Now that the first presidential debate is over, we'll have the only vice presidential debate Tuesday.

While it won't be important as last night's debate, it should be interesting. Dick Cheney, the ultimate CEO, against John Edwards, a highly successful trial lawyer, go at each other. I would suggest a sort of natural rivalry.

Question for debate:

1. Do you think Cheney or Edwards will win?

2. Will it have any impact on the presidential race? If so, how much?

1. Do you think Cheney or Edwards will win?

Cheney: Frightening, cold/electronic hearted, possibly robotic profit machine and warmonger.

Edwards: Sheepish lapdog who merely adds a less hideous face and less liberal voice to the Kerry campaign.

I predict that Cheney will tear Edwards a new poopshoot with argumentation that to Fox News sounds totally credible, but to the rest of the intelligent community sounds as shaky as a house of cards. Edwards will smirk, smile, and charm his way around direct confrontation, and likely score some really impressive points against Cheney that Cheney will ignore and comeback with belittling.

2. Will it have any impact on the presidential race? If so, how much?

None, or at least very little impact. Really, no one cares about the VP's. It will still be very interesting.... I'll make popcorn.

Cheney: Accustomed to giving orders, not arguing points.

Edwards: Accomplished trial lawyer.

This will obviously be Edwards' win. The fire that we missed in the first debate will be evident in this one.



I've got a feeling that all the pundits are going to be surprised what happens. Yes, I think this debate will be looked back upon as being a significant tie-breaker.

This feeling comes from a vision of a spell being broken that has been over the US public since 9/11. We'll see if the premonition comes true.

1. Do you think Cheney or Edwards will win?

Oh, man, if I were Edwards, I'd be wearing cast iron underwear around maddog Cheney.

But, hopefully, the same quality that makes Bush so darned popular will make Edwards look good - that good ol' southern charm, accent and aw-shucks manner. The contrast will make Cheney look even more like a nasty troll.

With his law background, hopefully Edwards can tie Cheney up in knots until he's so apoplectic he'll really blow it and say something stupid.

If I were gambling, I'd put a modest bet on Edwards to win...but I don't think I'd take the points.

2. Will it have any impact on the presidential race? If so, how much?

VPs generally are the bridesmaids-never-the-bride in elections, but if Cheney really comes off true to character, it might give another boost to the Kerry-Edwards campaign.

1. Do you think Cheney or Edwards will win?

Let’s see, one opponent came to power debating for a living and the other sealing deals with shady characters. My guess is Edwards will tear him up unless the debate is held in a closed off room with smarmy defense/energy special interest types as the moderators.

To give Cheeney credit he’s not a bad public speaker, he just needs to keep his emotions in check.

2. Will it have any impact on the presidential race? If so, how much?

Since the VP resides over the Senate and is a pretzel away from the most powerful job in the world it should matter. In a race this close it could have an impact on undecided voters.

1. Do you think Cheney or Edwards will win?

Edwards because Cheney still believes in the stories of Atta and an Iraqi meeting in Prague even though all evidence is against this notion.

2. Will it have any impact on the presidential race? If so, how much?

A little because it will show how this administration is disconnected with reality even more. Like how Kerry said



This administration in my opinion just does not understand this.

1. Do you think Cheney or Edwards will win?

Cheney. Edwards 'use' to be a toughed trail lawyer, but after the death of his son, the birth of his two new children and with his age, Edwards has become quite the wimp. Look at him during the primary debates, even Gephardt was running circles around him.

Cheney is Bear, a monster. He is a tough CEO that doesn't take no for an answer.

2. Will it have any impact on the presidential race? If so, how much?

Nope. After all the numbers of last night, I wonder if anything would have an impact.

1. Do you think Cheney or Edwards will win?

I'd be willing to put money on Edwards, but I'm not cocky about our odds. I can't find the exact format of the debate- I was hoping for a touchy-feely townhall to play to Edwards's strengths and Cheney's weaknesses, but I doubt the Republican debate negotiator would be that incompetent.

Edwards is extremely bright, relaxed, confidant, and likable, but he can't afford to underestimate Cheney, who's very knowledgeable and forceful. Edwards will have to 1.) do his homework (more so than Kerry needed against Bush), 2.) be as "Alpha male" as Cheney, and 3.) bait Cheney into showing his crankiness, all without sacrificing his nice guy image.

