Kerry's regrets about Edwards

[The Count]

Kerry told me that the Edwardses simply stopped returning calls or talking to him and Teresa. Within months, Edwards started preparing for a bid in 2008. Kerry said that he wished he'd never picked Edwards, that he should have gone with his gut.

snip
The meeting we held in the Edwardses' family room did him a disservice; of course, he was the candidate and if he really was against the war, it was up to him to stand his ground. He didn't. If he had, it almost certainly would have been Edwards and not Dean who emerged early on as the antiwar candidate. But Edwards didn't want to look "liberal" and out of the mainstream; he was, after all, the southern candidate and thought of himself as Clintonesque. He valued the advice and prized the support of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. I had my own concerns: If he took the antiwar route, I knew I would have been characterized as a malign force moving him to the left—which wasn't true, although I wish it had been given that I now regard the Iraq invasion as one of the great mistakes in the history of U.S. foreign policy.more
snip

"Kerry talked with several potential picks, including Gephardt and Edwards. He was comfortable after his conversations with Gephardt, but even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else—that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before—and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again."


http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1626498,00.html

[eyesroll]

1. Yeah. Gephardt would have been so much better.

:eyes:

[pstans]

70. Kerry and Gephardt...BORING!

:hangover:

[SharonAnn]

82. Wes Clark would've been a great choice.

[politicasista]

83. Looking back, he really would have

He was a great surrogate for Kerry.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

152. Actually, he would have been much better.

Gephardt would've won us Missouri and given us a much better chance in Ohio. Edwards did NOTHING for us in the South.

[PDittie]

2. Listen here: Bob Schrum is a fuckwad.

Don't believe anything that douchebag says. Not one single thing.

[The Count]

5. he is. But he has direct knowledge of things that happened. Some ring true.

I picked those in my quotes.

[doggyboy]

11. "Some ring true" means "Some support my biases"

A good propogandist knows how to make some things "ring true"

[The Count]

15. My "biases" are based on his votes, speeches. The "southern/DLC" thinghie

sure is what he projected in THAT campaign.
We also have this story to support it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3220411&mesg_id=3220411
John Edwards's changing tune on the Iraq vote
By Scot Lehigh, Globe Columnist

Yet as John Kerry's 2004 ticketmate, the former North Carolina senator was anything but eager to acknowledge error on Iraq. Instead, according to several Kerry-Edwards campaign aides, Edwards argued repeatedly that the two should stand by their votes, even after it had become apparent that Iraq had neither weapons of mass destruction nor collaborative ties with Al Qaeda.

[doggyboy]

23. I see. I was confused

I thought the story about Edwards' story (about laying next to his dead son) "rang true", and not hte Iraq position. On that, I have to agree with you. I have the same bias as you

[The Count]

29. That one with the son also reminded me of a story he used as a lawyer about talking

to the fetus in the mother's womb...It matched the style, and one cannot make up these kind of details.

[doggyboy]

33. True that

but a good propogandist would know that, and make his story match it the way this story did.

And mind you, I'm not saying the story is false. It may very well be true. It's just that I'm not going to believe it just because Shrum says it is so. I need someone other than Shrum to corroborate it

[The Count]

40. here's why I believe the Wade story:

"The next year, he won a $6.5 million verdict on
behalf of a 6-year-old girl who had suffered brain damage at birth. In
his summation, he stunned onlookers by saying he felt the infant
speaking through him to the jurors. It was a risky move, but he pulled
it off."
http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://gk.nytimes.com... )SQ513E_NWoc&OP=2b621b38Q2FQ5DuXcQ5DpgqX2Q7B.Q5DPqG2!!pQ5EQ5D!@kqXPqXQ7BQ5DA2qXiXX!X@(PqG
(url no longer active)

[doggyboy]

43. Yes, it's a reasonable conclusion, given the facts

but that doesn't mean that there isn't any bias there. For example, maybe both stories are true, and his experience with his son inspired the story he told in the court case (or vice versa. I don't know which came first)

Or maybe Edwards did tell the story to Kerry, but he only told it once to Kerry.

And don't get me wrong. I don't think the presence of bias means you're wrong or thinking unclearly. The fact is, we don't have time to prove or disprove everything we hear, so we accept things that seem to be in line with the other facts we've gathered. The only thing wrong with this type of bias is when it blinds you to contradictory evidence, and I see no evidence of that in your case. You come across as very reasonable.

[jcrew2001]

46. Edwards has told the story many times and I've seen it repeated before

just because he said "he never told anyone else" was lawyer-speak to gain confidence between 2 people; and to bring greater emotion to the personal tragedy that happened.

Many people use this all time "just between me and you", "i've never told anyone this but..." - Its not uncommon for people to share secrets or emotional experiences to personal friends by emphasizing "that confidential friendship." even when "those secrets" may have been repeated before.

Its the same idea with fraternities - 'personal secrets bind people together' particularly when its as emotional as the death of a son.

[The Count]

92. "lawyerspeak!" Wow! I guess so it's this:

When campaigning, he avoids talking about his son's death. He does not
want his son to be remembered only as the catalyst that propelled him
into the Senate, his aides say. When he does broach the subject, he
seems to tap into a well of grief. On "Good Morning America" in late
November, he choked up as he read from his book, "Wade is who I am."
From the same NYT article

And maybe much much more such other stuff we've been bombarded with lately. Thanks for the translation there.

[jcrew2001]

114. I'm sure he can mention Wade's death in private settings

but declines to use it in the stump speech. If he only wants to mention it in small groups, thats his decision.

[Auntie Bush]

137. He doesn't mention it on the stump but he does in ever interview.

And now Elizabeth's illness is mentioned at every opportunity in every interview. That bugs me.

[GreenArrow]

154. "That bugs me"

It should; it's emotionally manipulative.

[jcrew2001]

164. Darn politicians are using their personal tragedies as metaphors

for their passion for public service.

[GreenArrow]

172. somteimes that may be true

and sometimes them darn politicians are just playing at people's heartstrings in order to sate their passion for personal ambition and gain.

[lyonn]

169. Interesting quotes from Shrum's book in this article.

He seems to bash all that he has worked for. What a guy.

[jcrew2001]

48. Bush had the popular suppor of the war by the citizens

so at the time, being anti-war would have gone against the majority of americans. Besides, Kerry had voted for the war, so by changing his mind - would directly question his competence and backbone - it was a no-win situation.

If Kerry really wanted to be an alternative to Bush in 2004, he shouldn't have agreed to all of Bush's policies - why would any Democrat or Swing voter vote for Kerry if he was just mimicking Bush's decisions.

[The Count]

93. But now, it's only lawyerspeaky opportunistic to join the new majority and be "anti-war"

BTW, the only difference is that the pollsters were lying more then than now, but party cadres and DLC were not up on it, because pundits said so, so they were buying it.
It's all incredibly cynical and I hope all who call Edwards a progressive" think about his reasons of being on one side or another of a war of aggression based on lies (which he knew of)

[jcrew2001]

113. There's nothing wrong with being a progressive

and I'm glad he has a passion for endorsing progressive ideals, it doesn't matter if it is due to opportunism, as long as the end result of progressive goals is accomplished.

