Is there some sort of ill will between Clark and Edwards?

--- I believe that I have at least heard that Clark did not especially like Edwards. Can anyone confirm if that is true and, if so, what it is all about?

He did mention Gore in very favoriable terms

is one of the greatest threats to our civilization

opponent - heh heh

to work with him on his 2004 campaign. I'm a Clarkie, and I'm over it. I honestly don't believe they dislike each other. I suspect that it's more like they don't know each other all very well. shelton never explained what he meant by Clark's "character & integrity" issues. It was a smear, not a doubt in my mind. In Clark's book "Waging Modern War," it explains the situation a bit. Oh yeah, shelton is a repugliCON. I really am not sure why Edwards picked shelton, or if it was that he actually hired him, but shelton was involved in Ewdwards' campaign in 2004.

As Clark advised Dean before entering the race himself. I don't think there was hiring in either case, but don't really know.

two NC folks.


they talked. nothing formal, so far as I know.

Edwards' campaign was asked directly as to whether Edwards would in other words "stand" by Shelton's comment....and in fact, he didn't disavow it the least. Edwards reinforced that in his eye, Shelton was a patriot.

In particular, considering that character and integrity are really the "Honor" part of in the West Point Motto....and that to a career officer, these values mean just about all there is in terms of one's contribution to the country he has served.

A comparison would be if a well known individual (say, like Charlie Rangel or someone) was asked whether he would vote for Edwards......and Charlie when on about Edwards specific lack of character and integrity......Charlie did work loosely with Clark during Clark's campaign....and when Clark would be asked about Charlie's statement, Clark would reply....."You've got to agree that Charlie's a great legislator and a wonderful representative of these United States"......

In other words, Clark was attacked personally......and not based on any policy or otherwise.

Edwards' response in retort when asked straightforward for his thoughts on this was less than, and in fact implied that he didn't disagree with Shelton.

So the point is not that Shelton said these things, as much as the fact that Edwards didn't bother to acknowledge any of Clark's contribution over the time that he had served when asked specifically about his "friends'" statement.

that since Shelton said something so harsh, Edwards should find a way to separate himself from the harshness, while not dissing Shelton.

In other words, I don't think any candidate should stand behind something so brutal as what Shelton said. He should separate himself.

But I do think he would want to do it in a way that did not imply that Shelton was lying or out of control, because that just continues the mudslinging. I think something like:

'General Shelton, like anyone, has a right to say what he wants, and that he thinks is appropriate and honest. I can't contest General Shelton's opinion. But my experience of General Clark, and everything I've heard about him, tells me he is a brilliant and honest man who has given great service to his country. My opinion of General Clark clearly differs from General Shelton's.'

I think Edwards should have said something like that. What happens then is that Edwards and Clark are on the high road, and Shelton is on the low.

I don't know enough about Shelton and why he said what he said.

What I don't like is campaign hit-men. People like Wolfson and Carville - they're hired gunslingers while their candidate sits quietly by. The difference is, I believe, that Shelton was friendly with Edwards, but not on the payroll. Still, through association, Edwards should have stepped clearly onto higher ground.

Not only did Edwards specifically refuse to disassociate himself with Shelton's smear, even when he was asked to, Jennifer Palmieri (Edwards' press secretary... she's still with him, as some sort of senior advisor I think), jumped right on the incident, saying something to the effect that Shelton was one of a number of generals who didn't think Wes Clark was much of a leader. Of course, she didn't name any names, and there never were any who weren't partisans for someone else. She was actually trying to exploit what Shelton said.

and I wish they had handled it differently.

I do know that some here do not think that people can evolve, or become more astute - hence the constant proclamations of old statements as opposed to more current positions - but I do think that we want to look at how our leaders evolve.

I guess I'm saying that I hope and expect that Edwards, and his team, would handle it very differently today.

What I am getting from Edwards these days is that he has jettisoned the old, consultant-driven mode of politicking. Should he have done it earlier? Sure. But he, almost alone among major figures, seems to be operating on his own counsel, not on focus groups.

That's why he can say that a President Edwards would not, at this point, preclude allowing a nuclear Iran. Such a statement flies in the face of all public opinion, but is, in fact, very enlightened. He also says we should have a non-agression pact with Iran, as we share so many interests.

