« SwiftVets update | Main | Draft bill voted down 402/2; sponsor Rangel defines hypocrisy »
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Beldar's take on the Veep debate
My immediate reaction, untainted by other punditry:
John Edwards is a natural advocate. His client? John Kerry. He couldn't follow the moderator's rule on the question where he was forbidden to mention John Kerry's name, then laughed and breathed a sigh of relief again on the next question when he could talk again about his client.
Dick Cheney is a principal. He has presence and gravitas independent of the President he serves and supports.
Both men traded some effective jabs. (I thought Cheney landed more jabs and harder jabs — in particular, the "I'd never met you before tonight" and "if they couldn't stand up to Howard Dean, how are they going to stand up to al Qaeda?" lines — but I admit that my judgment on that score is heavily colored by my pre-existing biases.) Both displayed an impressive command of details and facts and figures. But John Edwards is a mouthpiece. He's sunny, convivial, attractive, articulate, funny, slick — and hollow.
I'd have no reluctance in hiring John Edwards as my lawyer. I admire clever and competent advocates — I'm proud to be one myself.
But I cringe at the idea that John Edwards would be a heartbeat away from being suddenly thrust into the role of the ultimate principal and decision-maker. Edwards, to be effective, needs someone to tell him what to do, to point him in the right direction, to be his client, to define his role. But what if he becomes President? Is his client going to be an opinion poll? That scares me, as much as I like John Edwards. And I think some goodly sized chunk of America will have that same reaction.
To the extent a vice presidential debate can matter: Cheney won.
Posted by Beldar at 09:33 PM in Politics (2006 & earlier) | Permalink
TrackBacks
Other weblog posts, if any, whose authors have linked to Beldar's take on the Veep debate and sent a trackback ping are listed here:
» http://www.allahpundit.com/archives/001057.html from Allah Is In The House
Tracked on Oct 5, 2004 10:43:10 PM
» Cheney - Edwards Vice Presidential Debate from bLogicus
Tracked on Oct 6, 2004 12:58:26 AM
» Cheney - Edwards Vice Presidential Debate from bLogicus
Tracked on Oct 6, 2004 12:59:21 AM
» Cheney - Edwards Vice Presidential Debate from bLogicus
Tracked on Oct 6, 2004 1:00:20 AM
» Enter The Gerbil... from I love Jet Noise
Tracked on Oct 6, 2004 7:06:51 AM
» Debate Round-Up: Wictory Wednesday from ~Neophyte Pundit~
Tracked on Oct 6, 2004 8:21:27 AM
Comments
(1) Buddy S. made the following comment | Oct 5, 2004 10:03:07 PM | Permalink
Beldar, you hit the nail square on the head.
Thought I was going to fall out of my chair when Cheney said "I'd never met you before tonight." Whoa baby! If you can't run with the big dogs, better stay under the porch.
(2) goober made the following comment | Oct 5, 2004 10:11:55 PM | Permalink
Edwards hyper-outing Cheney's gay daughter seemed especially inappropriate. Sure that has been regularly reported - but Edwards throwing that out to spread the news and as sort of an example of flip-flopping was way over the line.
Cheney's simple 5 second response thanking him for acknowledging his family was the only dignified way to deal with that.
Its just too funny when you consider that Edwards probably was coached to say that.
(3) polyphon made the following comment | Oct 5, 2004 10:14:01 PM | Permalink
What a great debate! The first hour of the debate left me breathless and I didn't think the intensity could go on much longer. I think Edwards came out prepped to jab and attack, no holds barred, whereas Cheney came out expecting a more technical contest. What Edwards' attack-mode accomplished was in unfortunately (for Edwards) waking up a sleeping giant - Cheney is the one who really came through with haymakers. Edwards was on the canvas and bleeding by the time Cheney called him "Senator Gone" and "you really haven't distinguished yourself during your brief time in public office." I could plainly see in Edwards taut smiles and nervous guffaws thereafter that he was embarrassingly damaged. If the first Bush-Kerry debate was a ball game, this Cheney-Edwards debate was a brawl and Cheney was the one who knocked Edwards down for several standing-8 counts. Edwards did get back off the mat as a battle-tested trial lawyer would, but he is the one who sported the bruised-up mug, not Cheney.
