thefictionweliv

I don't know how many of you watched the Vice-Presidential debate, while I support niether candidate I feel both of the presented their views in a more definitive and informed manner than their respective counterparts. I for one feel that Chaney or Edwards both represent their respectives stands better than Bush or Kerry. They also don't have the "press one for packaged war response" feel to their conversations.

Kalibah

I think that both of the Vice Presidents are smarter. But I feel that the Presidents are more charasmatic... I suppose it really is a popularity contest, becasuse the presidental canidates have the same views as their respective vice-presidential canidates.... how do the parties decide who is president and who is vice president?
Smarts go to the vice presidential canidate- seems like it always has...
And for the president? the limelight and such makes him better suited towards having
Charisma

thefictionweliv

The pick them with the oddest features as well, a joke between the two parties to see who gets in the most caricatures, with Bush's ears I'm suprised he can't fly o.0

nospam

I'm not going to comment on Chaney.

Concerning Edwards, I think he's a great guy...however I think he lacks experience to be president. It'd be interesting to see if maybe the Democratic Party puts him up for election in 8 or 12 years...

dy156

Yup.
This is what I said about it in the veep debate thread.

Rodney

This whole "experience" issue is overrated, and I think is just being used as political smokescreen.

The conservative icon Ronald Reagan went straight from having _no_ experience in government (Republican politics, yes, government, no) to the governorship of California. Yet of all the pros and cons of his tenure as head of our great state, "inexperience" is not an issue that arises. Why? Because he didn't come into office alone. He had a whole team of advisers, all politically savvy, that came in with him.

Edwards is a trial lawyer. Any good trial lawyer on big cases must be able to gather vast volumes of facts (usually through managing a large team) synthesize a position from them in the face of many pros and cons, make a strong case, negotiate fiercely, and at the same time educate his clients to the gap between what they want and what is practical. These seem like good core skills for any executive office. And if they're not precisely what's needed, that's where the advisers come in.

And these adviser's aren't just hired off the street. Some of Bush's core political advisers, including Cheney, were passed down from his daddy. And often in the case of political novices the candidate is actually recruited by party bosses and backers who present to them a package of money and trusted (by the bosses) advisers.

In short, sometimes the candidate is just like the little man on top of a wedding cake. He's in charge, but there's a lot of cake supporting him.

TheFu

I think Edwards would have been a better choice than Kerry. It would have been a different race towards the beginning that is for sure. We're just now hearing about the real issues. I think if Edwards were the candidate we would have heard them alot sooner since he doesn't have that Vietnam monkey on his back.

summerkc

I think anyone except for Kerry would have been a better choice, I personally think that the man is dangerous for the current situation, his record in the senate and anti-war effort after Veitnam is a good example.

Edwards is probably too inexperienced especially given his lack of attendance in his senate committees. I think his inexperience would have been a problem for him but probably not as damaging as Kerry's less than stellar record.

Bush's strength has always been his cabinet members and advisors. With Bush not having very much experience himself, his political team is very experienced even though the democrats have bastardized most of them like Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Ashcroft.

I have to admit that I think Cheney would be a very good president, I like his record as being a CEO of a major cooperation, which I believe is how the country should be run, as a business trying to serve its customers and shareholders. (Please don't bring up Haliburton and it's no bid contract in Iraq, Clinton gave them multiple no bid contracts also, they are the best at what they do).

How should the democrats have chosen? I would like to have seen Geptheart as the candidate, though I don't know much about him I have to admit. I think Dean would have gone down in flames, as we saw his break down in the primaries, but I still like him better than Kerry.

sob

I'm going to let the part about "best families" slide.

However, I can't admire Edwards, who became a millionaire by suing doctors. I'd love to see how much money actually went to injured patients, and to what extent it made health care/insurance unaffordable to many.

Did anybody else notice in the VP debate that Edwards blamed Bush for "outsourcing jobs," and then said we should buy drugs from Canada, where they're cheaper?

tom12

i think cheney would be a great president, he's very smart and knows his stuff

i think he showed edwards up pretty bad and edwards would be a horrible president