I Had a Dream Last Night About an Edwards-Cheney Debate

[DoveTurnedHawk]

And while I don't recall too many details, I do remember a few things:

1) Edwards referring to Cheney's permanent scowl.
2) Edwards using the phrase, "Morning in America," and getting away with it.
3) Edwards pointing to how much good Cheney's vaunted "foreign policy experience" did for the country (which is to say zero).
4) Edwards mopping the floor with Cheney, and the media fawning all over Edwards in the post-debate.

I am a Clarkie, but I love either guy for VP.

DTH

[chimpymustgo]

1. LOL! Great dream.

Morning in America.

[bluestateguy]

2. Sounds good, but I have an even better idea

Wes Clark is the VP candidate in the debate and he calls Cheney a chickenhawk.

Oh, that's just to beautiful to even think about.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

3. That IS Pretty Beautiful

:-)

DTH

[AP]

4. Just an aside. I knew that Edards was an effective campaigner when I could

imagine his voice saying things. I feel like there's a threshold you cross with politicians -- and it's the same with well-written characters in books and movies, and even with your own family members and friends: when you start imagining things they COULD say that you've never actually heard them say, then you know that that their character has become incredibly well-drawn in your mind.

I could do that for Clinton. Hell, I could do that with Dean after a certain point (one thing about Dean is that he definitely established himself as a character after a point).

It's a sign of quality campaigning.

(The next step is for the public to actually like that character.)

[chimpymustgo]

5. Edwards has the likeability thing going too.

Next?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

6. What Dem Could Get Away With Using the Phrase "Morning in America"?

I can totally picture him doing it, complete in his voice and drawl. "It IS Morning in America again, and we WILL overcome our problems and restore this great nation's standing in the world."

Or something. :-)

DTH

[deminflorida]

7. O.K. here is a nightmare...

3) Edwards pointing to how much good Cheney's vaunted "foreign policy experience" did for the country (which is to say zero).

Cheney responding by saying but you and your running mate voted for my Iraq War Foreign Policy..

Then Cheney baits Edwards into a discussion on U.S. military composition, future operational planning and force structure...complete with numbers....REMEMBER Cheney used to be Sec. of Defense.

4) Edwards manages to talk around the issue with Cheney, and during the post-debate the media points out not only Edward's lack of Military knowledge and but his savy abilty to avoid the issue as a former trial-lawyer.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

8. Don't You Think Edwards Would Prep Himself Thoroughly on Those Issues?

I sure as hell would. I have little doubt that with some decent prep, he would do just fine addressing questions like those.

DTH

[deminflorida]

9. All the prep in the world won't make up for a life-time of experience

please consider that we are taking on a War-Time incumbent Administration.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

10. I'm Aware

I just don't think that Cheney will be able to use that very effectively, considering the mess he and Bush have gotten us into.

There are pros and cons to both.

DTH

[AP]

11. All the prep in the world can't create magic.

Edwards is 51 year old man who has a life that should be the American dream, and he clearly appreciates how he got to where he is, and he wants everyone to have the opportunities he has had, and he has the persuassive skills and the conviction and, yes, the look, and the biography, and the geopraphic origins, and the wife, and the kids, and a lifetime of donig the right thing, and he's a REAL democract.

Clark is great too. But I really think Edwards has the magic and the conviction.

[Linnea]

12. Kerry's statement about his VP choice

posted in ABC Online/Notes 6-18-04

"I have great respect for the interest that obviously exists with respect to the choice that I'm privileged to make. And it is a privilege. And I want to take it seriously and respect it in that way … I look forward to offering America a team that has the ability to provide the kind of leadership that the country deserves to cut our deficit, put our people back to work, to make America stronger and most importantly to restore our respect and our credibility in the world"

"I want to restore trust and credibility to the White House, and I hope that the person that I choose is going to be somebody who matches the expectations of the country about the kind of leadership that people want"

- John Kerry/June 04

Edwards? Dunno. If we look beyond the campaign itself, to say January 2005, with Kerry in the WH, who would he want at his side to accomplish these stated goals. I think he has his eye on Wes Clark.

