Boston Globe: Edwards Tough Talk Claims of '04 Disputed by Kerry Camp

[flpoljunkie]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/18/edwardss_tough_talk_claims_of_04_disputed/?page=full

Edwards's tough talk claims of '04 disputed
Kerry camp sees soft touch on Bush

By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | February 18, 2007

WASHINGTON -- As he campaigns for president based on his aggressive criticisms of President Bush, John Edwards, a former Democratic vice presidential nominee, has said repeatedly that he had wanted to fight back against attacks on his 2004 running mate, John F. Kerry, but was stopped by the Kerry camp.

Edwards, who first made the statement in interviews after the 2004 race, has repeated it recently in private meetings with party donors as he seeks to contrast his "backbone" with Democratic rivals whom he portrays as unwilling to confront Bush over the Iraq war.

But Kerry and more than a half-dozen former high-ranking Kerry-Edwards campaign officials dispute the idea that Edwards favored a tougher strategy in 2004, and maintain that Edwards often refused their requests to make sharper attacks against Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. The former campaign aides said Kerry made a personal appeal to Edwards in a face-to-face meeting in Ohio in early September 2004, and Edwards vowed to turn up the heat on their Republican opponents.

<>In a new book, "What a Party!", Terry McAuliffe, former Democratic National Committee chairman, said Edwards made a similar statement to him.

"Terry, they wouldn't let me" attack Bush, McAuliffe quotes Edwards as saying in December 2004. "I wanted to go after the Swift Boat guys. I wanted to go after Bush. They wouldn't let me." One Democratic donor said he's twice heard Edwards tell private audiences, including this year, that he wanted to be more aggressive but the Kerry camp "would not let him."

Kerry disputed the account by Edwards in McAuliffe's book, saying he was frustrated that Edwards was not tougher. He told McAuliffe that Edwards told him several times, "Watch the news tomorrow. I'm really going to go after Bush," but that Edwards did not deliver.

Kerry declined to comment for this report, though aides said he stands by his account to McAuliffe.

[FrenchieCat]

1. I'm becoming fascinated by the "Behinds the scene" stuff......

Wonder where the truth "lies"? :shrug:

[flpoljunkie]

2. I am very much inclined to believe John Kerry.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Well, at this point, since John Kerry's not running.....

you may be correct......that John Kerry has nothing to lose by telling it like it was.

I will say that the whole Kerry/Edwards workings during the GE was always puzzling and somewhat bizarre to me. I never really quite "got" how that was worked. It seemed after all of the press on Edwards prior to him being the VP select and the Democratic National Convention, he all but vanished. Seriously! Didn't see him anywhere in the national gist of things.

[chimpymustgo]

8. I'm not sure where the truth lies. But I do know that Edwards wanted to challenge

the Ohio vote. I know that from someone who was in the room that night in Ohio.

I do know that while Edwards did not attack other Democrats, HE NEVER HELD BACK IN ATTACKING BUSHCO - NEVER. I find the reporter's effort to conflate the two questionable, and makes me suspicious of the premise of the article.

We DO know that the Kerry campaign underutilized Edwards, and sent him to small rural areas, where he received much less telelvision coverage than he might have gotten.

We DO know that Kerry did not respond quickly and forcefully enough to the Swift Boaters. And quite frankly, IT WAS KERRY'S JOB TO LEAD THE ATTACK on his very honor.

I am very sorry this is unfolding this way.

[emulatorloo]

20. Typically the VP candidates roll is to be the "nasty negative" one while the Pres

candidate is positive.

Witness Bush and Cheney -- Cheney said the most horrible things about Kerry Edwards while Bush floated above the fray.

That being said, Kerry campaign did fight back swifties, including a strong speech by Kerry, But media never bothered to carry too much of it. For example Max Cleland's Cindy style visit to Crawford to confront Bush got hardly any airtime.

There is a nice long piece in the DU research forum called Swift Liars: Kerry-Edwards Campaign Response

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

Now as to McAuliffe and his charges, look at this post by a DU'er -- (remember there was a time when Kerry couldn't spend ad money but DNC could according to election rules):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x118710#118932

I doubt that.

I really do. I was working for a campaign(congressional level) back then, and the word came down that Kerry had gotten square in McAuliffe's grill, literally nose to nose, over the Swift Boat thing. Told TerryMac that if the DNC did not spend some of the money it was sitting on, to combat it, that Kerry, as nominee and titular head of the party, would show him the door posthaste. Word was that Kerry was extremely agitated and very loud.

Considering where it came from, I believe the story.

--------------
As to the main topic here, like you I am sorry to see this story playing out too.

It seems that Edwards has said some negative things and former Kerry campaign staff are speaking back.

Happily Kerry is staying out of it. Imus tried to bait Kerry into saying bad things about Edwards the other day. Kerry, the gentleman that he is did not take the bait.

ON EDIT FORMAT

[Leilani]

37. However, at the end of the Imus interview

Kerry said "Thank you for being on my side."

That being after Imus was on a rant.

[emulatorloo]

111. Well, can you blame him?

<quoting you:>


Kerry said "Thank you for being on my side."


<quote>

I have been in positions where an old friend was badmouthing me and I didn't want to badmouth them (I am thinking probably Kerry likes Edwards/Elizabeth Edwards quite a bit, and is hurt by this).

However if someone said to me that they weren't buying the badmouthing, I would be grateful.

That being said, IMUS is bizarre. I just don't understand the appeal.

[karynnj]

154. That seems fair to me

Both Edwards had said specific negative things about the Kerrys. All Kerry said was - after refusing to say anything negative about any Democrat - was thank you - when Imus said he stood up for him on the things Edwards said. Had Kerry denied Edwards said anything - Imus would have listed everything he remembered.

[karynnj]

155. That seems fair to me

Both Edwards had said specific negative things about the Kerrys. All Kerry said was - after refusing to say anything negative about any Democrat - was thank you - when Imus said he stood up for him on the things Edwards said. Had Kerry denied Edwards said anything - Imus would have listed everything he remembered.

[Leilani]

169. That was my point!

Kerry did not want to say anything negative, but he was grateful that Imus laid it all out.

Imus is sometimes crazy, but he is loyal to a fault. Once he's your friend, he'll fight for you.

[karynnj]

156. That seems fair to me

Both Edwards had said specific negative things about the Kerrys. All Kerry said was - after refusing to say anything negative about any Democrat - was thank you - when Imus said he stood up for him on the things Edwards said. Had Kerry denied Edwards said anything - Imus would have listed everything he remembered.

[iilana X]

150. Why should Kerry have led the attack?

That's something I've heard ad nauseum, but nobody has discussed exactly why it was necessary for Kerry had to stop everything and engage the Swiftboaters. That would have been wrong, wrong, wrong. The attack was a distraction. Kerry was trying to concentrate on the issues. He was trying to engage Bush, not the Swiftboaters. That was his job. Where was the democratic machine during all this? While Kerry was trying to take the issues to the American people instead of being led off in a discussion of something that happened over three decades previous, why weren't more democrats covering him? I've heard more defense of Murtha than I did of Kerry (the DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE) in 2004.

The issues that mattered to the country were what Kerry was engaging Bush on. That was his mission. The Swiftboaters were trying to distract him more than they were trying to discredit him. They failed in their primary attack because Kerry kept on topic. They succeeded in their secondary mission (to some degree) because few democrats had Kerry's back.

[karynnj]

157. exactly

Also, KERRY was the first and one of the strongest defending Murtha. Outrage is ALWAYS best from someone other than the victim - it plays completely differently.

[1932]

23. Kerry hasn't said anything.

He hasn't commented.

[iilana X]

149. Me too. Kerry's the one I believe.

Kerry didn't fire the first shot here. Edwards did. Instead of taking the high road, he chose the other road. That doesn't sit right with me. I always look to see who attacks first without provocation. The second reason why I believe Kerry is the same reason you do: he isn't trying to pad a resume for a 2008 run. Consider this: when he was considering a run, he still didn't attack anyone else. He had nothing but good to say about Edwards, Clinton and Obama. That says a lot.

[incapsulated]

3. He said, she said

:popcorn:

[flpoljunkie]

5. There's more...

On the last night of the Republican National Convention -- where Kerry was bashed relentlessly -- Kerry huddled with Edwards before a rally in Springfield, Ohio, in a meeting that aides said was set up so Kerry could personally implore Edwards to go on the attack.

Edwards promised to get more aggressive, according to former aides who were briefed on the Sept. 2 conversation.

But Kerry and his top advisers never saw that vow turned into action. In the campaign's final weeks, Kerry's top communications aides would talk with staff members traveling with Edwards every morning, sending them attack lines they wanted Edwards to use.

