Veep Debate thread

[dunkelhelmut]

For the record, I'm a Libertarian, so my party was obviously not represented in this debate, and my opinion isn't as biased as other opinions here.

As others pointed out, it seems like this was a battle of style vs substance. It was an amusing debate to watch, and seemed relatively even. Both sides appeared sharp and made some good points, and missed good opportunities to strike back.

For style, Edwards definately won. He's the younger, friendlier politician, and carried a better vibe during the whole debate. That's why people voted twice for Clinton.

For substance, Cheney appeared to win. He was very sharp, drew facts from his knowledge and memory, and was able to defend his statements better. He provided numbers and facts instead of rhetoric.

On a superficial level, I could see how people liked Edwards better. Cheney, while sharp and cunning, doesn't come across as a likable person. He does seem mean and irritable. Edwards appears to be a likable person, although I can't say that I think he's honest since he was a lawyer.

Since a President and VP's success depends much more on substance than style, I like Cheney's performance much better than Edwards'

[BuddyHawks]

It was close, but ill go with Edwards since Dick choose not to respond to a few of the senator's comments.

[Bobaphat]

Well I learned nothing new tonight. Same old garbage from both camps.

[Rodney]

I don't know who "won;" I guess I'll let the polls tell us that. Edwards had to at least look like he knew what he was doing and handle himself well, and he did that. He presented himself as a solid candidate for vice president, despite Cheney's efforts to paint him as not up to the job.

I've never really seen Cheney in action other than on a podium, and this debate gave me a really clear picture of who he is. I have met guys like him before, in business and in government. They have the ability to talk endlessly and relentlessly and to counter any point someone raises against them with a torrent of counterpoints. They win by wearing down the other side, if the other side is less confident in their answers.

The thing is, such guys often have the wrong answer to complex problems, because they're not in the habit of accepting advice: conflicts with their Iron Man image. They never falter, never deviate from their paths, and never admit past mistakes except to say that they were unimportant (or that your recollection is wrong). Such tactics will absolutely win the battle in any bureaucracy, where sheer force of will matters less than facts.

And guys like this can absolutely take an organization right off a cliff, when they're wrong. After they win the bureaucratic battle, nobody challenges anything they say anymore. They're in complete control.

The fun thing about these guys is, often they're not the number 1 guy in the organization. More likely they're number 2, and number 1 is a doofus who they control. I know it sounds like I'm trying to tailor my argument to the situation, but it's true. At least, I've worked in two organizations like this, where #2 was a feared and disliked Master of the Bureaucracy with all the answers, and #1 was just a figurehead who relied on the bounteous flow of information and advice from #2.

[Superbelt]

Lie, or just forgetful?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT
According to Sidoti, Cheney actually thanked Edwards by name at the Senate prayer breakfast, where they sat next to each other for about two hours. On top of that, they met again when Elizabeth Dole was sworn in by Cheney almost two years ago.
It's ok Dick, you're old, we can blame it on dementia.

[mr sticky]

Being a Bush supporter, but one based in reality ( easy...that's not meant to be flame bait ), it was clear that during the first presedential debate, Bush was handed his ass fairly early on ( like with the opening salvo ).
I honestly believe that during this singular vice-presedential debate, Edwards was handed his ass completely. Which is odd, because I truly expected Edwards to run away with it. He's a paid debater. Yes, Cheney has been in politics for years, but Edwards has a track record of being a good enough debater ( read trial lawyer ) to make millions.
After Bush's dismal performance, any sort of oratory competence is to be lauded and basked in ( at least by those of us on the right ).
Did it reverse Kerry's poll surge? Doubt it.
Did it change any hearts and minds? Doubt it.
Did it offer any new ideals? Nope.
Did it make me feel better? A little.

The negative? Well, it really sucks to have your non-debater Veep sweep the floor with his opponent when you can't convince a kid to eat candy!

ARGH!

[matthew330]

nevermind...i quit, and forgot

[Mojo_PeiPei]

(Double Standard card)

So Kerry can over emphasize and dramatize war crimes, but it's not ok for Cheney to make on over stated point, one that still holds, i.e. Edwards has missed a lot of time in congress.

At any rate I'm sure the left will make a big deal of this non-issue.

[Superbelt]

Edwards shoudl have answered to why he was absent from congress so much. I don't give him a pass but he HAS been campaigning for the Presidency for the past two years. The fact is our legislature is the main breeding ground for presidential candidates. If they want to have a chance to win, to gain some name id, they have to be out there getting to know people and vice versa.