He's capable of all three. He can, given the time, master the details of anything likely to come up (he was known for quickly grasping the complex medical details of his cases). The real difficulty will be attacking Cheney forcefully enough without looking "mean". He needs to look strong and assertive, but if he gets too aggressive, he loses the sunny attitude that is his greatest asset.

Basically, he needs to borrow from and improve upon Kerry's low-key button-pushing from the beginning of the first debate. Early on he needs to mix blunt criticism where he can get away with it (chastise Cheney on fear-mongering, proven "misstatements") and subtle digs calculated to enrage the Veep. If he can keep from looking bullied or inexperienced, the personality difference should tip it in his favor even without a Cheney meltdown (which would be wonderful, though). He has to avoid being trapped in his nice-guy, boyish image and thus allowing Cheney to look the tough elder statesman.

Of course, and any debater benefits from low expectations, so I change my prediction to the masterful Vice President Dick Cheney.

2. Will it have any impact on the presidential race? If so, how much?

In terms of a direct poll bounce, not much if any. Since we only see veeps at the funerals of foreign dignitaries, the choice between these two isn't high priority. If there's any people who'd vote Kerry except for doubts about Edwards's readiness, it will sway them, if he wins. I don't see a loss hurting Kerry in the polls.

What a win CAN do is maintain the momentum and further the morale boost among Dems while doing the inverse for the Repubs- and since Kerry is likely to do well in at least one if not both of his remaining debates, it could contribute to an important change in attitudes.

As we get older, my brother and I appreciate more the saying, "Age and treachery always overcome youth and skill."

While John Edwards is a Senator with some information at his disposal, Dick Cheney as Vice President is privy to far more information. Even though I dislike his politics, I recognize Cheney to be a shrewd man who has been around the block many times and will give the former trial lawyer a run for his money.

My best hope for any of these debates is that the American viewing public will see each candidate as he really is and will hear the truth. If Senator Edwards manages to call into question enough of the policies and record of the Bush administration and its secrecy, the Vice President will be placed in a difficult position, and Edwards will win.

If Cheney manages to put Edwards on the defensive before Edwards can do this, Cheney will probably carry the day.

1. Do you think Cheney or Edwards will win?

I believe Edwards will win, in the eyes of those who have yet to be
swayed, one way or another. He is a compassionate speaker, with
a very likable quality about him. Cheney, on the other hand, will
live up to his name, no doubt, and come across as the despicable
control-freak that he is....


2. Will it have any impact on the presidential race? If so, how much?


It all depends on how much stock people put into vice presidents.
If Edwards can address issues that are of great importance to the
general public, and do so in a strong and compelling way, it could
definitely sway a percentage...we shall see

1. Do you think Cheney or Edwards will win?

In the Presidential debates, we are told, incumbents usually hold the advantage. The Vice President, by contrast is inherently at a disadvantage. If he has done his job well, he has stayed out of the spotlight and has not pushed a personal agenda that conflicts with his boss. "What have you accomplished in four years as Vice President?" would be a deadly opening for the debate.

From my point of view, the argument a candidate for Vice President really needs to make is that he is capable of taking over the job of President if something happens to the President. His ability to cast a deciding vote in the Senate is usually a less critical responsibility; and if it comes to that, he will more likely cast it according to the President's wishes than his personal beliefs. Cheney is old, with a history of heart problems. To my mind, it will be up to Dick to demonstrate that he will be healthy enough to assume the Presidency if something happens to the President, that he will spend more time on the job in the next four years, and that he would be prepared to run for President in 2008 as many Veeps have done after 8 years as no. 2.


And if Cheney gets careless, he'll try to use some of that information. There is a scenario where if Cheney wins the debate, he loses the election. Should Dick Cheney happen to actually express his personal views effectively, he might give viewers the impression that "W" is actually echoing Cheney's opinions on the campaign trail. I can hear the pundits saying, "We've suspected all along that Cheney was really in charge, but the way he took charge of the debate tonight effectively underlines who the real power in the White House is! The Republicans should have reversed that ticket. This is the man that could have defeated Kerry in the last debate."

The challenger needs to show up, look good, provide articulate answers to the questions that are asked, and not look uncomfortable or intimidated.

I would say the advantage is to Edwards, particularly after "W" looked so uncomfortable in last night's debate.