I think a lot of Red state voters in NC wanted him to vote for the war, but he could have went against popular sentiment but chose not to.

[doggyboy]

8. I can't believe some of the things I see on DU

articles from right wing sites like politico, reporters without borders, and this morning, an article attacking Clinton for her love affair with Vince Foster.

[politicasista]

81. Thank you n/t

[Clark2008]

86. I have a question regarding these Shrum/Edwards threads...

Why should we believe either one of them? What makes Edwards more credible?

Shrum, yes, is a political hack. I can understand why folks don't believe him, but, so is Edwards. Edwards who voted for, co-sponsored and cheerleaded the Iraq war and now says, "Ooops." Edwards who voted for the PATRIOT Act (and wrote some of its provisions) and now cries foul. Edwards who supported No Child Left Behind. Edwards who says, now, he's the candidate of the poor, but helped big banking break into the predatory lending field, which hurts the poor, when he was a senator.

Seems to me that neither one of them is above board.

[CTLawGuy]

179. then he has the nerve to attack Obama for not coming out against the supplemental fast enough

that burns me up...

[Straight Shooter]

3. Is Kerry attempting to sabotage Edwards?

Interesting. Because Gephardt sabotaged Dean, IIRC.

I don't care if Edwards shared the memory or not with him before. I don't even care if it's true. Just give me a competent president.

Edit to add: What Pdittie said, too.

[The Count]

6. Well, this is a Shrum book/article - but the knowledge is direct.

[doggyboy]

12. Knowledge or lie?

You assume Shrum is telling the truth. I have no idea why you do that.

[Tellurian]

13. Another Kerry.. FLIP-FLOP!

and a sure sign Kerry is supporting Obama-

what an ungrateful human being he is...

[The Count]

17. Again, this is a Shrum article - no proof it was prompted by Kerry

Even if, I am sure some of the feelings must be true - especially with Edwards launching the now ridiculous rumor "I WANTED to count the votes but big bad Kerry would't allow me" (psst, John E - mouth still duck taped on that?)

[Tellurian]

31. Well, I will be watching for a rebuttal from Kerry..

silence speaks like thunder, ya know.

[The Count]

94. I am hardly a Kerry fan, but in all fairness, he behaved with class considering

Edwards putting out the ridiculous propositions such as "I wanted to count the votes, but Kerry took my abacus"

[jcrew2001]

50. Edwards was positioning himself for 2008 and why would Kerry

want to run again - he had his shot for the Presidency in 2004 - was he worried about losing and wanted to run again in 2008. Thats a defeatist attitude and somewhat irrational. If you're going to run in 2004, go big or go home.

Every election should be open to everyone, it would be disingenous for Kerry to "block" Edwards from running in 2008 by making him promise not to. If such a promise were made, would Kerry pick Edwards as VP in 2008 also? Quid pro quo.

[karynnj]

61. From the op the comment was after the election

Also, these are comments out of context, that may not have been said. Given Edwards put down of Shrum's description of the meeting at Edwards' house before the IWR vote, it may well be that he puts his (Shrum's) thoughts in the mouths of others. (The Shrum Edwards' story makes no sense as Edwards was a co-sponsor as of the date it was read in the Senate (10/03/02) and an advocate of the bill and was STILL 100% behind having invaded in the pre-primaries in 2003.)

Kerry never said he thought Edwards should decline to run in 2008 if Kerry did. Some media people suggested the Leiberman parallel - which didn't fit. Kerry has mentioned several things that hurt in 2004 - many such as the climate of terror everyone would have faced, he has said that they needed to get past the media in getting their message out (the media was very hostile towards Democrats in 2004, it may be less so in 2008), the country had not sufficiently turned against the war and the disadvantage of having to spread general election money over 13 weeks to the Republicans' 8 weeks. He has not blamed others - not Shrum, Cahill, Edwards etc. He did very nearly win - and might have in a clean election. He did say that he knew things that he would do differently now, which takes responsibility himself.

Both Edwards have said negatives things about the Kerrys. Neither Kerry has said anything negative about either of the Edwards - if they did we would have had it in the JK group. That is Kerry's style. The comment that the Edwards stopped calling could well have been the response to Shrum asking if he was still in touch with the Edwards. (A reasonable question and response between 2 people about a mutual aquaintance.) I have not read when Kerry supposedly said he regretted picking Edwards - in a private conversation, if it was after Elizabeth Edwards made negative comments about Teresa, it's pretty mild. Also, remember, Kerry saying that would be admitting a mistake he made.

[jcrew2001]

78. Why does Edwards and Kerry have to be best friends?

I can understand that some times running mates grow close like Gore and Lieberman, or Lieberman deferring to Gore in 2004. But often times, running mates are paired as a matter of political convenience like Reagan/GHWB who were bitter rivals in 1980. If Reagan had lost, GHWB would have gone their separate ways.

After losing in 2004, there was no political or personal requirement for Kerry and Edwards to remain in contact or partner on policies. In fact, since Edwards was out of the Senate, and out of washington, it was only natural for Edwards to pursue other interests, while Kerry had work to take care of in the Senate.

I'm surprised why the "no phone calls" is such a big deal, its not like they were dating and they broke up because of a fight. There was No Fight, the relationship had run its course and there was no reason to maintain any official contact.

[The Count]

95. They don't. Character however shows in these actions- and while I don't care

one way or the other about Kerry, Edwards' character is a relevant issue as he's running. He appears as the opportunistic kiss ass - both with courting Kerry and turning his back as with his about face on the war as he perceived a change in the wind. Of course, the second one is the important one, but the personal opportunism reinforces the other, showing it as a habitual trait.

[jcrew2001]

111. It doesn't surprise me that a politician would be an opportunist

It may be an unsavory profession, but politicians are held accountable to public sentiment, just as much as CEO's are held accountable to the shareholders and stock prices. Sometimes you have to change course and change plans.

[ChiciB1]

168. And JFK & LBJ Simply LOVED Each Other!!

I STILL have not received my reply from John Kerry or his staff and I have called several times!

I'm NO John Kerry basher, I worked hard for him... but methinks I'm getting IGNORED! Ya Know, HE could clear this up!!!!

[karynnj]

136. I agree - also Kerry never complained about that

The only time I heard Kerry mention calling the Edwards was when he was asked by Imus if he had spoken to them after Elizabeth's diagnosis. Teresa and John (to the best of my memory) simply said they had, they wished her all the best and that she was handling it very courageously and that it was their right to decide what to do. They avoided saying anything about their conversation - which was appropriate.

[Inuca]

53. UNGRATEFUL???? n/t

[wyldwolf]

7. uh oh. Is this the beginning post of a new DU myth??

[Warpy]

4. I believe this like I believe the last 4 "terra" plots

the FBI busted were actually dangerous. Shrum is a known DLC lying gasbag who wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the butt then jumped into his arms with a clear label on it, "TRUTH."

Step away from the propaganda...

[blm]

10. Shrum is likely exaggerating incidents to help his REAL political partners -

who just happen to be working for another team.