Edwards often pushed back, insisting on softer language and delaying the attacks for hours, one former Kerry-Edwards communications aide said. Toward the end of the campaign, former campaign aides said, they turned to surrogates -- including Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and a retired Army general, Wesley K. Clark -- to deliver the broadsides.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/18/edwardss_tough_talk_claims_of_04_disputed/?page=full

I remember very well Wes Clark standing up for John Kerry during the Swift Boat attacks.

[Leilani]

35. The article says Edwards was so ineffective

that the campaign called on Clark & Biden to do the attacks.

I've always thought that Kerry made a BIG mistake choosing Edwards, who was always concerned about himself.

Last week Imus attacked Edwards for saying rotten things about Kerry & being disloyal. Kerry refused to answer, but finally at the end said "I'm glad you're on my side."

[incapsulated]

44. Yes, he did

He called Wes his "surrogate" and that he was.

As for all this, what I'm curious about is why McAuliffe is stirring up all this shit again.

[Unbowed]

153. Wes Clark did an excellent job defending Kerry.

I simply don't see Edwards as an attack dog. It isn't his style, no matter what he may have promised.
Take this current criticism of John Kerry. It's coming off like the whining of an unhappy child who was told he couldn't have the car keys. This is the guy who wanted to get tough in 2004? Aw, come on.

[davidwparker]

4. All of this is known. There are some on the blogs who want to deny this

reality, but Edwards did want to fight on.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Edwards "did want to fight on" in reference to what?

It appears that this story is in reference to being a strong surrogate for John Kerry during the Swiftboat attacks.

What "Fight on" are you talking about?

[davidwparker]

15. I was refering to fighting in general, but specifically had in mind

Ohio. No, it's not referenced in the post, but in general.

[TayTay]

50. I have heard otherwise from people who were in the rooms

where those decisions were made that night. Funny how Edwards is the only one who remembers it the way he tells it.

Maybe someone ought to call up Deval Patrick, current Democratic Governor of Massachusetts and former Justice Department Civil Rights Attorney under Pres. Clinton, who was there when the Ohio decision was made, and ask him what happened. You know, get that voice of someone who was actually there.

[blm]

102. If it was exactly the way Edwards said, it would be in Elizabeth's book, but she

refers to it only vaguely and leaves the IMPRESSION that only Edwards was fighting but won't say WHO he was supposedly fighting with, when we DO know that Kerry AND Edwards were preparing to battle on provisional ballots when Carville informed Matalin of their intent, and the provisional ballot NUMBERS dropped soonafter.

Kerry AND Edwards were arguing with DEMOCRATIC PARTY election lawyers and number crunchers - the same team who told Gore he HAD a legal case to make in court, told Kerry-Edwards they HAD NO legal case to continue in court.

I think Edwards tweaked the story a bit to benefit from the internet perception that Kerry conceded while Edwards wanted to continue to fight the count. If Edwards HAD a legal case he would have shared it with Kerry and with US and the press a LONG TIME AGO.

[chimpymustgo]

119. blm, I knew about this 2 days after the election. But what was the point in

posting it? I have refrained from bad-mouthing John Kerry in the many opportunities that have appeared here at DU, because I respect the man - though I think he made some fatal errors on this campaign.

I happen to also believe that Kerry/Edwards got more votes than BushCo, and the election was stolen. I'm not sure if it ever could have been proven, but I think Kerry OWED it to the American people to at least raise the question.

This has been a tricky situation for both Kerry and Edwards. No, they don't want to admit outright that Kerry threw in the towel while Edwards wanted to at least hold the concession and get more info. Neither wants to come right out and say it. But that is what happened.

And Edwards was so underused during the campaign. He did want to fight much harder - and it's just bizarre that this is the spin that's coming out now.

I was actually glad Kerry decided not to run again, and risk damaging his reputation - he will continue to be a dogged fighter for justice in the Senate.

But this blaming of Edwards is becoming pathetic.

[ray of light]

120. people other than Edwards were in that room. They're story is different

from Edwards.

BLM is right about this as is TayTay above.

This is not a he said/ he said type situation because the others in the room can vouch for what happened if they were released from their promise/contract. However, it's interesting that the one person who stands to benefit from breaking a promise is the only one doing the talking and even then he was such an 'attack dog' that he sent his wife out to do the attacking in her book for him.

I don't know which candidate I support in 08, but I support the truth, period!

[chimpymustgo]

126. The Edwards people were showing restraint. I was told this and never

repeated it. Why is it only NOW that some Kerry supporters are saying - well what exactly ARE they saying? That Edwards DIDN'T want to fight in Ohio? Kerry, Edwards, EVERYONE IN THE ROOM, and everyone with a friend in the room knows the truth.

I promise you, you won't hear Kerry comment on this. Kerry would not lie. But he knows the truth.

[ray of light]

145. I haven't heard any Kerry supporters say

Edwards didn't want to fight. What I heard is that Kerry supporters are saying Edwards wasn't the only one who wanted to fight!

There's a huge difference.

[blm]

128. And many of us heard during the campaign that Edwards was a lethargic campaigner but

kept it from becoming internet gossip then and after. I believe that they were already concerned about Elizabeth's health and always take that into consideration.

The point really comes down to this - DID Edwards have a legal case to make that day and did he share that legal case with ANYONE ELSE?

If he had a case, then why wasn't it part of Elizabeth's book? And why does Edwards have no names about WHO it was who he was arguing with about conceding? Are we to beliveve that he never once TOLD Elizabeth who he was arguing with?

I imagine that the arguments were amongst a GROUP of people including Edwards and Kerry and the Dem team of election lawyers and numbercrunchers. And my bet is that both Kerry and Edwards were arguing for them to come up with every formula possible before they WOULD conceded.

[chimpymustgo]

130. I know this: Edwards DID NOT WANT TO CONCEDE that night.

He wanted to wait and get more information, and see where they stood the next day.

And Edwards a "lethargic campaigner"?? WTF??? That's just CRAZY talk. He was certainly not that before, nor since the general election campaign. He has TIRELESSLY campaigned for other Dems.

This thing is descending into stupidity.

[blm]

133. That night - neither did Kerry. Afterwards, they had no choice - either one of them.

The spin that has been put on it since has Edwards fighting with Kerry not to concede and that Edwards wanted to fight it in court. Except no one ever fills in that one teeny detail - what legal evidence was Edwards going to court with?

I am just stating the straight bottom line - that's all. This isn't a fight.

[chimpymustgo]

137. blm, you're asking 2 different questions, and drifting into dishonesty.

Edwards did not want to concede that night. Kerry DID CONCEDE. We'll never know what might have been, will we?

[blm]

143. There's no dishonesty - Neither Edwards or Kerry wanted to concede - the fight was with

the same team of Democratic election lawyers and numbercrunchers who said there was no legal evidence to continue in court.

Edwards and Kerry had NO CHOICE. Why do people keep pushing this idea that Edwards wanted to continue and was fighting Kerry on it?

Has ANYONE ever presented anything said by Edwards that explains how Edwards planned to continue with no evidence to take to court? I'm sure it would have popped up in Elizabeth's book and it would be a wellknown fact by now, instead of a widely believed internet rumor.

[karynnj]

161. Kerry did not concede THAT NIGHT

he conceded the next day after more information was known. Also, where is a link to any MSM comment in all 2005 where Edwards says they should have held out. If he really thought it, he would have said it.

[karynnj]

160. Did you watch the Edwards' CSPAN rallies in 2004?

He really did not go after Bush and Cheney even a tenth as much as Kerry did. I seriously don't know why he didn't repeat effective Kerry lines - such as when Kerry was referring to the ieds made from ammo stolen from ungarded ammo dumps that were killing "our kids". That was strong and effective - and you knew Kerry felt the emotion he was expressing.

Edwards just seemed stuck in his 2 Americas speech.

These people have a right to speak out because Edwards was attacking them as much as he was attacking Kerry. They were silent, probably in deference to Kerry while Edwards, Carville, Clinton, Begala etc attack their work. They are also not saying that Edwards made them lose - they are questioning stories that Edwards chose to tell. From what I saw of Edwards, I dodn't believe them, but even if true they are pretty disloyal. No one was blaming him as the VP.

What people forget is that Bush was beating Dean by 22 points and generic Democrat by 17 points. Kerry and his team were phenomenal in the primaries - which is why last week, Donna Brazile, not a Kerry fan, wrote about how in demand the Kerry strategists were - that they were among the best. By March 2004, Kerry was competitive with Bush and occasionally beating him. Hollary Clinton did not run because it was considered a losing battle.

A large part of that was because of who Kerry was. The Democrats should have fought like hell to protect his reputation. They had the full Navy records and the Boston Globe had searched for dirt without much success for decades.

[iilana X]

152. You make an excellent point.

The book didn't say all that much about this at all.

