Edwards is a lightweight.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Plain and simple. John Edwards is a political lightweight who has NO business being a VP candidate.

[Chalkie Gerzowski]

Did Edwards get a Wollypop from Gwen Ifill after the debate?

 

[Brandon]

Yup, Edwards got it handed to him tonight. I thought he put up a good effort, but it was not much of a contest. Cheney far outclassed him, especially on a night where the VP was clearly at the top of his game.

[MichFan]

Edwards did fine for a lawyer who changed careers and has 4 years experience in the Senate. The naivity of this guy is charming while at the same time alarming in a VP candidate. The democratic base got served enough of what they probably needed tonight to keep the momentum going in the wake of Kerry's performance, but this performance probably hurt with the all powerful undecideds.

 

By this time following the first debate, the libs had lit up this board talking about Kerry's win. Many conservatives were classy in acknowledging Kerry's victory and issues with Bush. No surprise - as of yet the same class has not been returned. I'm sure tomorrow we'll be hearing about how Edwards trounced Cheney. After all, he used the time tested Tennyboy debate tactic (HALIBURTON) as well as the classic blzrul tactic (screw the facts, just bash bash bash).

[Typical TBD Guy]

I actually thought Edwards did OK considering the expectations I had for him going against Cheney (or for anyone going against Cheney for that matter).

 

Thing is, this debate did very little to help or hurt either presidential candidate. It will all come down to Friday night's debate. If Bush bombs again, Kerry will likely - barring any unforeseen events in the next three weeks - sneak away with the electoral vote on Nov 2.

[Tux of Borg]

I got home late from school and didn't watch the debate. I figured Cheney would come out as the clear winner. Maybe Bush will get his stevestojan together and put up a decent fight against Kerry in the last debate.

[Captain America]

Edwards did fine for a lawyer who changed careers and has 4 years experience in the Senate.  The naivity of this guy is charming while at the same time alarming in a VP candidate.  The democratic base got served enough of what they probably needed tonight to keep the momentum going in the wake of Kerry's performance, but this performance probably hurt with the all powerful undecideds.

 

By this time following the first debate, the libs had lit up this board talking about Kerry's win.  Many conservatives were classy in acknowledging Kerry's victory and issues with Bush.  No surprise - as of yet the same class has not been returned.  I'm sure tomorrow we'll be hearing about how Edwards trounced Cheney.  After all, he used the time tested Tennyboy debate tactic (HALIBURTON) as well as the classic blzrul tactic (screw the facts, just bash bash bash).

58588[/snapback]

Where did you ever get the idea the libbers had any class?

[ExiledInIllinois]

Where did you ever get the idea the libbers had any class?

58618[/snapback]

 

From me?

 

Ooops... Okay, I can be thoughtless, uncaring and insensitive sometimes.

[Chef Jim]

Okay, I can be thoughtless, uncaring and insensitive sometimes.

58646[/snapback]

 

Funny, according to blzrul that makes you a die hard conservative.

[Buftex]

I don't know. While Cheney definitiely has an authoritative aura about him, I though Edwards was fairly effective at getting across some very valid points. Cheney, on a few occaisions offered up weak cliche defenses, and a couple of times left Cheney with no rebuttal. As an admittedly biased viewer, at this point, there were a few points where I think Cheney was made to look like the fraud that he is.

 

First, there was the gay marriage issue. I thought Edwards was ballsy to bring up Cheneys daughter, and pretty much infered, for a party that preaches traditional family values, isn't it a bit odd to have a vice-president that sells out his own daughter?

 

Another good moment for Edwards came when he pointed out that Cheney had voted against the same weapons defense systems that Kerry did, when he was accused by the vp of being on the "wrong side" of military issues.

 

For us on the left, another strong moment for Edwards came when he pointed out all of the things that Cheney had voted against (Martin Luther King holiday, meals on wheels for seniors). I watched it on ABC where they had a split screen for most of the debate, Cheney looked very sheepish...

 

How about Cheney, bold face lying, saying that he had never made the direct connection between

Saddam and 9/11, and again his embarassing spin on his Haliburton days.