[Straight Shooter]

22. Occam's razor.

That seems the most likely explanation.

As an aside, I cannot understand why anyone would hire "Losing Streak" Shrum. :shrug:

[blm]

38. Shrum DID participate on winning teams - Gore and Kerry both won, while DNC's

failure to secure the election process in 2000, 2002 and 2004 made sure winning Democrats could NOT claim the wins they earned.

[Colobo]

62. Kerry lost.

[blm]

64. RNC stole it for Bush.

DNC let them do it.

[Colobo]

69. Kerry lost.

[The Count]

90. Nope - he won - then threw his hands up. Edwards too - and we're supposed

to give him our vote again after he treated our 2004 one like shit.

[Colobo]

91. Kerry ran a lousy campaign and he lost.

[politicasista]

98. Bush had people backing him up. The 04 nominee got no party or media support

No campaign is going to be perfect and like it or not mistakes are going to be made. That's just the part of running a campaign for the highest office in the land. What will you do if Obama makes a mistake?

[The Count]

104. Bush's was lousier, but they stole it.

Then the 2 Johns folded.

[politicasista]

106. The party didn't back them up.

Aren't you going to blame them rather the let them off the hook?

[cui bono]

108. Define lost.

The Repubs stole the election. People in Ohio were convicted of election fraud. Had they not tampered with the votes there he would have won Ohio and the electorate.

[Divine Discontent]

115. I despise that sentiment

as I believe it's incredibly wrong. Kerry made many mistakes as every single candidate seems to as long as I can remember, but with the many mistakes comes incredible appearances, great speeches, heart touching photo ops and a sense of excitement - that was ALL palpable in the Kerry/Edwards campaign.

It was NOT a lousy campaign, as of a couple days before the DUBIOUS Osama tape was thrown out to the general public, Kerry had a clear electoral lead in the polls -

SO ---- if Kerry ran a lousy campaign,

B*sh's was absolutely SHITTY! And it was, staged appearances with pre-approved supporters, always looking haggard and sweaty in ever photo I saw him, and who can ever forget his screw ups, "too many OB GYN'S can't practice their.... LOVE of women, all across this country!", "HE FORGOT POLAND!", the blank stares and "ummmmm" in the debates where Kerry wiped the FLOOR with B*sh (how soon we choose to forget) etc...

Kerry decidedly won the blue states, and imo and many others, would have won Ohio if not for vote fraud, intimidation, ballot stuffing, voter scandals, and the booths not being where they needed to be.

So, this comment of yours should have been followed by "but W's was worse".

I saw Edwards at a rally, and Kerry at 4, and every one of them was HAPPENING!

Again, am I on DEMOCRATIC underground? Just wondering.

[Straight Shooter]

103. Shrum failed them, all the same. He failed to highlight their strengths.

Gore and Kerry should have blasted bush out of the stratosphere in either election. They won, but not by enough of a margin to keep it from being stolen.

I'll never forgive Shrum for his strategy of suppressing Kerry's greatest triumph, because Shrum thinks people are too stupid to distinguish between the BBC and BCCI. He's the one who told Kerry not to fight the SB liars, too, I'll bet.

[hlthe2b]

34. ding ding ding

I've not yet committed to a specific candidate currently running... Like many, I'm still watching Gore. Yet, I see both strengths (that would allow me to support any of the three "top tier" candidates) and likewise weaknesses (that give me pause)-- among each of them.

Having said this, this does not strike me as Kerry, but Shrum using his own knowledge and biases--but very likely on behalf of Hillary. Not saying with her involvement, but on her behalf...

[ChiciB1]

151. Shrum Was On Washington Journal This AM & Didn't Take A Swipe

at Edwards and in fact seemed to say some nice things about him. He was also pretty positive about the Democratic candidates. So what he wrote in his book may not be what he is saying publicly, but I can't help that. I don't intend to buy his book, but he was nice enough this AM. Was he effective at his other job, obviously not, but he sounded like a Democrat to me this AM.

I will say that I called Senator Kerry's office several times and they have YET to give me an answer about whether he regretted choosing Edwards. I can't respect that myself because I feel he should have enough back-bone to come out and "say it" or "deny it" and he has done NEITHER!

And I say that as one who waited for a very long time to see John Kerry run for President, and worked very hard to get him elected. And it DOES sadden me that he won't nor his staff will give me a direct answer!

[blm]

163. Well, maybe he's waiting for Edwards to come out and stop a few internet myths

that he hasn't cleared up the last few years first.

[derby378]

9. Kerry's campaign in 2004 revealed an impotent and lackluster Kerry

This was not the same John Kerry who crusaded against the Vietnam War. This was a Kerry who allowed Bush to cajole him into calling Saddam Hussein a "threat," refused to campaign in all 50 states, referred to many gun owners as "terrorists," and never fought back after Karl Rove's "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" stole the thunder from his post-convention bump.

Edwards may not be perfect, either, but Kerry doesn't have much room to talk.

[Mass]

18. And he does not talk. Some people needs to learn how to read. This is Shrum talking.

and even if I share the view of Edwards his book shows (great looks but no substance), I am not ready to believe what he says on his word.

To the best of my knowledge, Kerry has never criticized Edwards in a public setting, though the opposite is not necessarily true of the Edwards, particularly Elizabeth.

[karynnj]

66. I agree - on Kerry not having publicly ever criticised Edwards

I have heard interviews where the interviewer has unsuccessfully prodded Kerry to do so - and he hasn't.

[karynnj]

65. Half the things you say are wrong

1) Everyone said that Saddam was a threat, the question was how big a threat and whether their was imminent danger. Even in his IWR speech, Kerry makes the case that 1) some intelligenceshow that he could have WMD. 2) Saddam has done unspeakable things in the past. This did NOT make a case to go to war, put to demand inspections (which he notes Saddam might not agree too).

He also spoke of how the critics (including himself) had pushed Bush to go to the UN and Congress. He then listed Bush's promises and said he would speak out if Bush didn't do as he said - and he did speak out.

2) Kerry did focus on the swing states and for a Presidential elections that is the right way to run. Do you think that spending a day flying back and forth to Hawaii or Alaska would be a good use of time? Do you think he should have taken a day from PA or OH and gone to CA or MA where he was a sure winner? He did go to NYC because it was a media center and went to CA and other blue states during the primaries. Do you think that he should have taken a day from the swing states in the general election and gone to TX, UT, or AL? The fact is that Kerry did go to most states if you look at both the primaries and general election. His time was a scarce resource and it had to be spent effectively. (Note: in the primaries Dean said after the NH loss, that he was skipping all the states in the first multistate contest to concentrate on the next set where he was a better fit - the skipped states were DE, OK, SC, MO, NM, AZ, and ND.)

3) Kerry is a gun owner and I never heard a single comment where he said that anyone was a terrorist for owning a gun.