[karynnj]

158. Not to mention, Edwards had many many MSM interviews

between 2004 and now - he NEVER in all 2005 and 2006 made strong comments about the election being stolen, massive fraud, or even the need in the future to fix the election process.I wished through most of last year that someone on a high profile MSM show would ask Edwards just to get him on record. I agree with you if he had a case or knew Kerry had one, we would know,

Kerry did speak about large scale voter suppression and types of fraud in many interviews speeches and in the Senate and has actively been involved in pushing for reform.

[karynnj]

159. Not to mention, Edwards had many many MSM interviews

between 2004 and now - he NEVER in all 2005 and 2006 made strong comments about the election being stolen, massive fraud, or even the need in the future to fix the election process.I wished through most of last year that someone on a high profile MSM show would ask Edwards just to get him on record. I agree with you if he had a case or knew Kerry had one, we would know,

Kerry did speak about large scale voter suppression and types of fraud in many interviews speeches and in the Senate and has actively been involved in pushing for reform.

[whometense]

106. Amen.

Funny how Edwards is the only one who remembers it the way he tells it.

I think it's pretty funny too.

It seems to me that if Edwards wants to distance himself from the 2004 campaign he might do better by demonstrating how he would do better. I don't think this kind of 20/20 hindsight shows him in a very positive light.

[hijinx87]

7. it wasn't edwards that let kerry down.

it was bill clinton. :evilgrin:

[FrenchieCat]

10. How? I don't understand.......how did Bill Clinton figure into this......

I'm reading that Kerry was requesting help from Edwards......and that Edwards was in effect not responsive. Where does Bill fit into this? :shrug:

[hijinx87]

13. exactly what I have been asking someone for a number of months now.

:evilgrin::evilgrin::evilgrin:

[blm]

103. In general, Bill WAS obstructive during the election. Publically supporting Bush

on his military decisions throughout the election cycle was NOT helpful. Nor with other bigname Democrats who stayed more closely aligned with Bush on military matters than they did with Kerry who was trying to highlight Bush's failures re Tora Bora, Abu Ghraib, and Rumsfeld's firing.

And when Bill was on his book tour, he could have highlighted events that Kerry's involvement was CRUCIAL, like in normalizing relations with Vietnam and the crafting of anti-terror legislation and tracking of terror network funds. Kerry did the lion's share of the work on those issues, and Bill knew it, but didn't exactly share that during his book tour interviews - heck, he barely mentions it in his book.

So - while Kerry was ENORMOUSLY helpful to Clinton during his campaign in 92 because he kept Bush1 under investigation and kept exposing more of his covert activities PLUS he defended Clinton throughout the draft-dodging attacks, Clinton hardly reciprocated in kind, even WITH the power of his past presidency to draw from.

[Punkingal]

11. I'm suspicious of anything Terry McAuliffe says,

And why in the hell are people attacking Edwards daily in the media? What is up with that?

[FrenchieCat]

14. Bill Clinton?

:rofl:

[Mass]

25. McAuliffe?

And my guess is that Kerry's people are getting tired of Edwards going around and stabbing Kerry in the back as soon as they can do it without cameras. So, do not be surprised if, now that Kerry is not running, they do not want to take this sitting.

If Edwards has something to do, he could have the honesty of going public on TV, rather than sliding crumbs to people off the records or in private.

[Leilani]

39. Bingo!

Kerry remained quiet after the election & was always loyal to Edwards.

When the grapevine started, with Edwards & his wife's snarky remarks, Kerry decided to fight back.

But he's not doing it publicly.

[MethuenProgressive]

12. I look forward to reading the book - I believe Kerry, though.

Edwards is trying to have plastic surgery on his past...

[chimpymustgo]

16. Kerry does not comment on the report. The story, to me, has quite a tone of

sour grapes. The more I think about it, the less I believe it.

[Mass]

26. McAuliffe's book has NOTHING to do with the story, except being another example of

somebody Edwards said something negative about Kerry.

It is getting tiring of never Edwards directly on the record when these things come.

[_dynamicdems]

147. Well put. n/t

[Clarkie1]

17. Interesting...

"Edwards often pushed back, insisting on softer language and delaying the attacks for hours, one former Kerry-Edwards communications aide said. Toward the end of the campaign, former campaign aides said, they turned to surrogates -- including Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and a retired Army general, Wesley K. Clark -- to deliver the broadsides."

[Olney Blue]

32. And deliver the broadsides, they did.

[Old and In the Way]

18. C'mon....McCauliffe has his own agenda here,,,and it's not supporting Edwards.

That said, given Edward's support of the blogger dust-up recently, he sure didn't impress me with his reaction to that "controversy". I was really disappointed that he didn't go on the offense then. Makes me wonder about his '04 claims.

[AtomicKitten]

19. or maybe McAullife is just telling it like it is

... and letting the chips fall where they may. If his intentions were nefarious, he would be attacking Edwards instead of providing
him cover for terrible campaign strategy.

It was Kerry that insisted on only happy talk and no # bashing during the convention, which makes this revelation believable.
I am pleased to hear Edwards had a spine and was just overruled.

[flpoljunkie]

21. Call me when someone other than McAuliffe says Kerry only insisted on "happy talk."

[emulatorloo]

22. I wouldn't believe Terry McAulliffe if his tongue came notarized.

Way too much "gamesmanship" and a big need to bring others down so others look good.

[whometense]

107. oooooh, well said.

I wouldn't believe Terry McAulliffe if his tongue came notarized.

:rofl: :rofl:

Oh, and me too.

[_dynamicdems]

146. LMAO!

"if his tongue came notarized" :rofl:

I agree! He's gamey allright.

[AtomicKitten]

24. ring, ring, ring

But it was the Rev. Al Sharpton who stole the show. The former presidential candidate was frequently interrupted with cheers and applause during a rousing address that rocked the FleetCenter. Sharpton repeatedly departed from his prepared text - which had been scrubbed by John Kerry”s staff – slamming the Bush administration on Iraq and domestic issues.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/29/1419242

To bash, or not to bash? Bush, that is. And that is not the question. For it has already been answered. And the answer is, no. But not exactly. The Kerryniks have decreed that this shall not be a week of overt W. slapping. In press conferences and interviews, Democratic honchos have said that criticizing Bush is not the aim of the convention. They want to use those valuable three hours of primetime coverage to boost John Kerry's positive.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=1621

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3620199
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/07/10/kerry_camp_on_the_defensive_after_celebrities_bash_bush/

[flpoljunkie]

31. I watched the convention and somehow missed all the "happy talk" McAuliffe claims characterized it.

McAuliffe's aim in his book was to trash John Kerry, and I think that John Edwards is now having selective memory of the 2004 campaign--particularly when he is speaking to potential donors.

[AtomicKitten]

36. that's your spin on it

the evidence points to the contrary

[flpoljunkie]

40. I see this "happy talk" charge by McAuliffe and others as piling on when Kerry lost in '04

--your "evidence" notwithstanding.

[AtomicKitten]

42. of course you do

Rather than being realistic about it, you and others keep trying to paint an illusion of what transpired and then accuse people of "piling on" when they simply speak the truth, an inconvenient truth perhaps for you and others, but the truth nonetheless. Too many people forget that we all supported with money and sweat Kerry/Edwards in the general election in 2004. Rather than continue this incessant drive to blame everyone and everything else, it would behoove folks to make peace with the truth and then just let it go.

[flpoljunkie]

43. Kerry didn't bring up these accusations. John Edwards and Terry McAuliffe did.

Edwards by trashing Kerry to his potential donors and McAuliffe in his recent book and television appearances.

[fedupinBushcountry]

89. Exactly n/t

[AtomicKitten]

90. except that wasn't the point

I was challenged and asked to prove that the Kerry camp had in fact asked for a bashing-free convention, which I did. That's the point. Somehow ignoring that and diverting back to the OP earns a high-five from a member of the back-up team. Whatever floats your collective boat. DU has some freaky very circuitous debate when it is deemed inconvenient to follow a point or an allegation to its conclusion. My point was made, challenged, and proved. And that's that.

[karynnj]

162. If onbe has a spine, do they stay quiet if overruled???

Just asking. The convention was mostly positive - and really had to be. A major purpose was introducing Kerry and to a lesser degree Edwards. As they were not that well known it was necessary.

For that matter, give me an example of a challanger who won with an angry attack convention. (Hint: not JFK, not Nixon (whose convention in 68 was far less angry than the Democratic one), not Carter, not Reagan, not Clinton, not W (he wanted to bring back honor and dignity). Many Republicans I knew first considered Kerry because of the person the convention showed him to be.

[FrenchieCat]

29. Interesting reads for you on the OT "Blogger" issue.......

Salon Editorial 2/16/07
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/02/16/obama/index.html
and
The News Blog 2/17/07
http://www.thenewsblog.net/2007/02/fundamental-misunderstanding.html
and
Blog PI 2/17/07
http://www.blogpi.net/will-elizabeth-edwards-resign-too

[Mass]

27. Have people even read this article. It is about whether Edwards was tough or not.

Not whether Kerry was tough or not. He said they did not answer quickly enough and there were reports in the media as soon as end of August 2004 that were saying Kerry was mad at the response.