I also wish Cheney had made an attempt to answer to John's statements of Cheney voting against: Headstart, nelson mandella, MLKjr day, meals on wheels etc.. Course anything beyond "I'm a douchebag" really isn't honest.

[irateplatypus]

if you were to read the debate transcript, cheney won.

if you were to watch the debate w/out sound, edwards won.

if you were to watch and listen, close to a tie.

[dy156]

Originally Posted by mml

If I had to pick a winner, I would most likely select Cheney. I say that because even though many of his statements and "facts" are inacurate and seriously debatable, he presented them in a matter of fact and clear manner that makes them seem like the truth. Edwards was a bit too excitable and ready to jump into the fray, making him appear inexperienced. Overall, I would say that Republicans generally thought Cheney won and vice versus. I do, however, think that neither side is particularly hurt or helped by this debate. What I find interesting is that CBS, MSNBC, CNN and FOX all have flash polls that say Edwards won. The closest was FOX, showing 54% for Edwards (this will change), but many polls show him well ahead of Cheney. It will be interesting to see the results in a day or two. Many, even many within the Democratic party, underestimate the connection Edwards makes with people. It may be that the polls are showing that while "experts" and policy wonks don't see him as completely credible, the general public does.

Except for the part about his facts being inaccurate and seriously debatable, I actually pretty much completely agree. All the MSNBC hardball guys pretty much said Cheney won, and I thought he did an A- job, but after talking to my wife and mother-in-law, they too just said they like Edwards because he seems nicer.

Cheney could have done better defending Halliburton, or talking about some mom and pop restaurant or other small business that would be hurt by the repeal of the tax cuts for those "earning" over $200,000. He mentioned this, but it's a winning issue, and should have emphasized it more. Some will be critical of his dropping arguments and declining to comment further, but I think it was actually smart. Had he said, "I voted against MLK day because we I didn't think we needed another Fed. holiday in Feb." or a similar defense of his votes, it would have damaged the campaign more by creating a side issue that has nothing to do with Bush. Similarly, his carefully worded but classy statement on the marriage amend. (which I too am against) was all he needed to say. Sometimes just shutting up is a good thing.

Maybe it's just me, but I thought this debate was far superior to the first one and would have been better for undecided voters to really become informed about the campaigns. I concede that Bush SUCKED in the first one, but Kerry had so many okay-come-on-Bush-knock-that-out-of-the-park-it's-so-easy statements that I don't think you could say he did well. The first debate was just plain ugly, like that Cowboys-Redskins Monday night game.

I was really struck by the fact that both Cheney and Edwards were poor growing up and have made it on their own, compared to Bush and Kerry who both had the best upbringing and attended the best schools and came from the best families in America. I'll go further out on a limb and say that I wish both tickets were reversed. Not only do I have greater respect for self-made men, but they are more articulate than their top of the ticket partners, and I think either vp candidate would do a better job running the country. Let the super privileged men attend funerals and fulfill diplomatic and ceremonial duties. It's an interesting sociological observation that maybe you can go a long way in America on your own, but where and to whom you are born still has such a dramatic effect. (Well, maybe Clinton is an exception) Maybe it's just me and my personal biases, though. Now that I've goten completely off-topic, I'll just say again that I thought it was a good debate, and if they're going to attack each other, I'm glad they did it face to face, and I think Cheney won, but it was close.

[maypo]

It was an interesting debate and they both were well matched, in the end Cheney is a loathesome and power crazed man. His attempt to reign that in was superhuman but neither I nor the majority of people who chose Edwards as the winner can ignore who he really is. You only could think he won the debate if you could believe the endless misderection he engaged in. I have had the same expeirience as rodney :

I've never really seen Cheney in action other than on a podium, and this debate gave me a really clear picture of who he is. I have met guys like him before, in business and in government. They have the ability to talk endlessly and relentlessly and to counter any point someone raises against them with a torrent of counterpoints. They win by wearing down the other side, if the other side is less confident in their answers.

The thing is, such guys often have the wrong answer to complex problems, because they're not in the habit of accepting advice: conflicts with their Iron Man image. They never falter, never deviate from their paths, and never admit past mistakes except to say that they were unimportant (or that your recollection is wrong). Such tactics will absolutely win the battle in any bureaucracy, where sheer force of will matters less than facts.