4) Kerry did fight back - he had 140 pages of glowing naval records on his web site, all the men with him on his boat for any medal backed him, the Navy backed him, Senator Warner the VN era Secretary of the Navy said he had reviewed Kerry's silver star and it was deserved, and Brinkley, a noted independent historian, had written a book where he interviewed 100 + people who were there backed Kerry. The Nixon tapes showed they had investigated Kerry and found he was a clean cut war hero - so they told people to destroy him. The SBVT contradicted the official record and the media, without asking them for proof or why they they didn't tell this to Nixon), demanded Kerry dissprove each and every charge. Usually, proving they lied on a few things would discredit them. (Now, go find what "proof" the media accepted in Bush's case to kill stories - or even in Clinton's case in 1992. It doesn't compete with this list.)

[derby378]

161. First, I never believed that Saddam was a threat to America...

Ten years of sanctions withered Iraq into a shell of its former self. We knew that Saddam was finagling a little, but that was it. No WMDs, period. We knew this. Why Congress allowed themselves to be bamboozled, I'll never know.

And yes, he should have tried for TX. Kerry took 35% in Texas IIRC, and with a little campaigning in Texas (and with some bending of his prejudice against semi-automatic firearms), he could well have improved his percentage down here in the Lone Star State - maybe even ekeing out a win.

[Colobo]

14. So Shrum is lying because we don't like what he is saying?

[Joe Chi Minh]

19. Who likes listening to someone who favours maybe works for the other side? Do you?

If so you're a very confused individual.

[Colobo]

25. If the guy is just talking about what he saw during the 04 campaign

let him speak. I like to read about what goes on in political campaigns, don't you?

[Joe Chi Minh]

67. No. It always depends on the speaker with me.

Can a bad tree bear good fruit? What can you learn from the liars of the far right?

Remember, to them, hearing the truth is like Hell. They sure wouldn't be interested in our truthful "framing". You'll learn nothing to your advantage, listening to "Tokyo Rose"s.

[The Count]

20. Yup. It's the DU logic - especially when it comes to Edwards - due to the large

number of operatives ensconced here since 2003.

[doggyboy]

24. It's not that I think Shrum is lying

It's that I don't believe a thing he says.

[Colobo]

26. So, even if it's true, you prefer not to believe it.

[doggyboy]

32. Nice try, but no

If I am going to believe it, I will need someone other than Shrum to corroborate it.

The fact that Shrum says something is, IMO, meaningless.

[hlthe2b]

37. I'd say there are less operatives for any given candidate....

though there are certainly those around to make the "Fight Club" we know as GD... I think, though DU is currently composed far more of those not yet firmly entrenched in a camp but who just want to keep the discourse "fair."

[Lex]

45. Now there's some stellar logic right there.

Boo! Scary operatives for Edwards at DU. :eyes:

[hlthe2b]

35. Shrum may be lying because he has a history of lying...

patterns of past behavior often predict future behavior.... :shrug:

[The Count]

42. True, but then # 36 would prove the same...It's why I don't trust Edwards

all them past - and present lies.

[karynnj]

68. I would say that some things he says are open to debate

Edwards has called his view of the meeting at the Edwards house inaccurate. Kerry has not responded, though he likely will when asked.

It seems (going mostly from Edwards' comment that Shrum may "hear" his own thoughts as what someone else said.) In the case of the Kerry post election comments, it seems that he may be repeating private responses to his questions - rather than things Kerry volunteered.

From his comments on MTP, he is kind of a weird guy. He also doesn't learn. He said his take away is that Democrats have to be who they are and spoke of health care, education, poverty etc. In 2008, terrorism and foreign policy will still be major issues - and it will be necessary to prove our canddiate can handle this.

One comment that people have made after the election was that Kerry should have earlier discounted advise (from both Shrum and the Clinton people) to concentrate on domestic issues like health care, education etc. This would make sense with either Kennedy or Clinton as the candidate ina different year. In 2004, the main issue was terrorism and Iraq. In a recent anti-consultant article in Rolling Stone, Winer, a former long time Kerry aide, said that this strategy was wrong when in Kerry they had one of the first people to really address terorism before 911 and who had enormous strength in foreign policy. Kerry did listen to his brother and David Thorne and gave the NYU Iraq speech and the U of PA Terrorism speech and added summaries of those points to what he said every day. This and the foreign policy debate got his numbers back into a place where he could have won.

[Totally Committed]

16. Can we please stop rehashing this, ad nauseum?

(1) Bob Shrum should be sued for political consultant malpractice. The man is an incompetent. And, as we are now witnessing, will tell tales if paid. The man is untrustworhy. He's a windbag. He's a DLC puppet. ---'Nuff said.

(2) Kerry should have gone to his gut on a lot of things but, instead allowed himself to be badly counselled on the IWR vote, and many other things. He should have done what was right instead of what was politically expediant in a lot of instances. That having been said, hearing that if he went with his gut, we would have had the perennial "also ran" Gephardt instead of Edwards just convinces me he was doomed anyway.

Please stop discussing this. That election is over. Kerry is not in the White House. ANd, we are giving a man who is largely responsible for that fact so much bandwidth that you'd think he was Aristotle on the subject.

TC

[The Count]

21. It's a Time article, relevant to one of the candidates RUNNING NOW

I for one am less concerned with Kerry's regrets (after all he won in 2004), as with the revelations about Edwards - who was then the DLC candidate, but now calls himself anti-war. This is the guy who sponsored IWR when Pelosi voted against it, yet has the gall of attacking her.
I stated many times, I want to puncture the illusion that this war loving candidate is progressive in anyway.

[Colobo]

27. The "Wade" story is particularly interesting.

[jcrew2001]

51. While its shady to talk about your dead son

I'm not going to say he is forbiden from talking about his dead son and how it has changed his life.

[Colobo]

63. But it seems, according to Shrum, that Edwards

used it like it was part of a script...

[jcrew2001]

77. If Kerry/Schrum thought it was BS thats possible - its like trying to gain sympathy

from having cancer, or having a dead spouse. Sometimes people just don't care.

[MaineDem]

28. But this was hashed and rehashed over a week ago here.

Kerry's regrets are hearsay at best.

Don't give Shrum all that much credit, please.

[Totally Committed]

30. I realize that, and maybe I'm just being cranky, but I'm tired of re-hashing 2004

when 2008 appears to be shaping up to be a similarly catastrphic car-wreck.

Thsi Party just keeps making the same mistakes over and over and over again, even after reading about past regrets and mistakes over and over and over.

TC

[The Count]

36. 2004 depresses me too - mostly because of the silence over the theft

The fact that one of the candidates is silent about the crime but has the gall to ask us for our votes AGAIN makes me furious enough to deal with the issue.
The Wade story reminds me in style of that story he told the jury about listening to the dead baby in the mother's womb - in the Times article.