What was not in the media at this point were reports of Edwards being mad? His first talk about the issue was AFTER Kerry answered and it was so weak that it was totally useless.

Afer Nov 04, the Edwards people have tried to rewrite history, with claims that Edwards wanted to fight, both for the Swift Boat story and for Ohio.

The only real question is whether there is any source who is not an Edwards supporters saying so. Mc Auliffe's source is Edwards himself. The Newsweek source is an anonymous source close to Edwards, and the other source seems to be Elizabeth Edwards. A number of people in the Kerry-Edwards team were not close to any of the two men and have no beef in the story. Do they support Edwards's account of the story?

[Catchawave]

28. McAuliffe's book is a Hillary promotion

..move along, nothing to see here.

I'm sorry to see so many supporting Terry now....lol....he's such a dumbass and ran the worse campaign EVAH, had nothing to do with Kerry or Edwards.

Stop drinking the kool aid, or Hillary's going to win the nom! Not that there's anything wrong with that, know what I mean?

[Tellurian]

49. A picture is worth a 1000 words..

John Edwards accepting Kerry's handshake...waiting for Kerry to look him in the eye-
Kerry ducking out of eye contact, a supreme dissing to John Edwards..imho..

[PresidentObama]

62. What is this?

It's one picture. I'm sure Kerry had more on his mind then to give Edwards eye contact, and this is one shot. I remember watching that speech, and I've watched it many times and they make eye contact. A supreme diss to John Edwards? Not a chance.

[suziedemocrat]

75. New Englanders aren't that good with people.

I've been working out here for 6 months and I am amazed at how many people out here seem to be almost autistic. John Kerry is a perfect example.

[seaglass]

97. Nice. Maybe it's you. n/t

[suziedemocrat]

100. I work with a guy from Brooklyn and he says the same thing.

We laugh about it non-stop. It may just be our office though.

[whometense]

109. 'scuse me?

I think that might be just a bit of an overgeneralization.

[PresidentObama]

139. Pffft, overgeneralization?

No way, I can tell you I live in the midwest in the Bible Belt and the rumor is true. All midwesterns thump their bibles, hate gays, love god, and don't curse.

Yep, it's true. I swear.

:sarcasm:

[PresidentObama]

138. Well, isn't that just uncalled for n/t

[karynnj]

163. Have you met Senator Kerry?

I did and I assure you he looked all of us directly in the eyes and was very personable and quite nice. I doubt anyone could get elected as Lt Governor and Senator over the people the party had pretty much slated for those positions unless he could meet people and make connections easily.

By the way, I go to New England often and have a daughter in school on Massachisetts - the people have been great.

[mnhtnbb]

30. So Kerry's new routine is to blame the loss on Edwards? What a wimp.

[GreenArrow]

33. interesting viewpoint

particularly since Edwards' routine - since day one - has been to blame the loss on Kerry. What a weasel.

[Leilani]

41. If you read the entire article

I don't think you would come to that conclusion.

[TayTay]

48. No, it's to tell the truth about what happened

Truth matters. It should matter when a Presidential candidate claims things happened that did not happen. Most Americans do not want someone who doesn't tell the truth in the Oval Office. Most Americans did not like it when Bill Clinton lied about his dalliances with Monica. Most Americans really, really, really don't like it that the current President is a serial liar who usedany means necessary to get us into an unnecessary war.

Perhaps Kerry and Edwards should appear on a C-Span program together and air this out. Then we can see who was telling the truth. I do know that there haven't been a whole of people who actually worked in the inner circle of that campaign that have gone on to support Edwards. That is telling right there.

Perhaps Edwards can release some documentation to prove that he wanted to attack but was held back. It certainly sounds like the Kerry camp has documentation and recordings and such that say otherwise. The truth should come out. The voters need to know this in order to make an informed choice, I'd say.

[madfloridian]

78. I find this thread horrible.

Kerry never did fight back. You know I have defended him here a lot, but I am not going to let this kind of stuff slide by.

I don't know the whole story, but I know it was very well known at the end that Edwards was frustrated. That was not a secret.

So now Kerry guys with the help of the Clark people who say oh how wonderfully Clark spoke for him....(Clark was the only general who ran, and he is the chosen military spokesman)...are after Edwards.

Check my post above about what Dean said about the terror alert right after the convention. They even backed away from that. It was sucking the air up, and they knew it and when someone had the courage to say it they backed away.

The world knew it but the campaign refused to admit it.

[TayTay]

86. No, there are people who said, at the time

that Edwards was reluctant to play the role of a traditional VP candidate and attack. That happened. The Globe article did not manufacture people who are only saying this now. This was said before and by those who were in the upper echelons of the campaign.

Edwards was reluctant to be an attack dog and do what was asked of him. That was said then. This is revisionist history at it's worst to pretend this didn't happen. It did.

[flpoljunkie]

99. Kerry never fought back?

There is more on this at the link below...

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/18/edwardss_tough_talk_claims_of_04_disputed/?page=full

Their first choice, according to the former aides, was to have Edwards and Kerry leading a double-barreled attack, with Edwards focusing on the fact that both Bush and Cheney managed to avoid serving in Vietnam.

But Edwards responded that while it was important to respond forcefully, Kerry should lead the effort, according to former Kerry staff members. On Aug. 19, at the John B. Hynes Veterans Memorial Convention Center in Boston, Kerry delivered a blistering attack, calling the Swift Boat group "a front for the Bush campaign" and issuing a blunt challenge to the president. "If he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on!" Kerry said.

Edwards didn't weigh in until Aug. 21, with a more measured response demanding that Bush call for the ads to be taken off the air, deeming it "a moment of truth for George W. Bush." After the damage done by the Swift Boat ads, the Kerry campaign wanted Edwards to spearhead a more aggressive critique of Bush and Cheney over the final two months, former aides said.

On the last night of the Republican National Convention -- where Kerry was bashed relentlessly -- Kerry huddled with Edwards before a rally in Springfield, Ohio, in a meeting that aides said was set up so Kerry could personally implore Edwards to go on the attack.

Edwards promised to get more aggressive, according to former aides who were briefed on the Sept. 2 conversation. But Kerry and his top advisers never saw that vow turned into action. In the campaign's final weeks, Kerry's top communications aides would talk with staff members traveling with Edwards every morning, sending them attack lines they wanted Edwards to use.

Edwards often pushed back, insisting on softer language and delaying the attacks for hours, one former Kerry-Edwards communications aide said. Toward the end of the campaign, former campaign aides said, they turned to surrogates -- including Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and a retired Army general, Wesley K. Clark -- to deliver the broadsides.

[karynnj]

164. Senator Kerry has not said one negative word about Edwards,

would that the reverse were true?

[Olney Blue]

34. The Swift Boat Veterans were the monsters, not Kerry/Edwards

[PresidentObama]

54. Of course you are right.

Some forget that sometimes :)

[DURHAM D]

38. Elizabeth Edwards took some cheap shots at the Kerry

campaign (Ohio aftermath) in her book. Also, she made snide remarks about Theresa regarding her help in trying to find the best doctors. She could of just left it out. Would have been the mature thing to do.

Then Elizabeth "accidentally" said in an interview that she was happier than Hillary because she had made better choices in her life. Elizabeth later apologized to Hillary.

I can fully believe that John has changed his history a little regarding that campaign. Personally I don't think he is capable of really hard hitting campaign speeches. Kerry made a mistake in picking him for the position that requires a different demeanor. John is too nice a guy to be President - reminds me of Jimmy Carter.

To sum up - Elizabeth would be the better candidate for Pres. because she was just enough of a mean streak to get it done and John should be the supportive spouse.

[venable]

45. this story is not true

Edwards wanted to fight the Swift Boaters and was told not to, and he wanted to not concede the day after the election.

As for going after Bush, I refer everyone to the above post about how Rev. Al's speech was scrubbed of his attacks. fortunately, Al improvised, and it was the most stirring speech I've heard in years. The entire Boston Garden rose as one, more inspired than throughout the whole rest of the campaign.

If Kerry wanted to go after Bush, why did they scrub Sharpton's speech?

[DURHAM D]

46. Which story - I think you are responding to the whole thread

more than my post.

Just for the record - were you in the room when the swiftboaters and Ohio followup were being discussed. I was not and really it does not matter at this point. Its just opinion.

[chimpymustgo]

47. I have a great deal of respect for John Kerry, but I think some of his team are

trying to blame others for Kerry's "defeat" - it's Clinton, it's McCauliffe, it's the media - now it's Edwards. PLEASE. I sense some real resentment because Edwards came away from the loss untainted, and is running again, whereas Kerry was forced to (wisely) not get in again.

This whole thing also stinks of McCauliffe - and we know who he's working for.