And guys like this can absolutely take an organization right off a cliff, when they're wrong. After they win the bureaucratic battle, nobody challenges anything they say anymore. They're in complete control.

Many Americans buy the strength argument because it makes them feel safer that daddy is taking care of them, but you are actually "heading right off a cliff".

[charms]

Originally Posted by Superbelt

The fact is our legislature is the main breeding ground for presidential candidates.

What? The legislature is the main breeding ground for failed presidential candidates. Historically, it is nearly impossible to win without executive experience. You're much more likely to reach the presidency from a governorship than the Congress. There hasn't been a legislator direct to the Presidency since JFK, and before that Harding.

I'm not a Bush supporter, but no honest Democrat can defend the Kerry/Edwards attendance record. Both have essentially abandoned their posts. Since Kerry was re-elected in 2002 (when he obviously was planning to run), he missed 64% of the votes in the first year, and over 80 or 90% in the current term. As one of his constituents, that pisses me off.

Edwards hasn't done much better. As a member of the Judiciary committee, his 107th attendance record (pre-campaign!) was tied with Strom Thurmond, who was 99 years old and dying.

[MSD]

Cheney made the same mistake that Bush did. He hunched over, allowing his taller opponent to stand over him even more than usual. The Republican people need to address that before the next debate.

[ARTelevision]

This was a good discussion of the issues. Both men did very well.

As you know, I have no interest in the theatrical and rhetorical craft of debating. I think it is a puerile and entertainment-based way of trivializing any issue. To speak of winning and losing in an intelligent discussion of any issue is to speak as if a crucial matter is no more than a game.

Hopefully more than a few people see things this way.

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by dy156

Cheney could have done better defending Halliburton,

In what way?

[host]

Originally Posted by host

Polls on news channels indicate Edwards won.
Before cnn.com pulled their poll of their site a few moments ago,
(11:40 pm edt) Edwards led 120,000 to Cheney's 27,000

Even on Bush broadcasting, inc. www.foxnews.com, Edwards led
Cheney as the debate winner 33,000 votes to 30,000 for Cheney.

<a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#survey">msnbc.com is 69% Edwards 31% Cheney</a>

Well,,,,fauxnews dropped their Edwards - Cheney debate poll from last night,
probably because Edwards was leading 56% to 44%. <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111576,00.html">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111576,00.html</a> Today, they re-worded it and Cheney now enjoys an overwhelming lead. (Last night's poll simpky asked whether you think Cheney or Edwards won the debate.)
<p><br>

cnn.com VP debate poll resurfaced today, and......instead of the 120,000 votes for Edwards and 27,000 for Cheney that were displayed before cnn
pulled the poll last night, today's "results" show 40,000 for Edwards and
23,000 for Cheney.<br>

All of the news media websites that displayed online poll results of visitors' opinions last night, displayed results that showed Edwards to be the debate winner, overwhelmimgly, except for fauxnews 56% to 44% pro Edwards results. However, the media doesn't want to accept public opinion, or it hides it from view. Before the Bush cheerleaders offer excuses....there were
concerted efforts on both sides to flood online polls with "hits".
<a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1236413/posts">http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1236413/posts</a>

[maximusveritas]

That "the first time I ever met you" line was not the only lie told by Cheney. It's just funnier because of that picture of Edwards and Cheney sitting next to each other for 2 hours.

Most of the "good points" that Cheney made in last night's debate were simply untrue. Unfortunately, Edwards let many of them stand without a rebuttal, leading some people to actually think Cheney won the debate. If one of the rules to the debate had been "no distortions/lies", Cheney would have been DQ'd and Edwards would have won hands down.

But don't just take my word for it, take a look at the nonpartisan factcheck.org (link), which Cheney himself urged us to do in order to refute points Edwards made about Cheney and Halliburton. Of course, he couldn't even get that right, calling it factcheck.com (which, thanks to the internet gods, now points to a George Soros site). To make matters worse, factcheck.org says that Cheney "wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton."

Looking further on that page you will see numerous instances in which Cheney committed clear lies/distortions, while Edwards only committed a couple partial/unclear distortions. And it looks like they just stopped listing Cheney's lies in order to make it look less one-sided.

The Bush/Cheney talking point has been substance over style, but if that substance is all lies, does it really even exist?

