The VeeP and VeeP Debates

[mr715]

I think we're all aware at how effectively Senator Kerry will rip our current President to shreds during debates. He learned from Gore's mistakes (God willing).

The vice president is a different matter. I'd love to see Cheney get torn to shreds given that he is the "politically intelligent" member of the current administration.

Right now, I'm sort of in between Edwards and Clark for the vice presidency, but I gotta admit, I dont think Clark would do as good a job in a debate against Cheney as would Edwards.

For all his good traits, Clark didnt wow me during any of the primary debates. Maybe it was cause of little policy difference between the top tier candidates, but I think/feel Edwards may have the spark it takes me make Cheney retreat back under the bridge he came from. Plus, next to Edwards, Cheney looks like much more gruesome.


M

[Cuban_Liberal]

1. Just the live, side-by-side comparison of Cheney and Edwards...

will be worth 5 million votes to us. :evilgrin:

[citizen snips]

9. Who is Ewdards?

:)

[Cuban_Liberal]

10. The typo police have arrived, I see...

:P

[citizen snips]

13. I was just jokeing.

I write a lot of typos myself.

[sir_captain]

2. Totally true

though I think at the moment I prefer the idea of the two American war heroes running against the two draft-dodgers. That would have to improve the public perception of strength on national security.

[Frances]

5. I really like Clark

but I think that Bob Edwards is a better debater.

The other reason that I prefer Edwards is that Edwards is Mr. Popularity personified. We need a man like Edwards to offset the fact that so many Americans see Bush as likeable (You can't imagine how hard it is for me to understand this fact when I abhor Bush myself)

[sir_captain]

8. Don't get me wrong

I'd have no problem with Edwards as the man. I go back and forth on the two of them all the time. I'm not totally sure, though, that Edwards' popularity isn't a bit overrated--it didn't help him as much as I would have liked to see during primary season. Would he really be able to help us in the south more that Clark?

[rocktivity]

3. Edwards knows a few things about debating and being prepared

having been a successful trial lawyer. Some worry that he doesn't know enough about foreign policy to go up against Cheney, but all Edwards has to do it put Cheney's foreign policy experience "on trial"--it isn't as though it's worth its weight in gold! (Or should I say oil?)

:headbang:
rocknation

[TheBlob]

4. That's for sure

"Plus, next to Edwards, Cheney looks like much more gruesome."

But next to Clark, Cheney's 'Security' credentials look like a joke.


And that's what this will all come down to..........Security.

[mr715]

6. Yeah

Clark and Edwards are both incredibly strong running mates.

Edwards brings charm, energy, and a second outlet for articulating democratic values

Clark brings the "outsider" feel, along with strong foreign policy experience.

Both are Southern. Both are ideal. My only reservation with Clark is that he didnt debate terribly well, in my opinion.

[lazarus]

7. Nobody did, really

Except for Sharpton.

It's almost impossible to "debate" in a ten person forum. I'd love to have seen Clark in a head to head debate with anybody, just to see how he'd have done.

Remember, this man was on the West Point debate team, he's run policy negotiations at NATO, he's smart as a whip. I have no doubt he could plow Cheney under in a real debate.

[Thrill]

12. I also think

the VP needs to be a little opposite of Kerry. I supported it being Clark. But he just doesn't seem like the firey speaker we probably need. And wonder how tough he will be on Cheney on domestic issues in a debate. But for Edwards I wonder how he will do on Defense questions in a debate with Cheney. He didn't seem to sharp on it in the Primaries

[returnable]

11. Clark and the primary debates

Well, I think you might be selling Clark a bit short.

I mean, if he didn't impress you, he didn't impress you. I can't really argue against your gut reaction.

But the "debates", such as they were, were a farce. And Clark was rarely ever offered specific policy questions.

Most of the time, he was forced to deflect some variation of the "Aren't you a Republican?" meme. (And I'll admit he could've handled those a bit better.)

However, when given a chance to really expound on things like foreign policy, Clark was usually on point, and far more informed than most of his opponents.

I think he'd shred Cheney in an issues-oriented debate. As we've seen, Cheney can't even get through a one-on-one interview without contradicting himself or administration policy.

Clark would have a field day teeing off on him.

Edwards, on the other hand, looked great on the stump, but offered bland generalities when quizzed on specifics.

But maybe that's just my gut reaction :hi:

[Darkamber]

15. I agree in part...

about Clark. He is very good when the questions come to the area that he is an expert in.

However, he does seem weak in other areas.

Not saying that Edwards is perfect in other areas. In the debates, they kept asking Edwards about Gay marriage and Tort reform even more then then the one question to Clark about whether he was really a Democrat or not.

Against Cheney, I think Edwards offers a broader contrast. And don't let the Mr. Nice guy with the Democrats fool you. If he faced Cheney, it will not be the same thing.

He's got the years in courtrooms fighting to back him in such a fight and in such a debate, we become the jury.

Final...Clark is very good on Military matters, but I haven't seen him tested on domestic issues. Edwards is weaker in military matters, but has more experience in a 'debate' like situation and could probably succeed better against Cheney.

However, personally, I think both could beat Cheney.

[mzmolly]

14. I think it may be Graham.

:hi:

Kerry needs an anti-war voice IMHO because soon the Iraq quagmire will become clear even to faux news viewers...