At the rate we're going, the Rethugs won't have to lift a finger against us.

[AtomicKitten]

51. really?

Stinks of McAullife? If he were really running offense for Hillary, why the hell would he exonerate Edwards - his opponent - of the Kerry/Edwards campaign's bad decisions? That makes no sense.

For someone wagging their finger at people blaming, you continue to do the same yourself.

I agree with your admonition generally but that sentiment should extend 360-degrees and not exempt someone you just don't like.
I get really sick and tired of this gratuitous yet oh so convenient blaming.

[chimpymustgo]

53. Yes, really. McAullife is fanning the flames with his book and promotional

appearances. He's working for another candidate - while setting the table for a he said/she said battle between Kerry and Edwards.

I appreciate your "general agreement", but really, AtomicKitten, I don't need a lecture from you about whatever conclusions I may draw about this.

[AtomicKitten]

56. I wonder if it occurred to you that

McAullife is merely calling it like he sees it?

You accused him of attacking on behalf of whom he is supporting, but that makes no sense since Edwards is HRC's opponent (Kerry is not a candidate); why in the hell would he exonerate Edwards if what you allege is true?

Hey, knock yourself out blaming regardless of how lame your accusations are; you certainly are not alone in doing so at DU.

If you are seeking only "you go, girl" high-five responses, perhaps you should not be posting on this particular message board.

[w4rma]

96. McAullife never "calls it like he sees it". He's running interference for the hillary campaign.

The DLC is working to get back into power through the executive branch.

[TayTay]

52. Ah, this is verifiable.

A lot of those speeches are still online. Go see them. Ask some people who actually worked on the campaign and who asked Edwards to go on the offensive.

I have heard this ever since the loss. I think Edwards wanted to distance himself from the loss, so he 'enhanced' his role, even though it wasn't what happened.

[karynnj]

165. Elizabeth's comments were one of the few times I sided with Hillary

Elizabeth spoke of satying home with her kids, unlike Hillary. The problem is that she did work when she had the two older kids - and she was campaigning for most of the lives of the 2 younger ones.

[madfloridian]

55. Oh, come on. This is a ridiculous bash Edwards thread....

with the Karry people making it sound like Kerry did fight back...he did not. And the Clark people saying how Clark spoke up for him.

This is just BS.

It was no secret at the end that Edwards was cross about not counting the votes. It was not a secret.

The campaign was extremely careful. No one was to speak off script. I have a list of how everytime Howard Dean had anything to say in 04 before the election...he got shot down by the Kerry campaign. He was also traveling for DFA candidates and speaking for them and himself...but the Kerry advisors backed off every word he said.

Remember this?.....right after the Dem convention, before anyone could get their breath there were the huge NY terror alerts which turned out to be several years old??? Remember? Dean was right, Jamie Rubin and other advisors said he did not know what he was saying, That they did not believe it was politically motivated, very apologetic to the right wing. Dean was right, the alerts were very old.

BLITZER: And I want to immediately get your reaction to both of these developing stories. First, the decision by the federal government, the Department of Homeland Security, to increase the threat level here in Washington, D.C., from yellow to orange, from elevated to high. What do you make of this?

HOWARD DEAN, FORMER GOVERNOR OF VERMONT: It's hard to know what to make. None of us outside the administration have access to the intelligence, which led to this determination.

I am concerned that every time something happens that's not good for President Bush he plays this trump card, which is terrorism. His whole campaign is based on the notion that "I can keep you safe, therefore at times of difficulty for America stick with me," and then out comes Tom Ridge.

It's just impossible to know how much of this is real and how much of this is politics, and I suspect there's some of both in it.

The whole country and the whole world knew he was right, and the Kerry advisors blasted him all over. Not just them either. Many Democrats tsked tsked all over the TV.

So let's not twist stuff, and let's not attack Edwards on something like this.

[PresidentObama]

57. This is all a bunch of he said, she said.

Edwards wants to point the finger at Kerry for 2004, and distance himself from that campaign. Especially on the Swift Boat stuff. But heres something from that article from the OP, I find interesting:

"Edwards refused to play the traditional role of a running mate -- being the person who's delivering the negative message on the opponents," said one former senior campaign official who was involved in the discussions between the Kerry and Edwards staffs. The official no longer works for Kerry and is not affiliated with any of the 2008 presidential candidates.

"He just wouldn't do it," the campaign official said of Edwards. "He wouldn't do it on Swift Boats, and he wouldn't do it on any other issue."

And this....

"Their first choice, according to the former aides, was to have Edwards and Kerry leading a double-barreled attack, with Edwards focusing on the fact that both Bush and Cheney managed to avoid serving in Vietnam.

But Edwards responded that while it was important to respond forcefully, Kerry should lead the effort, according to former Kerry staff members.

On Aug. 19, at the John B. Hynes Veterans Memorial Convention Center in Boston, Kerry delivered a blistering attack, calling the Swift Boat group "a front for the Bush campaign" and issuing a blunt challenge to the president.
challenge to the president.

"If he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on!" Kerry said.

Edwards didn't weigh in until Aug. 21, with a more measured response demanding that Bush call for the ads to be taken off the air, deeming it "a moment of truth for George W. Bush.

...
Edwards often pushed back, insisting on softer language and delaying the attacks for hours, one former Kerry-Edwards communications aide said. Toward the end of the campaign, former campaign aides said, they turned to surrogates -- including Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and a retired Army general, Wesley K. Clark -- to deliver the broadsides."

It's very important to look back at the campaign of 2004, and examine it. But we have to do it fairly, and not all this finger pointing that McAuliffe and Edwards want to do. I thoroughly enjoy Edwards, but I think he's wrong by pointing fingers. And McAuliffe, well we know my opinion about him and his failures as the DNC chairmen.

I'm sick of the he said, she said. Take the lessons of 2004 to heart from the failures of the DNC and the Kerry/Edwards campaign, but stop the finger pointing. They all made mistakes from John Kerry to John Edwards to Terry McAuliffe. And while I know Edwards wants to distance himself from 2004, and McAuliffe wants to boost his image after being a virtual failure in the DNC, but honesty is the key to everything.

[madfloridian]

58. Or we could blame it on the Clinton aides. as this article does.

OMG I am editing this to put the sarcasm tag. It is ridiculous I had to do this.

:sarcasm:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6420967/site/newsweek/

I don't think it is fair to put the blame on Edwards since he had to do as he was told.

I know for a fact that Dean had to shut his mouth and if he spoke up on his own, they backed away.

Interesting article. Most of it old stuff, and it's Newsweek after all.

:sarcasm:

[PresidentObama]

59. Blame Edwards for what? n/t

[AtomicKitten]

60. No doubt YOU will somehow connect it to Clinton.

Regardless of the fact that Edwards is actually her opponent and it makes no sense for her or any of her surrogates to exonerate him from the bad decisions made by the Kerry/Edwards 2004 campaign.

But, please, go right on ahead. We expect no less from you.

[PresidentObama]

61. AtomicKitten, I actually saw someone blame Hillary....

....for Gore's 'lose' in 2000. I wasn't aware he lost in the first place, but they blamed it on Hillary.

:shrug: I don't think we can agree on much, but blaming the Clintons for everything isn't something I'm willing to do. Even if a lot of people I like and respect on this board feel the need to.

[madfloridian]

67. Well, it's ok to blame Edwards? Let's share the blame.

I got all kinds of stuff.

[LittleClarkie]

121. Who's "we"? You and the mouse in your pocket?

Just wondering.

[AtomicKitten]

124. we

as opposed to the sheep that go along just to be contrary

baaaaaaaaaa

[hijinx87]

63. I knew it. I just knew it.

I just knew we would find Bill Clinton at the bottom of this.

[PresidentObama]

64. Of course we would!!!

:rofl:

[madfloridian]

65. Heh Heh

Let's spread the blame. I am not going to keep reading this stuff where all the fault falls on Edwards. It is totally unfair and is not factual.

[PresidentObama]

66. Again, I'll ask. What blame for Edwards? n/t

[madfloridian]

73. After you have read the thread, ask me again.

I blame no one. I am defending Edwards for being blamed for the loss in 04 and for not fighting back.

[PresidentObama]

76. I've read the thread. It's fair criticism.

Edwards was one half of the Kerry/Edwards team. If you don't expect criticism, stick to pro-Edwards blogs and message boards. I don't think anyone should blame Edwards for the loss in 2004, and I don't see any evidence anyone has. Does he get some blame? Of course. Does Kerry get blame? I think John Kerry himself has said yes to that. It goes full circle.

EDIT: Have you read the article in the OP? Edwards wasn't innocent of any blame for 2004. Again, not blaming him for 04', it wasn't his fault.

[madfloridian]

79. I am not an Edwards supporter....yet. Don't assume.

I am totally objective right now. I don't give a damn right now.

And yes, this thread is blaming Edwards for not speaking up. That is just baloney.

