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: 09-02-2004
Wed, 10-06-2004 - 10:42pm
Hey Chris Heinz is hot, he looks like John John!!!!
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-05-2004
Wed, 10-06-2004 - 11:15pm
Heinz is cute. :) Do you mean John Heinz or Kerry? Just wondering. :)
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Wed, 10-06-2004 - 11:50pm
< 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. >

"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,

Because these statements are taken out of context. Poorly stated, which is par for the course for Bush, but he's saying exactly what I'm saying-the winning of the war on terror does not hinge on the capture of Osama Bin Laden. It would be a great moral victory, we would all like to see him pay for his crime, but his capture alone is not going to bring Islamic fundamentalist terrorism to a screeching halt. Capturing and killing his leadership will, eliminating countries that provide terrorists with safe harbor will, destroying training camps and thwarting terrorist plots before they happen will, we are doing all of those things and they are every bit as important (probably more so) than capturing one person who may already be dead, but who definitely no longer has the capability to harm us he once did. Now I'm sure you'll turn around again and say, "What? You're saying it's not important to get OBL?" No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying getting him does not win the war on terror. Stopping the advancement of his goals does. We can't keep our eye SO tightly focused on the "ball" that we lose the entire game. We have to fight terrorism on all its fronts, all over the globe.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Wed, 10-06-2004 - 11:57pm


Research on star wars resulted in the Patriot Missile. I really don't beleive a missile shield is a pipe dream.



Right, but it's obvious Kerry's not after folks like you. He's trying to portray himself as a hawk to the rest of us, but his record belies that. By the way, I don't have a problem with anyone being antiwar, but I do have a problem with people being "anti-war no matter what". We have a right and a duty to defend our national security, and protect smaller weaker allies from aggressive rogue nations.



Don't know if I qualify as a neocon, still a little fuzzy on that label, but personally I don't know anyone who lives for war. I hate it, I am saddened at every death, every casualty. But I cried after 9/11 and I feared for people I knew and loved (though no one I know personally was killed, through a couple of unbelievable twists of fate). I do believe war is sometimes necessary, never more so than now.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Thu, 10-07-2004 - 12:11am
< And if we believe the REP party we will be struck again if Kerry is elected? >

Again, the statement you are referring to has been completely taken out of context and distorted. No one has claimed that electing Kerry will CAUSE us to be attacked again-what Cheney said was the danger IF Kerry is elected and we ARE attacked again is that he will again want to treat it as a criminal act and not as an act of war the way the Clinton administration did with the first WTC bombing.



Who says we're the only ones dealing with terrorism, and how is that relevant? So since other people deal with terrorism too we ought to just ignore it? Not sure what your point is there. I hope we are eventually able to eliminate the threat everywhere, not just in America. Who's saying we shouldn't live our lives? All they're saying is they believe they are more willing and able to deal with the threat of terrorism, a threat that is very real and ought to be treated as such. If you think anyone telling me about duct tape can scare me one bit more than 9/11 did, I think our perceptions of what is scary are very different.



Once again, nothing this administration has said or done has instilled terror in me-the threat is real, and it must be dealt with. The idea that we might forget, let our guard down and not take this seriously enough is what TRULY scares me-we are at a crossroads in history right now IMO-we either defeat this evil, and IMO that's what it is, an evil, or we get prepared for armageddon, the end of the world. I don't think I'm overstating the case when I say that, and if you think I am all you have to imagine is if al quaeda was somehow able to get its hands on a few nuclear bombs instead of a few airplanes. So is this administration instilling terror in me? No. I have a normal, healthy fear of terrorism if it is not reined in, which motivates me to want to vote for the people I believe are determined to eliminate it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
Thu, 10-07-2004 - 12:12am


I agree.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2003
Thu, 10-07-2004 - 12:51am
>>But dont you realize that the terrorists like John Kerry, so perhaps they would be willing to work with his administration in some form of a coalition?<<

You appear to be confused.

It's the Bush family that has the close, long standing relationship with the bin Laden family.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2003
Thu, 10-07-2004 - 1:15am
"While Cheney's language could have been more precise, I think that his point was clearly that Kerry would view any future terrorist attack as a law enforcement matter."



Perhaps if Bush and Cheney treated terrorism more as a law enforcement matter instead of an excuse to implimate the tennants of the Project for the New American Century, we might not still have 21 of the 22 most dangerous terrorists still at large 3 years after Bush unveiled the list.

http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elpoliticsto&msg=4031.1&ctx=128

Bush and Cheney talk a good game but their results are sorely lacking.

They failed to prevent 911.

They failed to capture the man responsible for 911.

They invaded Iraq which had nothing to do with 911.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-02-2004
Thu, 10-07-2004 - 1:39am
Chris looks like John Kennedy Jr.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2003
Thu, 10-07-2004 - 1:39am
>>President Bush's father was a president and was an ambassador. What better way to learn than to have all that knowledge in your family.<<

George W seemed to be too busy partying when his father served as an ambassador to learn much of anything.

In all the years George HW Bush served as ambassador, George W left the USA very few times.

As to what he learned from his father regarding the presidency; a reporter asked Bush if he had discussed the invasion of Iraq with Bush41, if he sought any guidance from his father before he ordered troops in .

Bush replied the father he sought guidance from was a heavenly father.

In addition as Kerry reminded him at their first debate, Bush41 (and Cheney at the time as well) had a very different attitude towards the necessity and long term wisdom of occupying Iraq.

Then again Bush41 thought the neocons were quite crazy in their plans and ideologies.

Bush should have learned at least that much from his father.




Edited 10/7/2004 2:33 am ET ET by blueishxx

Pages