gays have been fighting for acceptance for so long and then they finally are accepted by arguably the most powerful man in the world and somehow that's not acceptable? Oy.

I actually don't think Cheney has been parading his daughter around that much. While many candidates bring their personal lives into the mix (Democrats, Republicans - I have found Cheney's talk on how he grew up in such a modest background more tiring than his talk on his daughter) and I do think it is out of taste for Kerry/Edwards to bring her up.

But, I don't think this one went to Bush, nor do I think any of them went to Bush. I don't think Kerry had a huge win (I think the greatest disparity was in the first one), but he made points, while Bush seemed confused. One of my favorite answers of Kerry's was his talk on the assault weapons ban. They both had their cheesy moments and bad answers, but Kerry seemed to be the most articulate, thoughtful, clear, and prepared.

Kerry seemed to do well with viewers too: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/politics/main641817.shtml

Does anybody else think Bush had the left side of his mouth BOTOXED?

I was watching good ol' c-span split-screen and there was something up with that side of his face. He smirked with one half, but not the other. I figured his people decided less smirking would help him fare better in this debate, but they miscalculated how much to inject...

Actually, the parading-the-gay-daughter schtick happened mostly in 2000 when it was acceptable to believe that B/C would be the Mighty Heroes of Compassionate Conservativism, somehow connecting with a right-wing religious base while simultaneously welcoming gay, lesbian and transgendered individuals under the humongo tent that is the Republican Party. Bush met with some Log Cabin Republicans, and Mary was certainly well known in the gay community. I imagine that using her as a campaign shill has gotten a little tired this time around, much as Bush's attempt to campaign with endangered forest animals and the text of the fourth amendment never really got off the ground.

I just read the transcript of the third debate. Like many people, I cannot stand W or the direction he has taken our country, but I just can't get excited about Kerry even after months of following the campaigns. Iraq and Afganistan are still war zones, oil prices are sky-high, the government's finances are a mess, new laws adversely affect our civil liberties - all of this can be traced to W's leadership. But Kerry does not make this clear. Instead he talks about outsourcing jobs, taking the eye off bin Laden, healthcare and social security. My vote is for anyone but W, but it looks like that is all the Democrats could give me.

Who the fuck cares about Cheney's gay dotter?

And why does Bush win on the basis of being less of an idiot than he was in the first 2? "Oh, he's only stupid 66% of the time, I guess I can live with that?"

Fu-huck.

I Just got through watching 'Frontline' which covered the whole glorious history of GWB, spoiled frat-boy, cum-POTUS, and I still can't fuckin' believe this idiot is running the country.

I thought the first and third debates weren't really won so much as they were lost. Bush lost the first one by virtue of forgetting his lines. Kerry lost the third one by having the amazing ability to cause wind to actually come out of the speakers on my TV whenever he spoke. I'm pretty sure he didn't take a breath for 90 minutes, another amazing ability he has.

I felt referring to Mary Cheney was to put a human face on a very abstract "gotcha" type of question that Schieffer was trying to pull. It's one thing to talk about whether people choose to be gay or are born that way in the abstract, but it is (I think) well within the boundries to say "Here is a real person who has connections to the campaign for this office. She can stand as an example of someone who would likely say 'I was born this way.'"

It is the angry reactions that I found absolutely disgusting. I think I'd have to agree with Oliver Willis take on the matter. When a right wing pundit compares Mary's lesbianism to some kind of fetish, then it reveals a lot about who is really being homophobis and who isn't. God help me, but I'm actually agreeing with Andrew Sullivan about this. What is the world coming to :-)?

As a Canadian watching this debate I must say that Americans should be really careful not to let W. lower their debate standards to declaring the winner to be the "most improved politician" rather than person who actually did better. Kerry is clearly a better orator and thus won each debate hands down from a forensics perspective. On the other hand, if you actually agree with Bush, than say his points were better, but don't claim he won because he didn't trip over his own words.

Take heart though, your debates are actually much better to watch than the last Canadian federal debates which just turned into a free for all shouting bitch fest due to a lack of rules:

Moderator: Mr. Martin, what is your stance on government corruption?

Paul Martin (Liberal leader): Well, any government I led would ensure that corruption...

Stephen Harper (Conservative leader): Your corrupt? See there he admits that...

Jack Layton (New Democrat leader): Both of you are corrupt right-wing imperialist pigs who...

