Oh yeah, the debates:

I TiVo'd the first debate, as I had theater tickets. That meant I had to avoid reading any of the coverage/commentary before I watched it, as I really don't like other people telling me what to think about something I can see with my own eyes. This means my own commentary is late and pointless. Suffice it to say, I think Kerry did well, and I don't really care about Bush's presentation issues as much as I did the impression that he couldn't think on his feet -- he had the same answers, same phrases, that he kept hammering over and over again. Enough, already!

The VP debate tonight: It felt like Edwards did the same thing that Bush did. He annoyed me by ignoring the questions from the moderator and talking about what he wanted to cover. "Is there a problem with being a 'flip-flopper'" -- a valid question, that deserved a thoughtful answer -- was greeted with a litany of Bush/Cheney flip-flops rather than a simple "there's nothing wrong with changing your position when the current position isn't working or when you get new information that should prompt you to re-evaluate your position. Consistency is no virtue when you're consistently wrong." Or something like that. But for some reason, it felt like Edwards wanted to pander rather than answer thoughtfully -- while I thought Kerry did a good job at thoughtful answers last week. I don't know how much of that is a style issue.

Cheney, on the other hand, impressed me by being secure enough to let his answers stand. I still think Cheney is corrupt, and I still don't agree with his positions, and I still won't vote for the man, but I will concede that he's a good debater.

Here endeth the political post.