OT Breck Boy

Flying Squirrel wrote

As someone suggested above, the focus if any will be on
Edwards vs. Cheney, and Edwards wins there on just about any count.


i don't know about the focus being on them, but if the repubs agree to a
cheney-edwards debate, that decision will be a very serious mistake.

wayno

"Wayne Harrison" wrote in
:


Flying Squirrel wrote

As someone suggested above, the focus if any will be on
Edwards vs. Cheney, and Edwards wins there on just about any count.


i don't know about the focus being on them, but if the repubs
agree to a
cheney-edwards debate, that decision will be a very serious mistake.

wayno






Already gonna happen, in Cleveland

Scott

Scott Seidman wrote:
"Wayne Harrison" wrote:
cheney-edwards debate, ...

Already gonna happen, in Cleveland

And it's already being handicapped. I saw an interview with Chris
Matthews this afternoon and his take is that Cheney will kick ass
because he's a battle-tested, experienced politico who will seize
the perfect Reaganesque moment to make Edwards look like a babe
in the woods.

At any rate, it ain't gonna be a Cheney-Lieberman shmooze-fest.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken writes:

I don't see how Edwards is going to help. The South is a cold lock
cinch for Shrub, so he's no help there,

keep an eye out for North Carolina, Tennessee and Louisiana.....not so locked
as you may think, if the numbers I have seen are an indicator.

the battleground states are
Pennsylvania, Ohio, maybe Michigan, rust belt states where the Dems
have to get out the union vote. A lot of those folks can't even
understand one drawled word Breck Boy says and don't cotton to
ultra-rich "populists" at any rate.

maybe, but Edwards was popular enough in the places in the midwest where he
campaigned. I think his pitch and style will work very well in small-town PA
and OH.
This guy may be rich, but his dad worked at the local shirt factory, and he
does remember his roots( and, to be fair, will bring said roots up at all
opportunities).

Big tactical error, in my opinion. He should have gone with Gephardt.

Gephardt is viewed by most Easterners as yesterday's news. He would be a lame
campaigner, couldn't even generate a buzz in his own backyard. If that is your
idea of a good tactical move, I think all Democrats should thank goodness you
aren't running the campaign.
Tom

RDean writes:
as long as
Attila McAuliffe, the Clintonistas, the Gorons, the Carvellians, etc.,
are in charge of the party, they'll not get into the Oval Office

care to wager on that one? Cute names all, but who is running the show in the
other camp? We might see in a few months who the American people are more
uneasy with.

a
Gebhardt-Dean (but not a Dean-Gebhardt) ticket might have actually been
good for the country, and a ticket of Gebhardt and McCain (in no
particular order), might have been a real winner (and in more ways then
votes)

agreed that Gephardt/McCain might have been an idea "unification"
administration,
but have a lot of trouble with Gephardt's heart for a national campaign. McCain
clearly differed strongly with Bush, but sold out for this election. I wonder
what the price was?


....common families are
spending some time together...at the Heinz estate...

and it must suck when they serve ketchup with every hors d'ouvre.....


I am interested to see what the future
holds when the RNC starts replaying Kerry's slams of Edwards...

don't think the voting public cares much, but I will be watching that debate
between Edwards and Cheney......

Tom

Dave writes:

It doesn't matter.....

to you, I am sure not. Your mind was made up long ago. But, to the 5 to 7
percent who DO matter in this campaign, this might prove an interesting choice.
Ken disparages him, but I can't wait to see how Edwards plays in Central and
Western PA.
Tom

wayno writes:

i don't know about the focus being on them, but if the repubs agree to a
cheney-edwards debate, that decision will be a very serious mistake.

they pretty much have to have ONE....can't figure them stupid enough to have
more.
I think Edwards will paint that man as more scary than a recently-released ax
murderer if you give him an hour or two.....
Tom

Tom Littleton wrote:
Ken writes:
Big tactical error, in my opinion. He should have gone with Gephardt.
Gephardt is viewed by most Easterners as yesterday's news. He would be a lame
campaigner, couldn't even generate a buzz in his own backyard. If that is your
idea of a good tactical move, I think all Democrats should thank goodness you
aren't running the campaign.

Being yesterday's news isn't all bad. There are advantages to years of
experience and advantages also to having no more political aspirations
than to serve the POTUS. Edwards is gonna be portrayed as an opportunist
with one eye on the Presidency and one eye on the polls.

Then too, Gephardt is solid gold among union members, and I don't think
Dems can win without them.

But I agree with you on one thing, all Democrats should be damn glad I'm
nowhere near running anything even remotely political. How about a Dennis
Kucinich-Jesse Jackson ticket ? ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken writes:

Chris
Matthews this afternoon and his take is that Cheney will kick ass
because he's a battle-tested, experienced politico who will seize
the perfect Reaganesque moment to make Edwards look like a babe
in the woods.

I love TV talking heads!!! Since when is Dick Cheney heavily battle tested?? He
ran a few house races, and spent half of the autumn of the Presidential
campaign going to the cardiologist's office.
He's been a behind-the-scenes type of guy for most of the career....certainly,
the brains behind the Shrub/Cheney pairing, but hardly the politician of the
two. At any rate, I can't wait to see him go Reaganesque against a guy who some
said was so good on his feet in court, fellow attorneys went just to watch
him......
Tom

Tom, typing quickly, wrote:
agreed that Gephardt/McCain might have been an idea "unification"
administration,

should have read ideal, but ideas are important, too!
Tom