[PresidentObama]

83. It isn't placing the WHOLE blame for 04' on Edwards.

Not at all. Is it placing some blame? Yes. Is that fair? Yes. And I understand some posters are being unfair in this thread, but thats business as usual at DU. The candidates are all being dragged through the mud by opposing camps.

[Mass]

105. The article does not blame him for not winning. It does not even blame him for not fighting.

It counters Edwards's claims he wanted to fight.

Edwards made the claim. He should expect that some of Kerry's friends answer, particularly if the claim is false. When I go back to the 2004 papers, I do not see anybody claiming that Edwards wanted to fight. As early as September 2004, there were claims that Kerry was mad because he received bad advice. But I cannot find any claim Edwards wanted to fight.

So, that he now describes himself as the knight in a shining armor is a little bit bothering. (a little bit that adds to a lot of little bits).

No, he is not responsible by himself for the loss. Kerry is ultimately responsible for what happened and he said so. But, Edwards is apparently trying to depict himself as somebody he is not!

[hijinx87]

68. the only people who aren't responsible for not winning in 2004

are the two guys that didn't win.

got it.

[AtomicKitten]

69. more importantly is that it's over and now 2008 is looming

We all lost in 2004. With Kerry stepping out of the fray for 2008, we should put to rest all discord about that election. The GOP Wrecking Machine is gearing up to annihilate whoever we put up. This nonstop petty bickering at DU gets on my last nerve. I have one eye on this crap and the other on the gathering storm we are about to face, and I'm getting dizzy. We have bigger fish to fry than to try to sort out who's to blame for what when it just doesn't matter anymore.

[PresidentObama]

70. AK, I could toast to that.

We can't go backward on 2004. We all wish we had Kerry/Edwards in the WH, and not these assholes. But it's over, we can't go back. Take the lessons from that election, and look forward. The Democratic team HAS to win in 2008, we HAVE too. No excuses, NONE!!

[AtomicKitten]

74. IT'S THE SUPREME COURT, STUPID

That should be the Dems' rallying cry for 2008. Justice Stevens is 86, Ginsburg 73, Souter 67. On the other hand, the new evil toads squatting on the court are 52 and 56.

Instead of the incessant drive to tear down our Dem candidates, we need a solid, healthy debate. All those threatening to vote third party or not at all, or oaths made to never vote for this candidate or that are votes that put us one vote away from control over the next Supreme Court nominee.

It is our responsibility to pull up our socks and make an effort to get our collective shit together.

[PresidentObama]

77. Solid, healthy debate, yes. Thats exactly what we need n/t

[madfloridian]

71. I put a sarcasm tag...in fact I put two of them.

It appears to be blame Edwards for Kerry day here, and I won't let that slide. The Newsweek article was meant by me to be sarcastic.

[PresidentObama]

72. I don't blame Edwards for Kerry, and I'm a Kerry supporter.

If you've read the OP, and the article it alleges Edwards claim that he wanted to respond to the Swift Boat attacks but Kerry wouldn't let him are untrue. If you've got evidence that this is not true, please provide it. The article claims to have a source of a former 2004 Kerry/Edwards official claiming Edwards statement isn't true, and is backed up by the fact that Kerry came out (a little late) to respond to the attacks before Edwards did.

Edwards was a part of Kerry/Edwards. He was one half of the puzzle. If you don't expect some people to place some blame on him for 2004, then I suggest you stick to pro-Edwards blogs and message boards. You support a candidate, expect to get criticism of your guy. It happens, take it with ease and realize what you're fighting for.

I like John Edwards a lot, by the way :hi:

[madfloridian]

80. Please don't assume I am an Edwards supporter. You guys are ganging up.

The Kerrys and the Clarks...joining up to bash one man who has few people on this board.

[PresidentObama]

82. I'm sorry I assumed.

"You guys" Excuse me? It's EXTREMELY ignorant to say ALL supporters of a certain candidate think and act the same way. I disagree with most of the other Kerry supporters about the Clintons, doesn't mean I should be lumped with all of them.

I'll say it AGAIN, I like John Edwards. He's a great candidate.

[madfloridian]

84. Yes, I am known for being EXTREMELY ignorant, as you said.

You made your point.

[PresidentObama]

85. I didn't say you were ignorant.

However, your statement was ignorant. I said it's ignorant to lump me in with the rest of the Kerry supporters. Show me on this board where I've bashed and bashed and bashed Edwards. Please. I beg of you.

No need, you won't find anything!!

EDIT: Before Kerry announced he wasn't running, I made a thread on this board about liking Edwards and thinking about jumping ship and supporting him. I have no agenda to chase him with kitchen knives.

[hijinx87]

88. I honestly didn't see the sarcasm tags when I replied

but my broadband has been a little reluctant to load
images tonight. even super tiny ones.

sorry if I missed it.

[sampsonblk]

81. This confirms only one thing: Kerry didn't fight back enough

Edwards must believe, as many of us do, that Kerry ran a soft (and inept) campaign in 2004. Or he wouldn't try to separate himself from that effort.

Who is telling the truth? Who knows? I know I wouldn't vote for either one of them again.

[ProSense]

87. What I take from this is

Kerry was left hanging, even by Edwards. I remember how a lot of people on the left lambasted Edwards for not going after Cheney during the debates. It's BS to all of a sudden claim that he is some kind of attack dog.

All but a handful of Democrats didn't deem it important enough to squash the liars and link them to Bush. The chronology in the article is exactly how I remembered it from what little was reported and what was posted online. The media onslaught was met with complete silence from party pundits and so-called leaders.

This was one of the most important elections ever, and the party's response was pathetic.

Now, Terribly McAwful is running around the country on a book/Clinton campaign tour spewing BS as if he deserves some grand prize. He's a complete f-tard!

[AtomicKitten]

91. blaming, blaming, blaming

I'm afraid that only works for a few of you now.

[Jai4WKC08]

95. To me, blaming has nothing to do with it

But this is just one more thing that Edwards claims now when the record shows he was about something else altogether before. You know, like caring about the poor and being against the war?

[wisteria]

92. It is about time the record was set straight. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

93. It's been straight for most Democrats for a long, long time now.

It is the last vestiges of the entrenched Kerry camp that are unwilling to take a critical look at the campaign and acknowledge some truths that have been indigestible to date. Instead they collectively blame everybody BUT Kerry including Edwards, both Clintons and everyone associated with them real or imagined, McAullife, the Democratic Party en masse, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the long-eared donkey, and the talking walnut (circa Bad Santa).

Oy vey.

[madfloridian]

94. Hey, they are being politicians and doing what politicians do.

How well I remember how often we were told that back in the day.

Doing the proper thing, being a politician.

So what's the big deal? Remember those words?

Kerry lost. He was in charge of the campaign. That is the bottom line.

He had a lot of mouthpieces, he could have said or had said what needed to be done.

McAuliffe's book, which is really trying to sow discord for Hillary's sake.....gave both sides of the case.

I remember how cautious the Kerry camp was because Dean had formed DFA and was traveling 6 days a week supporting candidates. He was frequently on TV speaking for himself, but the Kerry advisors jumped his butt every time he spoke out.

He was dead on right about the terror alerts right after the convention in 04. That statement traveled round the world..."out comes Tom Ridge."

The Kerry advisors made sure the whole country knew Dean was not right, and they did not think he should say such things. The world was thankful someone said it. The Kerry camp was not.

OWARD DEAN, FORMER GOVERNOR OF VERMONT: It's hard to know what to make. None of us outside the administration have access to the intelligence, which led to this determination.

I am concerned that every time something happens that's not good for President Bush he plays this trump card, which is terrorism. His whole campaign is based on the notion that "I can keep you safe, therefore at times of difficulty for America stick with me," and then out comes Tom Ridge.

It's just impossible to know how much of this is real and how much of this is politics, and I suspect there's some of both in it.

The only people who found anything wrong with that statement were Kerry advisors. There were no more alerts after Dean's statement for a long long time. It was all true what he said.

[chimpymustgo]

98. Thank you, madfloridian for your well-supported arguments. These attacks on Edwards

are just uncalled for.

[madfloridian]

108. Well, I know from experience what it feels to be outnumbered.

And when you have two groups in vicious mode against one, that person ain't got a chance in hell at a forum.

The Clark people detest Edwards because Kerry picked him and the Kerry people are going to blame him for Kerry's loss. And their numbers are great here indeed. All goes back to 04.

They forgot the day that Kerry on CNN just before the election said knowinng what he knew now...he would have voted for the war all over again.

I feel sick inside when this stuff happens. McAuliffe's book is deliberately stirring up trouble so Hillary will benefit over Edwards.

