Who'd do best in a V.P. debate w/Cheney?

A huge factor in how a Kerry V.P. nominee will affect the ticket is how well the V.P. will do in the upcoming debates with Cheney.

Despite what the Dems (that includes me) think of him, he is mature, articulate, experienced, knowledgeable, and has an air of authority about him. He can be bested in a debate, but not by just anyone.

Of all the names being bandied about as possible V.P. candidates for the Kerry ticket, who do you think would do well in such debates? Second, who is someone who we don't know enough about to know if he'd do well? (that is, someone we haven't seen speaking on national TV much)

I wouldn't want to debate him - and I'm a good debator!

Edwards is great debating something he is knowledgeable about...but the debate will be about foreign policy and security and Cheney will eat Edwards up...look what he did to Lieberman.

I want to see Cheney try to ask Clark if he knows how to run a war!
:D

I think Edwards would rip Cheney to pieces.

Geez, people... has Mr. Sunshine blinded you that much?

:eyes:

I would scare him to death because I wouldn't let him get away with that fake populist crap. I would also run circles around him on issues surrounding the Middle East, of which I'd be an expert if only I was paid. Clark bloggers can back me up on this fact.
Better yet, ask Al Gore - whom I happen to love and respect - but I didn't take guff off him. Or ask Fred Thompson, whom I also respect, but from whom I asked tough questions. Bill Frist is a wimp - he doesn't get my confidence vote at all.

who graduated from college in 3 years and was voted by his peers as one of the best in his business.

The reason we have Gee Dub as a president is because the reporting world isn't asking tough questions. :eyes:
I wish Edwards had been vetted better by the media during the primaries.

Oh - and I skipped two years in school and was given the Chancellor's Citation for Extraordinary Professional Promise in college. I also won the best news story for a medium sized paper as a reporter... does that give me the chance to pop him one now?
See - your statement isn't a valid argument. Reporters are SUPPOSED to ask hard questions. Not play pussy foot.
And, yes, if I could ask Al Gore why he voted for the first Iraq war and did that alienate him from his base, then I could ask Wes a tough question or two, as well.

:)

They were the best debaters we had in the primaries. Any of the three would hand Cheney his head.

Clark for substance! NO ONE could call Cheney and Co. out better than Clark, no one.

I like him, I wanted him to be our nominee. I think he would wipe the floor with Bush in a debate. But not Cheney. Mr. Congeniality would look like a little boy next to our VP.

Dean is too prone to misspeak (you know, tell the hard truth)
Clark would add the right amount of dignity, but he needs polish on some of the issues.

I don't think he needs mean lessons. He won all those courtroom battles by using other skills that don't involve yelling or making major negs.

Edwards can kill with a smile and make you like him as he's ripping Cheney apart even if you support Bush.

I think he'd do just fine.

NATO vs. Asshole.

No contest. Bring it on.

that's why cheney is scared to debate him

hands down. No Contest.
If I have to hear the phrase "son of a mill worker" one more time I'll :puke:

them really go at it but he's my second choice. However if they ask many technical questions, which they will, Dean wouldn't fair so well. Clark would be able to handle any questions and also not hesitate to but the Bush administration down at every opportunity. Edwards is just too nice and not knowledgeable enough. The VP president need to be an attack dog like Dean and Clark.

His working class story will reveal Cheney for the rich business tycoon he is. He'll destroy Cheney and appear extremely charming doing it.

be charming. He has too much brown substance on him.

Its his style of debating, that has won over many voters. The contrasting stories, and visions between Edwards and Cheney will be clear at the end of the debate.

Edwards' "working class story" (and "story" is the word for it) is NOT gonna come up in a Vice Presidential debate.

I'm wondering if you think a one-on-one with Chaney is gonna be anything like those cluster-fucks we called debates with all nine candidates. It ain't.

Cheney will take Edwards apart on any foreign policy or defense topic (remember, Cheney was SecDef under Bush I). And almost all the questions will be about foreign policy and defense. Count on that.

Gephardt would also do well

Clark: Would be fun to see Cheney try "soft on defence, soft of terrorism" on him.

Edwards: Would be fun to see Charm vs Cold White Clammy Creapy Flesh.

Is seeing Clark use "incompetent on defense, incompetent on terrorism" with Cheney.