 

In the end, while Cheney likely "wins", I hardly think it was the ass-whupping that most predicted, and did nothing to hurt or help Bush. People who dislike the predsident, and his vice-president will not be impressed with Cheney, the other side will be happy....

[GG]

How about Cheney, bold face lying, saying that he had never made the direct connection between

Saddam and 9/11, and again his embarassing spin on his Haliburton days. 

 

 

58664[/snapback]

 

For the ignorant ones here, which embarrassing spin on Halliburton days? Other than the mere mention of the word, Halliburton?

 

Sweet soothing music to your ears.

 

Halliburton. No bid contract.

 

Sleep well.

[Alaska Darin]

I don't know.  While Cheney definitiely has an authoritative aura about him, I though Edwards was fairly effective at getting across some very valid points.  Cheney, on a few occaisions offered up weak cliche defenses, and a couple of times left Cheney with no rebuttal.  As an admittedly biased viewer, at this point, there were a few points where I think Cheney was made to look like the fraud that he is.

 

First, there was the gay marriage issue.  I thought Edwards was ballsy to bring up Cheneys daughter, and pretty much infered, for a party that preaches traditional family values, isn't it a bit odd to have a vice-president that sells out his own daughter?

 

Another good moment for Edwards came when he pointed out that Cheney had voted against the same weapons defense systems that Kerry did, when he was accused by the vp of being on the "wrong side" of military issues.

 

For us on the left, another strong moment for Edwards came when he pointed out all of the things that Cheney had voted against (Martin Luther King holiday, meals on wheels for seniors).  I watched it on ABC where they had a split screen for most of the debate, Cheney looked very sheepish...

 

How about Cheney, bold face lying, saying that he had never made the direct connection between

Saddam and 9/11, and again his embarassing spin on his Haliburton days. 

 

In the end, while Cheney likely "wins", I hardly think it was the ass-whupping that most predicted, and did nothing to hurt or help Bush.  People who dislike the predsident, and his vice-president will not be impressed with Cheney, the other side will be happy....

58664[/snapback]

That's another of your "unbiased" opinions?

[IBTG81]

That's another of your "unbiased" opinions?

58688[/snapback]

 

 

[John from Riverside]

I have just come to the conclusion that people see what they want to see in these debates......

 

I thought Chaney school the boy

[Typical TBD Guy]

First, there was the gay marriage issue.  I thought Edwards was ballsy to bring up Cheneys daughter, and pretty much infered, for a party that preaches traditional family values, isn't it a bit odd to have a vice-president that sells out his own daughter?

 

Another good moment for Edwards came when he pointed out that Cheney had voted against the same weapons defense systems that Kerry did, when he was accused by the vp of being on the "wrong side" of military issues.

 

For us on the left, another strong moment for Edwards came when he pointed out all of the things that Cheney had voted against (Martin Luther King holiday, meals on wheels for seniors).  I watched it on ABC where they had a split screen for most of the debate, Cheney looked very sheepish...

 

How about Cheney, bold face lying, saying that he had never made the direct connection between

Saddam and 9/11, and again his embarassing spin on his Haliburton days. 

58664[/snapback]

 

On Dick's lesbo daughter: Speaking as a libertarian Republican, this is my biggest problem with Cheney, a man for whom I otherwise have total respect. Mary's his own flesh and blood. So she likes to munch on a little carpet now and then...whose business is that but only Mary and the carpet bearer?

 

On Cheney's votes and weapons defense systems: Good point. Can any conservatives here explain his reasons for voting against these systems?

 

On Cheney's votes and MLK holiday, meals on wheels, etc: Come on now. No one cared about this Mickey Mouse stevestojan in the 2000 election, and after 9/11 and the start of WWIII, no one will care about this stevestojan in 2004 either.

 

On the connection between Saddam and 9/11: You have been staring at the political sun for way too long now. This "controversy" has been debunked countless times since the final days of the 9/11 commission, by both conservative and liberal media outlets alike.

 

On Halliburton: Consult previous sentence.

[Guest RabidBillsFanVT]

Many conservatives were classy in acknowledging Kerry's victory and issues with Bush. 

