Do you know why Edwards didn't call Cheney out on his lies?

[Devil Dog Dem]

Particularly the easy ones like "never linked Saddam to 9/11" and "We've never met"??

Because as an experienced litigator, Edwards knows that -in a deposition - it is better to lock a person in on his "testimony" then to push back and give them a chance to weasel out of it when you have them in a demonstrable lie. Then, when you are in trial you hit them with the lie in front of the jury, and their credibility is shot.

Here, had Edwards pushed back, there is a chance that Cheney would have weaseled out of it some (not sure how, but he COULD have tried). As it is now, K/E have clean statements from Cheney, and they can now run clean commercials showing Cheney saying one thing tonight, and something else long ago (like saying Saddam himself ordered airplanes into the WTC).

It took discipline, but Edwards held back and did the right thing.

[bhunt70]

1. nice assessment. <nt>

[Carla in Ca]

28. I had the same question, but now I understand

n/t

[DeepModem Mom]

2. Interesting -- I think you're right --

[AP]

3. Tomorrow's speeches are going to be very interesting.

And yes, unlike Gore, I'm sure Kerry and Edwards have this one planned several moves in advance.

[DenverDem]

4. Johnny K and Johnny E were both incredibly smart and disciplined.

busholini inc is swinging from a rope they themselves wove.

So SWEET!!

Great job, K/E!!!

[Guaranteed]

5. NICE post. nt

[gardenista]

6. I completely agree with you. Edwards gaved Cheney the rope.

Let the debunking begin!!!

This is a great way to get the national conversation centered around the LIES of this administration!

[BOSSHOG]

7. HE ONLY HAD 90 SECONDS?

[bling bling]

8. Edwards is a genius

WAY more devastating for the truth to come out this way -- by the media -- after the debate.

Bush and Cheney, your free passes from the media have officially expired.

[sandnsea]

9. Oh, very very interesting

Yes, I think you're right. Brilliant.

[Eye and Monkey]

10. Nice

[Mountainman]

11. He would have had to spend the whole debate pointing out Cheney's lies

rather than saying something of merit himself. We've all heard the lies before and debunked them all by now. Cheney didn't say anything I haven't heard before.

[Lex]

Yes, the debate *is* the record, the deposition.

If John had immediately said "You HAVE too seen me before tonight." Dick would've said, "Oh yeah, that's right. Forgot about that." END OF STORY.

But John lets it sit out there for the media to slice up, for him to take on the campaign trail.

"They'll lie about ANYthing. He even lied about meeting me before."

[kwolf68]

12. Agree

Edwards was playing "rope a dope."

We got this on tape. As Joe Namath said about the Oakland Raiders cheating ways, "Its ON FILM!!!"

For every and ever FU.

[Eric J in MN]

13. I'm not sure if that was a good strategy. Isn't refuting Cheney's lies

in front of millions of people in a debate the best time/place.

[Devil Dog Dem]

15. Not clearly demonstrable ones like "I never said Saddam had ties to AQ"

That's better for effect in front of the jury (i.e., the voters) when you kill him with his own words on Russert, etc.

The other issues that you call him on on the spot (things are going well in the war, etc.) are argument and aren't easily demonstrable, so you call him then on TV.

[Craig Roberts]

14. I think you're right

I also think Edwards was being careful not to be put on the defensive too much. He doesn't want to spend the whole debate responding to Cheney's accusations because that means Cheney is in control and makes it look like Edwards is on the ropes. Sometimes he just ignored Cheney's charges and lobbed his own charges in return.

But I agree with you, and I think there is an ad in our future with Cheney "flip-flopping" on the Iraq/911 connection.

[Oak2004]

20. Absolutely. Cheney's strategy...

... (and I do think it was a conscious, preplanned, strategy) was to snow Edwards under with lies. If Edwards had risen to the bait, it would have come across to voters as yet another case of candidates exchanging accusations, and the substance of the debate would have been on issues of Cheney's choosing. I. like most of you, I'm sure, was shouting rebuttals to the Automated Lying Machine at the TV, and would have loved it if Edwards had lit into Cheney on many of those flagrant, flagrant lies -- but Edwards played it right, and parried the strategy effectively.

(That said, I've discovered it's really not good for one's self restraint to watch your new DVD of "Fahrenheit 9/11" as a lead in to watching the Automated Lying Machine spew for 90 minutes. I was all but spitting at my TV set.)

[Craig Roberts]

31. LOL

[Carla in Ca]

16. So you are saying instead of confronting him

then and there, save it for talking points?

[Lex]

17. He refuted some things and some things weren't worth

"Yes you did" "No I didn't" "Yes you did" type of exchanges.

Edwards picks his battles with great skill, I'd say.

[Devil Dog Dem]

18. No. Save it for hard hitting commercials.

Showing Cheney saying one thing, and then his prior -contradictory- statements.