Gilles Duceppe (Bloc Quebecois leader): I spit on all of you, your mothers were hamsters!

And so on... American debates are pretty refreshing actually.

And why does Bush win on the basis of being less of an idiot than he was in the first 2? "Oh, he's only stupid 66% of the time, I guess I can live with that?"......

I didn't say I could live with that, nor did I say that I'm going to vote for Bush - I can't stand the fucker. He's a raging moron, as you so eloquently put it...

But the fact is America has been made up of raging sychophants the last 4 years and all they need to do is see the President not appear as the total nimrod we all know he is and -- BAM... They applaud him and fall all over him.

I mean, did anyone hear some of the calls on C-Span? "Kerry's a Fraud and Bush proved it tonight!" "That's my President!"

I might say Bush won - I'm not saying he had substance or policy wins. I'm not saying he had content. He was Bush and he re-enforced the ditto heads.

im in england and they have been showing it all the time on the news so how did you miss the tony soprano comment?

Who's LaRousse? Perhaps he meant LaRouche.

I don't think it was a low blow at all to mention that Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. She is a lesbian, and she is out of the closet. It's not a secret at all she is gay. The only reason anyone would consider it a low blow is if they think being gay is shamefull, like Kerry exposed the dreaded family secret.

Remember the 1992 election and the bumper stickers "Leave Chelsea alone"? I think this sort of nonsense happens almost every election, only it's getting worse b/c the candidates are completely unprincipled.

Imagine a scale with principled leadership on one side and partisan/interest group politics on the other - judging from this election, which side of the scale do you think this country is on?

This election is driving me nuts with its constant talk about catering to one particular interest group or another - NASCAR dads, gays and lesbians, women, people w/o health insurance, steel workers, religious types - I'm thinking it's pretty clear there are no principles guiding our leaders, only leaders chasing after public opinion as fast as their legs can take them.

That said, I'm voting for Kerry. I find his pro-curmudgeon stance appealing.

I think there's a difference between what Rush Limbaugh did to Chelsea -- calling a 12-year-old girl ugly and making fun of her hair and nose on national television -- and mentioning the gayness of Mary Cheney. She is not only the VP's grown-up daughter, but also a paid member of the campaign staff, a former liaison between the administration and gay Republican groups, and a fully-out-of-the-closet lesbian. Plus, she's working to elect an administration that has said it wants a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Frankly, I think what Kerry said was pretty mild compared to what the Log Cabin Republicans have been saying for the past two years.

I think there's a difference between what Rush Limbaugh did to Chelsea -- calling a 12-year-old girl ugly and making fun of her hair and nose on national television -- and mentioning the gayness of Mary Cheney. She is not only the VP's grown-up daughter, but also a paid member of the campaign staff, a former liaison between the administration and gay Republican groups, and a fully-out-of-the-closet lesbian. Plus, she's working to elect an administration that has said it wants a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Frankly, I think what Kerry said was pretty mild compared to what the Log Cabin Republicans have been saying for the past two years.

"This election is driving me nuts with its constant talk about catering to one particular interest group or another..."

The election, like the 'debate,' is not about actual positions or concepts. It's about sound bytes that have been thoroughly tested with focus groups to maximize one's constituencies in certain swing states.

I don't think that anyone is really saying that Kerry/Edwards shouldn't mention Cheney's daughter's sexuality because its a "shameful" thing. It is just that who she sleeps with, fantasizes about, or loves has nothing to do with this election. Maybe its the southerner showing in me, but I think that it is nobody's business. And the tone that Edwards had when commenting on how Cheney "loves his daughter very much"- damn, how patronizing can you get. Either way, before the VP debate I didn't know much about Cheney as a person, but it made me sick to my stomach to hear him basically say that he didn't agree with the administration's stance on the Constitutional ammendment against gay marriage, but that he stood by the President anyway. How much of a fucking sheep can you be? UGh!

W looked like he busted a couple rails before he went on for the last debate. I haven't seen his beedy little eyes look so alert in years.