(4) DC Carter made the following comment | Oct 5, 2004 10:21:46 PM | Permalink
Who was the mediator of this debate and who was responsible for her questions? When Senator Edwards was asked “How does it make you feel when…” you know it’s nothing but an open ended SOFTBALL. Then on the other hand I hear harsh questions posed to the Vice President.
Also, there is the matter of the “balanced” statement within a question, such as both sides flip-flopping (Iraq Vs. preliminary debates over the need of Homeland Security Department). Gwyne did a particularly fine job of working partisan views into assumed truths when asking a about a topic. It seems clear to me that there is a bias going into the debates as to who moderates and composes the specific questions addressed to each of the candidates.
Why not have a Bill O’Reilly or Larry Elders co-mediate with a Jim Lehrer or our friendly neighborhood PBS/.NPR mediator?
(5) LazyMF made the following comment | Oct 5, 2004 11:01:49 PM | Permalink
I agree Cheney had gravitas and that Edwards was a skilled debater. I would call the debate a draw. I didn't see the standing 8 counts the other commenters saw.
What basis is there for assuming Edwards is a guy that swings with the latest polls? Isn't it conceivable that he has actual convictions? All dems are not Clinton. Want proof of his commitment? Look at his wife. Sadly, a lot of politicians abandon their spouses for more attractive, healthier or wealthier mates (you are thinking Kerry; I am thinking Gingrich). That marriage has survived the death of a child, which usually destroys most other marriages. (Sexist comment alert) I think all Edwards has to do to get that coveted sibgle woman vote is appear on stage, loving a wife that is a little overweight, not particularly attractive, and who weilds no power.
I agree Gwen Eiffel was awful (sorry for the assonance). What was with the question choices? There were redudant questions and questions that came out of left field (AIDS in America...yawn).
(6) Beldar made the following comment | Oct 5, 2004 11:15:15 PM | Permalink
LazyMF, my question wasn't rhetorical. I really don't think Edwards is capable of functioning effectively as a principal; he needs a client. I genuinely don't know who he'd take his cues from if he suddenly no longer had Kerry to be his client. Maybe it would be polls; maybe it would be focus groups; maybe it would be Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle; maybe it would be Terry McAuliffe; maybe it'd be Richard Holbrooke. The guy is smart, and he has passion. But it's all derivative passion.
(7) TheSophist made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 12:27:06 AM | Permalink
I tend to agree with Beldar... but one thing that struck me (and possibly only me).
Edwards is a likable fellow; but throughout the debate, I was really feeling his desire to be liked. There's something about him that's very Clintonian in that sense -- his smiles, his rhetoric, his gestures, they all say, "Like me! Like me!"
Cheney is incapable of that. He's just who he is -- someone who's serious, with real gravitas, with real substance, who comes across as a man who's paid his dues and has nothing left to prove. Maybe serving 4 presidents and running a Fortune 500 company does that to a person. But none of the things he did or said had a subtext of "Like me!".
Curiously enough, I found myself liking Cheney more. Maybe because he didn't seem to need it.
Bottomline: Edwards was trying to sell me something. Cheney was trying to explain something. From a VP debate, I don't need to be sold -- that's for the main guys to do. Cheney beat Edwards like a dusty old rug....
-TS
(8) MaDr made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 12:29:22 AM | Permalink
Here's an example of a standing 8 count(my son's would have called it a "b*itch slap"). You can't appreciate from just the transcript. Cheney tone and demeanor were devastating.
CHENEY: Classic example. He won't count the sacrifice and the contribution of Iraqi allies. It's their country. They're in the fight. They're increasingly the ones out there putting their necks on the line to take back their country from the terrorists and the old regime elements that are still left. They're doing a superb job. And for you to demean their sacrifices strikes me as...
EDWARDS: Oh, I'm not...
CHENEY: ... as beyond...
EDWARDS: I'm not demeaning...
CHENEY: It is indeed. You suggested...
EDWARDS: No, sir, I did not...
CHENEY: ... somehow they shouldn't count, because you want to be able to say that the Americans are taking 90 percent of the sacrifice. You cannot succeed in this effort if you're not willing to recognize the enormous contribution the Iraqis are increasingly making to their own future.
