The closest look I got at Edwards was in the VP debate in 2004. I really thought he embarrassed himself there; I was very happy he was second on the ticket (well, I was happy he wasn't first). I just don't think he's got the chops.
Somehow, someway in the '04 debate Edwards mangaged to dodge and evade as many questions as Cheney. He really made polititians in general look bad (and the Kerry/Edwards ticket in particular). I really like his ideas, and I think he has done a good (not great) job of reaching out to the netroots over the last year. But his raging case of 'beltwayitis' will keep him from ever being trustworthy in the eyes of the electorate.
(I still can't believe he managed to make it look like Kerry/Edwards had as much to hide as BC04. Absolutely mind-boggling.)
i thought polls showed Edwards won.
regardless, I disagree with those who think Cheney won; seemingly people on the web who write about this think that Edwards should have produced a dagger and plunged it into Cheney's forehead and done a ritualistic dance.
regardless, VP debates are totally meaningless. Remember how Bentsen killed Quayle?
Edwards has great talents in creating messages. We can debate the messages he chooses, but I think you cannot debate his skill in communicating them.
Funny you would say that. I'm all for his messages - Two Americas was a great one - but it's his (lack of) skill in presenting them that left me cold, specifically in the debate. I expected a trial lawyer to be much better at making arguments and poking holes (no, not with daggers) in the opposition. He let lots of lies fly right past him without so much as an objection.
I agree that VP debates are meaningless - insofar as their effect on the election outcome. But as a measure of the communication skills of the participant, I think they're perfectly legit.
