With all due respect, I don't think indy was playing to the media. He was thinking of the voter and playing realpolitik.
I understand. But over the years, we have thrown a lot of good people overboard to please the masses, and the dems and the media just pick a new target. At some point, you may as well go with the guy you like, because whoever is in the slot will be painted as some sort of evil being; racist, war-profiteer, baby-eater, hypocrite, something.
I think it will be far easier to defend Cheney's relationship with Haliburton or Haliburton's activities (both of which are by all appearances, legitimate and above-board) than to find another man as qualified and effective that will not be painted in some negative context. Rather than giving in on Haliburton, we need to be pointing out that Cheney's association with Haliburton ended in the summer of 2000. Why do we even debate Haliburton anymore? Secondly, there are fuzzy allegations of wrongdoing on the part of Haliburton, but there is never a specific charge leveled. So why should we accept that something the company does is wrong? This repeated association in the media has created a straw man that the dems attack daily. We need to separate Haliburton from the accusations, and to separate Cheney from Haliburton. If we cave, we will just have to fight the same battles (on a different battlefield) with a weaker candidate.