"The next year, he won a $6.5 million verdict on
behalf of a 6-year-old girl who had suffered brain damage at birth. In
his summation, he stunned onlookers by saying he felt the infant
speaking through him to the jurors. It was a risky move, but he pulled
it off."
http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://gk.nytimes.com/mem/gatekeeper.html&OQ=_rQ3D1Q26URIQ3DhttpQ3AQ2FQ2Fwww.nytimes.comQ2F2004Q2F01Q2F12Q2FpoliticsQ2FcampaignsQ2F2EDWA.htmlQ26OQ51Q3D_rQ513D2Q5126exQ513D1075698000Q5126enQ513Dfceef912d481cf95Q5126eiQ513D5070Q5126orefQ513DsloginQ26OPQ3D54421fd4Q512F9DVE9Q5124Q517BflQ517DQ517BQ517BWQ517C9Q517C11Q512591!9!Q517C9gQ517Bc3W3fl9fdogd382l9Q517Cn)SQ513E_NWoc&OP=2b621b38Q2FQ5DuXcQ5DpgqX2Q7B.Q5DPqG2!!pQ5EQ5D!@kqXPqXQ7BQ5DA2qXiXX!X@(PqG
(url no longer active)

[jcrew2001]

52. So he's a good lawyer that knows how to manipulate the emotions of jurors

I would hire him, and don't all politicians utilize the emotion of voters to win elections?

[earthlover]

56. Edwards was far from convincing during his debate with Cheney....

....didn't exactly utilize the emotions of voters to win.....

[jcrew2001]

57. yeah, but doesn't mean he shouldn't try

Besides, Cheney crushed lieberman. I don't know why everyone says Cheney's a bad debater - he's disciplined, thorough, and straight to the point. In a one-on-one setting in the debates with Russert, he's very competent and clear.

[Awsi Dooger]

178. Cheney is excellent in debates

Edwards did very well to hold his own, winning one poll and losing the other. At the end of the debate you could see Edwards really got under Cheney's skin. Edwards sprang to his feet with a handshake and a grin while Cheney sat there and looked like he wanted to strangle Edwards.

Kerry is a lousy handicapper and this article does nothing but prove it again and again. So his final two choices were sominex Gephardt and someone he didn't feel comfortable with in Edwards. Brilliant. Then he expects the young ambitious VP choice to agree not to run against him in '08, totally oblivious that he (Kerry) has no chance to be the nominee in '08 if he loses in '04.

I admire Kerry tremendously but I'm thrilled he's on the sidelines.

[karynnj]

71. He's lucky no one like me was on the jury

I would have been appalled that rather than making a straight forward case based on what reasonable practice was among doctors facing similar circumstances that he made a case based solely on emotion. It's true people felt terrible for the girl and her family - but the real question should have been whether the doctor's actions were reasonable.

That it worked, doesn't make it admirable. I know if I were on a jury and the lawyer resorted to something like that I would be very likely to think that there was no real case. In which case, he is attacking an innocent person - the doctor.

[jcrew2001]

76. Yeah, but If I were a victim, I would want Edwards as my attorney

or maybe you prefer someone else.

[karynnj]

125. I would only want to sue someone if I were genuinely victimized

and I would want a very competent lawyer, which Edwards was. I would also want a lawyer who would act honorably. You can have both.

[ProSense]

58. Edwards was not the DLC candidate! Ever heard of Lieberman? n/t

[Clark2008]

87. Yes, he was, but, just like this year's race, there are several

DLC candidates.

We have four currently running.

[Lex]

39. Edwards postively out-shone a lackluster Kerry at every turn in 2004.

Sorry if Kerry really feels like Shrum alleges.

Plus, WHY THE F did Kerry pick Edwards if he had reservations about him. That makes no sense and says alot about Kerry if true.

It's pretty hard to believe actually.

[The Count]

41. Really? because the 2004 results in his state. county didn't show that at all

But it's because of posts like yours that I thought that a different POV, be it from Shrum would be welcome here - for balance.

[Lex]

44. LOL--yeah. Shrum's highly questionable (read: probably lying) POV

versus my opinion on how Kerry and Edwards appealed to the crowds in 2004.

Yeah, your logic is spot on.

[fedupinBushcountry]

47. Lackluster?

I'm from Virginia and Kerry and Edwards both came to my area days before the primary. Edwards lost by 2-1 here in the primary and this from his own backyard.

As far as Shrum IMO he is nothing more then a lost puppy in politics as is Terry McAwful, and they both sound like little children pointing the finger and saying "he did it" instead of looking at their own faults throughout the elections of 2000, 2002 and 2004. So easy to play the blame game and they both look utterly ridiculous doing it.

[Lex]

49. I saw them in person too and Edwards electrified the crowd

Kerry not so much.

This is what I observed--you may have observed something different.

[jcrew2001]

54. Why did Kerry drop the Real Deal theme during the general election

because it was the most compelling theme he had during the primaries. It was actually kinda cool - in a very Evander Holyfield fighter way - that he could bring the "real deal" back to the presidency, instead of the fake/empty/lies of Bush.

[fedupinBushcountry]

60. Oh really ?

[jcrew2001]

75. Wow, that's the first time I've seen it since NH 2004

and I thought I kept a close eye on things. It certainly wasn't displayed on his website or commercials.

[jcrew2001]

55. If Kerry had regrets - why pick Edwards at all?

It does make me question exactly why Kerry can be so easily manipulated - he's the final decider, if he wanted Gephart, he should have gone with him.

[earthlover]

59. during the week or two before the convention, the media was ALL EDWARDS

Edwards was so dominantly discussed as the enevitable choice that it would have been difficult for anyone NOT to nominate Edwards. However, if this is true, no way Kerry should have nominated him. I would like to see more evidence...if it IS true, then in my view Edwards is toast and a schmuck and we need to find this out. But if it ISN'T true, it is wrong to Edwards to repeat it. I am having my doubts.

[jcrew2001]

74. Edwards can repeat the Wade story as much as he wants, its his dead son

nt

[The Count]

101. True - but he made the point that he doesn't want to use him in campaigns. To NYT.

"
When campaigning, he avoids talking about his son's death. He does not
want his son to be remembered only as the catalyst that propelled him
into the Senate, his aides say. When he does broach the subject, he
seems to tap into a well of grief. On "Good Morning America" in late
November, he choked up as he read from his book, "Wade is who I am.""

It's the many conflicting positions that make this distasteful - not the fact that he would mention his son.

[jcrew2001]

112. He only chooses to mention his son at important moments

how often and whether it is tasteless is a matter of opinion. If he doesn't want to make it part of his stump speech he can decline, if he only uses the story amongst a circle of power brokers and donors that is his choice as well.

[The Count]

105. There was some money blackmail from contributors according to the Observer

It wasn't anyone looking for us, the voters - just people trying to make sure the war wouldn't be an issue in the 2004 elections

[karynnj]

72. Kerry out shone Edwards

- In the primary debate and to the voters. Even with tons of positive press, Edwards could not gain any traction against Kerry.

- Kerry's convention speech was very highly praised. Edwards' speech was ok, but a letdown as he had been built up as a fantastic speaker - and both Obama and Kerry easily outshown him

- Kerry was absolutely incredible in his debates, Edwards was aty best adequate.

There was enormous pressue to pick Edwards and it was thought that his background would help in the more rural areas of the swing states. He was also a media favorite - so it may have been thought this would help.

[Cameron27]

73. I remember reading

that Edwards, unlike all the other candidates, insisted on bringing his donors to meet with Kerry face to face, where they pushed JE for VP. I know that there was a lot of cheerleading for him that Kerry had to consider, as well as the voter pick-up.