[Ustwo]

Quotes for example:

Originally Posted by maypo

It was an interesting debate and they both were well matched, in the end Cheney is a loathesome and power crazed man. His attempt to reign that in was superhuman but neither I nor the majority of people who chose Edwards as the winner can ignore who he really is. You only could think he won the debate if you could believe the endless misderection he engaged in. I have had the same expeirience as rodney :



Many Americans buy the strength argument because it makes them feel safer that daddy is taking care of them, but you are actually "heading right off a cliff".

In case anyone wonders why I'm just hanging back from the politics board for the most part until after the election is over, its because as the election nears the 'kid' factor will become a bit more pronounced and emotions will run higher. Rather then insulting the lack of intelligence of some of the posters which is tempting to do when logic fails to make a dent in their posting, its most likely best to step back.

[Superbelt]

Ustwo can you please grow up. Noone here appreciates your superior than thou attitude.
If you can't come on here and show respect to this community, don't come back.
Everything about that post was condescending and smarmy.

[mo42]

I thought that this debate was exactly the same thing that happened in the first presidential debate, except Cheney was Kerry. He had all the facts, and knew where to pull them from so that they would be most in his favor. Edwards just looked stupid. He didn't have very many facts and just didn't come off as very intelligent, at least in my opinion.

/still not gonna vote for Bush

[onetime2]

In the end the undecideds are still undecided. For Bush to put it away he needs to really make a case for why the Kerry approach to the war on terror will fail. This election will be about security. Kerry needs to make something stick for him to win in November. He hasn't done it. The longer it takes for it to happen the more likely the undecideds will go with Bush.

As far as the debate itself, it was like the Presidential debate. Cheney won on substance and Edwards looked good for the camera. Hell, Edwards couldn't even come close to following the rules of the debate. He completely failed to answer several questions, couldn't go 90 seconds without mentioning Kerry's name despite the "rule" not to, broke into Cheney's response to one question attempting to shout over him, and continually went back to old questions rather than answering the current question put to him (Cheney did this as well but not until Edwards had done it two or three times). The moderator for this debate was horrendous.

The moderator was

[water_boy1999]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Quotes for example:




In case anyone wonders why I'm just hanging back from the politics board for the most part until after the election is over, its because as the election nears the 'kid' factor will become a bit more pronounced and emotions will run higher. Rather then insulting the lack of intelligence of some of the posters which is tempting to do when logic fails to make a dent in their posting, its most likely best to step back.

must.....resist....urge.....to.....respond.......ungh!




I agree with you Art. I think Americans would do very well if they started to vote on the issues instead of voting for who had better posture, was more pleasing to look at or who seemed to hold their composure better when put on the spot.

[mattevil]

thought this was intresting in regards to this line

"Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session."

--Dick Cheney

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/6/11163/2940

[Rdr4evr]

Now this is funny! http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ney_blunder_dc

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) probably did not intend to direct millions of television viewers to a Web site calling for President Bush (news - web sites)'s defeat but that's what a slip of the domain achieved.

Anyone who heeded Cheney's advice and clicked on "factcheck.com" on Wednesday morning was redirected to the site of anti-Bush billionaire investor George Soros that had a banner message saying "Why we must not reelect President Bush."


The GeorgeSoros.com site later put up a notice saying that it does not own factcheck.com and was not responsible for directing readers from that site to the Soros message. "We are as surprised as anyone by this turn of events," it said.


A lawyer for the factcheck.com site was not available for comment.


Defending his record as Halliburton's chief executive, Cheney said in the Tuesday night debate that Democratic vice-presidential challenger John Edwards (news - web sites) was trying to use Halliburton as a smokescreen. Any voter who wanted the facts, Cheney said, should check out factcheck.com -- which led to the Soros site.


The Web site Cheney had in mind, factcheck.org, was not amused when the vice president proved that he was not master of the factcheckers' domain.


Factcheck.org, run by the Annenberg Center of the University of Pennsylvania, said on its site on Wednesday that Cheney not only got the domain name confused, he had mischaracterized its fact-finding.


"Cheney ... wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton," the site said on Wednesday.


"In fact we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn't profited personally while in office from Halliburton's Iraq (news - web sites) contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad. But Edwards was talking about Cheney's responsibility for earlier Halliburton troubles. And in fact, Edwards was mostly right."


The White House Web site annotated the debate transcript, parenthetically noting that Cheney meant factcheck.org, not factcheck.com. It linked the transcript to factcheck.org.