Likewise, he says that to provide the health care he thinks the country needs we have to raise taxes on the wealthy. This is not a focus group-driven position.

All of which is to say that I would hope that he would, today, handle Shelton's statement in a very different manner.

Others might call it pandering.

But in either case, grown-up people do not "evolve" with respect to core values and honorable behavior. Shelton acted dishonorably, and Edwards not only enabled his bad behavior, he exploited it.

As for whether Edwards has "jettisoned the old, consultant-driven mode of politicking," I would only point out Palmieri is still on his staff, and has never been reprimanded or even so much as corrected for what she said. Sounds like the same ol' shit to me. But I guess we've got a little less than a year to see if the leopard has changed his spots... assuming Edwards lasts that long.

I call it clarifying in the face of evidence, a changing world, pressing concerns, experience, intelligence.

You call it what you want. I'll call it the above.

Shelton's name was listed on JE's campaign website.

I asked someone connected with the 04 campaign and they said that Shelton's statement did not come from, or reflect the campaign position.

Cold comfort, I know, but that's all I got.

Except when he campaigned for the K-E ticket and it was all very positive.

Hugh Shelton may have been partially the reason why. Shelton basically attempted to swiftboat Clark before Clark even entered the race in 2003. Shelton smeared Clark on September 12, 2003; Clark entered the race on September 17, 2003.



Wes Clark was asked about John Edwards this year, after Edwards announced his candidacy...and although I can't find the quote now, Wes Clark had nice things to say about John Edwards. In fact, Catchawave (an Edwards supporter) posted the quote here on DU shortly after Clark said what he said about Edwards. I found it classy of Clark at the time.

Me... not so much.

I make no bones about my dislike and distrust of Edwards - but it has nothing to do with Clark. In fact, the actions Edwards did that resulted in my dislike of him occurred long before Clark was even considered a presidential candidate.

When a sponsor of IWR manages to keep this fact STEALTHY through 2 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS, when shortly after apologizing for helping start a war is threatening another

Edwards: 'Iran must know world won't back down'

Ron Brynaert
Published: Tuesday January 23, 2007
Print This Email This
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

but somehow all democrats seem blind to the signs - I am terrified.
As the apology" is bought whole-sale and people seem to think it entitles him to the POTUS office reward, no one seems to notice that he never denounced this war as wrong, nor is he regretting sponsoring the IWR. But Hillary -bad, Edwards good nevertheless.
Edwards' supporters like to bait opponents with "are you afraid of him?"
and I readily admit: I am terrified. Last election, PNAC had Joementum in our party. Now it's Edwards - and the media support only reinforces my fears.
I don't care what new shingle PNAC has now on their door, they still pursue the same plan - and they cover all bases.
Someone on DU had the gall to tell me that "attacking edwards doesn't reflect good on me". That sent additional chills down my spine.
Everyone concentrates their fears of a dem warmonger on Hillary - but Bill resisted PNAC - so Hillary scares me a little less than this man.

and regretted it.

Was the war morally wrong?????
His criticism of war is identical to Hillary's : "bad intelligence, badly conducted" I don't here the anti-war sentiment at all!

and we've ruined our reputation around the world as a result was something I dreamed? I'm not speaking to you in the third person. This isn't heresay that I'm repeating. He and I were physically in the same room.

BTW, I was a Clarkie from the beginning. The Shelton thing bothered me as well. Bottom line, he got bad advice in the 2004 campaign.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

--- The epitome of the dignified, enlightened warrior,..... Few politicians can come away looking good when compared to that. Gen. Clark would be my first choice, hands down,... and up until this point, I admired the way he had kept himself above the fray. But I must admit, with the way that the MSM is all too happy to be managing the democratic nominating process down to a contest between Clinton and Obama, it's worrisome to see Clark remaining on the sidelines. Maybe he has a plan?

Edwards is a true lightweight on foreign policy and Wes knows it. Plus there were some hard feelings from the campaign:

<Clark lashes out at Kerry, Edwards

JACKSON, Tennessee (CNN) -- His hopes buoyed by apparent victory in Oklahoma, retired Gen. Wesley Clark unleashed his most heated attacks yet against Sens. John Kerry and John Edwards, suggesting his chief rivals are "conventional" politicians who "say one thing and then do another."

Kerry has led in seven of nine electoral contests so far, including wins Tuesday in Arizona, New Mexico, Missouri, Delaware and North Dakota. Edwards carried South Carolina on Tuesday but appears to have lost to Clark in Oklahoma by less than 1 percentage point.

Campaigning Wednesday in Jackson to persuade voters before the Tennessee primary next week, Clark called himself "a real leader," saying the American people "want someone who will stand up for them, not look out for themselves."

<..."I don't understand how John Kerry and John Edwards can claim to defend civil liberties and criticize the Patriot Act. They voted for it. I don't understand how John Kerry and John Edwards can criticize the war in Iraq, when they voted to give George W. Bush a blank check to go to war.">

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/05/elec04.prez.clark.remarks/index.html

Which is what I thought the OP was getting at. A criticism, yes.

If Wes doesn't run and chooses to endorse someone, I would fall off my chair if it were Edwards.

I mean, deal breakingly disappointed.

Now, I'll grant you that there were no anti-war candidates with a realistic chance of beating Kerry at that point. Fact is, there was no one at all with a realistic chance, and Clark wanted the primary race to leave Kerry in as strong a position as possible. So he jumped on the Kerry bandwagon with both feet, and only two days after he dropped out himself.

But that said, I think if Clark doesn't run in 2008, who he will endorse will be based more on who can do the best to unite the party and handle the international crises this nation is facing. Whether they voted for the IWR won't matter as much, but I sort of find it hard to believe he'd support a foreign policy light-weight, no matter how they voted, or said they would have voted, or say they would have voted then if they knew then what they know now.

But who knows? Maybe he won't endorse anyone until the voters have spoken and the nomination is won. I know he was favoring Lamont in CT before the primary, but he didn't endorse him until afterwards. Clark doesn't like to go against fellow Democrats if he can help it.

One thing, tho. If Bush launches an attack on Iran, I'd expect how the various candidates react could have a lot to do with who Clark endorses. Or even whether he runs, if he hasn't declared already.

:rofl:

and was proud enough of that to include the fact in some campaign brochures

Patriot Act is being abused by the Attorney General
Q: The PATRIOT Act is two years old. There has been criticism of John
Ashcroft for enforcement of legislation you authored. Shouldn't those
who wrote the legislation take responsibility?
EDWARDS: There are provisions, which get no attention, which did good
things. The reason we need changes is because it gave too much
discretion to an attorney general who does not deserve it. The attorney
general told us that he would not abuse his discretion. He has abused
his discretion. We know that now.
Source: Democratic Presidential 2004 Primary Debate in Detroit Oct 27,
2003
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Edwards_Civil_Right...

The Patriot Act was written by the staff of Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Much of the work has been attributed to Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy Viet Dinh, who was the principal author of the first Patriot Act.

<Dr. David Cole, Georgetown University Law professor found it disturbing that there have been no consultations with Congress on the draft legislation. "It raises a lot of serious concerns and is troubling as a generic matter that they have gotten this far along and tell people that there is nothing in the works. What that suggests is that they're waiting for a propitious time to introduce it, which might well be when a war is begun. At that time there would be less opportunity for discussion and they'll have a much stronger hand in saying that they need these right away.>

For the full discussion:

http://foi.missouri.edu/domsecenhanceact/sonofpatriotact.html


Below are some interview excerpts with Edwards during the 2004 race.



PATRIOT Act removes liberties that it's supposed to protect
Q: Do you support revision or repeal of the PATRIOT Act?

EDWARDS: I support dramatic revision of the PATRIOT Act. The last thing we should be doing is turning over our privacy, our liberties, our freedom, our constitutional rights to John Ashcroft. First, the very notion that this administration can arrest American citizens on American soil, label them an enemy combatant, put them in prison, keep them there indefinitely-this runs contrary to everything we believe in this country. The notion that they are going to libraries to find out what books people are checking out, going to book stores to find out what books are being purchased. What we have to remember-and I will when I am president-is what it is we are supposed to be fighting for, what it is we are supposed to be protecting. These very liberties, this privacy, these constitutional rights-that's what's at stake in this fight. And we cannot let people like John Ashcroft take them away in an effort to protect ourselves.
Source: Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate Sep 9, 2003

Support the Patriot Act with rigorous review
Q: Would you revise or repeal the Patriot Act?

A: I supported the Patriot Act because it contained provisions needed to strengthen our security, but I also believe this administration has abused its powers in implementing the law. One key provision of the act requires Congress to revisit key provisions of the law. I opposed efforts to repeal that "sunset," and Congress must rigorously review the Patriot Act-as well as any new legislation-to see whether it advances our security and honors our values.
Source: MoveOn.org interview Jun 17, 2003


http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/John_Edwards_Civil_Rights.htm

And finally, the revisions of the Patriot Act passed in 2006, when
Edwards was no longer a member of the Senate.

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2006/03/70362

And the original Patriot Act summary by Project Vote Smart
Note there is only ONE sponsor: Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?vote_id=3110&can_id=S0291103

n/t

thinghie was all made up.(such as McCain being "straight talk, Gore "serial liar" etc) I remember some papers from the Iowa campaign ABC had uncovered - where Edwards campaign was gathering dirt on Kerry and Dean.
And I do remember Hugh Shelton, Edwards campaign consultant casting unfounded doubts on Clark's integrity. No facts - just - "let's just say, I wouldn't vote for him" (duh, you were GOP AND Edwards consultant - but left that out)
I never heard Clark saying anything negative about Edwards or any other candidate - even in candid conversations. He was the genuine positive campaigner - but like with everything else, others got credit for his ideas, qualities.Still do.

Ok?

If so, please elaborate.

I don't believe that Clark has anything to hide.......

I'd suggest that you go for it instead of merely implying the subliminal without really saying anything.

I'm ready.

When called on his BS he had to retract.

I just don't like to see people stating stuff that is not true.

They were all researching and digging dirt on one another.

I don't see any. :shrug:

She was trying to clarify and even followed with "IF..." so, then, no.

sources. A book that she read said that these people told Dean that Clark said this, that and the other thing.

She doesn't have ANY direct quotes.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Clark did an excellent job campaigning for Kerry--particularly in defending Kerry against the vile Swift Boat attacks.

and Edwards, but those Clarkies are often Clark's Achilles heel (when his overenthusiastic, attack-all-opponents supporters get into high gear personality-over-issues smear mode, I find that they drain enthusiasm from the campaign, and I say this as an early '04 Clarkie).

Clarkies are regularly attacked by Edwards supporters, as well. Somehow it goes unnoticed.

Edwards and Clark.

but I will say that regardless of my "reputation", Anything that I have actually ever posted negatively about Edwards has had much more to do with his political actions and votes versus his "personality".

In reference to the other candidates, you'll be hardpressed to find any negativity eminating from me on them.....especially in reference to their personality and their person.

I'm for sound judgement in my White House....and like some others, my opinion as to what that means is not the same as that of other folks. This political forum is meant for us to honestly discuss our similarities and our differences in reference to these political issues, and so I'm not sure how this can be read as Clark's achilles heel. :shrug:

In fact, I find that Clarkies are stereotyped very much more than supporters of other candidates. Was it earned? At this point, it doesn't seem to matter.....but it does seem that the legend about Clarkies have superceded any real facts on this matter.

I think that there is a difference between slamming and smearing a candidate with untrue allegations and discussing various specific actions taken by a candidate that you disagree with. Sometimes those lines get blurred.....and normally they are blurred by those who would prefer that anything negatively conveyed about their candidate is instantly classified as a smear.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Edwardsians, Kucinichistas, or Hillarians) seem to want to attack other Democrats on topics beyond the candidates' stands on the issues (which is fair game as far as I'm concerned). It seems like if you see an "Obama sucks" thread which is not related to his stand on issues or an "I'll vote for Hagel over Hillary" thread, it is more often a Clarkie rather than, say, a Kucinichista who started that thread. I notice it more here than at DKos.

This observation is not directed at you or anyone in particular; it is a general observation.

As far as the candidates go, I really, really like Clark and I hope he runs, and - if Gore doesn't run - my dream ticked would probably be Edwards/Clark, but I'd be perfectly happy with an Obama/Clark ticket or any ticket that paired two progressive candidates rather than Hillary, Biden, or Richardson, but I will support the ticket even if it is Hillary/Richardson.

who've expressed their opinions in a negative way, but most Clarkies DO NOT behave that way. I've been all over this board protesting the Clinton bashing, and giving my support in the Obama threads, and I've noticed other Clarkies doing the same.

There's definitely a group here on DU who are trying to run down the Clintons, the DLC and even Obama, but the vast majority of Clarkies aren't part of it. That's my observation.

I post about the issues and whether I agree with them or not. If someone seems to be taking a conservative tack, I'll express my feelings about it. It's not smearing or bashing.

Again, that's my observation.

attack other Democrats on topics beyond the candidates' stands on issues".....

Because you are not really providing anything to back up this assertion (and I would like to ask for such threads links so that your point can have teeth) beyond merely stating that this is your "impression" based on "recollection" rather than any evidence.

But most importantly, Individual Clarkies are not a "Unit"....

When K_Jerome (may he rest in peace) was dogging Clark out in every thread with literal smears, I don't recall all Edwards supporters made to feel that they were all guilty for what this poster was doing (and there are a few other such posters who support Edwards and have consistently smeared Clark with what one would term a smear, not a policy difference).....and there lies just one of the problems that goes along with stereotyping one group of supporters based on generalized assertions and not doing the same for others.

Now, when I look at today's threads right now, I spot a few who are or were Clark supporters at some point....and Let's review the threads that they have OPed?

1. Sparkly (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-06-07 09:20 AM
Original message
"Romney aims again to explain hunting"... Why is the GOP so focused on shooting, anyway?

2. Husb2Sparkly (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-06-07 09:26 AM
Original message
Betty Ford in Hospital, recovering from (minor) surgery


3. Sparkly (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-06-07 09:33 AM
Original message
Giuliani: "I don't agree with me on everything"

4. Dinger (1000+ posts) Wed Apr-04-07 08:15 PM
Original message
I Will Bust My Ass For The Dems In 2008, Even If "My Guy" Isn't On "The" Ticket. Will You?

5. wyldwolf (1000+ posts) Wed Apr-04-07 12:25 PM
Original message
Poll question: Should Factually Inaccurate criticisms of Democrats be banned on DU?


6. BOSSHOG (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-06-07 09:07 AM
Original message
Funny pissing contest in the local Letters to the Editor Column

7. Roland99 (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-06-07 10:01 AM
Original message
Saudi King 'mistaken' over legality of US troops in Iraq: Bolton


8. Clarkie1 (1000+ posts) Thu Apr-05-07 05:42 PM
Original message
What's the difference betweeen "progressive" and "liberal?" Define each.

IN GD....
9. in_cog_ni_to (1000+ posts) Thu Apr-05-07 12:31 PM
Original message
YES!!!! Dick Durbin announced the Senate will hold oversight hearings into the pet food recall!!!

10. Roland99 (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-06-07 08:59 AM
Original message
IT Industry waning in America?? Notice this Google search trend

11. in_cog_ni_to (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-06-07 09:20 AM
Original message
EXCUSE ME? What is this my eyes are seeing? OMG! Time to email KO!


That's not to say that there aren't "Against this candidate" threads to read.....just not posted by (are or were) Clark supporters is all. :shrug:

Since you seem to be a magnet for so many of these baseless Clarkie accuasations,
:yourock:

Hey Czolgosz, can you please back up this assertation with at least a few links to these so-called Clarkie-started, attacking candidates on things other than their stand on the issues threads you're noticing? I'd be interested in seeing what you're talking about....

Thanks!

If you have evidence to the contrary maybe you want to present it, but "Obama sucks" or "Hillary sucks" or whatever are not threads generally started by Clark supporters in my observation. However, many, many times there are comments claiming a Clarkie started a negative thread when the thread was started by a non-Clak supporter. Some Edwards supporters automatically assume it and feel compelled to say it - and I have seen this over and over. It happens so often that I suspect there are DUers who have begun to believe it just because of the repetition. This is not to say there are no Clark supporters who post negatively, but that it is not a large number and certainly no larger a number than supporters of other candidates.

This is why I ask for links...because I don't see this either, yet this is not the first time it's been said.

When the supposedly more discerning and involved and thoughtful and aware people who post here can be so easily led to believe something not backed up by evidence, it's easy to see how the majority of the sheeple can be so easily led by the media or whoever's leading them at the moment.

It just doesn't seem that way to me.

I don't know who they are, but I'd guess HRC's folks are the most unnerved by his candidacy. Again, though, I don't think it's safe to generalize (pardon the pun)

Apropos this gist of the thread -As an Edwards supporter, I admit that there are many very reasonable, civil, fair, impassioned Clark supporters that I admire greatly. WesDem, Tom R, et al.



There are some, though, that dislike Edwards so much, and attack him so virulently, that I hesitate to come here often. It savage and unpleasant and unproductive.

To be fair, it must not just be Clark supporters. There are probably some unaligned Edwards haters. I just have to accept that my guy strikes some people very badly. On other, largely progressive, anti-war sites, Edwards is widely supported. DU seems to me, within the limits of my experience, to be the vortex of anti-Edwards sentiment.

I have no idea what happened to you personally, but I certainly resent your generalizations and venom in this thread - which represent also a hijacking of the OP.
Obama is the only high profile anti-war candidate - so, why would any Clarkie be against him, is beyond me.
I am not too familiar with the Hillary threads - I don't usually go there unless I see freeper-like attacks against her so I need to defend her for fairness sake. Other than that, not my candidate.
As for Edwards, when I see him called "anti-war" I do hit the ceiling and tend to post my links. I've been told that "that doesn't reflect well on me"
I guess I'll have to live with being "bad" - but stopping this war/not starting others/stolen elections - kinda my issues.
When I asked why Edwards is mum on the 2004 theft someone volunteered to let me in "his private feelings". I had in mind more of publicly telling the truth. Like Gore did? So, even before knowing about "in God we Trust" 9another important issue to me) this candidate is against everything I hold dear. I shall speak my mind - no matter how "bad" it reflects on me.

Interesting. There is a different ex-Clarkie who runs a similar line.

The one I mentioned definitely was a Clarkie in 2004 and a very committed one.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I just like the way that sounds:)



:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

inevitable to win the nomination in 2004. Some of these folks who are now unannounced Edwards supporters have long resented Clark and his supporters the moment when Clark supporters came on the DU scene and made life uncomfortable for them and their candidate.......

They have never forgiven Clark or his supporters for Clark running. They blame Clark to this day for single handedly derailing their candidate's lead.....and they shall never get over it. They still don't realize that during those primaries there were more opponents to Dean than just Clark....
Even something like Kucinich teaming up with then Pro-War Edwards against then Anti-War Dean during the Iowa Caucus. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/elec04.prez.edwards.kucinich/index.html

Two that I have described have posted (not anything positive of Clark or Clarkies) in this thread.

:)

but what becomes clear is that some military figures get testy and cause harm to political campaigns. In comparison Clark is the brightest example to the contrary and so are many military vets encouraged by his run to become excellent candidates in turn. So in reality this embarrassment belongs to Shelton for counterpointing Clark's good points almost perfectly.

Indirectly to Edwards and between Clark and Edwards that becomes remote. Getting at Edwards(even on good points outside this post completely) is not so important as giving points to Clark. If everyone is 100% genuine to the core lovey dovey(and not just good prim manners) in a heated campaign I would worry in a different way.

Alliances are an interesting topic as it affects the candidacies. And utter faith in perfect human leader goeth before the cliff.

thanks for writing it.

there were alot of spats and spiteful feelings between Dean and Kerry folks, and between Clark and Edwards folks - with some stuff between all groups. It settled down as folks dropped out of the race - and others started reevaluating - and not in the direction that one would suspect (ala - my guy drops out so I re-look and decide your guy is okay) but more like - wait x is about to get out of the race... you know, that's too bad - as there were some really positive qualities... then even after the nomination and ticket were solid there was sniggering and sarcasm - but for the most part, as the election drew near - a lot of strong detractors became big defenders of the ticket.

I would guess that some of that old pre-primary dynamic is just coming back up (granted without the Dean Kerry sniping - as neither are running and both are playing very strong Dem leadership roles in the overall fight against bushco) with Clark and Edwards and replacing Dean Kerry sniping, the Clinton Obama snipefest seems to have emerged.

All that said - not sure that the same vehemence that was seen last time around between camps was reflected by the candidates - and I never saw indication that there was any animous between Clark and Edwards.

Edwards asked Hugh Shelton for advice on Iraq (they graduated from the same unviversity when they got their undergraduate degrees). He gave Edwards bad advice. He (Shelton) also tried to discredit Clark. Therein lies the riff. It's not so much between Edwards and Clark. Also, Edwards says his position was wrong, the war was wrong, and he currently wants to try and address the damage to our image abroad. Everthing else in this thread is probably mostly opinion.