I don't think that Edwards was ever Kerry' s preference, but just someone he was persuaded go with for the win. And I will give JK credit for never saying one word about the Edwards's, and that consideration wasn't always returned.

[roguevalley]

79. I'm old enough to remember when this sort of thing was the way

politics was and no one was surprised. Consider the size of the ego, no matter how altruistic the desire motivating it, that someone would would have to have to do this. None of these people are less than confident. Some are laughably confident: Biden.

Politics is dirty business and you compromise DAILY and HOURLY sometimes to get the result you are searching for. Its prostitution sometimes and its war sometimes and its evil often. That's the system. Don't think for a moment that John Edwards wouldn't tell his story about his boy if he felt it advanced him because John Edwards has a personal plan in mind that will help people. That is what makes all the shit palatable for him, I am sure. It doesn't make him bad. It makes him human. He isn't abusing his boy's memory. His boy is helping him, I am sure he thinks. I don't hold it against him. John Edwards wants to change things but he's also a politician and he will do the dance and whatever to get the goal achieved.

Everyone has, from Jefferson to the twat in the white house. Some are evil and some are not. What Shrum says is probably true. Politics is a dirty business. If you want a perfect candidate, one that won't do these kinds of things, you will be sorely disappointed. Politics doesn't work that way. It won't let you work that way. Not at this level. I am sure if all the stories would be told, no one would emerge anywhere with all their scruples and dignity and such intact.

Don't shoot the messenger, even an asshole like shrum. Shoot the fucking system that demands these things happen.

[Cameron27]

84. I won't disagree with you

about politics being a dirty business, and I generally don't go after character issues. I was just commenting on the reasons Kerry chose Edwards for his VP.

Honestly though, I have to disagree with you about the Edwards's son story. If Shrum's story is true and his death was used for some slick political theatre, then that does sicken me, but I'd never take his word as fact about this.

No, I can't support JE because, as a member of the Senate Intel Committee, he co-sponsored and cheerleaded Lieberman's IWR without bothering to study the classified NIE docs that strongly suggested caution. I think that he failed his consituents and the country by that very grave lapse of judgment.

[roguevalley]

131. you and i agree, seasonedblue

[The Count]

109. Bush also thinks he has a personal plan that helps people - he's helping Iraqis

right now get their democracy...Some think W actually believes it.
I have absolutely no reason to believe in Edwards's motives as they all changed 180 degrees in the past 6 years. So, no, there's nothing to make this kind of manipulation acceptable to me.

[The Count]

102. "media favorite" - he was really pushed my the propaganda manipulators.

Not very much unlike now.
And you're absolutely right about the debates.

[politicasista]

80. Kerry isn't running, so why rehash this?

It only brings out the chronic Kerry or Dem haters out in force.

[The Count]

99. Because Edwards is - and the story is about him, as far as I am concerned

It just highlights past changes of positions, manipulations of feelings, opportunism. Relevant in this primary.

[politicasista]

107. It seems more about

Kerry than Edwards in this thread. Look at the people spouting off RW talking points from 2004.

[PresidentObama]

85. Why does ANYONE trust SHRUM?

He's a snake. Obviously he's more concerned with selling books instead of selling people the truth. Who really gives a fuck what the campaign killer has to say? I sure as hell don't. I really think he's got some sort of beef with John Edwards, and he's using his book to paint Edwards in a negative light. Perhaps he should stop trying to whitewash history.

[Clark2008]

89. Why does anyone trust Edwards?

He's changed nearly every position he had as a senator.

I'm not defending Shrum, but I could point to several cases in which Edwards has either lied of flip-flopped so hard he might as well be footwear.

It works both ways.

[GreenArrow]

156. Why does ANYONE trust EDWARDS?

He's a snake. Obviously he's more concerned with selling a chameleonesque image of himself instead of selling people the truth. Who really gives a fuck what the IWR co-sponsor has to say? I sure as hell don't. I really think he's got some sort of beef with Bob Shrum, whose tell-all political book has spotlighted Edwards in a negative light. Perhaps Edwards should stop trying to whitewash history.

[ProSense]

88. Shrum on the first debate

here

[The Count]

100. Not as outrageous as you'd like to make it. he is a consultant - therefore

of little credibility. But the portrait he paints matches the one that emerges from Edwards actions so well - you can't discount it just because the messenger is not unimpeachable.

[calteacherguy]

96. The story about his son's grave...sounds manipulative.

I'm sorry to say that has been my perception of Edwards; whether it is true or not, I do not know, but he strikes me as someone who manipulates and plays on people's emotions for his own gain.

I could be completely wrong, I do not know the man.

[The Count]

97. That's what I refrained to voice throughout most of this second campaign.

But that story, the plea to the jury "in the name of the brain dead infant whose voice I hear" and more recent actions all add up.

[Divine Discontent]

116. ya know,

he's a lawyer, and like many, this stuff sounds 'about right', but what just made me chuckle, and I like Edwards, right behind wanting Gore, Clark, and Kerry to run, can just see Edwards in a debate...

just picture it with me...

and in his closing statement says,

"I'm going to share a story with you all, that I've never told to anyone but my wife..."

sorry, the thought passed through my head and I was like, oh please don't let that happen, like how he kept GAFFING by saying Kerry's name when he was told not to in answering a question in his Cheney debate and hurting Kerry's chances with every, "oh I'm sorry, I did it again!"

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- check it out, top '08 stuff

[smalll]

129. Absolutely chilling. I'd never heard that one before. I guess if Edwards won the White House,

we'd end up with a more intelligent, energetic and focused sociopath than the current resident, plus he'd be "our" sociopath, but if possible, I'd like to try to skip that particular mental disability with our next President. How about an agoraphobic, or a mild case of OCD, or even Tourette's perhaps, just for variety's sake?

[BlueIris]

149. I don't believe one word of Shrum's about that alleged incident.

[GreenArrow]

158. of course that's what he does

You need not know the man, if you know human nature.

[StudentProgressive]

110. I regret Kerry (no one was excited for him)

That's the truth. Dean would've whipped Bush.

[Divine Discontent]

117. sorry, your comment is dead wrong

"(no one was excited for him)" - I attended four Kerry rallies, and at every one, at a college, a union hall, a stadium in Orlando, and with the goo goo dolls in Tampa just before the election - the places were PUMPED for him, he spoke brilliantly at all FOUR locales, and he kicked W's ass REPEATEDLY in the debates ---

what the F more do you people want? Don't blame him for the cheating that went on in Ohio, blame the dolt W!

sorry, I just crack up at how quickly people forget, or speak about what they don't know, if they never attended the rallies. Edwards' rally was the quietest of the 5 I went to.

[politicasista]

118. Thanks for the real world perspective

:hi:

[Divine Discontent]

127. you're more than welcome

I felt on-fire writing that... that's good. ty

[globalvillage]

119. No one

[StudentProgressive]

120. That was the Anybody But Bush rally not Yay Kerry Rally

[JI7]

122. i supported Kerry

as did many others. it doesn't help your candidate when you dismiss supporters of other candidates . our votes and support count as much as others also. you may not have supported him but many people did. and this goes back to the Primary days.

if it was an anybody but Bush rally then crowds would have been the same whether or not Kerry showed up. but Kerry brought out larger crowds.