(9) Byron L made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 1:55:46 AM | Permalink
Yes, it would have been a nice line by Cheney about never having met Edwards until tonight if it weren't a lie.
"Edwards, to be effective, needs someone to tell him what to do, to point him in the right direction, to be his client, to define his role." - Sounds like your describing President Bush to me. In order to be effective and coherently communicate his message, he needs Dick Cheney, because as we saw last Thursday night, he is unable to do it on his own. Edwards on the other hand has exactly the same abount of experience in government as Bush did when he ran for president four years ago. Need I remind anyone of Bush's resume four years ago?
Six years as governor of a weak-governor state. He had little foreign policy experience (Edwards, on the other hand, serves on the Select Committee on Intelligence in the US Senate), failed as owner of the Rangers (traded Sammy Sosa?), and was a rather unsuccessful oilman before that.
You can compare Edwards resume in 2004 to Bush's resume in 2000 and honestly tell me that you're more worried about Edwards being a heartbeat away from the presidency than Bush being president in 2000? I don't get it.
Overall, I'd say the debate was a draw. I could ramble on about that... already did on my blog.
(10) MaDr made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 2:08:07 AM | Permalink
Byron L
Wanna tell me what your definition of "meet" is? Just because you're in the same room or in proximity to someone else doesn't mean you've "met" them. Your refernce didn't say they'd met. By your standard I guess I've met hundreds of thousands of people counting all the sports events, conferences, and even graduation ceremonies I've attended.
Besides, I'd no more trust the JohnJohn site than I would Michael Moore's.
(11) Byron L made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 2:19:05 AM | Permalink
Looks like they "met" here (since you don't believe johnkerry.com's words, there's a picture on that one for ya..).
That's from the prayer breakfast.
As for the swearing in of Sen. Dole (R-NC), you'd have to ask her, but as the senior senator from North Carolina, Edwards escorted Dole to be sworn in by Dick Cheney in Jan 2003. I guess Dick Cheney is either one of the most antisocial people ever, has a very bad memory, or just flat out lies. You'll have to tell me which one it is.
(12) polyphon made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 7:16:01 AM | Permalink
First point is that "meeting someone" means you greet the person, shake their hands or at least say hi, and maybe share a few words to get to know each other a little. It does NOT mean being in the same room with someone, even if you see each other. Did they nod their heads toward each other even? Who would know but those two. Do you say you've "met someone" if you've done nothing but nod your head at them? I think the vast majority of people who understand social etiquette understands what Cheney meant by "I've never met you."
Second point which buttresses point one is that when Cheney made the remark that they had never met, the demeanor of Edwards confirmed it and the fact that Edwards didn't challenge it cast it in stone.
(13) Patrick R. Sullivan made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 8:36:50 AM | Permalink
I kept thinking that if Dick Clarke ever dies, John Edwards could be America's oldest teen-ager. Cheney did everything to him except tell him he was grounded and take away the car keys. What an embarrassment for the Democrats.
Up against a former White House Chief of Staff, Congressman, Defense Secretary, and sitting Vice President, they put up a guy whose only ability is to connect with twelve people in a jury box to con them into giving his client somebody else's money. Losers.
(14) GT made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 10:14:28 AM | Permalink
Beldar, polyphon:
The line about not meeting would have been great if it hadn't been a total lie.
As ABC News reports:
Cheney and Edwards shook hands when they met off-camera during a taping of NBC's "Meet the Press," moderator Tim Russert said Wednesday on "Today."
Notice that they shook hands, destroying what little is left of the rightwing spin on this.
This is an administration that lies about everything, even the silliest of things.
(15) jackson white made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 10:37:59 AM | Permalink
First of all, I don't think Edwards was a deer in the headlights. Nonetheless, he lost the minute he sat beside someone of Cheney's stature. I think that speaks volumes about Kerry's ego: he won't have anyone who overshadows his faux gravitas (I actually think Edwards has much more substance than his running mate but that has to be restrained).
There was one thing I think has escaped a lot of comment. VP Cheney said he has been effective because he has no designs on the presidency--and by implication said Edwards simply is positioning himself for 2008. Although the senator praised Kerry, he didn't knock down this statement. I think that Cheney scored big, really big here, and it will be caught eventually.