[julialnyc]

13. he's only 51

but being that he's only 51 he has time to get more experience under his wings (with foreign relations in particular) and hold office later.

[AP]

14. What more experience does he need? He needs no more conviction.

Or talent. He has a ton of that.

I can look at him and tell that that he can do what he wants to do (that has been the story of the guy's life).

I'm not going to make him spend 8 more years getting bullet points on his resume when the fact that he can get them at will is apparent.

[Skwmom]

15. Who says its going to be Cheney?

In addition,if Edwards is the VP nominee I can hear the debate question now: Mr. Edwards, the NY Times has reported your ability to channel unborn children. In closing arguments you stated "She speaks to you through me. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/31/politics/campaign/31EDWA.html?ex=139...

Do you really have the ability to channel unborn children (like John Edward of Crossing Over fame) or did you lie to the jury in making your closing arguments (which is reminiscent of a certain democratic president who lied under oath to a grand jury)? In addition, doesn't either answer to this question really raise serious doubt about whether you are fit to be a heartbeat away from assuming the highest office in this land?

Edwards wilts under tough questioning (just take a look at his MTP interview). And come to think of it, he fumbled several questions during the primary debates (which would hardly fall into the category of tough questioning).

Furthermore, I think the Republicans will run ads questioning whether a guy who has spent a majority of his life being a personal injury attorney should be a heart beat away from stepping into the role of commander-in-chief.

Democrats cheering for Edwards is eerily reminiscent of the Republicans cheering for Bush. If ability to make a pitch to a bunch of Democrats at a Democratic convention is the requirement for what passes for an acceptable Democratic candidate these days, maybe the Democratic leadership should just open up the phone book and interview local personnel injury attorneys for the local races you seem unable to find qualified candidates for.

You know when you create a populist image for yourself, your record better hold up to scrutiny. Edwards doesn't and the Republicans will use this to argue once again that the Dems don't really care about the poor and working class, they just act like they do to get your votes.

[PopSixSquish]

16. ENOUGH with the Channeling Babies Thing

I have asked this question before when someone brings this fool thing up. Have any of you ever been in a courtroom? Hell, have any of you ever watched Law and Order? Does the phrase "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" ring any bells? Have you ever read any John Grisham novels?

A lawyer during closing arguement would stand on his head, whistle Dixie while drinking water from a glass slipper in order to sway the jury.

Perhaps Senator Edwards got carried away in his statement, but so what? If the Senator had been a DA and prosecuting a murder trial and said something similiar, would you still be bringing this up?

Lawyers bring the victims into the courtroom all the time, through testimony and through opening and closing arguements.

And by the way, has someone asked Senator Edwards this in his Senate campaign? If so, I am willing to bet, he had a good, sensible answer. Would someone ask this in the debate? Probably and he'll have a good answer and that will be the end of it.

Some Clark supporters state that General Clark will have a good answer if someone asks about his previous support for the misadministration, why can't you give Senator Edwards the same benefit of the doubt?

[deminflorida]

17. Well if it WERE a Court of Law, I'll tell you why....

"Some Clark supporters state that General Clark will have a good answer if someone asks about his previous support for the mis administration, why can't you give Senator Edwards the same benefit of the doubt?"


Because no matter what Edwards says or how he argues it, he'll be up against the very damning, hard core evidence that he voted for the mis-administration in order to give them the right to invade Iraq...

[PopSixSquish]

18. You Are Absolutely Right About the Fact...

Senator Edwards voted for Iraq. And that is one of the concerns I had about him before I decided to support him during the primaries. And I think that is a legitimate issue for people to discuss.

However, I took/take umbrage that overblown oratory in a closing arguement somehow makes Senator Edwards a less than perfect candidate for President or Vice President.

