The Boston Globe about how Kerry and Edwards responded to the Swift Boats

[Mass]

Long article trying to be balanced, but I am more than happy that Kerry's staff is not ready to take the crap anymore from Edwards and co. It was more than time.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/18/edwardss_tough_talk_claims_of_04_disputed/

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 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."

...
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."
...
Former Kerry aides acknowledge that they did not want the campaign to respond to the ads at first, but say Edwards did not push them to reconsider. Then, with polls suggesting that the ads were having a major impact, the Kerry campaign decided to fight back.


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 seems to me that they are not going to take it anymore. Happy to see that.

And, to be frank, this is how I remember things. I remember the August 21's interview and it was so bad that I was nearly crying.

[karendc]

1. What a relief

that they are speaking out. I like JE and I liked him back then but the story reported IS as I remember it. He just would not take the role of attack dog.

So JK had to do it, but the media did not cover his response the way they covered the original attacks.

The other part of the story, btw, is that the swiftboat guys had attacked twice (once in Sept. 2003 and then again in April 2004) and had gotten no traction whatsoever. That's in part why the campaign ignored them at first in August. No one could believe the media would buy that crap.

But the media had gotten the word to sink JK/JE by then.

It's all so sad, and it pisses me off all over.

[wisteria]

2. I remember people asking- where is Edwards?

I also remember a lot of comments about how unaggressive Edward's was.

I am happy they are fighting back too!

Thanks for posting this.

[MH1]

3. This is good stuff

Anonymous sources, true, but sounds like there's more than one.

I am glad they are finally speaking out.

[ProSense]

7. Agree! n/t

[PresidentObama]

4. I think we all know why Edwards said that BS.

He's wanted to distance himself from Kerry (especially when it looked like Kerry might run) and to try and point the finger of blame from 2004. This criticism of Kerry's campaign is unwanted, and not true. And this just proves it. I suggest we all bookmark this just in case anyone brings up Edwards wanting to fight it, but Kerry wouldn't let him. Or if they drag up the Swift Boat RW talking points again. We all know the truth, they just refuse to accept it!!

[DoBotherMe]

33. Didn't Gore try to distance himself from

Bill...that was a mistake. The love and respect for JK, like Bill, runs deep and wide. He's been a hero and moral center for decades. At least IMHO. D ; )

[karynnj]

36. Hi DanaM , welcome to the JK group

I think you are right. What both Edwards seemed to not get was that in fall, Kerry was pollong at the same level as Edwards - even though the Kerry media coverage was awful and negative from Nov 2004 until then while both Edwards had completed photo ops realated to "poverty" or their books. Even in January before pulling out of the race, Kerry polled 7 and 8 percent in the most recent polls - and was recovering from the smear around the joke.

What that 7 to 8 percent at that time represents is incredibly significant - they are people like us. People willing to respond John Kerry when the media was treating him with dirision. It is well known that polls are biased to the "right" answer. This number refects hard core John Kerry support. It is very likely that there are 2 other groups of people who respond negatively to this cattiness.
1) Those who admire Kerry, but think he can't win or just favor someone else.
2) People who are less political, but just see this as tacky behavior.

All in all, it seems stupid as no one was blaming Edwards for the loss and it is his comments that caused this response. In addition to attacking Kerry, he attacked many of the best strategists in the country - and they now, with Kerry out, have no real not to fight back.

[MBS]

5. Thanks for posting this

I was so glad to see this article on front page this morning. In my book, Edwards loses points in his recent attempts to portray himself as a thwarted hero on this issue. I, too, am delighted that the Kerry crew is finally speaking up. It feels to me that truth is priority #1 for JK these days. Not that it wasn't before, but , from my outsider's seat, I feel a special zeal and energy on this front now: truth seems to me a constant thread in all his speeches, initiatives, legislation, and interviews. I'm really really glad to see this.

[ProSense]

6. What I take from this is

Kerry was left hanging, even by Edwards. 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 spewing BS as if he deserves some grand prize. He's a complete f-tard!

[MBS]

8. as usual, you got to the essence of the problem

"left hanging", "pathetic", "so-called leaders", "BS". Oh, yeah.

[JanusAscending]

12. I know it's too early to choose

someone to support, but these guys are sure making it easier for me, by process of "elimination" huh???