(16) David Blue made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 10:58:24 AM | Permalink
I am inclined to agree with Beldar's principal/advocate distinction. But I have no problem with Edwards a heartbeat from the presidency.
Whoever wins this election, a terrorist could not do his cause any good by killing the American president. (Which is how it should be.) It's as clear as anything could be that President Cheney would continue to fight for all he is worth, and he is worth a lot. It's not clear what President Edwards would do, but it's already clear that President Kerry would be a failure, so a terrorist might harm his own cause and could not advance it.
(17) Claire made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 12:29:10 PM | Permalink
Actually, I don't think Cheney lied about not having met Edwards before. I suspect that it was actually a case of Edwards being so eminently forgettable and such a nonentity that he didn't even register with Cheney on the two or three occasions that they were actually in the same room.
I've seen that, done that, and had that happen to me over the years, so to me it's a totally plausible mistake.
I also think that Edwards has, as Cheney commented, done absolutely nothing memorable or that distinguishes him from the crowd. He's a pretty face and nothing more.
I would have expected Edwards to do a fairly decent job as an advocate - it was his first profession, after all, and he wouldn't have made the big bucks he did if he couldn't do it at least reasonably well. But when I look at the content of his advocacy of Kerry, it was pretty lame, primarily because Kerry hasn't given him much to work with. Kind of like a defense attorney whose client has been caught red-handed committing the crime, and all his defense counsel can do is try to minimize the damage.
(18) Todd made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 1:33:03 PM | Permalink
The fact that the Dumbocrats are focusing so much on whether Cheney ever "met" Edwards before says everything that needs to be said about Edwards' performance last night. The little boy was out of his league.
(19) Cassandra made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 1:46:17 PM | Permalink
Edwards made what I thought was a pretty bad mistake of his own last night (or you could call it a lie if you wanted to be nasty like Byron - it would seem an attorney of his experience would at least check the facts on this one...)
Click my name for details if you're interested (or not)
Edwards:
"...a millionaire sitting by their swimming pool, collecting their statements to see how much money they're making, make their money from dividends, pays a lower tax rate than the men and women who are receiving paychecks for serving on the ground in Iraq."
WRONG.
Troops in the combat zone get a combat tax exclusion on their pay, Senator Edwards.
Idiot...
Or Liar.
Take your pick. Although he's in the Senate, so presumably he ought to remember that vote...
...or maybe The Gerbil wasn't there for that one, either :)
(20) Sydney T made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 1:49:11 PM | Permalink
The real problem is not that Edwards is "hollow", as he most certainly is - but rather that Kerry is also hollow. Personally I'd trust Edwards to be President more than I would Kerry.
(21) GT made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 2:17:12 PM | Permalink
Nah, Claire, Cheney lied.
What's worse he also lied about HIS attendance. Turns out Edwards presided over the Senate almost as much as Cheney did.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/6/11163/2940
(22) jackson white made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 2:41:20 PM | Permalink
The reference to Edwards as "the little boy" above is what I have heard all day from people across the spectrum. I hate that visuals counts as much as they do (hence, Bush "loses" last week), but that's the reality of television.
Again, Edwards never had a chance once he sat beside Cheney. I think Edwards has much more substance than Kerry and would have made a better nominee, but he looked really, really tiny last night. Edwards isn't an empty suit like Kerry but TV made him look like one.
(23) Todd made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 3:32:38 PM | Permalink
As a point of clarification, I referred to Edwards as a "little boy" not because of his slight stature, but because of his callowness. And he's not callow as a man, but as a Presidential candidate. I would feel very uncomfortable with someone like John Edwards representing this country as President or Vice-President, irrespective of his beliefs. I think the fact that he can't even deliver his own state (or even make it close) underscores this point.
I certainly didn't feel that way about, for example, Al Gore, even though I didn't find much to like about Gore. I remember Gore's fine performance on Larry King against Ross Perot regarding NAFTA. (Granted, Gore also wasn't able to deliver his state, but he wasn't a sitting Senator, either.)
(24) jackson white made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 3:56:27 PM | Permalink
Your point is taken, Todd. In Edwards'defense--which you did make--it is a result of his position as a candidate. I believe him to be a much better man than his running mate but he has to defend the indefensible.