[TayTay]

110. John Kerry is not running nationally

He is re-running for his seat as a Senator from Massachusetts. In announcing this decision, the Senator said that he would work to end this war in Iraq and pursue those goals that he has found important based on his 22 years of experience as a US Senator. Kerry also stressed the importance of truth in the nomination process and how he intends to be an advocate for getting the truth out, especially in light of his belief that part of the reason America is in this endless and unnecessary war in Iraq is a lack of truth-telling on the part of this Administration.

In this instance, the truth is not just a matter of conjecture. There are campaign e-mails, documentation, recordings and so forth that present the '04 Kerry campaigns position on what former Sen. Edwards was told to do and what he actually did in '04. Maybe that documentation should come out and then this can be settled. After all, that would serve the ideal of Kerry seeking and telling the truth to the voters, as he said he would in any '08 run for the Senate from Massachusetts. Kerry would be serving his electorate by helping Democrats to assess the candidates and assess how honest they are or if they engage in some 'resume padding' and if so, how serious that is. (It does go to the issue of character and who can and cannot be trusted. That is a legitimate area of inquiry in Presidential nomination runs.)

John Kerry is not running for national office, John Edwards is. Sen. Kerry answers to a different constituency now. It is John Edwards who has to ask himself how many news cycles he wants to spend defending himself, watching internal revelations come out about his behavior from the past and watch a national debate about his credibility be waged in the media. If I were him, I would think twice about that. If I were him, I might want to stop saying things that are verifiably untrue. That would be pure foolishness when all that is being asked of him is that he tell the truth.

[madfloridian]

112. Bring out the documentation. Bring it on. Let's get it all out in the open.

"There are campaign e-mails, documentation, recordings and so forth that present the '04 Kerry campaigns position on what former Sen. Edwards was told to do and what he actually did in '04. Maybe that documentation should come out and then this can be settled."

Yes, bring them out in the open now.

"in light of his belief that part of the reason America is in this endless and unnecessary war in Iraq is a lack of truth-telling on the part of this Administration."

That's only part of the reason we are in this tragic war. The other part of the reason is Democrats who say they would still have voted for this war. They say it because they believe in a unitary executive privilege even for fools like GWB. Now that is not very smart.

Let's get all that documentation out in the open. Now. Right away.

Let them all be politicians.

Hey, folks, we went down this road in that other primary. I have no loyalties now, and I have no willingness to allow hits on one person without the other getting their share of the blame.

[TayTay]

113. I agree. I have no candidate this time either

And I think truth should be a guide. That can only rebound to the good of the Democratic process.
I think it should all come out. That would be a service to the Democratic primary voters who could then assess the truthfulness of each candidate in the national race.

Bring it on indeed. Democracy will be the better for it as will candidates who will then be forced to assert or defend their positions. This process makes for stronger candidates, btw.

[madfloridian]

115. I think we should mount calls to Kerry to bring it on now....early on.

And let's not try to keep bringing each other down like we did in 03.

That was a tragic time here.

[TayTay]

117. I agree.

Senator Kerry would, in that way, serve the people of Massachusetts by doing what he said he would do when he announced that he would rerun for the Senate: place the quest for truth above political concerns.

I think this is a wonderful idea. Truth, after all, does matter.

[madfloridian]

118. It matters for everyone. If he is going to go after Edwards...

Let it be now. Waiting to bring it out does no one good.

[jen4clark]

144. I don't usually respond to your comments

because I've seen too much here, but I also will not let you continue over and over again to claim that "The Clark people detest Edwards because Kerry picked him..."

IT IS NOT TRUE FOR ME AND IT IS NOT TRUE FOR MOST CLARKIES I KNOW, so please find something else to say about how horrid Clarkies are.

[ProSense]

104. Yes, Edwards the attack dog

caves to pressure from wingnut Bill Donohue. Last week he was running around claiming that he silenced a Kerry campaign staffer (note Kerry didn't fire her and she didn't quit). Here is his claim from a Media Matters piece about the Edwards bloggers:

DONOHUE: Well, Mara Vanderslice in 2004 worked for the Kerry-Edwards campaign. I found out about her background and they had to silence her. Then I got Brenda Bartella Peterson to quit or be fired because of what -- because of her background. What I'm saying is this: These people are somewhat clueless. They're somewhat naïve. They need to find out who's working for them. You know, you've got to vet these people. You've got to have a gatekeeper, and they don't have one.

PBS interview November 12 2004:

For the final weeks of the campaign, I was in the battleground state of Michigan. And there we pioneered a specific Catholic outreach strategy that I thought had tremendous success. We did a direct mail piece to undecided Catholic voters, more than 100,000 households. We had canvassing efforts in heavily Catholic neighborhoods. We had phone banks of women religious, of Catholic nuns who would actually call undecided Catholic voters and say, "This is Sister Rita Mary, and I'm calling with the Kerry campaign. This is why he shares my values." We did a real concerted effort to get people out on radio, letters to the editor, op-eds. Even Bishop Gumbleton there of the Catholic diocese had done a wonderful op-ed piece. And what we found was the receptivity was tremendous. I mean, people were just pouring into our office to be part of the Catholic outreach, and we ended up winning the Catholic vote in Michigan. What we really proved is that when the effort is put out on the ground and we don't ignore these constituencies, the tremendous efforts bring them to our side. So those outreach efforts are vital. They're necessary. And I hope that the Democratic Party will see the successes that we did have during this campaign and begin to build on them.

Political campaigns are tough. I mean, they are tough. But I loved it, and I would do it again in a heartbeat. There is nothing like the energy and the urgency of a political campaign. I was inspired every day I was there by the people at the grassroots who would say, "Thank you so much for being there. Thank you for being a voice on the phone that I can call to and say, 'People in my church are praying for me because I'm voting for John Kerry.'" Those stories out there of people that have been hungering to have a place as Christians at the table in this party -- that was enough to keep me through all the challenges that we faced.

Someone had forwarded to me when the Catholic League put their release out. I remember the title said, "John Kerry's Religious Outreach Director Is a Real Gem." Naively, I actually thought maybe it was going to be someone saying nice things about what we were doing. But, you know, I didn't take it personally. I think the religious Right would have attacked anyone who signed up for this responsibility, for this position. They believe that this is their territory, and they would have attacked anyone in the party that was stepping out to bring religious people into the party. It just showed how threatened they would be if the Democrats really started to make this a priority. I never took it personally, those crazy, you know -- they were outrageous claims. You just sometimes have to look at that stuff and laugh and say, you know, politics -- it is hardball. But I never let it stop me from the tremendous efforts that we every single day to be there on the other end of the phone, to be there responding to people's e-mails and building those grassroots networks. I've learned a lot, but I would do it again in a heartbeat.

From 2004 the wingnuts hurled all kinds of attacks at Kerry:

“To top it off –continued Donohue, - Kerry is now taking advice from the discredited priest, Father Robert Drinan. Drinan, who says he is part of Kerry’s ‘kitchen Cabinet’ on religious matters, was forced in 1997 to retract an outrageous New York Times op-ed column he wrote the year before supporting President Clinton’s veto of a ban on partial-birth abortion. If this is the kind of Catholic Kerry is listening to, he’s in deep trouble.”

link

We know Kerry didn't disassociate himself with Father Drinan.


The episode with Edwards two blog hires is telling and embarrassing. He could have taken a page from Kerry then.

[madfloridian]

114. Perhaps you haven't read my posts on the topic. And about Mara Vandersliice

I wrote quite a few. Look them up and see my views on it.

Not a single one of our Democrats...none of them...stand up to the right wing religious extremists anymore. None of them.

Perhaps we should ask if there were any Democrats willing to get Edwards back on this?? No, I did not think so.

If they had stood together it would not have happened.

If you guys want to keep talking about how he stood up for Vanderslice, please remember that she is very religious indeed. You can not compare her to the two bloggers who were fired. She is the one who said Christians form the base of the party. She is a Christisn activist first.

She is the one who often made fun of Dean because he did try to communicate with those of faith...nothing he did was good enough for her.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0405&article=040541b

And this article shows that she is actually pushing the religious right's views on our party. Of course he defended her...she's a very religious person.

The two bloggers were not religious people, and though I wish Edwards had been firmer....it would have taken more than just him to stand against all of the Christian right.

Please stop comparing Vanderslice and the two bloggers. Mara doesn't think our Democrats are religious enough. This is a telling article.

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30616FA35550C758EDDAB0994DE404482

"But Ms. Vanderslice's efforts to integrate faith into Democratic campaigns troubles some liberals, who accuse her of mimicking the Christian right.

Dr. Welton Gaddy, president of the liberal Interfaith Alliance, said her encouragement of such overt religiosity raised ''red flags'' about the traditional separation of church and state.

''I don't want any politician prostituting the sanctity of religion,'' Mr. Gaddy said, adding that nonbelievers also ''have a right to feel they are represented at the highest levels of government.''

To Ms. Vanderslice, that attitude is her party's problem. In an interview, she said she told candidates not to use the phrase ''separation of church and state,'' which does not appear in the Constitution's clauses forbidding the establishment or protecting the exercise of religion."