2. Will it have any impact on the presidential race? If so, how much?

A number of pundits have pointed out that in general, people vote for the Presidential candidate, and not for the slate. I personally think that George W. Bush would have been well advised to select someone younger, better known, etc. than the current top salesman for Halliburton Corporation. On the other hand, four years ago, George W. Bush turned to Dick Cheney and asked him to select a Vice Presidential Candidate for him. He probably turned to the same man for advice on a running mate for this year's election.

If Cheney tries to paint his opponent as unpatriotic because he is a Democrat however, voters might decide to send him to an as yet undisclosed retirement community. I've heard a lot of arguments that we need an effective third party in American Politics. I have yet to hear a cogent argument that a two party system is one party too many in America.

I'm not certain where you get this observation of him, if anything, the opposite has been true during the campaign. Two days ago, the New York Times reported(registration required) about a scathing speech that Edwards gave about the Bush administration's performance on job creation. Edwards has also been giving the wood to the administration in regards to Iraq. During the campaign, he is being anything but mr. nice guy.

Take a look at what Edwards did for a living in the past. He was a trial lawyer, someone who represented injured clients and went up against some really good attorneys(who else do companies and hospitals hire to represent them?) in various cases. If Edwards is "sheepish" he certainly wouldn't have the reputation of being an adept and capable lawyer. From what basis in fact do you belive him to be sheepish and an inept debater?

1. Do you think Cheney or Edwards will win?

Prediction is a dangerous game, particularly if you are like me and don’t have a crystal ball, an Ouija board or even a reliable soothsayer in the neighborhood toconsult for advice, but I’m going to pick Edwards.

I think Cheney goes into this debate with more baggage than he had in 2000 against Lieberman. The information below from Gallup indicates this. If you are a partisan Republican, you probably like Cheney, but clearly he isn’t as popular as Bush. I wonder who would do better if a pollster asked if you’d prefer to have brew with Cheney or Edwards? If you are a Democrat and don’t like Cheney, then he tends to have horns and a pointed tail. Many images come to mind—the monster in a horror film, the villain in the song “Along Came Jones” who tied the damsel to the railroad track or the image of Darth Vader that many pundits have used to describe Cheney.

What is Cheney really like? I really don’t know.

The important thing, as I see it is that Cheney must start from say the 20 yard line; while Edwards goes on offense from perhaps the 30 or 40 yard marker.

The quotes below are from a poll Gallup conducted in late August and published September 1. With Cheney's attack dog role, I can't see any way his ratings have improved in the last month.



<snip>



http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/default.aspx?ci=12898

Gallup’s web page requires a user fee, but they do offer a 30 day free trial registration.

2. Will it have any impact on the presidential race? If so, how much?

The people who have mentioned Cheney’s health problems resonate with me. Should Kerry be elected president, I would hope he creates a strong role for Edwards, but I want to know that Kerry, not Edwards (even though I like Edwards) is in charge. Apparently some wonder if Cheney has more power than warranted. Further, whatever role Edwards has, if there is a Kerry administration, should be a little more open.

I hope Edwards forces the issues of power and secrecy Tuesday night.

In response to question #2, I would have to agree with curmudgeon on this. Even if one of them is terribly impressive and give us the best debate since the Lincoln-Douglas debates, people still base their decision on the number one slot. I would like to know if anyone out there is voting for either ticket because of the 2 man. I honestly doubt that would ever be the case, but who knows?

Ditto your comments regarding Cheney's health. Reagan was 78 when elected, and other presidents have had worse health problems. Cheney has experience, something that Edwards doesn't have a lot of. He's served in the cabinet, in the house, and has certainly "been around" in terms of foreign policy decision making. I think he will stress that and perhaps try and attack Edwards as being someone who might be given something too large, too soon.

Unfortunately, this debate will be little more than a bit of entertainment I'm afraid, no real effect on the election at all. I say that's unfortunate because I think Dick Cheney is going to clean Edwards' clock. Dick Cheney is the most powerful and influential VP in recent history, and one of the most accomplished. Even partisan Democrats will admit to that, even to the point of claiming as we've seen here in this forum that Cheney really calls the shots in the Bush Administration. Well, that's not true, but Cheney does have the ear of the President, moreso than any other VP in my lifetime and a real voice in policy decision-making.

John Edwards on the other hand is little more than a pretty boy with big hair in an empty suit. He ran for President because he wasn't even going to get re-elected to the Senate in his own state of North Carolina. There is a reason for that and that reason is that John Edwards hasn't really done anything in his time in the Senate. And yeah, I know he was a successful trial attorney, but debating the issues of the day with an articulate and knowledgeable person like Cheney is a whole lot different than arguing a case in front of a sympathetic jury for a child born with cerebral palsy, and that's how Edwards made his millions. Well, his "jury" this time won't be quite so sympathetic.....