[trickyy]

i believed him. he said it like it was his weekly coffee group with the boys. old people like their coffee time.

i guess he could still stop in at times, even if not presiding...but it looks like we may have another strech. maybe edwards wasn't around the senate enough to call him on it. amazing that they ever ran into each other at all.

[spectre]

I'm going to say this once and only once, and this is to everyone. This discussion will be civil. There is no high ground in backhanded insults, and if you find there is something that needs moderation, report it and leave it be. If anyone else turns this thread into a pissing match, temp bans will be issued.

[dy156]

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

In what way?

By saying that he has donated his stock payouts to charity, and that his other income was completely insulated from the success or failure of Halliburton.

From what I read, before he joined on as the VP candidate in 2000, Cheney bought an insurance policy substituted for his income from Halliburton based on stock options, so that he could still get the income that he earned, but it would be guaranteed and independent from whether the company's stock went up or down. Therefore, any actions taken by the government in helping Halliburton would not change Cheney's income. If Halliburton had not been given in business from the US in Iraq, and Halliburton's stock price fell, Cheney's income would have remained the same. If the Fed. government had given Halliburton any other business and the stock price had increased, Cheney would not have benefitted. He has also donated to charity any after-tax profits that he made from exercising stock options. I remember being somewhat surprised to find that there werwe insurance companies that frequently organized these type of deals when executives of one company, whose promised income is based in part on stock performance leave the company for another or for government service.

In addition, Halliburton has been criticized for being the only company that bid on many of the contracts for Iraqi reconstruction. However, it was actually Kellog, Brown and Root, a company Halliburton bought, that is the only company that does that sort of thing. Kellogg Brown and Root was given much of the contracts involving supplying American trops in Vietnam, too. In fact, there are even conspiracy theories I've heard about LBJ's involvement with Brown and Root (its name back then, I think) and JFK's death. It makes me think that these conspiracy theories, whether they involve allegedly corrupt Republicans or allegedly corrupt Democrats, are just likely to occur given the nature of Brown and Root's business of civilian support for military actions.

From everything I have read in print, Cheney acted completely above board, and should have done a better job of conveying this last night.

edit: I've also read that Cheney profitted from the insulation of his income from Halliburton's stock price. Halliburton stock fell alot after Cheney took office, because one of Cheney's acts as CEO was to acquire another company whose name elludes me right now. Unknown at the time, that company came with lots and lots of asbestos related litigation it had to defend/settle, and that was why the stock price went down. Cheney therefore, by doing the right thing, profited from a bad business decision caused by trial lawyers. Ironic, isn't it?

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by Rdr4evr

Now this is funny! http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ney_blunder_dc

3 things come to mind:

1) Cheney did that knowing the GOP would link it to Soros' site so that it LOOKS like the Dems and Soros are guilty.

or

2) a self made Billionaire is truly very stupid and did this without thinking he'd ever get bad press.

or

3) the Dems did it thinking they could blame Soros and get away with it.

I tend to believe 1. The GOP can bitch and claim foul. The GOP can claim that Factcheck.com is now 100% undeniably biased and therefore the facts presented there are to be questioned.. Most people would hear where the people were sent and who owned the website and use guilt by association and not even think about who really is responsible.

The Dems don't need ANY bad press because Kerry is warming up and it would be suicide to do. Soros is too smart to have linked it to his own website, if he had done it I truly believe he would have used a dummy website that ownership for was very hard to find.

The games politicians play...... nothing there that helps the nation at all but adds divisiveness.

Or if you really want to get paranoid you could say the Dems did it to make people think the GOP did it to make people blame the Dems for it. Or the Gop did it to make people think the Dems did it to make people think the GOP did it to blame the Dems for doing it.

This whole election is getting pathetic.

Or it could have been some jerkoff hacker type trying to play games with the people.

[Sippy]

Cheney clearly won vs. Edwards imho. Bush lost severly to Kerry. Candidates from other national parties such as the Libertarians, Greens etc. should have been included. A real debate involving say 4 candidates would be so refreshing.

[dy156]

Originally Posted by pan6467

This whole election is getting pathetic.

Or it could have been some jerkoff hacker type trying to play games with the people.

I think these two statements, at least, are true.

[onetime2]

Originally Posted by Sippy

A real debate involving say 4 candidates would be so refreshing.

I agree completely.

[pan6467]

Originally Posted by Sippy

Cheney clearly won vs. Edwards imho. Bush lost severly to Kerry. Candidates from other national parties such as the Libertarians, Greens etc. should have been included. A real debate involving say 4 candidates would be so refreshing.