[politicasista]

123. Exactly n/t

[globalvillage]

124. Baloney. n/t

[Divine Discontent]

130. I love how you respond to their pic of the large crowd

but ignore my comments about people going wild over his comments, his energy, and the belief we were going to win, and in reality he got more votes as we know they drove away tons of Ohio voters with long lines in key democratic areas, and molested the vote tally. The Worthington, Ohio precinct had Bush with more votes than their were voters in the precinct, it was fixed the next day after he 'won'.

I was not a Kerry supporter at first, but when I went to listen to him speak, I was hooked and actually attended more than one rally for the first time in my life, that's how impressive he was. He was genuine and caring, he spoke to my question I blurted out in a rally, and at another rally he waved to my friend and I as he passed in the black SUV and there wasn't a soul on the sidewalk but us and he gave a caring smile when he did it, the man ROCKED, he's what honor is about, he fought for America and has fought to bring these troops home.

I do NOT appreciate your insinuation, repeatedly, that people were just at rallies for "anyone but bush", yes there may have been people dragged there by others, but I have been to other candidates rallies and Kerry's had an air of excitement around them, especially WHEN he spoke. He was boring to me at first, but I gave him a chance when he won the nomination and he delivered a better campaign than W did.

blessings...

[karynnj]

135. As a blue stater, I missed the 2004 rallies

other than on CSPAN - where I watched and was hooked.

I did see the Dissent and Real Security speeches at Faneuil Hall. Kerry is the most eloquent passionate speaker of his generation. Those speeches - which he very clearly wrote himself - were from his heart and his gut and the audience reacted to that. The Dissent speech was amazing in that as you heard each sentence - you thought it was the perfect line theat would be remembered. Then it was followed by something every bit as good.

No one had noticed that the media and the power had led to a very uneven playing field in 2004. Overall, I think Kerry was the best candidate - well prepared intelligent, a long career in public service never tarnished by scandal, and a very calm, thoughtful and kind personality. As President, he could have healed the country and the world as well as anyone I can think of.

[Divine Discontent]

143. you rock!

great post... this "studentprogressive" guy rips badly on Kerry, then he makes a mocking debate summation that lot's are laughing at but which is making fun of the candidates right and left, and I find it hard to believe he's as 'democratic' as he should be, in fact he says he doesn't answer to one party when they need called out, but adding that comment, to these and his borderline bigoted 'comedy' thread on the greatest threads list, I think he's very immature to say the least, and throws out nasty toned sentences one after another in the 'comedy' thread. But anyhow, Good point about Kerry's speeches being amazing only to be followed up by something better! The studentprogressive kid needs to watch them or quit making broad statements about things he paid no attention to when he was probably in high school.

[Cameron27]

145. I'm glad you said that,

I thought I was the only one who didn't find the humor in the "mocking" debate thread. It's one thing to debate and criticize our Democrats, but there's a tone with those posts that's just a bit off IMO. Borderline bigoted ... yes, that's a good way to describe some of the statements.

[Divine Discontent]

162. thank you

and my complaint apparently was heard, they removed his thread from the home page even though it's under 24 hrs old and it has more votes than some on the page.

[karynnj]

134. Were you there?

The anbody but Bush nonsense really gets old. In all previous years, the "Anybody but -----" was used in the primaries. For example, next year let's say that most the Obama and Edwards people far prefer the other over Hillary. There will be a call to get behind the stronger of the two as the anyboby but Hillary Candidate. (There were anbody but Carter and anybody but Clinton calls that I remember.

I NEVER heard it used in the general election. The reason is obvious, as many as 75% to 80% of the people are extremely likely to vote for the same party they usually do. When a winner in the primary is choosen, people move behind the candidate. Two factions spoke against that in 2004. Some of the Deaniacs on blogs who worked for Kerry because Dean told them to - but never accepted Dean's defeat. The other people who pushed this were people like Begala and Carville who constantly referred to ABB. To them, I would like to say thank you - because I now realize that rather than enthusiasticly supporting Clinton - who was near to bottom of my list in 1992 - I should have told all my friends to vote for ABB. I'm sure that would have impressed any undecided ones. It would have saved me reading Clinton's book. (I already had read Gore's.)

None of these people admit that Kerry's primary win was probably the most convincing for an open seat in my life time. How do you explain the crowds he got in the primaries?

[Divine Discontent]

144. DON'T EXPECT AN INTELLIGENT ANSWER....

PLUS.........

he's too busy ripping on our candidates to probably make a reply anyhow.

[karynnj]

128. In January, Dean polled 20 points behind Bush

Generic Democrat polled about 12% behind Bush. Lots of peopel were very impressed and excited by Kerry. Kerry won Iowa be impressing people when he met them face to face. He also impressed those of us elsewhere in the best campaign event I have ever seen. This was when at a non-related event, he was reunited with the man he saved in Vietnam. It was like out of a Capra movie when he shyly said that "anyone would have done it" after Rassman, a Republican law enforcement person, said to the crowd that Kerry had saved his life.

Now, if you are going to say that Dean would have fought back better - remember that he spoke of "not wanting to be a pin cushion" when Gephardt put out tough ads.

[Mass]

147. I was - Many people were. Get real!\nt

[ChiciB1]

121. You've Done This One Before! Okay WE Get The Message!

YOU don't like John Edwards! But why is it so necessary for you to keep this ALL THE TIME, almost EVERY day??

[Divine Discontent]

133. VERY accurate statement... makes ya wonder, huh? n/t

[Clark2008]

138. To remind people who the real John Edwards is.

He's certainly not the "populist" he claims and is fairly manipulative.

Just look at his record compared to what he says now, if you don't believe me.

But, you won't see it.

[ChiciB1]

150. What I Do See Is That THEY ALL Are MANIPULATIVE! It' Politics & I've Been Around

for a few elections!!! My position is that I prefer NOT to bash "our candidates" even IF one of them isn't my favorite!

AND what I SEE is that I mainly have a choice (at this point in time) of only THREE viable candidates that have been anointed to some extent. I like Obama, but would prefer he have a go at VP first. If something comes up that changes, I'm NOT averse to changing my mind.

It think it would be better for you not to tell ME what I see or don't see. For now, and for some time, I HAVE supported Edwards. I have my reasons and some of them I don't discuss here, but that's MY decision.

[skipos]

126. I wished Kerry would have "gone with his gut" a lot more

His campaign suffered from advisoritis, imo.

[question everything]

132. Read Elizabeth Edwards reply to these idiotic comments

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/03/le.01.html (and scroll down)

EDWARDS: Can I tell you what really happened?

BLITZER: Please.

EDWARDS: There was a meeting on teacher tenure issues at our house that a number of people were at, and Bob Shrum was one of the people who came. He always liked to come to policy, thinks he's very interested in policy, and he always wanted to express his opinion.