The logic of your argument escapes me yehoshua, but not the meanness of it. Are you implying because Edwards suffered the loss of his child in a tragic accident that it made him a "wimp?" If you think having and losing children is a sign of weakness, then I'd guess you're not a father. If anything Edwards has become more empathetic and human, not less. Having (and losing) children makes you more human, but even more committed to producing a world that is safe and sane for kids.

Cheney recently broke ranks with Bush publicly on Bush's push for a ban against same-sex marriages. One reason was because Cheney has a daughter that is a lesbian. Does that make Cheney a "wimp" because he doesn't favor discrimination against his gay daughter?

That is a common mistake some conservatives make. They confuse exhibiting humanity and compassion with weakness.

Cheney isn't just a bear and a monster and a tough CEO. He's George Bush's Luca Brazzi (for you Godfather fans) and the kind of dude who looks like he'd cancel your credit cards, evict you from your house and make your kids cry and all the while smile that ugly, twisted little smile/grimace of his.

Cheney is not the face of "compassionate conservatism." Ever watch the movie "Dave" where Kevin Kline plays a guy who impersonates the president after he has a heart attack and is manipulated by a evil Chief of Staff played by Frank Langella? Dick Cheney is that guy. He is a far-right wing ideologue and he, more than Bush, is the one who led the U.S. into the current misadventure in Iraq.

Put simply, Dick Cheney is not a nice man. He exudes all the warmth of a cold toilet seat. He doesn't like campaigning. He doesn't like rubbing shoulders with the unwashed masses. He doesn't feel your pain. He doesn't like you.

We hear so much about Cheney's experience.

I'd be stunned if Cheney "wins" the Veep debate. He's such a cold fish and a unlikeable guy he makes John Kerry look like Robin Williams.

Cheney is accustomed to speaking as a CEO to stockholders and telling them what he wants them to know. Edwards is accustomed to speaking to ordinary people from all walks of life and convincing them of the rightness of his position and making human contact with him.

You can have your monster, yehoshua. I'll stick with the human being. Cheney has the voice of authority. Edwards has the voice of compassion. I think most Americans will relate to someone who understands their problems, not someone who reminds them of their boss.

Will the debate influence the election? Duh. In a close race like this everything influences the election.

Would you back up your assertion regarding Edwards "wimpiness" by citing articles, online writings, or other proof?? Or is it just pure speculation on your part?

I think of a scene repeated often in the comic strip Beetle Bailey. Sarge falls off a a cliff, grabs a tree limb and holds on for dear life. Although Sarge is a bully, the troops rescue him in the spirit of compassion. When I sit down at the coffee shop each morning to read the paper, I always read the comics first. Sugarcoating truth sometimes makes it easier to digest.

Compassion? If Cheney and Edwards held the debate on the edge of a cliff, I see it playing out this way. If Edwards fell off and grabbed a tree on the way down, Cheney would probably stand there with that evil little grin and let him fend for himself. You know, rugged individualism. If the tables were turned and Cheney went over the edge, Edward would be the first to holler, "get a rope let's rescue this guy."

As it is, the format will be a sit down affair. Pundits claimed that Cheney schmoozed Lieberman in 2000. In a schmooze format the warmer Edwards is likely to beat Cheney at the game he won in 2000.

1. Do you think Cheney or Edwards will win?

Edwards will eek out a victory over the well-prepared and tough negotiator, Cheney. Cheney's calm demeanor will be hard for Edwards to crack even though people seem to think Cheney is explosive. Cheney will not make a mistake like the "Leahy Flip-Off" in this debate. His only sin may be his penchant for looking bored and arrogant. He didn't climb the corporate ladder and stay in politics without a considerable number of "skills".

Karl Rove and Dick Cheney were smart enough to realize that Cheney could not win two or three debates against Edwards so they opted for at least showing up and taking a light defeat at worst. Don't expect fireworks from Cheney but instead expect him to be so calm Edwards will almost be forced to be confrontational and that may actually work against Edwards.

2. Will it have any impact on the presidential race? If so, how much?

It will have little effect since there will be only the one debate. Edwards wanted more. Cheney didn't. Edwards, if he manages to keep from "going after Cheney", will win and give Kerry's numbers a slight bump.