 

After all, he used the time tested Tennyboy debate tactic (HALIBURTON) as well as the classic blzrul tactic (screw the facts, just bash bash bash).

 

Of course, very few of these 'classy conservatives' were on this board... almost everyone said that it was a tie, or Kerry did not win.

 

And Cheney LIED In FRONT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE by saying that he didn't make a connection between Saddam and 9/11. A WHOPPER of a lie, caught by Chris Matthews ON TAPE. I saw another interview with him, implying it HEAVILY on the news. It is a microcosm of what garbage we have recieved over the past 4 years right there. Cheney, you LIED last night, BIG TIME.

[Kelly the Dog]

Maybe it was me, but what I heard from Cheney about his daughter was remarkably candid, and he seemed to be saying he was against what the President wanted in his own heart but was supporting him because that is what he is supposed to do as VP. I thought that was one of Cheney's better moments. I thought he was going to be pissed when Edwards brought up his daughter but Dick came back gracious. Here is what he specifically said. I thought it was very honest, and clever.

CHENEY: Gwen, you're right, four years ago in this debate, the subject came up. And I said then and I believe today that freedom does mean freedom for everybody. People ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want. It's really no one else's business.

 

That's a separate question from the issue of whether or not government should sanction or approve or give some sort of authorization, if you will, to these relationships.

 

Traditionally, that's been an issue for the states. States have regulated marriage, if you will. That would be my preference.

 

In effect, what's happened is that in recent months, especially in Massachusetts, but also in California, but in Massachusetts we had the Massachusetts Supreme Court direct the state of — the legislature of Massachusetts to modify their constitution to allow gay marriage.

 

And the fact is that the president felt that it was important to make it clear that that's the wrong way to go, as far as he's concerned.

 

Now, he sets the policy for this administration, and I support the president.

 

On the other hand, the crap about the first time meeting Edwards was not only a flat lie but unbelievaby disingenuous, since Cheney comes to the Senate on "most Tuesdays" and ONLY goes to the GOP luncheon. According to several Senators I saw last night, there is little chance of meeting a Dem on Tuesdays and he is the first VP in memory and maybe history that doesnt talk to the other side of the aisle.

[MattyT]

Maybe it was me, but what I heard from Cheney about his daughter was remarkably candid, and he seemed to be saying he was against what the President wanted in his own heart but was supporting him because that is what he is supposed to do as VP. I thought that was one of Cheney's better moments. I thought he was going to be pissed when Edwards brought up his daughter but Dick came back gracious. Here is what he specifically said. I thought it was very honest, and clever.

On the other hand, the crap about the first time meeting Edwards was not only a flat lie but unbelievaby disingenuous, since Cheney comes to the Senate on "most Tuesdays" and ONLY goes to the GOP luncheon. According to several Senators I saw last night, there is little chance of meeting a Dem on Tuesdays and he is the first VP in memory and maybe history that doesnt talk to the other side of the aisle.

58790[/snapback]

Cheney really took the gloves off with that ad hominem attack on Edwards. You could tell that the comments about Halliburton really stung him and probably ring true.

 

I actually gained a lot of respect for Cheney from this debate. I was one that went on record on this board to say that the fancy trial lawyer Edwards would stylistically wipe the floor with Cheney, but Cheney definitely won on style points. Of course he lied (or exaggerated) about several important issues (as did Edwards) but he's a politician...its what they do. I kept wondering why this guy isn't our president instead of Bush.

[Rich in Ohio]

Plain and simple. John Edwards is a political lightweight who has NO business being a VP candidate.

58564[/snapback]

 

 

More accurately he is an assmonkey!!

[Alaska Darin]

Cheney really took the gloves off with that ad hominem attack on Edwards. You could tell that the comments about Halliburton really stung him and probably ring true.

58945[/snapback]

How so? Apparently you wouldn't be pissed off if someone questioned your credibility on National Television? Sure you wouldn't.

[MattyT]

How so?  Apparently you wouldn't be pissed off if someone questioned your credibility on National Television?  Sure you wouldn't.

59098[/snapback]

Eh? I don't get your point.