[fedupinBushcountry]

9. Found this article: Newsweek Nov. 15, 2004 issue

The Vets Attack
New Battles: Underestimating the Swift Boat ads, the Kerry team suffered from their slow response. Then Bill Clinton's former aides arrived and staged a silent coup

snip>
In August, when the Swift Boat vets scheduled a press conference at the National Press Club, the Kerry campaign dispatched Gen. Wesley Clark to hold a counter-press conference. At the last minute the Swifties canceled. A cheer went up at Kerry-Edwards headquarters on 15th Street in Washington

snip>
Mostly the ads were stirring up the Republican true believers, not winning over the "persuadables," the undecided voters. At least that's what most of Kerry's advisers wanted to believe. It would be a mistake for him to hit back; the persuadables don't like negative campaigning. Better to float above it all.

snip>
But Kerry's chief pollster, Mark Mellman, wasn't so sure. He could see that the Swift Boat ads were having an impact—not much at the very beginning, but soon a measurable dent in Kerry's support. The old-fashioned mainstream press was ignoring the claims of the Swifties, but on Fox News, the "fair and balanced" cable network whose viewership was rough 80 percent pro-Bush, the Swifties were getting plenty of air time. And not just on Fox. Other cable networks, possibly trying to catch up with their flag-waving (and higher-rated) competitor, had jumped into the fray. The Swifties had bought only a few hundred thousand dollars' worth of ads, but each played over and over—free—on the cable channels, CNN and MSNBC as well as Fox.

snip>

Kerry wanted to blister the Swift Boat vets in a speech he was scheduled to give to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Aug. 18. "We need to get these guys," he said. But at the last minute his handlers on the road were ordered by headquarters in Washington to restrain the candidate. Cahill and Shrum were worried that Kerry would seem too bitter and angry, the way he had appeared when he sarcastically thanked "Good Morning America's" Charlie Gibson, back in April, for doing the Republicans' dirty work.

Kerry's running mate, John Edwards, also wanted to take a swipe at the Swifties. Edwards was hardly an attacker in the Dole (or Cheney) tradition of vice presidential hit men; his whole persona and appeal were based on sunny optimism. But as early as Aug. 5, when the Swifties were just getting traction, Edwards wanted to push back, hard. McCain had just told the Associated Press that the Swift Boat ads were "dishonest and dishonorable... the same kind of deal that was pulled on me." Edwards wanted to begin a speech, "I join with Senator McCain in calling on the president to condemn this dishonest and dishonorable ad." But Kerry headquarters said no. Stephanie Cutter, the boss of the Kerry communications shop, explained that the campaign didn't need to give the Swift Boat vets any more attention than they were already getting.

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

I have no idea how true this is and it is coming from Newsweek, I think we need to search this more. Of course we know how strongly Kerry came out ( by the way does anyone have a transcript of that). I also remember the swifties going after Kerry in the spring and his interview with Gibson (which I have never watched GMA again unless JK was on)and this was the end of the swifties until August.

[MarjorieG]

10. Suspicious where Tme and Newsweek concerned.

Clinton team staging a coup their words? Bashing the campaign preparing for Hillary?

Begala has been harsh about their making suggestions that weren't heeded, but Bill thought going along with banning gay marriage amendment a good idea, so I wonder. I know they were helpful in the debate prep.

I know JK differed with his own team over the swifties, but again, there were two prior attacks.

[karendc]

11. Not to beat a really dead horse

But frankly, this brings up not only my disgust with the Clintonistas but even with some good friends in the campaign, who felt the need to listen to them instead of thinking about who JK was and what he had promised.

When asked what mistakes he had made in the past, he said he had not hit back hard enough against the attacks on his military record. Hindsight is 20/20, but that comment should have trumped and informed any decisions made by anyone else.

[fedupinBushcountry]

13. I should have been more clear

As far as how true it is I was refering to Edwards, I believe everything about the Clinton people.

[Mass]

15. Here is how the Globe reported this at the same time.

Now, the Globe is not exactly a paper who spends hours in Kerry's praises. So, if they say Kerry wanted to react and nothing about Edwards, I tend to believe them.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/11/14/on_the_trail_of_kerrys_failed_dream/?page=11

[MBS]

16. many thanks for this! n/t

[MarjorieG]

17. "Coolest cat" in politics

Gee, we could have the 'coolest cat,' or the evangelical, self-proclaimed 'I feel your pain' baloney, moody and undisciplined one, as leader of the party. We didn't have foxholes in "nam, but I trust the guy in the equivalent.