Edwards should stick to quoting Cheney's statements in the ramp up to Iraq and even Cheney's position in the 2000 Lieberman debate that IF Saddam had nuclear weapons, he should be taken out.

Link to Cheney-Lieberman debate on October 5th, 2000:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/V_P_Debate_Defense.htm

On August 26, 2002, Richard Cheney told an assembly of the Veterans of Foreign Wars this:



Source of Quote: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...8/20020826.html (38th paragraph if I counted correctly)

Clearly, Cheney's statements in the Lieberman debate and to the VFW needed only a few misinterpreted satellite photos and a yellowcake memo to bring the War on Iraq to fruition. Edwards should hit that very fine line as hard as he can!

1. Do you think Cheney or Edwards will win?

I believe Cheney has an advantage.

Many times, the Vice Presidential candidate is the designated attack dog. You can see this in the harsh rhetoric used by Edwards on the campaign trail...his reference that Bush-Cheney would lie about anything to get elected comes to mind. Kerry himself explicitly said during the debates that he wouldn't go so far as to say the President lied.

Cheney has been around the block a few times. He is very tough, although usually very calm and unemotional. He, unlike Bush, is very willing to talk about the details of what's going on in Iraq and where the administration wants to go.

At the same time, Edwards has a few skeletons in his closet that can be exploited. He is a self-made millionaire. Normally this wouldn't be a bad thing. But with Edwards, he made his millions by suing doctors into the poorhouse and out of the business. I think that when health costs are so important to many Americans, Cheney will be sure to exploit this. Edwards, to my knowledge, has never defended his record about what he did as a trial lawyer and how he made an estimated $50 million dollars in a few short years by suing doctors and insurance companies that simply passed that cost on to their patients and plan participants.

During his time as a trial lawyer, one of Edwards techniques was "channelling" unborn babies. He actually claimed that the babies' spirits talked to him and described their pain to him which he then relayed to the jury. He did this during cases involving cerebral palsy cases where the plaintiff claimed that the obstetrician did not perform a C-section early enough. C Sections are now given at a rate 3 times that of 30 years ago, largely thanks to these types of lawsuits. That drives up costs, too. That kind of stuff is definitely suspect, especially given his stance on abortion and the costs of healthcare.

2. Will it have any impact on the presidential race? If so, how much?

Very very little. A few guys in North Carolina might go for Bush because of Edwards (the reason he ran for President is because he was not going to win his re-election bid after his 1 term in the Senate). Edwards is quite young and very inexperienced. That might matter to a few people, because I believe Cheney will bring it up. Other than that, I doubt anyone is going to be swayed by this debate given the polarized election season we are now going through.

Compared to Cheney, Edwards might be inexperienced. Although Edwards may have a boyish appearance, some of us would not consider 51 as particularly young. The constitutional age for presidential eligibility is 35. Edwards more than exceeds that requirement.

Cheney will be 64 in January, and considering his history of heart attacks might be too old to continue in a job that puts him a heart beat away from the oval office.

I cited in my writing the following as 'proof:' ...Edwards has become quite the wimp. Look at him during the primary debates, even Gephardt was running circles around him.

yehoshua,

This is highly subjective. Edwards seldom attacked his Democratic opponents. Why? Down the line, Edwards is looking at the "big prize" and probably didn't want to alienate others in the party.

He did resonate with the voters and his ability on the stump won him second place the ticket.

Would you please define the word "wimp" for us? I hear it all the time, but I'm not entirely sure what qualifies someone to be a "wimp." Maybe he's just too nice. I'll bet he's never even kicked his dog when he gets angry.

I was under the impression that Edwards was not looking to be President but searching for the VP role.



I thought McCain was second choice?



Very well I think a wimp in the terms of this Debate between Edwards and Cheney, would be a person who is too nice in the face of a mad dog about ready to eat your child. I mean what is wrong showing death when someone is about ready to kill you?

At the time of the debates with the other candidates, Edwards was running for president. He stayed in the race, when others left, after Kerry took a commanding lead with either 2008 or 2012 in mind. You are partially correct.



This is largely irrelevant. MaCain may have been Kerry's first choice or even the choice of the public, but this is something like fantasy league football. It wasn't going to happen.

Edwards will be on stage with Cheney Tuesday night, not McCain.



