by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright October 6, 2004
All Rights Reserved.

urviving an hour-and-a-half debate trading blows with Vice President Dick Cheney, Democratic nominee John Edwards proved he could take a punch and stay on his feet. Pre-debate speculation centered on Cheney's superior experience and fund-of-knowledge, potentially making the first-term North Carolina senator look like an amateur. While most pundits have the debate a tossup, that doesn't bode well for the Bush campaign, expecting to turn Edwards into mincemeat. Edwards faired much better than Al Gore's running mate Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) in 2000 who looked anemic and listless debating Cheney. While GOP spin meisters declared a knockout immediately after the debate, snap polls showed that the contest ended a draw. Despite taking some wicked shots, Edwards kept his cool, putting Cheney on the defensive for most of the 90-minute spectacle.

     From the get-go, the debate focused on Iraq, clearly emerging as the pivotal issue campaign 2000. President Bush and Cheney now only speak about Saddam's “evil” intent about weapons of mass destruction, not dangerous stockpiles—the original excuse for going to war. “What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do,” said Cheney, responding to Edward's jab that Saddam was not a threat to U.S. national security. “If I had it to recommend all over again, I'd recommend exactly . . . the same course of action,” giving the best X-ray into Cheney's internal logic. In a post-Sept. 11 world, Cheney contends that the White House couldn't afford to let Saddam go unchecked. Yet U.N. weapons inspectors corroborated that Saddam possessed no WMD. Cheney admits that he'd do things exactly the same way, despite the astronomical costs and loss of American lives.

     Let there be no mistake, Edwards was under the gun from the opening bell. Cheney was on the attack, painting Edwards and Kerry as flip-floppers, changing their tunes on Iraq when politically expedient. Cheney also accused Edwards of being a missing person in the Senate. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight,” said Cheney, blasting Edwards for his absenteeism—though forgetting he met Edwards at a prayer breakfast in 2001. Edwards, a relative neophyte in public office, found himself toe-to-toe with one of the Washington's most experienced bureaucrats. It's amazing to hear him criticize either my record or John Kerry's,” Edwards said, citing Cheney's past votes in the House opposing Martin Luther King day and a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela.

     Cheney stayed on point throughout the debate, hoping to rehabilitate his boss after a tenuous performance against Kerry in their first go-around. Above all, what stood out in Edwards' debate was that he was taking on the administration's chief ideologue, with the possible exception of Bush's chief strategist Karl Rove. Keeping Cheney on his heels, Edwards cited a recent news story quoting former Iraq civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer III, criticizing the Pentagon for (a) not deploying enough troops and (b) allowing anarchy and looting to go unabated. Edwards also pointed out the Secretary of Defense Donald M. Rumsfeld recently acknowledged that there was no “strong and hard” evidence linking Saddam Hussein with Osama bin Laden. “There is no connection between the attacks of Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein,” said Edwards, impeaching another White House excuse for war.

     What Edwards forgot to mention was that Cheney relied heavily on intelligence from former Iraqi exile Ahmed Chalabi, claiming Saddam was dangerously close to producing A-bombs, biologic and chemical weapons. It was Chalibi's bogus intelligence on which Secretary of State Colin A. Powell built his Feb. 5, 2002 case for war in the U.N. Security Council. It's naïve believing that either Cheney or Powell were clueless. With Chalibi now discredited and with the final U.N. weapons report indicating that Saddam had not made WMD since 1991, Bush's case for war looks even more tenuous. Cheney made much ado about Kerry's vote authorizing force, then voting against the $87 billion appropriation. Cheney blamed Kerry's inconsistency on copying Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's antiwar stance, something that rocketed him to frontrunner during the primaries.

     Prevailing wisdom had Cheney making Edwards look unfit to serve as vice president. While Cheney looked more knowledgeable and experienced, Edwards took his best shots without flinching. Cheney looked every bit the architect and chief policy wonk in the Bush White House. He possessed the details and substance not found in Bush's first debate, leaving some to wonder whether Cheney's running the show. Edwards made a good first impression, showing that he could take Cheney's best shots and land a few of his own. On balance, Edwards scored more points with undecided voters by demonstrating he could occupy the same stage as the more experienced vice president. “Mr. Vice President, I don't think that the country can take four more years of this kind of this experience,” said Edwards, telling the whole story that he could indeed go the distance.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.