As a matter of style and substance, last night the moderator didn't have a question about health care and Edwards tried to pretend she did so he could cram it into his closing argument. I used to practice and always wrote my closing argument first, too, but that sometimes bites you. It did Edwards.
I have heard the term "little boy" today more in the visual, stylistic sense, though. It is an image that appears to have stuck.
(25) LazyMF made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 7:19:28 PM | Permalink
I'd rather have Edwards as Veep than Dan Quayle.
(26) sponson made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 7:48:32 PM | Permalink
By far the most important lie by Cheney was when he said he had never tied Iraq and 9-11. The media finds it quite easy to focus on the other lie, the one about not having met Edwards. They're both lies, pick whichever one you want. And "ditto" that on Edwards vs. Quayle
(27) Todd made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 8:07:10 PM | Permalink
Both Edwards and Qualye were pretty poor VP choices in terms of qualifications for the office of the Presidency. Edwards is obviously much more articulate, but Quayle was probably a more effective Senator for his state.
From the standpoint of winning the election, the choice of Edwards makes more sense than the choice of Quayle, as a dead squirrel could probably deliver Indiana to the Republicans. Of course, Edwards is currently unable to do even that in North Carolina. They obviously were both chosen, in part, to "prettify" the ticket. I dunno about that strategy.
(28) Googleplex made the following comment | Oct 6, 2004 10:02:23 PM | Permalink
Edwards demonstrated his shallow understanding of policy with the "Saddam did not attack us!" He may just be spouting talking points, but why is the Bush Doctrine, which is the reason we are in Iraq, such a mystery to these people? Retribution (bin Laden and Afghanistan), while necessary, would have done nothing to solve the problem of fascist Islam. Good article on this in www.logictimes.com.
(29) nobs made the following comment | Oct 7, 2004 12:04:54 PM | Permalink
Lie, Lie, Lie that's the second most used word by Dem's right behind "quagmire" and ahead of "Herbert Hoover". Regarding Cheney on the Iraq/9-11 link. I cannot find one quote or speech where he says Iraq was directly involved in the 9-11 attack. What he does say (as exemplified by the MSNBC "gotcha" used after the debate - footage from Meet the Press) is that Iraq is geographically located in the center of terrorist turf where terrorists like those who perpetrated 9-11 live and plot. Dem's try to twist this to be a lie and it just doesn't work.
If it's so important to "be straight with the American people" then Kerry and Edwards need to stop saying we've spent $200 billion in Iraq (they know it is untrue the CBO, ABC, NBC and others have let them know), need to stop claiming they can get other countries to send in troops (again they have nothing to back this up), need to stop spinning the economy and jobs as a disaster when they know unemployment is within normal range, GNP is up, and all indicators show improvement. They also need to stop spinning the Iraq war as a "quagmire" - it is not and if these pessimistic crybabies would shut up and get on board we would get the job done. In the 17 months of "Iraqi Freedom" we have suffered less than 1,100 casualties - for perspective: in that same period 3,200 people have been murdered in California and 2,600 in Texas. Seems they are more dangerous places for Americans than Iraq - what do they say about that? NOTHING! Why? Because they can't blame Bush.
Edwards got a lesson in how real serious American leaders conduct themselves. He and Kerry are millionare (money made by others - liberated for their use) lightweights who would rather skip work, cruse around in limos and lunch with special interest lobbyists.
(30) sponson made the following comment | Oct 8, 2004 1:24:30 AM | Permalink
I'd say that nobs' argument is the most specious thing I've ever seen if I hadn't seen it before, said by Brit Hume and then torn to shreds accurately in comedian Al Franken's book. Iraq safer than California or Texas? How many millions of Americans are in each of those states? There are only 137,000 Americans fighting in Iraq. There are 35,000,000 Americans in California, 22,000,000 in Texas according to the Census Bureau of our great nation. At Iraq GI death rates, that would be 28,000 dead in California, 17,000+ dead in Texas in 17 months. Iraq by this conservative estimate is 8-9 times more deadly than California per capita, 6-7 times more deadly than Texas. Oh, and one other thing: both Texas and California in March 2003 had more Al Qaeda members and more WMD in them than Iraq, both now undisputed facts. You would know that if you read the papers this week.
The comments to this entry are closed.