You are using hyperbole here. Edwards may well be staring in the face of death on Tuesday. In fact, I think that's an apt description of Cheney. Yet Edwards doesn't have to take on Cheney's viciousness quotient to win. I think Edwards' pleasant demeanor has worked well on the stump and will work well again Tuesday.

I don't know if one can be too nice when trying to draw a contrast with Cheney. Early in the summer, Campbell Brown filled in for Chris Matthews on Hardball for a couple of weeks. While Matthews romps and stomps and tries to over power guests, Campbell tied guests in knots, debunked, defused and disarmed them, while smiling and acting as as if she were having a ball. I was sorry to see Matthews come back.

I think Edwards, like Campbell, can use finesse to do Cheney in.

BTW: I guess the word "wimp" changes with circumstance. According to the Random House Dictionary of the English Language "wimp" evolved in the period from 1915-20 from the word "whimper." It's exact meaning is "a weak, ineffectual, dull person."

I don't think Random House's definition fits Edwards or will fit him Tuesday night.

That worked for Bush? Speaking from his heart? It doesn't work when people are looking for aa leader.



You think to highly of Edwards.



I think it does. I know that really is not an argumentive point but a wimp can only be defined after the debate if Edwards is 'weak, ineffective, and a dull person."

yehoshua,

I'm laughing so hard I'm in danger of falling out of my chair.



Whether it's arguable or not, you've already declared Edwards a "wimp" on this thread.

Are you now hedging your bet and saying we won't know until after the debate? If that's your new position, I think it's a wise one. Let's wait until Tuesday and see what happens. I'm sticking with my position that Edwards will get the best of Cheney.

Edited to add earlier yehoshua quote.

IMO, it the debate doesn't mean a thing. I have never known anybody whose vote has been influenced by the running-mate. I will watch it for entertainment value only. VPs are for decoration only. When a politically savvy president is doing bad things, his VP will be unfairly blamed for much of it. Watch the documentary "fog of War" for clarification of that. Otherwise, they are forgettable.

The reason John F. Kennedy put Lyndon B. Johnson on the ticket in 1960 was to carry Texas and perhaps other Southern states. Kennedy did not particularly like Johnson and his brother, Robert, liked Johnson even less. Kennedy wanted to be president enough that he ignored Bobby's complaints and chose LBJ. It worked. Kennedy won.

The Kennedy Nixon debate was the first presidential debate, but there was no debate between Johnson and Nixon's running mate Henry Cabot Lodge.

See Robert Dallek An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy 1917-1963, for a rundown on how Johnson got on the ticket.

Do you think Cheney or Edwards will win?

I'm never quite sure what "winning" one of these debates is supposed to mean. If the question is "Which of the two is more likely to sway undecided voters?" I'd have to go with Edwards. As the VP is largely window-dressing in such a campaign, Edwards is certainly the more appealing mannequin.

In the campaign so far, both Cheney and Edwards have been employed as attack dogs. While Edwards has done this with charm and wit, Cheney has just been a mean-spirited liar. Were I undecided, I know which would appeal more to me.

Besides, Cheney has as little to crow about as Bush had. What's he going to say? "I started and unnecessary and illegal war and cut lots of deals for myself and my cronies - at your expense"? I can't see that as a very winning ploy. If he says just about anything else, it will be a lie - and Edwards could well call him on it.

Will it have any impact on the presidential race? If so, how much?

Of course it will - but (unless Edwards really goes for the truth about the Cheney-Bush administration) probably not all that much. At best, it will be an opportunity for both candidates to amplify some of the differences between their platforms. As we already know as much as we'll ever know about the Cheney-Bush agenda, this can only work to the advantage of Kerry-Edwards, where many details remain obscure.

As both are still relatively unknown quantities, it might also give the public the opportunity to get to know the individuals a bit better - which can't be good for the GOP. While Cheney has been in the second highest office in the land for nearly four years, most of the public knows him as little more than the monster in the closet. The more they do get to know of him, the less (I suspect) they will like him. Edwards, on the other hand, is likeable. At a time when the most superficial factors can sway people who are still undecided at this point, this could also work to the Dems advantage - but, again, probably not all that much.

On 9/11/2001, Cheney worked in the President's stead since Bush was in some elementary school. Bush's retention of facts is possibly quite poor, or maybe since pre-emption and who knows how much else has been conceived by Cheney, that might explain why Bush would not (could not?) go to talk with the 9/11 Commission by himself--he simply might not have known the information.