[Cha]

41. BRILLIANT!

:bounce::D

[sandnsea]

21. No

Take the deposition, let the lies sit unretracted. Then let the media put his lies on trial and let the jury decide. Because the media has the evidence, Edwards didn't have it to prove Cheney was lying. But Cheney could have said "I misspoke" when confronted and changed his story during the debate. Then we wouldn't have 90 minutes of Cheney lies to prove this Administration is nothing but a bunch of liars.

[Devil Dog Dem]

22. Yep!

That's it.

[Carla in Ca]

23. Thanks for the responses. I hadn't thought about it that way.

[Devil Dog Dem]

24. Sure. I think that is what he was doing.

Those were two sweet for him not to have noticed and pounce on unless he had other plans.

[txindy]

19. Yes, I agree completely

Edwards saw an opening for a much greater refutation after the debate. Calling Dickie on it during the debate would've ended it there, but saving it for later is powerful stuff. I'll bet Elizabeth just about flew off her chair when ol' Dickie made that claim, too. She sure couldn't wait to remind him of the obvious after the debate! I smell a commercial on this very subject -- with photos! -- coming soon!

Elizabeth? Love ya! Mean it! :yourock:

[speedoo]

25. Frequently, Cheney told multiple lies in the same question.

Edwards chose to respond to one, not all of them.

Example: early in the debate lied and said he had not talked about Iraq and 9/11. Edwards left that one alone, wisely, IMO, because it can be dealt with in an ad that reinforces to assertion that BC lies all the time.

In answering that same question, Cheney went after Kerry's "global test" comment and Edwards went after that fiercely.

Edwards must have talked about "distortions", "misrepresentations" repeatedly. This was the most important accomplishment, because defeating the shrub requires that BC's credibility be shredded.

The shrub and Cheney are liars... that is the key message that has to be repeated over and over again.

[DemBones DemBones]

26. Good point. I hadn't even thought of that, but

was pleased he didn't try to rebut everything Cheney said, even every little barb. To do that would have made him appear to be thin-skinned and wasted a lot of time.

I thought it might be his courtroom experience paying off with the contrast between his demeanor when Cheney was speaking and Cheney's snarling looks when he spoke. Cheney was better-controlled than Bush*, of course, but looked pissed from time to time. He was also fidgetier than Edwards.

Early on, I thought about Edwards knowing that the jurors watch both attorneys all the time, not just when they're addressing the jury.

[SangamonTaylor]

27. so true, we talked bout this today in my professional responsibility class

today!

Specifically, when the other side is committing perjury, you let them go right ahead, only to discredit them (and any testimony that they may provide) completely!

[enki23]

29. great and all... except they *were* in front of the jury

more so than they ever will be again.

[Devil Dog Dem]

38. But how could Edwards run a snippet of the Russert interview last night?

He couldn't, but he can today, in commercials. The pundits are talking about how Cheney was out to lunch by saying that, and they will even more once commercials start running. Had Cheney been hit on it last night he might have weaseled out of it a bit, and they would say that now the Dems are taking his statements out of context because we aren't showing his weaselly caveat.

[A Simple Game]

30. Good point

Didn't count the number of times he mentioned it but, I did notice that Edwards stressed that K/E would make a point of being honest with the American people. In fact he said it was one of three things the American people looked for in a President.

[Homerr]

32. Better the press do the dirty work, than Edwards.

Nice assesment. The 'liberal press' will circle like vultures over Cheney's corpse.

[newyawker99]

33. Hi Homerr!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[NJmaverick]

34. He didn't have to

That is our job. We spead the word about the "this is the first time I ever met Senator Edwards" and we have a MAJOR VICTORY!

[goodboy]

35. Good thoughts. I agree with you.

[LuminousX]

36. You are right, snippits for commercials

Cheney lies. So clear, so easily refurted, just like the Daily Show segment that first showing Cheney denying he said something and then showing the clip of him saying it.

37. What about this one--

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2457295

[demokatgurrl]

39. Thank you! I was wondering why he missed

several opportunities to rebut Cheney and figured he just wanted to use his time on substantive issues. But you're probably right, it was a brilliant strategy.


Wow, we have SMART guys running on our ticket!

[Cha]

40. Great POint..not being a lawyer

I would not have thought of that..that's why DU is so great..such versatile minds on it!:)

[LowerManhattanite]

42. He got Cheney to "perjure" himself...

...knowing that his "previous testimony" was a matter of public record—in other words, he knew the press would easily find the tape of the prayer breakfast, and of his Iraq/Al Qaeda claims. Getting hung up when he himself couldn''t show that video would have slowed the debate and turned it into a p*ssing match—and taken away time for him to hammer home the points he had to hit. The dabate is a two-part beast; the debate itself and then the fact-checking/spin portion thereafter. He beat Cheney by two field goals, but the post game analysis is showing every, drop, fumble, missed block and bad route Cheney ran.

In all, it was well-played by JE. :)

[prayin4rain]

43. Very nice...that is so true...now Cheney is an undisputable HUGE liar

in front of EVERYBODY---Wow, you and Edwards are good.