bearister said:
It's like a mediocre Deputy DA delivery a closing argument against a brilliant but wholly untruthful defense attorney.
*With no suggestion intended that Vance is brilliant but certainly that he is wholly untruthful, like tRump.
….and Meghan McCain's purported insight would have value if those were brains:
There is a lot of talk about Vance being some kind of polished barrister vs. Walz being a little out of his league in a formal debate, but
I agree with Rachel that Walz "won the debate," though
I disagree with her that Vance was the more "practiced, kind-of debate-style speaker."I thought (yes, I am extremely biased for Harris-Walz and against Trump-Vance) that
Walz not only won the debate substantively -- by a mile,
compared to Vance not answering questions --
but also stylistically, frequently drawing on his experience as Governor to show how he focused on solving problems using common sense.
Some pro-Harris/Walz commentators complained that Walz was a little too cordial towards Vance, but ultimately this highlighted his personal decency and willingness to work "across the aisle" (again, to solve problems).
So, I'm probably in a very small minority, but
I think tonight was a major victory for the Harris-Walz campaign.