[emulatorloo]

14. and I remember Wes Clark stepping up and defending Kerry -- GOOD FOR HIM

I don't remember Biden defending Kerry but good for him too.

[_dynamicdems]

30. You're so right. JK was left hanging by those who should have had his back.

Not every Democrat stabbed him in the back but too few truly had his back. The ones who did are on the top of my list. The others are at the bottom. And this isn't just about JK. It is about character. I learned who had character and who did not by the way they supported the Democratic nominee. Period.

It is very dissapointing that JE is re-writing history in order to further his own candidacy. He slipped a few notches, IMO.

[MBS]

31. Perfect, DD

Yes, it IS about character. As you said, Period.

[_dynamicdems]

34. It's sad, but most voters don't really care about character (or lack of it) until

they get their noses rubbed in it. Getting caught is the sin. It's not about honor or integrity, but about looking tough and macho and flawless. People don't want to vote for character: they want to vote for a character. Kerry ran as himself and he was picked apart at every turn, both before, during and after the race. So now we have candidates running as fictional character versions of themselves.

I'm tempted to sit this dance out.

[rox63]

35. If you are thinking of sitting this one out

DD,

Think about the possibility of President McCain, President Giuliani, President Mittens, or President Hillary. Then please reconsider your options. You are in a purple early-primary state, and every blue vote counts up there. My vote here in deepest-blue Massachusetts won't make much difference, since the primaries will likely be decided by the time we vote down here.

Rox

[blm]

37. For myself, I am going to figure out which viable candidate is FURTHEST from Bush family

in every way possible. This protection racket the Clintons have set up for themselves and the Bushes has GOT TO BE STOPPED.

I will push where I can for Gore and Clark to get in the race - if they don't then I just may be stuck with Obama.

[karynnj]

32. I agree with you on the choronlology

I also watched about three Edwards rallies - that were nearly verbatim copies of each other. His attacks on Bush had none of the clarity or strength of Kerry's. At the time, I just took it that Edwards was wishy washy and that his own stand on the war was simply too prowar to risk having him lead any attacks on that. I have posted many times that some one - ***Not Kerry*** should have really been screaming about the purple heart band aids.

I find Edwards comments very unlikely - what would the campaign be saving him for? The best interpretation is that he simply was not good at being an attack dog - which given the "Can he attack back?" theme is not good for Edwards. I suspect he was simply both egotistical and in over his head. I'm surprised that he would think attacking Kerry good politics, unless he bought the idiotic "no one likes him".

The timing on this is interesting, especially with the Donna Brazile article, which spoke of how good the Kerry people were. The Edwards lies (which I think they are) hurt the reputations of the Kerry team as much as they hurt Kerry. As many of them stayed with Kerry till he left the race and others stayed very loyal to him - I suspect they were quiet while speaking out could hurt Kerry - now that constraint is gone.

[FrenchieCat]

18. This is very interesting to me.....as it goes to the heart of

who the "stands up" are when it is required.

I don't see what Kerry has to lose by telling the truth at this point.....while I see that Edwards has much....in particular when you combine this whole thing with this:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/02/16/obama/index.html

In reference to Wes Clark.....I think he did what he could for John Kerry, and started early.....and I still think that the election of 2004 might have turned out differently if Kerry would have picked Clark as his Veep. :(

Of course, that's just my opinion...since it can't be proven as a fact. :shrug:

A Sterling Record
and Editorial by Wesley Clark
4/28/04
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0C16FA355E0C7B8EDDAD0894DC404482

When John Kerry released his military records to the public last week, Americans learned a lot about Mr. Kerry's exceptional service in Vietnam. They also learned a lot about the Republican attack machine.

The evaluations were uniformly glowing. One commander wrote that Mr. Kerry ranked among "the top few" in three categories: initiative, cooperation and personal behavior. Another commander wrote, "In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, Lt. j.g. Kerry was unsurpassed." The citation for Mr. Kerry's Bronze Star praises his "calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire."

