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
Didn't realy say it was a glowing success, I just used it as an example of a weapons program that was once thought to be a folly and is now in regular use. Technology improves all the time, but only if research and development is allowed to go forward. I'm sure organ transplants probably seemed like a pie in the sky idea at one time, now they're almost routine. Not everyone who has one has a successful outcome, but that doesn't mean they weren't worth investigating.
Thanks, I believe intelligent people can disagree, I don't take any of it personally. Darnit if I didn't just accidentally cancel my entire response to your post, but now my son is telling me in no uncertain terms that my time on the computer is done, so I'll have to get back to you on that.
I find it highly unlikely that the US was able to go through all 13,000 pages within 24 hours. That aside, it's obvious he no longer had those weapons he didn't account for. For Sadaam, even submitting that documentation was a step in the right direction. If the UN had further pressured him, it is very possible he would have submitted additional documentation.
<>
Can you link me to that report? Anyway, it is clear that with the sanctions that were already in place, Sadaam was not able to act on his intent. For this reason, the administration was clearly wrong in assuming that Sadaam was a threat big enough to justify going to war.
"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
It isn't silly to think he has lost interest in OBL when he says on more than one occasion that he doesn't care where OBL is.
It is not obvious to me that he means something different from what he is saying. You are trying to decipher W's meaning for me, thanks for trying, but I'm not convinced you are close eniough to W to do that.
How do you think the families of 9/11 victims feel when W says these things?
Don't you think OBL is feeling smug he got away with it? Wouldn't we be sending a message to terrorists everywhere if we caught him?
I disagree that OBL is least able to hurt us. Since he hasn't been caught, he is considered a hero & would be able to command much respect among muslim extremists.
No way do I feel safer with him out there & W saying he doesn't care.
It is not obvious to me that he means something different from what he is saying. You are trying to decipher W's meaning for me, thanks for trying, but I'm not convinced you are close eniough to W to do that. >
Well even if Bush is the evil uncaring person you seem to think he is, I'm sure he's interested in getting bin Laden from a public relations standpoint if nothing else. That's what I meant when I said it's silly to think that he's lost interest.
I'm not trying to decipher his meaning for you, I'm trying to guve you my interpretation of it based on the context in which he said those things, which is the context of what it means to the broader war on terror. Obviously the way he worded the statements certainly leaves the door wide open for people to interpret them as you have, but I truly don't believe that's what he meant.
I'm sure they feel very angry-I'm not defending his statements, they were stupid statements to make, only saying that I don't think he meant the same thing you think he did.
I disagree that OBL is least able to hurt us. Since he hasn't been caught, he is considered a hero & would be able to command much respect among muslim extremists. >
As I said, it IS very important to capture Osama-it's just not the end all of the war on terror. Yes he is considered a hero-not sure that making him into a martyred hero would really command him any less respect among muslim extremists. When I say he is probably least able to hurt us (and that's just my opinion, I have no way of knowing that which is why I said probably), I mean that he is isolated and unable to take much action himself-if he even is alive.
< Well even if Bush is the evil uncaring person you seem to think he is, I'm sure he's interested in getting bin Laden from a public relations standpoint if nothing else. That's what I meant when I said it's silly to think that he's lost interest. >
I see no real difference bewteen "decipher his meaning" & "give you my interpretation". Same thing, different words.
< I'm not trying to decipher his meaning for you, I'm trying to guve you my interpretation of it based on the context in which he said those things, which is the context of what it means to the broader war on terror. Obviously the way he worded the statements certainly leaves the door wide open for people to interpret them as you have, but I truly don't believe that's what he meant. >
I agree, getting OBL is not the end all, but I never said or implied it was. I think it should be a higher priority. Just telling me it is a priority while W says he doesn't care ain't working for me.
< As I said, it IS very important to capture Osama-it's just not the end all of the war on terror. Yes he is considered a hero-not sure that making him into a martyred hero would really command him any less respect among muslim extremists. When I say he is probably least able to hurt us (and that's just my opinion, I have no way of knowing that which is why I said probably), I mean that he is isolated and unable to take much action himself-if he even is alive. >
I've already explained what it means to me, yes he is the commander in chief, and as such he has troops and special forces in Afghanistan searching for bin Laden.
Pages