I don't know if there was any national press I haven't see n (although C-Span was supposed to be there), on the other side of Cleveland the other 4 parties VP candidates were having a debate. I want to say it was at Baldwin Wallace but I'm not sure.

[ARTelevision]

Warnings have been issued for some responses on the first page of this thread.

One is moved to wonder what it takes to get consistently constructive responses from some folks. We have repeated this often. Yet acceptable compliance is still not achieved. It is in your interest not to cross the line again.

[pan6467]

This came off the Green Party website (it was at BW):

Vice presidential debate (only one):
7PM, Tuesday October 5
Baldwin Wallace College
John Patrick Theatre (500 seating capacity)
Cleveland, OH

Listen to the debate LIVE: www.WBWC.com
Listen to a Pacifica interview with Pat at 8:40PM EST www.Pacifica.org
6PM Doors Open
7-8:30PM Debate
Intermission
9-10:30PM Live Screening of the Televised Debates
10:30PM Excluded Candidate Rebuttals

Join Pat LaMarche and supporters in Ohio for a real debate among third-party candidates, including our candidate Pat LaMarche as well as the Libertarian, Consitution and Nader's vice presidential candidates. This exciting debate will be the concluding event in her unprecedented "Left Out Tour." For information on this outstanding event, please email Jason Neville (National Field Director). For advance tickets (free) or on-sit

From what I have heard it was a good debate, lots of issues and substance were discussed.

[OpieCunningham]

Originally Posted by pan6467

3 things come to mind:

1) Cheney did that knowing the GOP would link it to Soros' site so that it LOOKS like the Dems and Soros are guilty.

or

2) a self made Billionaire is truly very stupid and did this without thinking he'd ever get bad press.

or

3) the Dems did it thinking they could blame Soros and get away with it.

Or not.

FactCheck.com is owned by a company that sells encyclopedia's. They noticed a massive increase in visitors, which negatively affected advertisers on their site. As the owners had to do something to remove the negative impact to their advertisers, and as they do not support Bush, they redirected the domain to Soros' site. Soros' has a notice about their non-association with factcheck.com and a link to factcheck.org.

I heard this on NPR, here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4074032

So Cheney got seriously burned. What is suprising is that Cheney would even mention factcheck at all, as the previous item on their homepage, from the 4th of October, is a description of how Bush misrepresents Kerry's health plan. I think he was going for the brush-off tactic: attempting to point to a 3rd party as evidence that his association with Halliburton is a non-issue, expecting that people would essentially take his word for it if they decided not to dig deep into FactCheck or accept the FactCheck article about completely different Halliburton issues. That FactCheck now states that Edwards' Halliburton accusations are essentially correct is poetic justice.

[pan6467]

Opie,
Thanks for the info. It's interesting.

[smooth]

Originally Posted by dy156

I was really struck by the fact that both Cheney and Edwards were poor growing up and have made it on their own, compared to Bush and Kerry who both had the best upbringing and attended the best schools and came from the best families in America.

I actually didn't know that Cheney was a self-made man. hmm, that's interesting.

But, I think Edwards didn't do what some people expected (in terms of being the paid debater, etc.) because I suspect his job in this election is to bring the down-home drawl to effect. Kerry has been criticized for being non-personal, so it stands to reason that edwards is supposed to represent charisma moreso than issues (which kerry can more than adequately get across).

And if we look at the flash polls, the tactic seemed to work. The people seem to be answering inversely like they did with the pres debate--kerry dry on personality, strong on facts and bush strong on likeability, lacking in facts. edwards not so factual, long on likeabilyt, cheney long on dry and factual, not so on persona.

[Fire]

Was the fact check thing the first time anyone refered anyone to a web site in a presidential (or VP) debate? will it be the last cause of the ensuing snafu? that aside, refering someone to a non present third party during a debate seems evasive to me, rather than answering the question

[smooth]

Originally Posted by Fire

Was the fact check thing the first time anyone refered anyone to a web site in a presidential (or VP) debate? will it be the last cause of the ensuing snafu? that aside, refering someone to a non present third party during a debate seems evasive to me, rather than answering the question

kerry plugged his own site during the debate

he said that he could answer the war plan Q, but if you want specifics and details (given he only had 90 seconds, I actually view this as fair and not evasive) go to johnkerry.com.