"I feel your pain" or "I didn't inhale" aren't exactly statements that Bill Clinton should play up in his upcoming book either.

I picked the "Clark supported..." statement, since I have seen it thrown around on DU as a reason to not support Clark. I don't agree with that statement either. By 10:00am PST on September 11, I was praying that Bush and his administration knew what the hell they were doing and was completely prepared to support them. I have since changed my mind.

And in the interest of full disclosure, my choices for the Democratic nominee were Senator Edwards, Senator Kerry, General Clark and Gov. Dean in that order. I would have been proud to vote, support, campaign, contribute, etc to any of them.

[Skwmom]

19. It's only just begun if Kerry puts Edwards on the ticket.

They will make sure this becomes common knowledge by November.

[Darkamber]

20. I hope they do...

Because the voters will be laughing their heads off that the GOP is that desperate that using Edwards closing arguments in a court case is all they can find to hit Kerry/Edwards up with.

Unless you will personally be sending this story out to every one of those RW corporate media places that you claim want to elect Bush and hope that one of them mentions this story again.

[Skwmom]

22. When the Republicans hammer home that John Edwards

is a person who has spent his lifetime being a personal injury attorney making arguments like this to bring home big $$$$$$$ judgments, that some of his cases were founded on very questionable medical science, that he is one of those lawyers who has contributed to the critical shortage of obgyns and specialists in this country, that he spent his first term in the senate shamelessly promoting his own interests instead of the citizens of his state, we'll see whose laughing.

Furthermore, Edwards channeling is just one fact of many that they will use to negatively define Edwards (and Kerry and the Democratic party in the process).

[Darkamber]

27. they won't use it at all....

infact the only one who has ever brought that baby thing is you.

As pointed out many times, Edwards has a plan to deal with Lawyers and the high cost of Medical malpractice insurance. And as you know, it is not the lawyer who decides the settlement but the jury. And they decided for the victems against the Corps.

The problems with insurance premiums for Doctors needs to come from the Medical practice and the lawyers. Edwards has a plan for lawyers.

If you wish to list your other 'facts' that will be used against Edwards, please do. But I think that because of his 20 years as a trial lawyer, he will be more then able to put Cheney in his place.

[Skwmom]

32. Let me think.

What's the likelihood that Edwards, owned by the trial lawyers of America (have you seen his list of contributors?), is going to bite the hand that feeds him?

This is a tough one. Hmmm...let me think. I'd say it's about as likely as *ell freezing over. You can argue all you want that this is not the case but I think that most voters will agree with me.

The Republicans are going to negatively define Edwards, and thus Kerry in the process (and they will be very successful in doing so because there are enough "facts" out there to sell their message). I'll work on that post later today when I return home.

[Cuban_Liberal]

25. If you beat that dead horse any longer, it'll be horseburger, Skwmom

[Skwmom]

21. The media fawning all over Edwards in the post-debate?

Do you seriously believe this? The last time I looked we had a corporate controlled media that had a vested interest in seeing Bush re-elected. Did you listen to the after debate reports of the Gore/Bush debates? Do you really think this love fest with Edwards is going to continue if he is Kerry's VP pick?

I guess you think we still have a liberal media or a fair minded media? Can you imagine if Clinton would have done what Bush has? He would have already been impeached and kicked out of office.

While the Democrats were busy debating campaign finance reform, the Carlyle Group was busy buying up local news channels in close states. While the Democrats were busy debating campaign finance reform, the Bush administration had appointed Powell's son to head the FCC so they could allow further media consolidation. The Democrats passed campaign finance reform which by then was a rather MOOT issue because the Republicans had already made off with the entire store.

Rev. Moon funded a luncheon for Bush when he first took office. Moon has always preached that the way to control the masses is to control the media. Well the Republicans have done one hell of a job of doing just that.

The media fawning all over Edwards in the post debate is about as likely as *ell freezing over.

