Edwards' cool levels debate field

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
Edwards' cool levels debate field
206
Tue, 10-05-2004 - 1:56am
Here's the original link: http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/politicians/edwards/story/1699641p-7949529c.html


By ROB CHRISTENSEN, Staff Writer

RALEIGH -- If Vice President Dick Cheney thinks he'll be facing the "Breck Girl" - the epithet Republicans like to pin on John Edwards - he may be in for an unpleasant surprise in their debate Tuesday.

Edwards is a canny fighter who outprepares his opponents, according to lawyers who have faced him in the courtroom. He isn't afraid of more experienced adversaries, has a large bag of rhetorical tricks and connects with audiences.

"If I'm going in a knife fight, and I have my choice, I am taking John Edwards," said Jim Cooney of Charlotte. "John doesn't like to lose."

Cooney ought to know. He dueled with Edwards in 10 cases.

Cooney is one of many Tar Heel lawyers who debated Edwards before a jury during the 1980s and 1990s, when Edwards made his fortune as a trial lawyer before being elected to the U.S. Senate.

Their advice for Cheney: Under no circumstances take Edwards lightly.

Edwards' strengths:

* He prepares thoroughly.

* He connects with his listeners in their language.

* He makes complex arguments easy to understand.

* He takes his opponents seriously.

Edwards made a living off more experienced lawyers who saw his mop-haired choirboy looks, small-town charm and wide grin and took him for a lightweight. That's one reason he rarely lost a courtroom debate.

And in some respects, the Cheney-Edwards debate also would seem a mismatch. Cheney is the very image of experience and authority -- a former White House chief of staff, defense secretary, congressman and corporate CEO.

But former rivals say Edwards has a history of besting people like Cheney: white-haired, "pillar of the community" corporate lawyers, respected doctors and all sorts of experts. He also has a history of taking on large institutions -- hospitals, insurance companies, trucking firms -- and coming out on top.

If Cheney goes after Edwards' inexperience in government, several lawyers said, he'll be walking into a trap.

"He's made a career of going up against the experts, leaders in their fields, whether it's medicine or epidemiology or engineering," Cooney said. "The first time Cheney gives him the lecture -- 'Well, young man' -- it will be interesting to see how he handles that. Various experts have tried it before, and it has not worked very well.

"He is well-experienced in going up against people who are experts and who believe very strongly that they know a lot more than he does."

Made-for-TV style

Intense preparation is Edwards' trademark, and few expect him to be stumped or surprised by a question. Nor can he be rattled easily.

"I would be surprised if he is intimidated by Dick Cheney," said Tex Barrow, a Raleigh lawyer who has faced Edwards. "I have never seen him intimidated by anybody. ... He will be very well-prepared and be very passionate about his positions."

Edwards has never been regarded as a great courtroom orator in the Clarence Darrow mold. His style is more conversational. It is a style that is suited for more intimate settings like the courtroom -- or the TV studio -- than a large hall.

Indeed, some say Edwards' vice presidential acceptance speech in Boston in July was a bit flat.

"In many regards the debate will be a more natural setting. ... It's just his background," Barrow said. "It's one on one. The courtroom is a lot more intimate exchange than a speech to several thousand people."

He also rarely hammers home a point, preferring to lay out the evidence and let the jury come to the conclusion where he led it. His style is to distill the major points, removing the jargon, so that everyone understands his points.

"He'll use 25 years of experience in talking to jurors and look into that television camera ... and make every person in the living room think he is talking to them," said Billy Richardson, a lawyer who has worked with Edwards on cases. "He is secure enough to let them form their own conclusions. That is a powerful technique."

One of his favorite techniques, the lawyers say, is to ask the rhetorical question of the type Ronald Reagan asked in his 1980 debate: Are you better off than you were four years ago?

Nor is Edwards afraid to take someone apart. He just does it with Southern charm and a smile.

"It is not John's style to be mean or sarcastic," said his former law partner, David Kirby. "John has the ability to destroy a witness or a witness' position in a polite manner."

Edwards once dismantled an economist -- testifying for the opposition -- whose sons he had coached in soccer and with whom he had been friendly.