In that vein, it's possible that Cheney could come across as being too smart, leaving people to wonder if he hasn't been running things all along. While it would make Cheney look good, it could make The Boss look bad in comparison.

Maybe it is in the best interests of the Republican campaign for Cheney to argue to a draw.

I have to go with Cheney, only because of the format of the debate (I'm assuming the same as the one Thursday). I'd put my money on Edwards in a REAL debate, but in this time limited format with rapid progression of topics Cheney has the upper hand in being able to spew forth more lies and accusations than the time allowed will permit for a adequate rebuttal. As for the opposite approach, my hunch is Cheney will barely stray from the rehearsed replies and well worn propaganda, if faced with a good hit from Edwards I expect Cheney to not even dignify it with a response. Cheney is more stoic and better able to deceive, we won't any signs of humanity from him, just the cold hard truth according to him, which makes it a better sell han Bush can pull off.

Edwards is inexperienced when it comes to politics. I don't think 20 years as a lawyer necessarily is seen as experience enough to be Vice President. A single term in the Senate is the only political experience he has (no local or state experience at all, not any service in the House of Representatives).

To me, that is the definition of inexperience. Rumor had it that John Kerry did not want to choose Edwards as his VEEP choice for exactly this reason: he has not "paid his dues". Edwards was the most charismatic of Kerry's choices, however, and so he got the nod.

If I were Cheney, I would hammer this home.

I am already resolved to calling Edwards a wimp based upon other examples (age, death, birth, previous debates) So making a prediction (which is all we can do before the debate) Edwards shall remain the wimp he has shown himself to be.

And I am happy to hear I made you laugh.

If I were Cheney (and I thank God every waking moment that I'm not), that is the last thing I would "hammer home".

Since when has experience in elected office been all that important anyway? Frankly, I prefer my politicians as uncorrupted by public office as possible. When Calvin Coolidge was elected as Harding's VP, he had served for two years as governor of Massachusetts (and three years as lieutenant governor). Theodore Roosevelt had served for two years as governor of New York before being elected McKinley's VP. When elected to the presidency, FDR had been governor of New York for four years (and Assistant Secretary of the Navy twelve years earlier), Grover Cleveland had been governor of New York for three years, and Woodrow Wilson had been governor of New Jersey for two years. Ulysses S Grant and Dwight Eisenhower, possibly the best Republican president ever, had held no previous elected office.

Oh - and Arnold Schwartzenegger, for whom some would amend the Constitution for presidential eligibility has served less than a year as a governor, with his only prior political experience being that of a body-builder, a gay pin-up, and a worse actor than Ronald Reagan.

But the main reason Cheney should avoid this line of attack like the plague is that someone called George W Bush served less time as a state governor than Edwards has as a senator prior to his election. And that same guy had no local experience at all and no experience in either the Senate or the House. Nor can he claim twenty years as a successful anything. Prior to winning a governorship on the basis of his father's name, everything he touched turned to lead. To me, that is not only the definition of inexperience, it is the definition of failure.

So, sure, Dick, play the experience card - I'd love to see Edwards hammer you on that one.

As opposed to a term and a half as governor being requisite experience qualifying someone for president?

This inexperience argument is weak at best, irrelevant at worst. Unless you're prepared to become the president's nurse maid on Foreign Policy, Edwards is no less experienced than Bush was. Experience is far more of a concern for President than Veep. For what its worth, I don't credit Bush's horrible track record on inexperience, just bad judgement. Though maybe experience would have taught him to listen more to people who don't have their hand in your pocket or a spot on the bus otherwise known as coattails.

I love folks making Edwards the underdog...I think he's gonna more than hold his own against Cheney and likely deliver some nice blows in areas where Cheney is weakest.

Will it make an impact in the election? Unlikely. I suppose if Edwards routs Cheney like Kerry did Bush, it might make for some momentum going into Friday, nothing more. Ultimately, I think it will be good entertainment.

Doc

I don't think any VP debate has had an impact on any election. A candidates VP choice is more likely mean something, but the increasingly civil night of banter between the two will not.
Those who are already decided will not be swayed by the charges of 'trial lawyer, inexperience' yadda yadda versus 'Halliburton, evil-man behind-the-curtain' yadda yadda.

Certainly Edwards is more appealing to those who look no further than skin deep in their politicians.
But for all of the snide comments about Cheney's demeanor and persona........I find myself easily applying those words to Kerry..........