Here's an open thread for your thoughts on tonight's Cheney-Edwards debate. Mine are here and here.

Eric Mueller of IsThatLegal weighs in here, commenting on this op-ed in the Raleigh (N.C.) News & Observer.

If Edwards speaks these difficult truths about our past mistakes and future challenges with courage and skill, then he will win the debate, even if he can't explain exactly how the new administration will go forward. As long as Kerry and Edwards are resolute about the ends, they can appear flexible about the means of finishing the war. The president's mistakes need not remain the country's mistakes, and the public will conclude that Kerry and Edwards will do a better job of fixing mistakes than a president who cannot even bring himself to admit them. John Edwards is the best trial lawyer since Lincoln to participate in a presidential campaign. Tonight the country needs him to give the argument of a lifetime.

The Wall St. Journal (subscription only) presents this news article, calling Cheney, "an intense and understated government veteran" and Edwards a "a smooth-talking former trial lawyer." Sounds more like an op-ed to me. A non-partisan article would have referred to each candidate by their current government position, or both by their former jobs. Edwards should have been described as a United States Senator first, and trial lawyer second. Instead of "smooth talking", more neutral words such as articulate, successful, convincing or passionate should have been used. Alternatively, Cheney should have been called the former head of Halliburton rather than a "government veteran."

American Progress Report on What Cheney Will Say.

One more: The Rude Pundit on what Edwards should say. [link via Atrios.]