] I think that both Cheney and Edwards were occasionally guilty of
] being party mouthpieces who were repeating stuff that they
] didn't really believe,

And this is exactly the job of the VP. You float the contraversal ideas and take the heat from the press so the president doesn't have too.

As for Cheney's "I never meet you" bit, I'm amazed you fell into arguing its literal merits. Cheney certainly didn't mean he physcially had never met Edwards, and Edwards knows he met Cheney. The comment was not a "lie" that Edwards should have call him on, as you so profess. It was a slight, a dig at Edward and his lack of experience in Washington. It was a way of saying "you've not important enough to have run in my circles. You didn't even make the radar screen." Oh course Edwards wouldn't bring that up while in the debate. The last thing he wanted was to waste valueable time trying to combat this his experience. So he (I agree, poorly) stayed off the defensive and addressed other issues. After the debate was the time to address Cheney on the slight.

This whole "he has no experience in Washington, so he can't be VP" is a completely groundless statement to anyone who knows history. JFK was mayor, and then a 2 term Senator before running for *president*. He tried to get the VP nomination in 1956, after only *one* term in the Senate. And most of his time in the Senate, he was having back issues and wasn't in Washington. (Check Wikipedia). And lack of Washington experience is not a bad thing. JFK is *the* president referenced by political science professors when discussing the importance of presidential advisors to craft US policy.

Further, the people who stupidly spread this whole "no Washington experience" line interestingly enough tend to be Bush Supportor. That man was 2 term state governor for god sakes. Morons, and Hippocrits.

This whole "Edwards is only a 2 term Senator, and isn't qualified to be a 'heart-beat-away'" is expounded by uneducated fools.

RE: The VP Debate