<snip>

John Kerry was awarded three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star for his service in Vietnam. In April 1971, as part of a protest against the war, he threw some ribbons over the fence of the United States Capitol.

Republicans have tried to use this event to question his patriotism and his truthfulness, claiming he has been inconsistent in saying whether he threw away his medals or ribbons. This is no more than a political smear. After risking his life in Vietnam to save others, John Kerry earned the right to speak out against a war he believed was wrong. Make no mistake: it is that bravery these Republicans are now attacking.

Although President Bush has not engaged personally in such accusations, he has done nothing to stop others from making them. I believe those who didn't serve, or didn't show up for service, should have the decency to respect those who did serve — often under the most dangerous conditions, with bravery and, yes, with undeniable patriotism.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=47535

[whometense]

19. I agree with you.

I think Wes Clark did everything he could for Kerry. He and Howard Dean were Kerry's most inspired defenders, and I am only sorry Wes Clark wasn't on the ticket.

As for the rest of them - as an avid Kerry watcher for the entire campaign I can't think of a single democrat whose efforts approached Clark's and Dean's. They put their hearts into what they were saying. All the others were all too happy to chuckle along with the talking heads and the wingnuts.

[fedupinBushcountry]

23. I agree also

but would also include Max Cleland, he was always there for JK.

[whometense]

24. Oh - I would never discount what

Max did for a second!!!!! He was an absolute hero. Thanks for reminding me.

Edited to add - and of course, Ted Kennedy as well.

[blm]

26. And at the time, Clark and Dean were still relative unknowns - bigname Dems did NOT

show up because most of them were actually more closely aligned with Bush on his military decisions than they were with Kerry who was trying to shine a light on Bush's military failures.

[MBS]

28. I think it was a combination of factors:

conflicting, personal ambitions; entanglement with the beltway establishment, including compliicity with Republican conventional wisdosm, and strategic decisions based on that "wisdom"; political insecurity and lack of courage; However you slice it, unimpressive at best.

[Mass]

20. We agree.

[ray of light]

21. we agree too!

[rox63]

22. Wes Clark was fantastic in his support of Kerry in 2004

Your guy did us all proud! :patriot:

[MBS]

27. I also would have liked Clark as VP

. . but (am I remembering right?), Clark kept saying he had no interest at all in that post. (Right?). And choice of Edwards did seem to make pragmatic sense at the time. .

[JI7]

25. i look at how Edwards fought back against that Donoho guy

against his bloggers. and i find it hard to believe he was the one who wanted to fight back. notice how it's always rumours of how he wanted to fight, but when it comes down to it such as with the donoho guy not much to back it up.

[ProSense]

29. You might find this

interesting

[rox63]

38. Edwards is now definitely OFF my list of possible '08 candidates to support

I guess the new list is Obama, Dodd or Kucinich.

Edit: I hope Gore and/or Clark enter the race. I'd go with one of them if they do.

[benny05]

39. I was going to leave this alone but now that I saw this post

It's my opinion the MSM (and only my opinion) has a love-hate relationship with Edwards. While there was some disagreement between Kerry and Edwards' approaches about the campaign, I think the truth somewhere in the middle when a newspaper reports it.

Edwards has side-stepped the MSM more than once in favor of the Netroots, and I suspect the MSM are threatened by it. So, they are cooperating with hate mongers like Donohue, whose supporters incidentally sent hate mail and death threats to the feminists who were asked to be technical consultants for the Edwards campaign. The NYT would not publish a letter to them by Frances Kissling, who is the president of a more progressive Catholic organization, that condemned Donohue's comments, especially in light of his bigoted comments towards Vietnamese and Hollywood.

And who owns the BG? The NYT.

No one in Congress said a peep about this either. One would think Hillary Clinton, who is supposed being endorsed by Emily's List, would have condemned such a thing, but since it wasn't her problem, and it took the attention off her lack of apology for AMUF, she was silent, which to me, was a betrayal of feminists everywhere. Where Edwards campaign goofed was not responding quite fast enough. I don't know otherwise, how he could have possibly protected them, and it seems to me Marcotte and McEwan didn't either, looking at their articles on Salon and the Guardian last weekend. But those two have landed and are more famous than ever.

