May 16 issue - It's traditional for out-of-work politicos to head to Harvard's Institute of Politics for genial wonk talk. It's also traditional for failed veep candidates to put major distance between themselves and their old campaign. The two customs intersected when John Edwards stopped by Cambridge last month. Over lunch, Edwards held a Q&A session with students, faculty and political bigwigs, including Kerry-Edwards campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill, a visiting fellow at the institute. Edwards was asked for one lesson he'd learned from the 2004 campaign. His answer: "Don't listen to Mary Beth Cahill." The response in the room was stunned silence, observers later recalled. "No one laughed when he said it, and Mary Beth grew bright red," said one attendee. "It was very awkward."
Edwards "has a great deal of respect for Mary Beth Cahill," says spokeswoman Kim Rubey, who says her boss made clear "he was teasing like he would an old friend."
6. He was kidding... there is such a thing called a sense of humor...
Mary Beth Cahill should have the sense of humor to laugh at the obvious tease. All winning campaigns and their leaders have a sense of humor about politics and themselves... which includes people like James Carville and some Bush people... however, Cahill seems too uptight... I haven't seen her crack a joke at some of the weaknesses of her own campaign and just accept it.
It also might be worth mentioning that in his official speech at Harvard, Edwards had very generous praise for Cahill, despite the fact that she was a poor campaign manager.
8. Say it to Miss Waverly, or those others who think he was serious.
Edited on Sun May-08-05 04:11 PM by Mass
As for your evaluation of Cahill, I tend to disagree. And dont give me Carville as an example, he is largely part of our problems during this election as much as Carville. Wished he had shut up just a little bit.
3. why is it rude when her incompetence prevent election challenge
I believe that 2004 was seriously rigged, I remember how the right wing mocked those who protested the elections in the Ukraine, and now they have their candidate in office, and all along we have been told to be nice and what has been the result, Iraq out of control, an unstable economy, thousands of competently trained people losing their jobs and unable to find work, soaring gas prices, the hatred of the world, George is violently protested wherever he goes, our social security pension gutted, our national parks and refuges threatened, scandal of billions of dollars unaccounted for or misused.
It's just that I like many here really sacrificed to send money to the DNC for the Kerry campaign, I ate hot dogs for months for lunch, to keep up a steady stream of donations, then to see them go down with a whisper and to see people here and on other activist sites pour money into the recount, work hour after hour on statistical analysis, letters, protests, visits with elected representatives, hearings, local boe events; it's heartbreaking. If I have offended any here with my opinion of Mary Beth Cahill, I apologize, I respect John Edwards. I thought the "Hope is on the way speech very inspirational."
I'm currently leaning towards him for the '08 nomination. I prefer him to Hillary, Bayh, Warner, and Clark, and while I really like John Kerry and think he would make an excellent president, I have doubts that he can successfully revive his image with the general public.
I posted this article because I found it interesting and amusing, but it did take me a bit aback just b.c it was right to her face. But maybe that's a positive thing - shows that he's willing to say what must be said even if it offends others.
17. Salon's article about the same event didn't mention this:
The first audience question John Edwards received, after addressing a packed house at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government earlier this month about his new anti-poverty campaign, had nothing to do with poverty. Instead it was about the subject nearly every Democrat has pondered since November 2004: campaign strategy. Considering how the election turned out, asked a young man describing himself as a former Howard Dean volunteer, what have you learned?
Edwards has heard this question before. In typical Edwards style, he already has a standard answer for it. "The American people want strength, conviction and a core set of beliefs that you will fight for," replied the former senator, presidential candidate and vice-presidential nominee. Discussing "how to maneuver our way through the political landscape," he added, is a fool's errand. "How about if the Democratic Party actually stands for the values the Democratic Party has always stood for?" asked Edwards. "We shouldn't change what we believe and what we stand for because of one election or even two elections."
22. That may be the best thing I've ever heard Edwards say
Nobody laughed because everybody knew it was the truth. I don't know about you guys, but I'll remember August 2004 for a long time to come. It's too bad Kerry didn't listen more to his instincts and ignore some of these apparent idiots that were "advising" him.
33. It's not his style to say something like this. I suspect:
a) he was kidding b) it never happened.
His style would be to raise his concerns directly with the person involved, not to make a public statement that could be interpreted as an insult. Southern gentlemen have a way of damning with faint praise if they really want to criticize someone on the same "team".
Let Shrum have fun in Tuscany (that's where he went after the election) and Cahill actually step back and complemplate the miserable job she did in the election. Shrum shares blame for what - 5 (or more) failed campaigns? God, he gets paid millions for this?
I agree with another poster, that this loss would have been greater if Carville and a few others hadn't got in. For all his faults (and I don't completely trust anyone married to Scary Matalin either), his political instincts aren't all that bad.
If John Edwards actually said this, I now have MORE respect for him.
Clinton was the only Democratic presidential candidate in the past 20 or so years not to use Shrum.
In his defense, he's been a great strategist for state-level races and probably has more senators elected by him than anyone else in history. But his track record in presidential races is miserable. And had Edwards or Gephardt been the nominees, he'd probably have advised them too.
would say it to lot more faces. They don't ever get the hint or get a clue "up there", that despite the anonymous comments they know they should be held accountable for the campaign failures.
So which face is there to be sensitive to? The one that secretly said "Jeez, if we blow this they could legitimately take our heads"? Or the face that realizes they still have a respectable MSM status and career despite "all that"?
Method failures should be unofficially and quietly blacklisted but bad pennies still think they are Lincoln heads.
but I think there should be accountability, I don't think that is unreasonable, and I would like to know why after what happened in 2000, there was not more of a response to election fraud this time, I think that DU has done a wonderful job, but I think the DNC had more resources than we would ever have and their silence has been very frustrating.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.