I won't insult the others, but Dean would be the most powerful against Cheney because Dean says what he thinks.

Gotta say this about Sharpton, he is a pleasure to watch in any debate.
With Cheney, I'd bring extra popcorn.

If only he were a more serious politician, he'd do great against Cheney.

Liebermen vs Cheney has been done, Edwards would look even more boyish and less experienced, if that's possible. Gep, well, UI think Gephardt would do well on points, but look less likeable than Cheney.

The thing would be to have a self deprecating sence of humor going in against Cheney, but be a walking encyclopedia. Gore in 2000 couldn't do it, but Gore in 2004 could. Dean could, Clark could, and any number of candidates could.

Kerry is going to kick Chimpy's ass in a debate. I can't wait for Kerry to say do you even know what the side agreements in NAFTA are? Watch chimpy stumble all over that.

When's the last time you saw him on TV? But delivering Cheney up to a debate with Dennis would be a fantasy come true. Dennis would eat that cold cyborg alive.

he enjoys destroying people in debate. I've seen him take on the TV whores, he loves it, and I love watching it.

He does love it, you can tell.

If Wes gets to debate Cheney, I think that could be the high point of this campaign.

Wes Clark. He'd wipe the floor with Cheney.

... that's exactly why I want him to be VP.

It's a given that Kerry will wipe the floor with Bush (all Kerry has to do is maintain coherence!). Many have said Clark would be better because he'd be able to hold his own against Cheney, whereas Edwards might seem a little wet behind the ears. However, that is exactly why Edwards would be better in a debate.

If Edwards is VP and loses to Cheney in their one debate, it will reinforce the image that Cheney pulls the strings. The President is supposed to be the superior member of the ticket, but if Bush is made a fool and Cheney looks competent beyond belief, it'll just confirm all of those wacky, lefty conspiracy theories about Cheney the Puppetmaster. That is not to say that Edwards is doomed to be beaten by Cheney, but I think the expection is that Clark will beat Cheney and Edwards will lose. If Clark wins, it won't be seen as a big deal; if Edwards wins, it'll be amazing. Likewise, if Clark loses, it'll make Clark look really bad; if Edwards loses, it's no big deal.

Do you have any idea what the media would do to Edwards if he lost a debate? The Democrats would never hear the end of it. No, we NEED a WINNER!

Wesley Clark without a doubt would utterly destroy him.

Probably in that order. Any one of these guys could take Cheney down.
No matter who you're supporting for VP, you gotta admit we Dems are blessed with a plethora of good debaters -- each with his own style.

I know, not a dem and not well-liked by many folks. But say what you will, the man can talk up a storm and I know he could run circles around Mr."undisclosed location".

Clark would not back down to that slant faced jerk.

I can't forget that Clark didn't do well in the debates among the Dem. candidates. So much so that his wife started using the slogan, "He's not a debater, he's a do-er." Clark's brilliant, mature, knowledgeable, and all those things. But debate seems to be a special talent or skill that Clark has not acquired (which makes sense---that's not really needed in the military or business world).

Initially I hadn't thought that Edwards could match Cheney one on one because although he's fast on his feet, articulate, and a skilled debater, there's a finish and a knowledge that comes with a person having worked in an area for years, as Cheney has, compared with a newcomer to the national scene, as Edwards is. Still, some of the responses have me thinking that maybe he could hold his own.

I don't have a firm opinion. I really just wanted to know what others think. Almost all the responses deal with Clark or Edwards, but there are a lot more possible V.P. candidates out there than the ones who were the Dem. candidates. I have a feeling that Kerry will select one of them to be V.P. I've seen Sen. Bayh on TV, but I don't know much about him, for instance. Gov. Richardson of New Mexico seems knowledgeable, but there's some involvement with Monica Lewinsky, I think.

lemme' hear that from either kerry or clark during a debate, and the election is won.

i think it is past time to call out bush and cheney as physical cowards. i do not say this to imply "manly" behavior is most cherished, but that a distinct contrast must be made between the busheviks words and their own personal actions.

If I can teach my dog to mention about how Halliburton is reaping many millions from a war that Cheney is profiting from, he'd be fine.

Cheney has a big target on his face if anyone can debate themselves out of a paper bag.