As for Gore running, I don't think he will. Here's why. I used to belong to a particular organization that is affiliated with my profession. The CEO, who is a FOH and brags about it, would have never allowed Al Gore to have a keynote address at that organization's convention if there was any chance he would run against HRC.

Consequently, the CEO is into a power trip and has hijacked the organization's grassroots efforts, so I didn't renew my membership after belonging for 20 years. It was a hard decision to make, but to me, it smelled of what a President Hillary would be like. And I cannot support HRC for any reason because I think she would abuse the power of the executive office, as much Bush has, unlike Kerry would do, or I think Edwards would do.

As for Wes Clark, I would like to like him. But after seeing what happened to Prosense yesterday, who gets the Kerrycrat medal of courage, the Clarkies are frustrated and often nasty to others, especially Edwards supporters. I would not want to go to a bloggers ball and dance with most of them. But I think General Clark, from what little I've seen of him on the Kos, loves his country wholeheartedly.

My money is Edwards as he seems to be the true Netroots candidate of all and he has fought his entire career against certain types of corporate greed in this country, although he is astute enough to know that you have to form allies with some of the corporate types when it comes to understanding investments and how fragile our economic structure is becoming. And yes, I have a personal connection with him since 3X in the past 9 months, I have met him --- as a blogger, not as someone who had a big to check to write. We are the 5th estate and we have to check on the government when the media ignores what's being said.

I support Edwards because while his health care plan is not focus group perfect, and neither does what he says at times is either, he believes in mental health parity, and health care for all, but modeling it initially after the German system. I hope it can sustain itself into single payer eventually if it gains enough trust from the American people and small businesses in particular.

I think withdrawing 40-50,000 troups from Iraq now and engaging the Iranians and Syrians because it's in their best interest for the sake of the health of the Iraqi government, are sound ideas.

He stands tall with the unions and came out for the Employee Free Choice act months ago.

I don't expect any Kerry supporter to come out for a candidate necessarily at this juncture. But I think after the Boston Globe not exactly being kind to Kerry at times either should merit a benefit of the doubt for Kerry and Edwards's relationship. Edwards did release a statement about Senator Kerry not running, which was omitted in the article.

Elizabeth and I know John’s decision not to run for President in 2008 is a difficult one, because we know his first instinct is always to respond to any call to serve his country. He and Teresa have our very best wishes as they concentrate on other ways to continue the exemplary service that has improved the lives of so many in so many ways.

Elizabeth and I forged a special friendship with John and Teresa in the 2004 campaign, both as competitors and as teammates. We will be forever grateful to them for the opportunity to work and fight together in our common effort to change the course of our country. We will forever remember public and private moments all across the country with these dear friends. And their friendship did not end with election day, for no one outside of our family was more supportive of Elizabeth as she battled cancer than John and Teresa.

In the months and years ahead, all Americans are fortunate to have John’s experience, insight, and conscience in the Senate as our government tackles critical problems including finding an appropriate exit from the war in Iraq. In Vietnam, in public office, and in private life John Kerry has always fought the good fight for the right cause. Our country and our party need John Kerry, and we are proud to know that our friend will respond to that call as he always has.”

http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070124-john-kerry/

I don't think it was insincere.

And Senator Kennedy was probably one of the few people who also said something about John Kerry that same day: http://kennedy.senate.gov/newsroom/statement.cfm?id=0af114ca-f3b9-49f8-9c62-06cdb7bb93ee

I'm proud of what John Kerry is doing.

[rox63]

40. Which candidate I support in '08 will not be set in stone for quite some time

Edwards must have known when he accepted the VP offer that the veep-nominee traditionally carries the role of campaign 'attack dog', allowing the prez candidate to stay above the fray and look presidential. I don't recall him stepping into that role much at all during the '04 campaign. I would like to see JRE address these allegations in some way. I'm sure he knows that Kerry's people are pissed-off, and they aren't being quiet about it.

All this said, I don't want to get into any sort of public dispute with you about it. We have history and friendship that transcends our political views and preferences.

[benny05]

42. Respond in this way towards the traditional, MSM model:

Did Mondale defend Carter in the bullpit way?
Did Bush 41 defend Reagan in this way?

More to come.

Al Gore may have been the attacker, for Bill Clinton, but Lieberman did not in this way for Al Gore.

