Cheney's fading credibility (Thomas Oliphant/Boston Globe Agitprop)

Boston Globe ^ | October 7, 2004 | Thomas Oliphant

[AaronInCarolina]

By any estimation, that's a little more than a cordial hello.

How do you figure? If that is all that happened, he may not even have actually interacted personally with Edwards. My point is that these short social encounters occur hundreds (may thousands) of times with politicians who have social functions nearly daily. I concede, however, that his mis-statement could have been avoided by having his staff vet what he planned to say.

[lugsoul]

That's a great question, unless Edwards was smart enough to know that any response would draw a "you must not have made much of an impression" from the VP. One could argue that it was a great thing to leave for the post-debate spin - a "gotcha" that had little to do with substance and could be used to distract from the apparent mismatch.

I agree, there are a lot of people I meet and don't remember. But if I meet them (in a business context) AND their wife, I usually remember. Don't really want to think about what that means.

[CaptRon]

After John Edwards had demonstrated his command of the issue in his own response,

That's funny, my recollection of Edwards' answer to the Palestinian thing was that it was so rambling as to be evading answering.

[an amused spectator]

luggie, nobody in the country but the Democrat media gives a rip about this, and it will be a long-forgotten footnote by tomorrow evening...

And furthermore - why didn't the Great Debater, Edwards, shove it back in Cheney's face when he had the chance? Is it because Edwards is a pretty face, a memorized line, and a blank brain? The Demmies might want to stay away from the answer to Edwards' strikeout on this question...

[surrey]

I thought that Cheney's line was the best of the night but someone didn't do their job by not checking the facts. The picture of the VP sitting next to Edwards just doesn't help the cause. I understand that the VP was really pointing out that Edwards is a no-show in the Senate but somebody blew it.

[lugsoul]

It is not like Johnny boy is some staffer from HHS. He is a Senator - one of a hundred that the Veep presides over. I would think he wouldn't make such a statement unless he was pretty darned sure he hadn't encountered the guy, and I would think he would have a pretty good idea which of the 100 he'd never met - it can't be many.

[lugsoul]

That's true, AAS, it won't be lasting. The point is that it would have been lasting if the charge stuck, and now it won't stick because there has been more talk about the inaccuracy than about what could have been a great line.

As for your question, I answered it above.

[PFC]

The fact remains, Cheney lied. It does bother me even if everyone here is willing to make excuses for him or blame the reporter.

[jimfree]

And Ned Nederlander has more credibility than Cheney?

[Lance Romance]

I hate to say it, but the point was Edwards lack of Senate attendance.

I wouldn't say Cheney lied, that has to show intent, he merely misspoke.

Thank you Bill Clinton.