I think 2000 showed us that it isn't substance that wins these debates but likeability. And out of all of the candidates, Edwards has the best charisma. Cheney would come out looking mean and Edwards would be the nice guy.

Nice guys finish last.

Clark would kill Cheney with facts. This VP debate won't be a 1 minute (there's the bell) match between nine candidates. Clark would do well in a "regular" debate set up....which is not what I would call the debates we saw during the primaries...except for the last two...which didn't include Wes.

Nice guy?
No comment beyond that point.

WhereIsMyFreedom is correct, and where is the rest of you when these debates are actually taking place?

I saved tapes from 2000 and have watched the 4 debates in the past week. If you ignore irrelevancies like policies and words, Bush is so sickeningly LIKEABLE, especially in debates #2 and #3, I'm completely rethinking how Kerry will fare vs. Bush.

Bush was terrific with smiles, facial expressions and in utilizing self-depricating "humor." His timing was ideal, never interrupting or running over with his answers.

Meanwhile, he sits there emphasizing America can't barge into other countries and say, "we do it this way, so should you" and "the mission needs to be clear and the exit strategy obvious."

Edwards' only potential problem in the VP debate would be falling for the conventional wisdom that he needs to be tough, with less anecdotes and more policy boredom. As long as he's himself, he's the one.

Any of them would show Cheney for the snarly old crab he is, just by contrast alone, but Clark takes all the national security posturing right off the table.

Nor could Cheney go to the economy -- Clark's got a master's in economics... So where would he go from there? The environment? Education? Civil rights? He'd have nowhere to go.

The other thing I love is that Clark knows Cheney from way back when Cheney was Sec of Defense for Bush I.

and the possibility of Cheney blowing a gasket on stage by getting back twice what he gave I would say Clark. Definitely a one-sided death match.

I think Edwards, using more ruthless skills than you have seen in the primary forums- while still playing to the jury- at home could do it more masterfully and get out a positive refreshing message. Yet Clark's no nonsense attitude might just be something that Cheney should physically fear. And also Clark could win over the audience to newness and change.

These two are far above the rest of the field. Gephardt I think would do very well indeed in this kind of arena(more knowledgeable than the other two, maybe too much) unlike the general image he earned giving things to Bush in prime time announcement blips. But with Clark or Edwards you'd have to think fear instead of arrogance would put Cheney's participation in doubt.


In the end Cheney is going to be a subtraction for Bush this time around. I think personally, he is going to duck for cover like his own subordinates, let a better Veep figurehead in and slide in as a new gray Eminence elsewhere in the later cabinet, probably taking over from Powell. This possibility too will be delayed to the latest most exciting moment so it will overshadow his retreat and give no time to start holding him to account. Judging from his main guys resigning from this and that and still "being there" it seems a safe bet the Cheney gang shares this strategy.

I wouldn't pick a VP because of how he would do in one debate nobody will care about or even watch

is qualified to lead the country should someone happen to the Prez.

The V.P. debate will not be the ultimate determiner of the election, but it historically has been critical in helping swing voters make up their minds....both the Presidential AND Vice Presidential debates.

This is where MOST Americans see and learn about the candidates for the first, and maybe only, time.

Eat it.

No way Edwards can carry out a debate about foreign policy with Dick Cheney...not a chance in hell.

IMO, Clark, or Richard Holbrooke, are the only 'reality' candidates that can take out Cheney on this topic (which WILL be the single biggest issue of this election campaign). (Let's remove McCain from the options as this will never happen--McCain is NOT an option).

is what VP is about -- "who can you see running the show if the prez is offed"? Evil, patronizing, and smug, Cheney still has the ineffable quality of looking like he could handle a pissed off mountain lion one-on-one. Clark would defuse that image. Edwards would exascerbate it -- boy wonder meets a real man.

But it isn't going to matter. If 1% of the public pays attention to the Presidential debate, then 1/10th of 1% pays attention to the VP debate, and they're all hard core junkies like us.

He wouldn't have to be a great debater, though he is. Just standing beside Cheney would be enough. Edwards is handsome and relatively young and Cheney is old and crotchetty looking . Kinda like the Nixon/Kennedy debates or Luke Skywalker vs. Darth Vader. Plus the press likes Edwards the would declare him the winner if all he did was burp when asked a question just like they declared Bush the winner for giving weak answers against Gore because the press liked Bush more.