Why did Kerry need a bulldog? If he were that strong, why would he need a bulldog? I agree that Edwards, who had a very forward and positive campaign, would have liked a bit of guidance from Cahill and Shrum.

Edwards was sent out to the pastures in general, considering the Kerry campaign folks completely wrote off the South. Sorry, but it was a big mistake. With JRE not being able to campaign in the South and only to advocate the midwest and NE...

Campaign managers sucked, folks.

Yet you believe by MSM's reports that shape your views?

I think you are still hurt about Kerry not running when you thought he could be the 2nd bright light.

I stand by John Kerry's goodness in the Senate. I have many reasons to be a bit pissed off at him about his campaign, beyond what is written in the Boston Globe, but I'n not one to be that way. If you wish to do so, that is yours.

[TayTay]

43. Benny, it is also possible that we don't think JRE is telling the truth

about what happened in 2004. It is also possible that we have heard this, not from the MSM, but from people who worked on and inside that campaign. Perhaps it is not the MSM influencing opinion here, but people who were in a position to know and who have shared that knowledge.

There was just cause to be angry at JRE in 2004 for what he did not do in that campaign. It is insulting to be told that minds are being made up based on just what is published in the MSM. A lot of people here have gone out of their way to get first hand quotes from primary sources, including books, tv quotes and so forth that indicate that JRE did purposefully malign Kerry and inflate his role in 2004 and try desperately to shift blame for what went wrong exclusively to Kerry.

We are not dumb people. It is insulting to be told that we are because we are buying into memes that a lot of us do not. The comments made were made before based on primary sources, not anonymous ones.

[karynnj]

44. I second this and thank Tay Tay for expressing this so well

The odd thing is that Edwards was not being blamed for 2004 - he could easily have taken the high road, refused to attack Kerry, thanked him for putting him on the ticket and echoed Kerry in saying that lessons were learned. He might have gained more Kerry people that way.

The south, other than a small number of border states will be won by Democrats only if there is a landslide. It would be like someone putting Pataki or Romney on the GOP ticket as VP and expecting to win NY or MA. The reason would be that they might attract moderate votes in the spring states.

The fact is I judge all comments by anyone based on the information I have and what I saw.

[benny05]

45. Not much to comment here

I think you here know what the Kerry campaign has revealed...or not. That is why I don't challenge it. But it does have to do with possible creative destruction of the grass/netroots of what Hillary Clinton is trying to do to with the Democratic party's slate and maybe other things too. To me, she represents Corp interests at heart and for herself (and always has), not the rest of us, who felt the little guy needed some hand-ups and not spanking for our actions when we were put out to pasture for corporate outsourcing because of NAFTA agreements.

I think Mrs. Clinton's campaign is all about winning, to pit Democratic supporters versus another because if you recall, McAuliffe's book was a catalyst this dust up message, but I did not articulate this point very well.

Mrs. Clinton's campaign slogan, "I'm in it to win" is a complete turnoff and more about her ego.

It's so weird that a Dem like Mrs. Clinton, if my hunch is right, is buying the media consultants in order "to do anything to win" to attack her opponents for the Primaries. This is unusual in the Party to do so this early, although some poli sci person may do some analysis--after this over. But the deconstruction of rhetoric is worth pursuing at present.

Yes, there are differences between Kerry and Edwards as to the campaign and decisions, as pointed out in places. Elizabeth Edwards did present a side in her book of her observations of the campaign, from her view only.

I think we can all agree the Kerry Campaign staff made mistakes.

To me, this country would not be in the horrible mess today if Kerry were President and Edwards as VP, but that didn't happen.

But I still think John Kerry's charge to do what is right, by getting our soldiers out of the crosshairs of a civil war in Iraq in a timetable manner is the most important thing we can do together as Dems.

[rox63]

46. Thanks for bringing up what we share in common

rather than what separates us. Despite disagreements between the Kerry & Edwards' camps and their supporters, there is a lot more we share than what divides us. And I think we can all agree that HRC is the antithesis of what we're looking for in a Dem presidential nominee. Her slash & burn, divide & conquer strategy comes right from Karl Rove's playbook. And the Clintons' close relationship with the Bush family has always made me uncomfortable.