[VOX]

23. Let me ask you straight out: If the Dem ticket should be Kerry-Edwards...

Will you vote Democratic?

I'm just wondering, since every time Edwards is mentioned here on DU, you bring up the dead-baby-channeling thing, etc. It's obvious that you have a thing against Edwards, which is your prerogative. I'm just wondering how deeply your dislike of Edwards runs.

Should Edwards be the veep nominee, will you still support the Democratic ticket?

[Cuban_Liberal]

26. Do I hear crickets chirping? n/t

[Skwmom]

29. If the Democratic ticket is Kerry/Edwards

I won't have to worry about voting for a ticket which includes the personal injury attorney (because Bush/Cheney (or his new VP) will be so far ahead my vote won't make a difference).

[xkenx]

24. EDWARDS VS. CHENEY, CLARK VS. CHENEY

This election WILL be about national security. Edwards has ZERO
experience there. Despite Edwards sunny disposition, Cheney will chew him up and expose him for an empty suit. Despite even Kerry's
security credentials, he will be painted as weak because of his post-
Vietnam stands, and some Senate votes. He needs a VP with very strong
security credentials to attract independents and some Repubs. Wes Clark, on the other hand, will chew Cheney up and spit him out and provide just that backup for Kerry.

Why General Clark is the best choice for VP:

Polls show Kerry ahead of W on domestic issues, behind on national security. Overall a dead heat. W may creep up domestically as economy improves, so Kerry needs to siphon away some of W's support on security. way, and This election WILL be about national security and terrorism because W will make it that. Look at the headlines from Iraq dominating the news. Bush has already put Kerry on the defensive questioning Senate votes and the "ribbon-throwing" incident. All Bush has to do is neutralize Kerry on war/terror, and he keeps his lead. Kerry can co-opt the national security theme on Bush.
Enter Wes Clark: Clark can stand up and say, "Vietnam was a disaster, but I stayed in the military afterwards to build the great all-volunteer Army we have today. Sen. Kerry said "Send me to Vietnam" and served with great courage and honor in that war. Sen Kerry criticized that war afterwards, and I consider that dissent an act of patriotism, for he had the nation's best interests at heart. Sen. Kerry backed up that service by serving his country for these many years in the Senate, including not forgetting Vietnam as he worked with Sen.McCain for years to retrieve our POW's & MIAs. I am proud to stand with Sen. Kerry, a man I consider to be one of the great patriots of our time". (As he wraps himself in the flag and talks about winning the only war NATO ever fought, this man who is one of the most decorated military heroes in U.S. history). This man can bring in military and ex-military votes which NO other VP candidate can do,and he is "squeaky-clean."

There are many other areas where Clark complements Kerry:

1.Ability to step into the Presidency if necessary. Clark has a career of military and diplomatic leadership unparalled. He has earned the respect of European leaders (he has knighthoods or the equivalent from 18 european nations) and understands the Arab world. NO ONE has Clark's credentials to help repair our alliances around the world and gracefully resolve the Iraq problem. Plus, something that many people do not realize, as one of our major military commanders, Clark had "domestic affairs" responsibilities similar to those of mayors and governors. He was responsible for the everyday lives (schools, healthcare, safety, career advancement, etc.) of those under his command, numbering hundreds of thousands at times.

2.Clark brings a "common man" background, someone who grew up poor, earned an appointment to West Point where he finished 1st in his class,
became a decorated war hero--someone with the brains, talent, and drive to go into the business world and make lots of money--who instead chose to serve his country for another 30 years or so. If this man isn't a true American hero, I don't know who is.

3. Agreement on issues: Kerry and Clark are very closely in agreementon Foreign Affairs / Homeland Security issues as well as on Free
Trade, and most domestic issues.

