When Dick Cheney confessed to Gwen Ifill of PBS, the moderator of last night’s vice presidential debate, that he did not know anything about the struggles faced by African American women with AIDS, his admission spoke directly to one of the defining characteristics of the Bush administration: the decided lack of interest in or concern for the difficulties faced by the most oppressed, most troubled sections of the US population. During this 90-minute debate, Senator John Edwards produced a solid presentation that highlighted the glaring difference between the Bush administration and the leadership Americans expect in a president.

Edwards exuded confidence, the command of facts, as well as better arguments on policy that caused Cheney to fidget, frequently speak into his hands, talk at the table, avoid direct answers, change the subject, get agitated, and on one occasion even – when the subject turned to Halliburton – turn pale. I seriously took a concern for his health at this point.

Cheney’s strongest point was not his arguments, his elaboration of policy or his rosy pictures of the quagmire in Iraq and the severely weak economy. His greatest debating skill was something right-wing talk show host Tucker Carson described in the pre-debate show on CNN: 'when Cheney speaks it’s like getting a sedative.'

Viewers heard more of the same from the Bush administration on foreign policy. Everything is going well in Iraq and Afghanistan. We had a 'grand coalition.' The problems that do exist are not our responsibility. Cheney read from the same script that most viewers of the first presidential debate found unbelievable when Bush read from it.

Meanwhile Edwards attacked. The misleadership of the administration, he argued, caused a severe credibility gap that another Bush administration won’t be able to recover from. The international community refused to side with the United States because of Bush’s lack of credibility, and in the meantime, most of the deaths and injuries in Iraq are suffered by US troops. Edwards insisted that 'it is critical that we be credible in the world' if the US is to successfully confront terrorism. Edwards also spoke to the ludicrous claim that the 'coalition of the coerced' was anything like an internationalization of the war.

Edwards also highlighted Cheney’s Halliburton record. He pointed out that the $87 billion appropriation that he and Senator Kerry voted against included a $7.5 billion no-bid contract for Halliburton, a company Cheney continues to receive remuneration from. Edwards scored big hits on Cheney’s congressional and business records. Cheney frequently voted against education funding, Head Start programs, senior programs, a resolution calling for the freedom of Nelson Mandela, and opposed sanctions against Libya and Iran in the late 1990s when he wanted Halliburton to gain access to those countries’ markets.

Cheney responded by saying that he opposed sanctions on Iran because it would have allowed other companies from other countries to gain access and out-compete his company in those markets.

In other words Cheney’s position is that if your company is asked to take a principled stand to not do business with people you think are enemies or threaten your country or friends, a stand that might cost you additional profits, you should be allowed to refuse. Profit in this worldview overrides all.

When Ifill asked Cheney to speak to how the administration would create jobs and reduce poverty, Cheney responded that they would create more jobs and reduce poverty. What? He then switched the subject to education and the failed No Child Left Behind law.

Edwards struck back dramatically: 'Let’s talk about jobs.' While the administration has presided over the worst job loss record in 70 years, they have also created the biggest handouts to the very rich in history. Edwards thundered, 'There is a philosophical difference [between us], we’re not for more tax cuts for millionaires…We don’t just value wealth, we value work in this country.' To which Cheney could only mutter more platitudes about trickle down theory and, in effect, tax cuts for the rich.

Of import was Edwards restatement of their campaign pledge to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy and the provision of tax cuts for the lower income brackets.

In sum, the overall picture Cheney provided of another four years under Bush would mean more of the same in Iraq, endless war, perpetual fearmongering about terrorist strikes, no plan to create jobs, no plans to reduce health care costs, more favoritism for the richest people, but most importantly the continual failure to understand or even know about the struggles faced by the people who suffer the most in Bush’s America – just like how he didn’t know about the degree to which Black women with AIDS are suffering today.

Working people watching this debate will be angered at the oblivious callousness of the administration, and their sentiments were captured eloquently in both Edwards’ overall presentation and in his direct remark to Cheney: 'Mr. Vice President, I don’t think the country can take four more years of this administration.'



--Joel Wendland is managing editor of Political Affairs and can be reached at jwendland@politicalaffairs.net.