[karynnj]

47. You are a good advocate for Edwards

I agree with you about the Clintons. While I have problems with Edwards - that predated his being the VP nominee, I would not say as I do about Hillary that I would not be able in good conscience to canvas or phone bank for him.

But, I personally could not advocate with friends or neighbors to vote for him. The reason is that I have deep reservations about his honesty and sincerity. I also feel, I don't know what he would really do as President. Just as he would say anything to win a case, I suspect he will say anything to win. Oddly, the media rewards that and ignores the inconsistancies. Only in a warped media would Kerry, a man whose values have been clear, constant, principled, and solid be the politician labeled with flip flopping.

These reservations are pretty deeply based and likely cannot be changed. They are not based on this article. In fact, I was moved against them far more by Elizabeth's book. The most annoying thing was her distortion of the 2004 primaries to suggest that Edwards came very close to winning. In fact, even though he, not Kerry, was the media favorite, it is very clear that Kerry had the most solid, most clean cut nomination wins of a non-encumbent President or VP in my lifetime. Elizabeth is a bankrupcy lawyer - she can analyze numbers WAY better than this. She wrote this out of political expediency. I also hate that she, in the book and in the press, chose to re-inforce RW attacks on Teresa. That is unforgiveable for me.

[karynnj]

41. Hi Benny05

We Kerrycrats are aware that the media can create a story where there is not one. We have seen that happen all too much. Here, though the comments they are quoting from anonymous Kerry aides does jibe with how many of us saw 2004. It was pretty clear to all of us who obsessively read the blog and watched the campaign that John Edwards rarely attacked Bush or Cheney as hard as Kerry did.

This is absolutely the opposite of most campaigns. The media in 2004 (in the primaries) adored John Edwards and had little use for John Kerry. They have let Edwards claim that his role was to be positive. Now, when "fighting back" is an issue, Edwards has claimed that he wanted to fight back. The fact is though, if you look at Kerry's platform, it was very positive and forward looking. Kerry throughout his entire career acted with dignity, integrity and grace. He is no more a natural "bull dog" than Edwards. Given that Kerry himself was fighting very hard, it is not believable that he would have told Edwards not to also fight.

I think that Edwards may have been uncomfortable with attacking Bush as the Kerry people say. If this were true and Edwards admitted it, the question would be what he told Kerry he would do when they discussed the VP position. Edwards was NOT a strong Bush opponent in the primaries either.
He may have been a bad choice for VP if he said he was uncomfortable with that role. That is not the arguement though - the problem is that Edwards has said things about the campaign that the Kerry people - now free to speak - say are not true. If you remember, even without these Kerry aides, we questioned Edwards comments because they did not match what we saw in 2004 and 2005.

You are assuming that Edwards is telling the truth, most of us find the Kerry people's story more likely. Kerry himself has been silent - and it is telling that he has not spoken up to deny the claims. Kerry is always extremely quick to defend others from lies or unfair charges. So, till I hear differently from Kerry, I believe the story.

As to who I will back, Edwards has lost points - not with this story - but with the catty comments that he and Elizabeth made. The kind comments, when Kerry was no longer a rival, do not wipe away that they do not match the comments of last fall. I am angriest at the Teresa comments because she was smeared as much as John in 2004 - and many of Elizabeth's comments hit RW themes. Teresa never had the forum to defend herself - so this was inexcusable.

[whometense]

48. Dan Kennedy:

http://medianation.blogspot.com/2007/02/i-saw-lite.html

I saw the lite

I was at that Los Angeles breakfast meeting in 2000, sitting next to Seth Gitell, when John Edwards was making the non-impression on Massachusetts Democrats that Seth so accurately describes. Based on that encounter, I never would have thought Edwards had much of a future. Actually, I still don't.

A few days ago, Rick Klein, writing in the Boston Globe, reported that veterans of John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign dispute Edwards' recent claims that he wanted to get tough on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, but that the Kerry people wouldn't let him. It's a classic he said/he said, but I believe the Kerry folks. Edwards was a terrible running mate. Even an unexciting choice like Dick Gephardt might have enabled Kerry to win Missouri and, thus, the presidency.

Mind you, I'm not getting into what Edwards said or didn't say about Israel. I'm just unimpressed with the guy, that's all.

Labels: 2008

posted by Dan Kennedy @ 2:12 PM

[MBS]

49. yeah n/t