The North Carolina lawyers who have watched Edwards in the courtroom say there is no way that he will take Cheney lightly. They also say that Cheney would be foolish to prepare lightly for Edwards.

"Knowing John," Cooney said, "he has played out all the angles that Cheney could launch and his response to Cheney's attack, and how Cheney will respond to that, and how he would respond to that. He plays four or five moves ahead -- like chess."


Staff writer Rob Christensen can be reached at 820-4532 or robc@newsobserver.com.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Wed, 10-06-2004 - 5:49pm
Forgetting politics, by what little we see to make such a call, I like Cheney, and do not like Edwards. Factoring in politics... who I am for changes, though the personal outlook does not.

In turn, I don't like Bush as a person. That I also don't like his politics makes a powerful combination of dislike.

Cheney knows his stuff. Edwards did call him on his cutting the defence budget (which I agree was apppropriate) but not enough. Appropriate because they are saying Kerry voted for it, and just saw a commercial on it. I hope Democrats run footage of Cheney making the call for cuts, because they are being disengenuous about it.

Edwards has some of Al Gore in him, and he had better take care... it turns people off. If the idea is to win, pay heed.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Wed, 10-06-2004 - 5:56pm
I don't get this line of thinking at all. Of course we should go get OBL. Yes, he should be treated like a criminal, isn't that what he is? If not, then what should be done with him?

And since we lost our focus & dropped the search for OBL to less than our highest priority, & went after Saddam instead, explain to me how that is effectively fighting the war on terror???

Aren't we capable of continuing the search for OBL while we fight terrorism in other places? Or is it that W can't walk & chew gum at the same time?

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Wed, 10-06-2004 - 6:07pm


Kerry voted for the cuts during the Cold War, Cheney after the Cold War had been won. Big difference.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Wed, 10-06-2004 - 6:19pm


Who said we shouldn't? We should, and we are. What I said is that going after him ALONE will not win the war on terror. It is a war against a movement, not against one man. Yes, he perpetrated 9/11, but we have to face the fact that we are at war with radical fundamentalist Islamists, not just OBL. This is a crucial moment in the history of the world, IMO-we either decide as a planet that the tactic of targeting civilians to advance political or religious aims is going to win, or we are. That is the main reason I will vote for George Bush-he recognizes that.



Once again, I never said we've dropped the search for OBL, nor that we should. We are still searching for him, we don't even know for certain that he's alive, and his ability to act on anything is obviously severely hampered. It will be a great moral victory if we do catch him, but it certainly will not be the solution of the problem illustrated so clearly for us on 9/11.



I don't know where you got that from what I've said, I actually said the opposite. It seems to be Kerry and Edwards who are saying that going anywhere but Afghanistan is "taking our eye off the ball". We are quite capable of it, and we are doing just that. I'm sure it will come as big news to our special forces and 20,000 troops in Afghanistan that we are no longer focused on OBL.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-12-2004
Wed, 10-06-2004 - 6:41pm
YOU be grateful that the american voters are intelligent enough to see through all of their lies and if all goes according to my plan, we will not have to feel so "secure" anymore. Funny you should say secure, because where I am from, when we are at the funerals of soldiers, we call it mourning.

But hey, potatoe, po-tah-to....
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-12-2004
Wed, 10-06-2004 - 6:55pm
"You have never lived in a foreign country where everything you do is controlled."

Uh, try again smarty havarti. how on gods green earth are you going to know how and where I was raised? that is quite presumptious of you and I demand financial retribution. just kidding, but gosh, How full of yourself you must be to be making assumptions like that. You don't know where I have lived and spent my time nor do you know where my family lives, so just go ahead and start apologizing right now for having the audacity to make a statement you can't possibly have even researched or ever asked me about.



and then you said, "I don't think people take this new kind of war seriously.. " what do you mean by new kind of war? do you mean one that was waged on false pretenses? Or one that was not approved by the UN or evil? I am confused by NEW kind of war.

