Edwards' cool levels debate field
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 10-05-2004 - 1:56am |
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
The resolutions required him to verify disarmament-if you will recall in 1998 he kicked all of the inspectors out of the country. Now I suppose we could have just taken his word for it, but guess you gotta think if he's kicking out the inspectors there must be some reason for that. He did not comply with the resolutions, which is why newer and stronger ones were being continually passed.
And it was clear to EVERYONE in the security council in just those 24 hours that the document was not in compliance.
The time for negotiating was long past-and thanks to France Germany and Russia there were sanctions, but only on the Iraqi people, not on Saddam himself, who was busy making money skimming profits from the oil-for-food program. The fact that the sanctions were collapsing was another reason for the urgency-it was only a matter of time before Saddam restarted his weapons programs once the sanctions had completely fallen apart.
Ok--my guess is the folks on the receiving end of those scuds were pretty grateful for that 10%. Just curious, are you suggesting we ought to scrap the Patriot Missile?
Voted for a nuclear freeze in a cold war? No! We already had 25,000 nukes... how many more did we need? I seem to recall treaties that limited such development and testing... so the presidents and Congress were fools? I think having a quick triggered president is the last thing we need, and events of the last few years prove my point.
And now you parrot Cheney about Kerry vs Dean. Amazing how this happens. Never heard anything about flip flops until Bush mentioned it, and suddenly is all you heard from conservatives. And Bush did not change his position on same sex marriage to shore up the right?
We will disagree with this war being necessary. We crossed a huge line in attacking a nation that had not attacked us. It bothers me still, and totally undermined my probably rather naive view that we were better than that. I wish to have that back. I wish to believe in my country, and cannot when we go around picking fights and exploiting the resources of others.
As for Clinton, he was anti-war and said so. Bush was for the war and hid. Standing for what you believe matters, and he didn't. To me, that is the measure of a coward, for a fight and not wishing to fight.
Edited 10/7/2004 2:24 pm ET ET by rayeellen
<>
Can you please show evidence that "EVERYONE" in the security council found the document to not be in compliance within 24 hours?
<>
Any evidence that Sadaam was planning to restart his weapons program?
ITA!
I'm saying it's not the glowing success you painted it to be.
6 billion's been spent on something that has worked about 10% of the time it’s been used and appears to target friendly aircraft and enemy missiles indiscriminately.
It's no poster child for a missle defence shield.
I'm not parroting anyone, just describing my own observations of Kerry. As a matter of fact I just finished watching his live press conference, during which he said that Bush "fictionalized our enemy" and then in questionong reitierated that he does believe that Saddam was a threat. It's one thing to change your mind on an issues, it's another to constantly be completely contradicting yourself.
What? Look, Kerry has made statements that directly contradict each other. If you want to blame Bush for that, go ahead, but nothing I wrote was created by Bush, it all came straight from the mouth of Kerry.
Yes, he did, as I explained in another post, he did so because his postion, that states should have the right to decide the matter for themselves, was being eroded by judges who decided to claim the right to usurp the will of people. In any case, I disagree with Bush's position on that. But I disagree with Kerry's position on the matter as well, so I can't win in this election on that issue.
If you want to call everyone who served in the National Guard during Vietnam a coward, well, that's your right I suppose. I disagree.
I don't see any contradiction. The intelligence Kerry saw was the intelligence this administration wished him and Congress to see. Anyone with a different opinion in the intelligence community was mariginalised and or ignored.
>>What? Look, Kerry has made statements that directly contradict each other. If you want to blame Bush for that, go ahead, but nothing I wrote was created by Bush, it all came straight from the mouth of Kerry.<<
Fair enough... what of Bush's flip flops? Oh, those don't count, only Kerry's do.
>>Yes, he did, as I explained in another post, he did so because his postion, that states should have the right to decide the matter for themselves, was being eroded by judges who decided to claim the right to usurp the will of people. In any case, I disagree with Bush's position on that. But I disagree with Kerry's position on the matter as well, so I can't win in this election on that issue.<<
He changed it because Rove wished him to get the righteous right... er wrong out to vote. The courts were entirely within the scope of their duties, else it would not be valid, now would it? Oh, wait.. Bush does not like how our government has checks and balances... and that sends up more warning signs about this guy. He doesn't like hearing he is wrong from anyone, and pouts or drives through garage doors when he does hear it.
>>If you want to call everyone who served in the National Guard during Vietnam a coward, well, that's your right I suppose. I disagree.<<
Nice try to turn that around. If one is for a war, is qualified to serve in that war, but chooses not to when he very well could have, instead choosing the Guard, yeah... he was a coward. If someone was against the war and said so, and then stayed out of it... they are standing by their beliefs. Bush did not. Kerry served. McCain served. Clinton was against and stuck by it. I have no respect for someone that says we should fight them and then when the fighting starts is found behind a tree yelling "go get 'em!"
BTW, I have to say this... hope none of this is taken personally... you obviously know your stuff, are passionate about your politics... I very much enjoy the debating.
Edited 10/7/2004 3:28 pm ET ET by rayeellen
No, I'm honestly just going on my recollections of events at the time, and realize in hindsight that "everyone" may be an overstatement. But it was generally accepted that Saddam's declaration did not live up to what was demanded of him. For one I remember he failed to account for weapons that it was know he at definitely had before he kicked out inspectors.
The report that was released today claims he likely was. Given Saddam's history I think we can all make the assumption that if he could have, he would have.
Pages