She doesn't want us to talk about separation of church and state? All righty then.

[FrenchieCat]

123. Odd, MadFlo...that you continue to give Edwards a pass on his

handling of the bloggers that HE hired, and fired, and re-hired, and chastised...by your rationalization that continueously states that IF other Dems should have stood up with him....and then this wouldn't have happen!

If Edwards wasn't gonna stand up, why should anyone else? :shrug:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/02/16/obama/index.html
http://www.thenewsblog.net/2007/02/fundamental-misunderstanding.html
http://www.blogpi.net/will-elizabeth-edwards-resign-too

If Edwards was a leader, he would have led on this. He didn't.

So now you've determined to use the tact of blaming others? Getta of here! :rofl:

Where was Edwards standing up next to Kerry on the Botched Joke?
Where was Edwards standing up next to Howard Dean on the magnified scream?
Where was Edwards standing up next to the Dixie Chicks or Michael Moore or Dick Durbin or ?
Where was Edwards standing up against the Iraq War when it counted?

Where has John Edwards been? What has he stood against and when?

[LittleClarkie]

127. Well, one place he's been is standing up for the poor

He took a job with some university regarding that subject, I think.

I'm not giving him a pass, but I'm not going to comment on him til I've had a chance to give him a thorough look see. Being the lazy person I am, that may not happen til it looks like he's the nominee.

[FrenchieCat]

135. Edwards is not the only one standing up for the poor......not by any measures.....

or are you saying that John Kerry has never shown interest in the poor?

So yes, John Edwards did "some" work on poverty....but he didn't specifically "champion" any legislature for the poor in his six years in the Senate, 4 which was under Democratic majority rule. He did the minimum wage thing....but then, all Democratic Senators did. :shrug:

Holding down a part-time position at a poverty "think tank" policy center between runs for President does not a martyr make. In fact, some question whether that may have also been political calculated "positioning" to claim the mantle of being the Poor man's candidate.

Obama's record on work against poverty is much more lengthy and documented....and for a lot less pay than even the $40,000 Edwards got paid by the Poverty Center in the two years that he was involved which coincidently took place from 2005 to 2006!

[LittleClarkie]

141. I wasn't comparing. I was only answering the question "where has he been

on anything"

He's been there re: the poor. Not to say he's been the only one there, or that there might not be better voices, or to say that John Kerry was never there. None of that is what I was saying.

But the one issue Edwards seems to be tied to was the poor. As I've said I've not paid a ton of attention to him. But that bit of info came through. Whether he's represented them badly or hypocritically or half heartedly, I dunno. I have other impressions, like he seems to be a bit of an opportunist. But I thought Kerry was an uninteresting asshole at one point, too. And we see where that opinion ended up.

It's all just a bit too early in the primary process for me to get worked up re: any of these folks.

[Adelante]

148. Remember when "Howard Dean Speaks for Me" started?

Who said this?

"The chairman of the DNC is not the spokesman for the party."



On the other hand...

Clark also voiced strong support for Democratic National Committee head Howard Dean, who has been criticized for comments attacking Republicans.

"We've got to protect our freedom and our liberty," Clark said. "I'm proud of Howard Dean. I'm proud of the Democratic party. And we're going to stand together as a party."

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050613/NEWS0201/106130013/-1/CITIZEN

[karynnj]

166. She is not religious right - she is religious

As to Kerry keeping her on, but giving her a lower profile, from the recent NYT article, that worked out well for her and for Democrats in states where a significant part of the population is religious.

I think she also did end up convincing Kerry about the need to let people see what his religious views were because in preparation for 2008, he gave the excellent Pepperdine speech. That speech was extraordinary as it did lay out how his faith - and he is extremely knowlegeable and religious - interacted with his call to service as a public servant. He started the speech by saying that because he didn't explain his faith in 2004, people filled in the void with carricatures.

This approach would not work for all or even most politicians. But, it would work for those, like Kerry, who are religious BUT who also have a strong belief in seperation of church and state. It also let me see more of the foundation that the John Kerry I did see in 2004 rested on and that convinced me of the depth of his sincerity.

[seabeyond]

101. i said nothing about edward during the run.... but, i felt edward didnt pull his weight

since that election i have continually seen this catty behavior by the edwards. more and more i become less impressed even bothered by edwards character. no, i do not believe edward had it in him to go after bush....

i will take kerry side on this

[madfloridian]

116. Kerry did not speak out much either.

.

[Catchawave]

122. Agree...Kerry led the ticket...so

...the buck stops with him. Just my opinion, but blaming Edwards for the loss in '04 just doesn't make sense. Kerry's goose was cooked by the (nonswiftboat) VN vets once he announced "Reporting for duty" at the DNCC. I should know, I'm married to one :(

That, and Theresa talking about her "first" husband on the campaign trail was a buzz killer too.

Many mistakes made by KE04.....and must not be placed solely on Edwards. The McAwful book is just trying to assure him a paycheck from the HRC warchest, let's not become Rovian :evilgrin:

[PresidentObama]

125. Kerry led the ticket. And he's publically said....

...He takes the blame for the mistakes he made, and he knows he made them. No one is blaming Edwards for the loss in 04', they are just saying he isn't 100% cleared of ANY blame as one half of the ticket.

The mistakes of the Kerry/Edwards campaign should be taken to heart, and lessons learned for 2008. But digging up the past isn't IMO the best thing to do. Edwards is a great candidate right now, he can distance himself all he wants from Kerry and the 2004 election. But he can't change the past, nor the truth. 2008 is very important, and if Edwards is the nominee we'll all rally behind him gladly. Well, most of us.

:eyes: Maybe not some at DU.

[Catchawave]

129. I've never blamed Kerry..or Edwards....but many still do....

My response was not meant to flame Kerry, but his campaign, which is so 2004 :D

Too many posts on DU still want to hunt with that dog. Sad.

[PresidentObama]

134. TRUST ME, I know.

DU doesn't want to move past that, even though Senator Kerry isn't running for President anymore and is working in the Senate to end this stupid ass war.

On ward to 2008 IMO. We've got bigger fish to fry!!

[karynnj]

168. Teresa - not Theresa!!!!!!!!

Teresa also spoke about John Kerry and made a very good case for voting for him. The media distorted Teresa more thatn they did John Kerry and she had nothing like the debates to show people who she was. I have seen John and Teresa Kerry - and she is awesome and incredibly supportive.

I noticed in 2004 that Kerry was far more relaxed and far more charismatic at events when Teresa was there. There was CSPAN coverage of Kerry's Iraq speech at NYU. In the middle of a sentence, Kerry's face lit up and he finished the point he was making - and spoke of how Teresa had just arrived from another NY event. The MA people have all spoken of how Kerry becamne far more open since they married.

[karynnj]

167. Kerry spoke out daily on the issues against Bush

what are you talking about. Who spoke about letting OBL escape at Tora Bora? Who spoke about the kids getting killed because the known ammo dumps weren't guarded. Kerry's demeanor and manners let him make much harsher attacks on Bush than anyone.

[Ronnie Roach]

131. I agree

you are right sir!

[zulchzulu]

132. At least Edwards delivered North Carolina....

:boring:

[FrenchieCat]

136. and a few other southern states that Gore hadn't won......

right? :shrug:

[saracat]

140. This is all RW spin and Terry Mac using this to Hillary's advantage!

Why are DUers even going for this? I like John Kerry. I consider myself a Kerrycrat but his campaign staff was awful. He had awful advice. John Edward's was picked because of his "sunny" personality and charisma.He was supposed to bring the "likability factor" to the campaign. Remember he emerged from the primaries as the candidate who was positive and didn't go negative? NOW people have a problem that he wasn't negative enough about Bush?
Please.2004 is over.Don't let the 2008 candidates eat at one another till we have NO choice.

[jen4clark]

142. Oh! Well McAuliffe says it

we know it must be true!! Cripes. I wouldn't trust that asshat any further than I could throw a feather.

[Unbowed]

151. Interesting post.

I'm really dissapointed that John Edwards doesn't have anything better to run on than to Monday morning quarterback 2004. It is rather cheap of him to take these pot shots at Kerry as well. If Edwards thinks his chances for winning the presidency rest on his acting tough, he's already doomed. The last thing we need is a snarling and snapping John Edwards. It's just not something he does well.

[ieoeja]

170. Of course Edwards wanted to fight harder.

Look how he fought to retain a pair of staffers whose report on a rightwing meeting offended the rightwingers.

Oh, that's right. He said he would fire them.


Well, then, look how he stood up to all the leftwing bloggers who complained about his giving in to the Right on this.

Oops! Wrong again. He decided to NOT fire them after that.


Well, 2007 is not 2004. I'm sure that in 2004 he WOULD have been a fighter if permitted to do so.