Actually I am not mad, but where on earth would you pull that from? that's like me telling you you have never experienced the joy of a whopper. come on. how would I know?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2003
Wed, 10-06-2004 - 8:29pm
Nature of the cuts? Too often people think every single defence appropriation should pass... lots of garbage gets proposed, like star wars, bombers that are overpriced and don't fly, helicopters that are overpriced and don't fly... we waste a lot of money on defence, still do. Voting for cuts is not a bad thing. What matters is what the cuts were all about, and unless you have a whole lot of time, can't possibly ferret out such information bill by bill. When I heard Cheney say he voted for 98 tax hikes... makes me laugh. The number is different every time they say it, and it is garbage, a number pulled out of their...

Bet there are some conservatives in this country that would be all for converting every cent of our federal budget to defence spending. And bet they would be all for tax increases if it was for defence spending.


Edited 10/6/2004 8:31 pm ET ET by rayeellen

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Wed, 10-06-2004 - 8:57pm
< Nature of the cuts? Too often people think every single defence appropriation should pass... lots of garbage gets proposed, like star wars, bombers that are overpriced and don't fly, helicopters that are overpriced and don't fly... we waste a lot of money on defence, still do.>

Truthfully I really don't know the exact programs. But a lot of weapons systems that people deride as garbage turn out to be quite useful, such as the Patriot Missile and the Stealth bomber, both of which are pretty much indispensable. I disagree on star wars, a working nuclear missile defense system would certainly make me feel more secure in this day and age, considering that we no longer have that mutually assured destruction thing going with our current enemies-they don't seem to mind dying all that much. But there's no denying that Kerry's record is cumulatively anti-defense spending and anti-war, which would be respectable if that's what he truly believes-problem is at the moment he's trying to make that record disappear and portray himself as a strong military, tough on national defense type guy.



Those kinds of claims on both sides are kind of ridiculous I agree, anyone who knows how things work in Washington knows that you can vote for three tax hikes and ten tax cuts all in the same bill. You can end up voting against say, school lunches for poor kids because it happened to be tacked on to an entirely unrelated bill with which you disagree. I take all of those kinds of claims with a grain of salt, but Kerry has been rated the most liberal Senator by several independant entities-you don't get a record like that by accident.



They might be, but that would really scare off all of the old people, LOL!

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Wed, 10-06-2004 - 9:08pm
Sounds to me like W has lost interest in OBL. I can't understand why people think W is strong & steadfast when he says these things.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."

- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"

- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county . Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."

- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,

The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on

official White House site

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."

- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,

3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 10-06-2004 - 9:29pm

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/03/04/binladen.search/


High-tech snooping for bin Laden


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. forces searching for al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden along the mountainous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan will soon implement high-tech surveillance tactics in the region, enabling them to monitor the area 24 hours a day, seven days a week, CNN has learned.


It's believed that the constant surveillance of the border region and the "squeeze play" by U.S. and Pakistani forces surrounding the mountainous frontier will present the best chance ever to net the world's most-wanted terrorist.


Bin Laden has eluded capture since U.S. troops launched a search for him in late 2001.


Top administration officials believe bin Laden may begin to feel the heat from the troops now hunting him and might start to move.


"We are putting the pieces in place to throw the net over him," one official told CNN.


Among the devices that will be in place within days are U-2 spy planes flying at 70,000 feet, taking pictures, using radar and intercepting communications.


Unmanned Predator drones, flying closer at 25,000 feet, are equipped with cameras that can spot vehicles and people and special radar that can operate through clouds. Some of the Predators may also carry Hellfire missiles.


Ground sensors may also be placed along mountain passes to listen for vehicles.


Data from the planes and sensors will be sent via satellite to analysts for quick action. The U.S. military has bought up satellite transmission capacity in the region, to ensure it can respond quickly.


But none of the measures are being acknowledged officially.


"Of course you've heard and seen in the press that Osama bin Laden is surrounded, we have him cornered and we know where he is, etc., etc. And of course, we don't know that," said Gen. John Abizaid, commander of the U.S. Central Command, in an interview with PBS' Jim Lehrer.


Abizaid added that there are no U.S. troops on Pakistani soil, and said U.S. efforts with the Pakistanis are focused on cooperation and coordination.


When asked if he thought bin Laden would be captured this year, the general said he had no way of knowing.


But, he said, "I think that we will make it very painful for al Qaeda between now and the end of the year."


CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr contributed to this report.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------check out the links







RELATED





• Gallery: High-Tech hunt for bin Laden

Djie

Pages