[BillsFanNC]

If Bush bombs again, Kerry will likely - barring any unforeseen events in the next three weeks - sneak away with the electoral vote on Nov 2.

58591[/snapback]

 

Only Hillary and her handlers know what "unforeseen" events might be in store.....

[nobody]

An Edwards draw with Cheney really is a win for Edwards. While Cheney's speaking style would put me to sleep if he were teaching a class he is able to put together meaningful sentences and is a good debater.

[Paco]

Christ, am I the only one who saw the ambulance chaser side of him last night? Especially when he used John Kerry's name, and the moderator reminded him that he was not allowed to use his name...and then five seconds later, he's using his name again! And then stops himself, and apologizes.

 

It was like hearing a guy in court say "So when you approached the rapist..."

 

"Objection!"

 

"Mr. Edwards, you can not call the defendent a rapist."

 

"Sorry your honor. So anyway, when the rapist..."

 

Was that a debate or was he talking to a jury?

[blzrul]

As Cheney was halfway through his answer to the first question our daughter turned to us and asked "is he answering the question? he's saying a lot of stuff but I don't think it's got anything to do with the question does it?".

 

I thought Edwards did ok; we all knew that the gloves would come off during this debate, which was better than the Cheney-Lieberman agree-a-thon of 2000.

 

Each scored points; most people don't vote based on the VP candidate anyway. IF Cheney had presidential aspirations (which he may but I believe him when he says not) his performance wouldn't have helped him but since most people think there's zero chance he'll ever be president his performance probably didn't hurt. How much CAN it hurt a guy who's disapproval rating is already over 50%?

[Paco]

As Cheney was halfway through his answer to the first question our daughter turned to us and asked "is he answering the question?  he's saying a lot of stuff but I don't think it's got anything to do with the question does it?".

59156[/snapback]

But your daughter never noticed how Edwards evaded answering his questions as well?

 

You've obviously raised her well.

[nobody]

Especially when he used John Kerry's name, and the moderator reminded him that he was not allowed to use his name

 

 

That question was a bit silly. What is this 3rd grade? OK boys and girls describe the picture in front of you without saying what it is and everyone will try to guess what object you are describing.

[MattyT]

That question was a bit silly.  What is this 3rd grade?  OK boys and girls describe the picture in front of you without saying what it is and everyone will try to guess what object you are describing.

59184[/snapback]

My fiancee thought that it was a stupid question also. I kind of liked the question from a general interest standpoint. The intent was to separate the candidates from their running mates and compare/contrast the VP candidates as individuals. Unfortunately, there were two flaws 1) Edwards didn't properly answer the question (with or without using Kerry's name) and 2) we aren't voting for VPs, we are voting for a President.

[GG]

....

 

The intent was to separate the candidates from their running mates and compare/contrast the VP candidates as individuals....

 

59209[/snapback]

 

Based on this premise, if voters can't distinguish between a Pres/VP candidate, then they deserve whatever government is forced upon them.

[nobody]

I kind of liked the question from a general interest standpoint.

 

It's a question that could work in a different setting - say a magazine article where the interviewer can poke and prod the person into giving real answers. But in a sound-bite setting, I mean debate, it doesn't fly too well.

[MattyT]

Based on this premise, if voters can't distinguish between a Pres/VP candidate, then they deserve whatever government is forced upon them.

59221[/snapback]

You oversimplified it. I'm not talking about flash cards and the everyday voter on the street being able to identify a candidate from a bag of a$$holes. I'm talking about isolating the two VP candidates from their running mates and then attempting to do a comparitive analysis between Cheney and Edwards.

[USMCBillsFan]

Cheney did well last night. Every time they showed Edwards pompous ass I wanted to kick in the tv. I've lived in NC for 6 yrs this time around and Edwards can't even run this state. He's an ambulance chasing prosecuting attorney and is a smooth talker who can hide behind his ability to speak. How many times last night did he completely blow off the question and not answer it only to get some other stupid meaningless point across?

[MattyT]

It's a question that could work in a different setting - say a magazine article where the interviewer can poke and prod the person into giving real answers.  But in a sound-bite setting, I mean debate, it doesn't fly too well.