I think The Advocate made a good point (from their article):

"Mary Cheney would be relevant to this debate even were she not related to the vice president. She is a public figure who has chosen to put herself in the public eye as a professional gay rights activist, first at Coors and then at the Republican Unity Coalition. She has also put herself in the public eye by accepting a $100,000 a year salary to run the vice president's re-election campaign. (Note: the salary in the Washington Post story is "after" tax.) Former presidential candidate Howard Dean's campaign chief, Joe Trippi, was often the subject of press inquiries and stories. The vice president's campaign chief is hardly exempt from equal scrutiny simply because she happens to be a relative.

But one must remember that Mary chose to put herself out there as the Republican party's gay poster child during the 2000 presidential campaign, and more recently as a board member of the gay rights group Republican Unity Coalition. She chose to publicly use her "celebrity" status as the lesbian daughter of Vice President Cheney to convince gay Americans that the Bush-Cheney ticket was one of compassionate conservatism in order to woo gay money and gay votes for her father's party."

I've got a recency effect Conspiracy Theory on the debates. My thoughts on the third debate were echoed by friends -- Bush seemed in his "best" form in the final debate. I'm not saying his content was any better/more rational/true than in previous debates, but he didn't actually come across as a complete jack-ass as expected. I was very surprised. How could he make such a turn-around from the first to the third, when he seemed genetically incapable of not fumbling words, smirking and strutting each and every time he speaks? I think his campaign is after a mad-cap recency effect: make him seem so much better in contrast from the first debate so people have a final, much better impression ingrained for the 3 weeks remaining before the election.

LOL. Lyndon LaRouche. Talk about not taking "no" for an answer....he is one tenacious SOB!

Ralph Nader won the debates!

I appreciate the Canadian who warns us against thinking W won just because he did not fall down frothing at the mouth. (He stood fairly straight up frothing at the mouth.) There is more to a presidential debate than not screwing up as bad as you once did. There is the matter of where the heck you are going to take the country. W. promises to take the country further along the way we've been going. If that really suits you, he's your man.
Kerry did outline plans for change, probably not all affordable, but at least he's not saying "for more years of the same."

And to hell with Mary Cheney, or more deservedly, her mom, who is outraged that someone mentioned M's gayness on national tv. Mary is not anyone's "child" except the way we all are. She's older than most voters. And she's absolutely committed to using her gayness to advance her party's goals. It's almost the only value she adds (other than her name) to any Republican endeavor she signs onto. If she hasn't invited others to make of it what they can, then nobody anywhere has ever invited attention to self.

I'm so glad someone mentioned, by way of contrast, what these savages tried to do to Chelsea Clinton--an actual child, and not a political actor at all. THAT was shameful. This is just politics. Maybe the crack was beneath John Kerry, but that's 'cause we expect him to take the dignified road. We don't expect any Cheney to, so we are not shocked when they trade on their gender identity, while forbidding others to. But we should be.

The "oh never mind" thing is like what my mom does to my dad when she wants to pick a fight but doesn't want him to know right off she's picking a fight.

'Cause when you say that the person is supposed to follow up with: WHAT! WHAT! WHAT WERE YOU GOING TO SAY?!

And then you're like: OH, nothing.

And then you follow them around trying to get them to tell you so that when they totally slam on you it looks like you were just ASKING FOR IT. And the insulter can't be blamed.

Which would have made for a much more entertaining debate than the one you described up there. Screw the debate format! Let's have outright FIGHTING. That would be so much more fun.

so i have the opportunity to make about one political comment every millenium or so and i am taking my stab at it here.

it seems like bush was alluding to the dan-rather-can't-verify-his-facts stab; not a hey guy over there moderating you suck stab.

moving political commentary i know.

the "oh never mind" snap was completely unspontaneous. Anybody could infer what W was "about" to say, that the left-wing media can't be trusted, but he could never get away with saying that openly in a debate. So it was a way to make his point without actually making it.

Like some of you I believe that Kerry cleaned the floor with Bush in all three debates, by any standard. The only thing that changed was the margin by which Kerry one. Aren't debates judged by , who makes concise, clear points that are backed up by fact, keeps their cool, and answers questions directly?

I'm behind on my blog reading. But as a gay man, I am at a loss to see anything wrong with what John Kerry said, and the people who truly offend me are Lynne Cheney and her ilk who are basically implying there is something wrong with being a lesbian. Kerry's only mistake was political- he drew attention to the fact that Cheney is not a complete monster.

Thank you. Well said.

a) bush WASN'T elected, he was appointed
b) dick c brought the gay daughter thing up in the first place, so he can suck it.