At that meeting, which was entirely about education, at some point in the discussion, Bob Shrum -- I don't know whether Bob Shrum was the one who brought it up, but Iraq became a topic of conversation. It was not the purpose of the meeting. There were no foreign policy consultants there or advisers of any kind in the room because it was an education meeting.

[Cameron27]

139. Oh Good Lord

she defends Edwards discomfort around gay men by recalling an event, probably more than 20 years earlier, when a gay friend said he wanted to "snake" him!

'What is your position, Mr. Edwards, on gay rights?' I asked. 'I'm not comfortable around those people,' was how he began his answer." You were there...

EDWARDS: I was there.

BLITZER: ... supposedly...

EDWARDS: I was there.

BLITZER: What happened?

EDWARDS: I believe that Bob Shrum brought up the issues of gays and lesbians, and John said, you know, I come from a small southern town, Baptist, you know. As far as I know, I don't know -- this is, I honestly, he said, honestly an abstract issue for me because he said, you know, I don't really know, as far as I know, know any gay people.
You know, so, sort of talk to me about it. And I said, well, actually you do. I referred to a friend of mine from English graduate school and how we had been out -- John and I had been out for the evening. I saw this old friend from English graduate school when we were still in law school, and I went over and spoke to him, and I knew that he was gay, and I said, you know, I'm engaged. And there's the fellow over there I'm engaged to.

And he said, oh, he's awfully cute. I might snake him if he wasn't with you. And I told John that. And this is where he used the word "uncomfortable." He said, that made me feel uncomfortable. So Bob correctly remembers the word "uncomfortable" but incorrectly remembers the circumstances in which he said it. All of us feel uncomfortable at someone snaking us -- I guess in the presence -- trying to snake us in the presence of our fiancee, and that made him feel uncomfortable, and John talked about that.

So he remembers it slightly, but he remembers it incorrectly. From my book, you'll know I remember things very -- in quite good detail from years ago. And I remember this conversation very clearly, and I have talked to John about that, and he does recall exactly the same thing.

That just sounds silly, I wonder how the LGBT community feels about that explanation.

[karynnj]

148. This is less than coherent

Is she saying that she brought up this story to Shrum when JE said he didn't know any gays? It's hard to believe that someone his age and as social as he is would say that he didn't know any gays. It also seems more likely that she would have referenced the man without telling the story - so Shrum may not have known the context.

[Cameron27]

153. If she brought up snaking

you can bet Shrum would have used it. ROFL

[karynnj]

159. I honestly think she would have done better to

have left that story and language out. This was said on TV???

I would imagine a smile and a comment that she has known JE for n years and he has always been very comfortable around everyone. Followed by saying that she can't imagine how Shrum got that idea - but it wasn't the John she knows.

[question everything]

160. Well... Blitzer asked her

and I don't know about the correct reply. I watched it and I accepted her explanation. Changing the subject, even with a smile may have given the impression that she did not want to talk about the subject. This way it is aired and done with. One hopes.

[karynnj]

167. I don't think that is changing the subject

That whole story and the incoherent nature of it, from a very articulate woman makes it sound flakey.

[TheDonkey]

140. Kerry's biggest mistake was picking Edwards

and mostly for the fact that JE did not make the ticket even competitive in his own home state!

Really could have tipped the scales with Gephardt, Richardson, or even a very young Obama could have stirred the pot.

[Roxy66]

141. Kerry walked away from 2004..EDWARDS wanted to FIGHT!

Kerry lost it ...not Edwards. He was his greatest asset!!

[FrenchieCat]

142. That's easy to say.....

much harder to prove.

Edwards should have gone on a public quest for the sake of America in respect to the voter fraud then.

He didn't, period.

[karynnj]

146. True - Edwards said nothing publicly in 2005, even about the

obvious and provable voter suppression. Kerry spoke in Boston on MLK day in Jan 2005 about the way the black vote was suppressed in Ohio and was ridiculed by the press. There are many public Kerry speeches that touched on this and a very detailed Senate speech, where Senator Boxer who followed him on the floor praised him.

But Edwards was silent on this- while he did speak on other things. Then in 2006, there were first comments to bloggers - but nothing said to the MSM where it could hurt. Then there was Elizabeth's book. Where someone reading here and elsewhere in the blogospere would read the vague comment that he wanted to fight differently than the mainstream reader less sensitized to the issue. Even now, there are no bold statements to the MSM press that 2004 was possibly stolen.

The fact is neither Kerry or Edwards had what they needed to fight with. The Kerrys are known to have spent considerable time looking into things in November 2004 - and there was nothing they could take into a partisan Ohio court. In terms of publicizing the problem, Kerry has said far more, more often than Edwards.

[high density]

175. Edwards was/is on an ego trip.

I can't believe Kerry chose him. It was a nonsensical choice.

[Auntie Bush]

155. I regret it too because if he had chosen Clark...he would have won in

a landslide and overcome the Rethug's fraudulent election.

[ecstatic]

157. Wow. So Kerry thinks Edwards caused him to lose?

Still out of touch much?

[AtomicKitten]

166. it apparently eases the pain

n/t

[LittleClarkie]

165. Shrum is a shmuck

And parts of that article tell me he didn't believe in Kerry. So pfffffffft to him.

[Mark 2000]

170. Kerry was edawrads' mistake.

If I were edwards I'd regert running with kerry. The only worse democrat to run was Dukakis. Because Kerry's such a screw up I'm boycotting Heinz and I'm less likely to vote for Edwards.

[politicasista]

171. That's sounds like something from Faux news n/t

:boring:

[NastyRiffraff]

173. I don't believe anything Shrum says...

anymore than I believe anything that comes out of Dick Morris's mouth. Period. About ANY candidate.

[LittleClarkie]

174. Indeed. Kerry will have to come out and say this himself

Then I'd believe it.

[AtomicKitten]

176. I think it's interesting to take a peek inside.

I don't automatically start out hating anyone when I look at current events. Shrum is kind of a dick for releasing a book before an election and I saw him on Faux News pimping it, but maybe this was a shot and he took it. Whatever; I digress.

But once you move behind that kind of drama, Shrum was actually quite cool about Kerry, very complimentary and taking the rap for the way the Swift Boat Liars were handled. I would think the Kerry "people" would be thrilled to hear that.

Shrum was pretty cool towards Edwards and his dishing is more poignant re: Edwards since it's aimed at a current candidate. That's the dick part of what Shrum is doing.

Politics is fascinating. But you have to stand back a bit to fully appreciate the moves and you don't want to miss the occasional smooth move.

[Apollo11]

177. Here's a funny post I found on Free Republic

Kerry said that he wished he'd never picked Edwards, that he should have gone with his gut.

Nothing earth-shattering there: another Kerry flipflop.

At least Kerry didn't blame the Edwards pick as being the fault of a staffer recommending Edwards. That would have been more in character with Kerry.

18 posted on 05/30/2007 4:02:46 PM PDT by TomGuy

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1842163/posts

If the clearest statement Edwards can make about Iraq is "Obama was right, I was wrong" - how exactly does he win the nomination, and then the general election? I'm sorry - but the media will be all over his flip-flops!

All I can say is: Gore - Obama 2008 !! :)