59229[/snapback]

I agree. Interesting in general, but not the best question in a debate forum.

[nobody]

I've lived in NC for 6 yrs this time around and Edwards can't even run this state. 

 

I thought governors run the states?

[GG]

You oversimplified it. I'm not talking about flash cards and the everyday voter on the street being able to identify a candidate from a bag of a$$holes. I'm talking about isolating the two VP candidates from their running mates and then attempting to do a comparitive analysis between Cheney and Edwards.

59231[/snapback]

 

Thanks for oversimplifying the oversimplification.

 

If a voter cannot distinguish among Cheney, Edwards, Bush & Kerry, no matter how you sit them in a room, draw concentric circles, put on pointy hats, and rearrange the question, that voter deserves the consequence.

 

I don't see what kind of comparative analysis you are looking for. They are both VP candidates, and should be able to say the name of the Pres candidate in talking about how they're different from the Pres candidate.

[Buftex]

That's another of your "unbiased" opinions?

58688[/snapback]

 

 

Uh AD, you disappoint me. You are always so quick to insult people or find flaws, yet you are showing an increasing tendancy to not read everything. I prefaced my comments by saying that I was an "admittedly biased viewer". Apparently PPP is not the place to come for discussion, but only to throw insults.

[Buftex]

How so?  Apparently you wouldn't be pissed off if someone questioned your credibility on National Television?  Sure you wouldn't.

59098[/snapback]

 

 

Perhaps the indication that the Haliburton comments stung Cheney was the fact that he never addressed any of them. He did a lot of that last night. If he was pissed off, why not come back with some denial? Maybe because he knew it was a no-win argument?

[MattyT]

Thanks for oversimplifying the oversimplification.

 

If a voter cannot distinguish among Cheney, Edwards, Bush & Kerry, no matter how you sit them in a room, draw concentric circles, put on pointy hats, and rearrange the question, that voter deserves the consequence.

 

I don't see what kind of comparative analysis you are looking for.  They are both VP candidates, and should be able to say the name of the Pres candidate in talking about how they're different from the Pres candidate.

 

Some people (myself included) are interested in the perception that one candidate has of the other. Particularly hearing it directly from their mouths and for the record.

 

Like I said, it was generally interesting but not the best question for debate. Whether they could say the presidents name or not is not really important. Let it go.

[GG]

Perhaps the indication that the Haliburton comments stung Cheney was the fact that he never addressed any of them.  He did a lot of that last night.  If he was pissed off, why not come back with some denial?  Maybe because he knew it was a no-win argument?

59297[/snapback]

 

Maybe this is where your reading/listening comprehension is eluding you. Cheney did respond.

 

CHENEY: I can respond, Gwen, but it's going to take more than 30 seconds.

 

IFILL: Well, that's all you've got.

 

(LAUGHTER)

 

CHENEY: Well, the reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they're trying to throw up a smokescreen. They know the charges are false.

 

They know that if you go, for example, to factcheck.com (sic), an independent Web site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania, you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton.

 

It's an effort that they've made repeatedly to try to confuse the voters and to raise questions, but there's no substance to the charges.

 

Edwards threw a litany of charges against the wall, all of which have been soundly dismissed of any impropriety as they relate to Cheney's tenure as CEO or his ties once he became VP.

 

But, hey, Edwards scored by saying Halliburton.

 

Kinda rolls of your tongue, doesn't it?

 

On a sidenote, care to talk about Kerry's A list for Treasury nominees?

[blzrul]

Uh AD, you disappoint me.  You are always so quick to insult people or find flaws, yet you are showing an increasing tendancy to not read everything.  I prefaced my comments by saying that I was an "admittedly biased viewer".  Apparently PPP is not the place to come for discussion, but only to throw insults.

59282[/snapback]

 

So you've only just figured that out? AD sits in the midst of his little spiderweb, in the dark literally and figuratively, and throws venom and stones. He offers no solutions. He has nothing postive to say about anything. And he has nothing nice to say, unless someone with an equally negative view of everything comes along.