4. Campaigning against Bush: Clark has demonstrated, both during his campaign and since endorsing Kerry, that he is both loyal to Kerry and is a tireless campaigner against Bush. Clark has "fire in his belly" on defeating Bush. Clark can take on Bush/Cheney on all issues, especially those
where Bush would like to think he is strongest.

5. Helping to win Electoral Votes - Clark should help to win all the Swing States that Al Gore just missed winning and retain the Blue States that Bush would like to have. Most candidates are mentioned because they might win one state for Kerry, Clark could help in ALL of the above swing states. This is because he is an Arkansas Southerner who also proved to be popular in the Southwest and among Hispanics and American Indians. In fact, with General Clark's military background and "All American" image he has more popularity than most democrats such as John Kerry in all parts of the country where Republicans tend to be popular. With his Military Supreme Commander status, if he could get just 10% of military families to vote Democratic (who would otherwise vote Republican) this could change the outcome in a number of states. Although Wes is now a very progressive Democrat, his past background makes people feel secure. His comfort with Religion also helps. Both Kerry and Clark have a long history of using guns (despite being pro gun control.)

6. Taking on Dick Cheney: There will be a VP debate. Only Clark can face Cheney and cite Pentagon "inside information" about how Cheney decided from the beginning to go to war with Iraq. On all military related issues, Clark will be more believable than Cheney to millions of swing voters. 4 star hero vs. the
"chickenhawk."

7. Raising funds for Kerry: This is very important to Kerry since Bush has raised so much money. It was Wes Clark who raised almost $9 million in January alone, pre-matching funds. This was about 2 million more than his closest rival. In the 5 months of his campaign, he raised about as much as Dean. While Dean started the Internet dominance, Clark continued it with equal success and still has the best web site and Blog Community around. Since Dean isn't suitable as Kerry's VP, Clark is the best choice to attract the "outsider" type people who support Dean. Clark was often the 2nd choice among Dean supporters and their 1st choice for VP under Dean. In summary, with Clark as VP choice, there would be BY FAR the largest fundraising boost to the Kerry campaign as well as a likely union with Howard Dean and his supporters. Lets also remember that Clark was the most popular with the wealthy and powerful Hollywood crowd.

8. Mutual respect: Since Kerry and his VP choice will probably be together for months, getting along with mutual respect is very important. They have to be able to share each other's secrets. As has been demonstrated repeatedly, their mutual respect for each other's careers is apparent.

9. Kerry and Clark already have a name for their ticket that no one else can claim, "TWO PATRIOTS, ONE MISSION." This alone will be worth millions in free advertising. Undecided voters are easily swayed by these powerful slogans.

10. Appeal to the Church going Americans and Patriotism-Wes Clark has a background that includes several faiths. He is the "most comfortable" of all the major VP contenders with "God" and "American Patriotism". The Flag really means something to him. This is why he is a danger to Republicans in all parts of the country. He still is Karl Rove's worst Nightmare.

11. Is VP the best position for Clark? Some would say that Clark should be saved for Secretary of State. However, if we waited, it is very possible that Kerry would lose a close election. Additionally, as VP he could be used as a 2nd Secretary of State, Defense and Homeland Security. As shown by Cheney, a VP can be very powerful when they are strong and respected by the President in National Security issues.

[Darkamber]

28. Edwards is on the Senate Intelligence committee...

And if all this election will be about is National Security then I would be very sad indeed. National Security will not help my children in schools. National Security will not help my parents pay for the skyrocketing drug costs. National Security will not help my husband keep his job due to massive downsizing in the Federal government in the US Forest Service.

There are more issues then just National Security and the War. And Edwards would be able to what he has done for years with Cheney. Chew him up and spit him out with a smile so that even the GOP voters will like Edwards as he does it.

I have complete faith that Edward would do just fine against Cheney.

[nursbetty]

30. Clark's sophisticated intellect will confuse Cheney

The GOP won't know what hit them!!!!!!

[VolcanoJen]

31. Sweet Dreams, D.

:loveya: