For Edwards and Kerry, a Relationship That Never Quite Fit

NYT: The Long Run
Lessons of 2004
This is part of a series of articles about the lives and careers of contenders for the 2008 Republican and Democratic presidential nominations.

For Edwards, a Relationship That Never Quite Fit
By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: November 21, 2007


(Ting-Li Wang/The New York Times)
John Kerry and John Edwards, running mates but never really friends, ended 2004 in recrimination and regrets.

....To the end of their disappointing run, the two men were unable to agree on the script, whether for slogans or more substantive matters. And like so many political marriages, the one between Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards — Senate colleagues who became rivals then running mates but never really friends — ended in recrimination and regrets.

Kerry aides complain that Mr. Edwards never stopped running for president — a Democratic Party official recalled some aides wearing “Edwards for President” pins at a fund-raiser long after they were working for the Kerry-Edwards ticket. Kerry supporters say Mr. Edwards refused to play the traditional vice-presidential role of attack dog even going up against a purebred, Dick Cheney. And Mr. Kerry had barely conceded the race, they say, before Mr. Edwards was aiming for 2008 and embarking on what one campaign aide called the “it wasn’t my fault tour” around his home state to distance himself from the loss.

For his part, aides said, Mr. Edwards felt frustrated by Mr. Kerry’s public agonizing over the war in Iraq and a campaign that seemed to change consultants and message constantly. To Mr. Edwards, Mr. Kerry seemed unable to get out of his own way. He ignored Mr. Edwards’s warning not to go windsurfing, one aide recalled, which led to the infamous “whichever way the wind blows” advertisement mocking Mr. Kerry’s statements on the war. And in the end, Mr. Edwards concluded that Mr. Kerry lacked fight for not filing a legal challenge to the election results.

Today, Mr. Edwards insists he is “the same person I’ve always been.” But his experience as a vice-presidential candidate who went down in defeat has clearly influenced his current run for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Having seen up close the perils of seeming to shift with the wind, he is selling himself as the candidate of “conviction” and “bold ideas” and trying to portray the front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as tacking for political gain. Once the sunny centrist who did not want to criticize his rivals by name, Mr. Edwards has become the most confrontational candidate in the race. And he has courted his party’s left wing by renouncing his vote on the war, something he counseled Mr. Kerry not to do....

***

On Election Day, the running mates spent much of the day believing exit polls that showed them winning. The next morning, with Ohio still up in the air, Mr. Edwards pressed to send lawyers to Columbus to challenge the way the state counted provisional ballots. But Mr. Kerry finally concluded that even winning all those ballots would not make him president....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/us/politics/21edwards.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

used to file a legal challenge. He's never spelled it out, and I think that's important.

Surely two lawyers talking over the dinner table night after night could have come up with one by now, if they had a case.

She is pro-Democratic. Nothing wrong with that in my book. But, she is also clearly and perhaps blindly pro-Kerry. Pro-Kerry seems to almost be her definition of Democratic. Here are some of her articles:

THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: ADVERTISING; Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Attack on Kerry

Good piece on the Swift-Boaters -- clearly pro-Kerry

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E5DF163EF933A1575BC0A9629C8B63

Cheney on the Hustings: The Reluctant Candidate

A hit piece on Cheney. Great article but very clearly pro-Kerry. Dated 07/05/04

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE5DC163BF936A35754C0A9629C8B63

On Iraq, Kerry Again Leaves Democrats Fuming
By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: June 21, 2006

Mr. Kerry has found his resolve. But it has not made his fellow Democrats any happier. They fear the latest evolution of Mr. Kerry's views on Iraq may now complicate their hopes of taking back a majority in Congress in 2006.

This is a must read for anyone interested in Ms. Zernike's commentary regarding the current primary campaign. It criticizes Dodd and Biden big time. Ms. Zernike was clearly feeling her way toward a Kerry presidential run. Wow, does Kerry pay her out of his own pocket?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/21/washington/21kerry.html

Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad
August 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?ex=1250740800&en=7bf4b27a124c8daf&ei=5088

Here are a few more Zernike articles: http://www.timeswatch.org/topicindex/Z/zernike_kate/welcome.asp

Kerry is not the only topic that Zernike writes about, but it is certainly one of her favorites, and she writes about it with a lot of passion. I would take her article about Edwards with a huge grain of salt.

Hello -- that's called being pro-fact. But now you're doing the Right Wing's work for them by basically saying that a NYT writer is pro-Kerry for pointing out the SBVT's inconsistencies. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for that. Look, you can complain about the article, but puhleaze, this writer is not pro-Kerry.

The hilarious other example you gave was the one from 6/21/06. Is quoting Democrats bashing Kerry a POSITIVE ARTICLE???? I remember being spitting mad when that article came out.

Hey, people, according to JDPriestly, this is a pro-Kerry article:



Ah, the old "some Democrats" was in there, too. So let's re-cap what this pro-Kerry article (per JD Priestly) had to say:

Kerry is a cut and runner
Kerry is a flip flopper
Kerry is embarrassing Democrats
Kerry is doing all of this for "political advantage"

Sorry, JD, but that dog don't hunt. That was a hit piece if I ever saw one. It was on the front page of the NYT, btw. Kerry is a big embarrassment is what I got out of it. Of course, it was KERRY who was right, and now the likes of Dodd and Biden are playing catch up. And who knows who is "Some Democrats".

and has a long history of writing supportive articles about Kerry writing an article about the relationship between Kerry and Edwards -- as if she were an objective journalist -- when she is not. I have to discount her criticism of Edwards quite a bit because of her partiality to Kerry.

She not only cuts down Edwards, but she pretty much and not just once, attacks Dodd and Biden and tries to make them look bad. This "journalist" has a bone to pick, and that bone is pro-Kerry.

That article was calling him and his plan a problem for the Democrats - it's an extremely negative article for Kerry. Dodd and Biden are quoted as the wise men saying that Kerry was wrong. They look bad now - as they were wrong.

I read it earlier today and rather quickly. But that is my recollection. This journalist is extremely biased toward Kerry.

The comment that the American people backed Kerry's position was true based on polling at that time. That is truth, not bias - and it was lower in the article than all the attacks by other Democrats villifying Kerry.

Were YOU not with the facts re swifts and NOT with the facts of the issue re Iraq withdrawal bill?

If every doubter of John Kerry had read it he would be president now, (at least, if I am to believe as many people who tell me they knew someone who was swayed by their lies). Personally, I don't think their influence was all that great- it is simply a convenient crutch on which liberals like to blame Kerry for his defeat- calling him weak and wishy washy. I always cite the debates as Kerry's pivot point where he recaught momentum and turned it into a race. The bin Laden tape of the Friday before the election stymied Kerry's progress in the polls, and prevented him from over taking Bush. I think that was definitely the breaker in Ohio (if you believe Ohio's vote totals were accurate).

But the Times article was well written, because it revealed the truth was behind John Kerry. I have always been, at best, lukewarm about Edwards, this just adds to that feeling.

of joining in the corpmedia spin against Kerry.

Edwards believes the corpmedia distorts HIM but then REPEATS the distortions of the media against Kerry.

That is not showing good character, John, and I suggest you SWITCH MODE and proclaim that you and Kerry won because you were right and start ACTING like you were right then and still right today.

is extremely pro-Kerry. Note that the articles she published in 2004 say nothing positive about Edwards. Did you see the swipes at Dodd and Biden in one of the articles -- the one about Kerry's stance on Iraq after 2004.

Wes Clark would've tossed the SwiftBoaters overboard.

and they did a GREAT job that should have been enough. But corpmedia muted those counters, as well as Kerry's own attacks on swifts and Bush and they did so complicitly to protect Bush.

Dan Rather has admitted that corpmedia NEEDED to protect Bush for legislation they expected from him in his NEXT term. That is why you also would never hear about election fraud.

and I respect the work Edward did as one, and I think he'd make a good president.

But I don't think he'd make a good candidate.

Students of his Senate career know better.

Aint that the truth. Edwards voting record in the Senate more closely resembled that of Republicans than of Democrats, and now he's all of a sudden conveniently claiming to be so progressive.

Anyone who can see through the cellophane knows that Edwards, who was never close to being a Progressive, is sucking up to the base of our Party for purposes of winning the Primaries only. Then he can revert back to his truer, much more conservative Senate record for purposes of competing in the general election.

It was pretty obvious once our top three began their Senate careers that they'd all go on to national politics before long.

However, I think Edwards would have been much more useful if he had kept his seat blue in the US Senate. At least by now, if he really had a change of heart, we'd see it reflected in a voting record.

How else can a Southern white guy steal the thunder from Hillary and Obama...by appearing more Progressive. Hmm.

that his co-sponsorship of the IWR was right. Good for Kerry.

By renouncing nearly every Senate vote he's ever made.

If Kerry had followed his heart in August, instead of Edwards' advice, it might have made a difference by November. No way of telling, but I feel kind of bad about it, for Kerry and for all of us.

The six weeks longer that it took Kerry to strongly state that he would not have voted for war, after first having followed the advice that Edwards gave him in August, was critical. I remember the September speech Kerry gave very well, it energized his campaign and freed him to more frontally attack Bush over Iraq. Prior to then it seemed like Kerry was looking for other issues to make central to his campaign, which wasn't working for him because the public was focused on Iraq. To my mind that September speech was when John Kerry started to find his footing in that race. Had he shifted 6 weeks earlier I am convinced he would be President now.

When I first heard of the internal disagreement between Kerry and Edwards on how to confront the Iraq ivasion as a campaign issue I was reminded of John Edwards defending that invasion, even knowing that no WMD's had been found, in late fall of 2003 on Hardball. Edwards could not be an attack dog for Kerry on Iraq because he was on record for not only co-sponsoring the IWR, but for defending Bush's follow up Iraq invasion itself.

Within two or three months of the IWR vote, I believe. I think that six weeks might have gone a long way in solidifying this stance and clarifying his record in voters' minds and, yes, he would be president now, or so I've always thought.

to steal that election for Bush.

Kerry won. RNC stole election for Bush and DNC sat on their hands for four years and let them steal it.....again.

I've always thought so.

.

:puke:

Did you know Bill Clinton told alternative media crowd that RFK made a compelling case that Ohio was stolen in 2005?

election shenanigans there must be sufficient power in ones hands. I think you dismiss the responsibility of the people of Ohio, the legislatures of both the state and the federal government in your rush to blame a friend of Bill.

cast and counted.

And RFK convinced Bill. And Dan Rather reported the machines were set up to fail as early as 1999.

And, gee, what is the fired US attorneys story about, anyway?

from the DNC? http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/06/democracy_at_ri.php

Lots of interesting information that you seem to be unaware of.

.

Democratic strategists to speak on domestic issues - even then Clinton, Carvelle and Begala all complained that he spoke too much on Iraq. It was Kerry's Boston friends and Teresa who pushed him to speak on Iraq.

I agree that Edwards was not usable on Iraq.

Read the mentioned early September NYU speech or his constant "wrong war ...." quote. Starting in early September he said very clearly that the war was wrong - he also said it was not a war of last resort, which to many Catholics meant he called it an unjust war.

Even here, they say that - though they conflate the war with the vote. Kerry NEVER, unlike Edwards, was for the invasion - he wanted more diplomacy and publicly said so.

I was referring to this reported "yielding" to Edwards in early August on whether or not they would renounce their IWR votes. Kerry was right already in August and waiting until the September speech to speak his own mind on that is where I say he went wrong, losing the clarity of his position. I am grateful he didn't accommodate Edwards' sensibility again in September (according to this article), but I think the consistent message between August and September might have altered the picture on national security in the final voting, had confusion not set in and, of course, been exploited.

Yes, a divorce happened, but I don't see the point in dwelling on it.

do you think Edwards should just get a pass?

And, no, I don't think Edwards should get a pass, but I would prefer a factual article comparing his Senate votes to his current rhetoric issue by issue. I suppose that isn't as fun as this soap opera article though ....

and it gives a bit of Kerry's perspective on candidate Edwards, so it's relevant IMO.

own campaign. Kerry is a good senator. He simply was not presidential material. It is natural for a presidential candidate and a vice-presidential candidate to disagree, especially if both of them started out as strong contenders for the presidency, contenders each of whom has high aspirations, each of whom is dedicated to the greater good of the country, each of whom feels he or she has a mission.

Kerry should have said what he thought during the 2004 campaign. What kind of president would he have been if he could no even lead his own campaign? How effective were his persuasion skills if he could not even persuade his own running mate to follow his lead and agree with his strategy? Since when is the vice presidential candidate blamed for the presidential candidate's apparent inability to fight his own battle. How in the world was Edwards to rebut the attacks by the Swiftboaters? How in the world could Edwards have convinced the American voters that Kerry was strong enough to protect them after 9/11? Only Kerry could have done that.

And, assuming for the sake of argument that Kerry's accusation that Edwards did not want to "come out" against the War in Iraq, wasn't Kerry as the presidential candidate the leader. If so, why wasn't he strong enough and certain enough to simply tell Edwards what the campdaign's stance would be.

Kerry chose Edwards. He did not have to. Now he does not want to take responsibility for his choice. Kerry could have made it clear from the outset that he would be the presidential candidate and that his decisions would be followed. He clearly did not do that. This article attempts to reflect negatively on Edwards, but actually reflects poorly on Kerry. Sounds like Kerry waited four years to get his revenge when he thought it would do the most harm.

Kerry could not get up the gumption or the self-confidence to clarify the Swift-Boat lies loud and clear until the present, and he waited to attack Edwards until Edwards is excelling as a presidential candidate. Kerry looks like a back-stabber. This all reflects really badly on Kerry.

And another thing, even if he had commented..

The Edwards have been issuing their own version of KE all along. They don't get to have a one way mic on this.

It was suicide, and showed weakness in the face of consultant pressure. And it was known back then he didn't like him. Mr. "Two Americas, Son-of-a-Mill-Worker" was one of the worst candidates I've seen in my ample adult life. As far as I'm concerned, Kerry would be president if he had chosen a better running mate: one who was not another millionaire senator (and a novice to boot), one who would do his job as attack dog, one who had opposed the war rather than co-sponsored it, one who could debate and speak in more than platitudes. I'm not buying the born-again Edwards. He's just a repackaged Edwards, with little inside but an ambition to win. I guess that's the litigation lawyer in him (refusing settlements to hold out for the big-bucks win).

and the pundits chose John Edwards!

Wonder why? :shrug:

Some of us now realize why those brilliant 'strategists' and Dem party media mouthpieces were pushing Edwards on Kerry.

Edwards was certainly good enough in his spot to win - but apparently he doesn't have the integrity to acknowledge what Kerry did RIGHT that won.

DNC chose JE. JE was talked about like he was 2nd coming of the Kennedys.

When Wes Clark pulled out, I knew that something was up and from that time on, the gig was up. JE was ordained to be the VP candidate. It made me sick back then, I still believe it, and JE still is making me sick today.

It is not uncommon for the VP to be chosen by the DNC and not the candidate himself.

have the courage to stand up and disagree strongly with others. He just doesn't seem to have the strength it takes to be president. It is a shame because he is a great person.

wanted it to? ALL of DC was against Kerry pursuing those investigations - every powerful faction in both parties were aligned against him and trying to convince him to stop his work.

You can't NAME any other lawmaker who withstood that amount of pressure for over 5 years.

Kerry did not do that. He did not make enough Americans feel really safe.

John Edwards never wanted John Kerry to win the election.

Hart had gravitas and was co-author of the early 2001 terrorism report. He could have pointed to his and Kerry's work on terrorism before it was fashionable. Hart like Kerry, was great in speaking about innovation - and both saw that many things were interconnected - like Kerry's view that has been copied by most 2008 people that alternative fuels help the environment, health and the economy - and national security. They would have run as two very experienced, innovative leaders with gravitas.

Therefore, he probably was not Kerry's choice.

before some voters were even born. His marriage survived and he had a substantial resume - unlike Edwards. Did you forget that since Hart dropped out due to Donna Rice, we elected Bill Clinton.

in 2004.

If Edwards believed they won as he wants INTERNET readers to believe then he would say YEAH, we won because we were right then and are being proven right every day since.

But, Edwards wants newspaper readers and pundits to believe the LIES promoted by the media and TeamClinton that Kerry lost because he was such an awful candidate.

That sure lets the DNC off the hook for never securing the election process after 2000.

Sure lets BushInc off the hook for stealing that election.

Sure lets corpmedia iff the hook for their deliberate protection of Bush. (see Dan Rather's admissions)

Edwards BELIEVES Kerry-edwrads lost in 2004 is working his ass off to prove it.

And Mr JD - you are welcome to put yourself in a foxhole with Edwards. Kerry has more bravery and integrity than TEN of Edwards. I would put myself and my family in a foxhole with Kerry. He would look after ALL of us - not just himself.

I don't agree with you about very many things, that's for sure, but you hit the nail on the head with that statement. For all the times I've criticized Kerry as a campaigner, and I admit those are plenty, I've often stated that he is a good person, a true war hero, and a fine Senator with a great record to back him up, unlike Edwards who is making preposterous claims of being a Progressive candidate with NO past record to back him up. In fact, his past record reflects anything BUT what he is claiming now with his phony effort to suck up to the base.



I would pick Kerry to be in that foxhole, too, if my life depended on, as opposed to Edwads.

But if my life did NOT depend upon it, I'd probably pick Hillary or Mika Brezinski to spend the time with there in the ground and let you have Kerry in that instance!

Or, Rat.

I'm just curious whether your hatred of Edwards comes from a loathing of Progressive values, or because he isn't Progressive enough for you? In other words, I would expect you to support Kucinich if you loath him for the *right* reasons.

... they're just false. When comptemplating the term progressive, as I am sure you often must, consider the first eight letters. Backing DK might be the 'feel good' path, but it doesn't lead to victory in 08. And without the Whitehouse, there'll be no Progress.

John will eviscerate all the money in politics, now watch this drive.

Sorry, go on.

Before that, most of them liked him just fine. Now they hate Obama AND Edwards and like Biden.

At the very least, why don't you just criticize Hillary instead of initiating attacks against all of her many dedicated supporters all the time? If you can't do that, then why not post about which candidate you like once in a while instead of always posting your hatred towards Hillary's supporters? Gheesh.

What I said is true -- anyone delving through DU archives can easily see that, too. And you're one to preach to me. Then again,
the Hypocrisy of Hillaryworld is well-known at DU. Why don't you police your own first and then get back to me?

See ya.

That's exactly what the Edwards supporters usually say about clarkies. Most Clarkies -- real Clarkies -- have ALWAYS despised Edwards. Even those who do not support Hillary Clinton now. And the Edwardnians refuse to believe it's because of the failings of their candidate, so it must be something wrong with us.

I like Edwards. As I said earlier, I was a very strong Kerry supporter. You would not believe the work I did for Kerry. I tabled every week for months. I walked precincts until my feet were blistered -- three to be exact on the weekend before the election. Don't call me disloyal. This article and this journalist are pro-Kerry. This journalist writes hit pieces on behalf of Kerry. She also dumps on Dodd and Biden. This article is strictly a hit piece from Kerry's camp. It is in poor taste. Kerry was the candidate. The Swiftboat attacks were personal to Kerry. Edwards could not have rebutted them if he had wanted to. Kerry was his own victim. Personally, I think Kerry won. Edwards is to this date very unhappy that Kerry did not want to challenge the count. I have watched him and Elizabeth talk about the importance of counting all votes. I have no doubt that they were very upset at Kerry's decision in 2004. It was, however, Kerry's call, and he made that lousy decision. It was not Edwards' call, and Edwards did not make the decision.

has been asked specifically about the internet version of that election night 'fight' and he downplays it. They said that Edwards uses it as red meat for the base.

If you don't believe me, then call the big papers in NC and ask their political reporters - a couple of them are even supporters of JE.

Edwards distanced himself from the campaign, this is generated from EDWARDS, Kerry has nothing to do with it.

The Vice President is the attack dog, that's their job. Edwards had the information to go rebut the Swiftboaters, everybody did. He chose not to do anything and did not want to go after Bush. The article is clear about that.

Further, Edwards has also said repeatedly that he wasn't lied to by Bush, that he made his vote on what he believes is solid intelligence given to him by the Clintons. He voted for the war because he supported it at the time and supported it in 2004. That was the position of Clinton and the rest of the DLC Center, of which Edwards was a part. Kerry knew exactly what he thought about the war, it was people like Hillary and John Edwards that made it difficult for him to push his plan to get out in 2005.

Edwards is supposed to be a grown up. He was supposed to know that he was supposed to follow when he was chosen the VP. If he didn't want to do that, he shouldn't have accepted the nomination.

Kerry isn't blaming anybody, he's barely said a word about John Edwards. Edwards is the one who has dropped all this innuendo in order to set himself up to run again. It's the key reason I don't support him. He stabbed John Kerry in the back and then turned around and said the exact same stuff Kerry was trying to get him to say all through 2004. John Edwards is a follower and he consistently follows the wrong people, first Hillary Clinton, now Joe Trippi. He had a chance to follow a true visionary and got intimidated by windsurfing of all things. He's not fit to be President, not even Senator really. Sad, but true.

The attacks were personal to Kerry and about his past history. Edwards could not correct the historical record on Kerry's account any more than Cheney could correct Bush's service or drug abuse records. You are responsible for explaining and defending your personal past.

Kerry isn't saying anything. Look at this journalist's history. She allows herself to be used virtually as a mouthpiece for Kerry. Frankly, I generally like the fact that she appears to be very liberal, but she should not be writing articles to get revenge for Kerry. And that is what she did here.

By the way, she doesn't just attack Edwards. She also attacks Biden and Dodd. She is partisan, not so much for Democrats as for Kerry. That does not sit well with me. I do not trust her opinion about the relationship between Kerry and Edwards. She has a bias.

It is most definately very negative to Kerry. The swift boat articles reflect the truth - the official record and most eyewitness accounts - you know the stuff available to Edwards to use to defend Kerry. Also, your argument makes no sense as Edwards in one of his positions said he wanted to fight the SBVT.

I agree the article is more negative to Edwards - but you concede many of the points. The VP is suppose to agree to be the top surrogate for the President reflecting his positions.

That is a personality thing. He certainly had the conviction, but he could not convey the strength of his conviction to other people.

Edwards was FAR less forceful - and as VP he should have been the one taking the harder shots - his attacks on Bush were extremely weak.

That is formulaic. Did Cheney take harder attacks than Bush? I do not think so. This depends entirely on the personalities of the people involved. Face it. Kerry is a great guy, but he is just no hard fighting. Bill Clinton was hard-fighting, and during his runs with Gore, he took the harder attacks. Gore did not take the harder attacks when he ran as vice president. Gore took them when he ran for president. Lieberman did not take the harder attacks. I just think your assumption is wrong.

The Presidential candidate is always the one most attacked. What people are taling about is NOT taking attacks, but making them. (And unlike love, the attacks you take are NOT equal to the attacks you make - written with apologies to the Beatles.)

Cheney made far harder attacks than Bush - it was Cheney who said that "electing John Kerry would lead to terrorism attacking the US. It is as close to a truism as you can get in politics and makes sense. People primarily vote for the President. This means that the President can not be the one attacking - it would make him too unlikable. The VP has the promince to make the attack.

Your response is wrong because take is not equal to make.

both this message and the one upthread, are nothing but mindless and baseless negativism. You have a string resentment against Kerry. OK, I can accept that. But I find this kind of venomous criticism, without any base in facts, very destructive. Your last paragraph above just blows my mind. Never mind that others have mentioned over and over that Kerry has most definitely NOT waited until now to speak against the SBVT lies, but to interpret the NYT article as a back-stabbing attack by Kerry is beyond the pale.

I supported Kerry before I supported Edwards. See, I even emulate Kerry. But Kerry is not running now. Edwards is his own candidate now. This article is pay-back from the Kerry camp for the 2004 loss -- for which Kerry was responsible. Taking the leadership position doesn't mean blaming others. It means taking the blame. The leader is responsible for getting the people his supporters on his side. This is a cheap shot by Kerry through a journalist who is obviously one of Kerry's partisans. I agree totally that the attacks on Kerry were wrong. That does not justify unfair, irrelevant attacks on Edwards now. Kerry needs to ask himself whether he made sure that Edwards was the right candidate, someone who wanted to run with, before he ran. I hope that all the candidates running in the primaries have, as Edwards has said he has, already decided who they want as a running mate and on their cabinet. Planning is everything. Even though plans go wrong and have to be changed as you go along, planning is important. Kerry did not plan how he would run his presidential campaign. He is used to working in the Senate not leading a campaign or anything else.

I donot agree with you, but I have no problem with that as long as the differences stay civil.

The Kerry aides blame Edwards. The Edwards aides blame Kerry. Both sides were covered in the article.

He has hardly said one negative word against Edwards - even when prodded to do so by interviewers. (Kerry is exceptional on this - find me some negative quotes from Kerry.) Here, he did not comment period. This is also NOT a Kerry biased journalist. She did find he was telling the truth on the SBVT - but the NAVY did too - that's not bias, Kerry was a war hero. Stating that is fact, not bias.

It sounds like edwards refused to do much of what was wanted once he had the position. Kerry shouldn't have had to "persuade" Edwards - he shouldn't have taken the job, if he couldn't do it. All VPs tend to have the attack dog role, as the President has to be presidential.

How could Edwards rebut the SBVT - he could use the 140 pages of naval records, the Nixon comments etc. Remember other Democrats backed Clinton on the draft and on the bimbos - what did, say Kerry, know about how Clinton dealt with the draft. (Note - Edwards would have had FAR MORE to work from.)

As to Kerry backstabbing - note Kerry did NOT speak to the reporter. There are NO Kerry comments criticizing him. If anything it is Edwards who has often been the backstabber.

Edwards is?
Explain the basis of this comment

the article reflects negatively on Kerry. This is what the writer wanted.

Now, the article is nothing more than a series of declarations not even sourced. However, your reaction is to blame Kerry. Really sad.

When was the last time the MSM has been fair to Democrats. Divide and conquer, and you fell for it.

Also, I do not think it is a big scoop that Kerry and Edwards did not go along. This has been repeated again and again in the media. For the rest, except for Shrum, I do not see any name. Why should I believe one word said here, either concerning Edwards or Kerry. Or do I have to believe everything they say, in which case Edwards is an opportunist and nothing else.

because he refused to go negative."

"he (Edwards) has courted his party’s left wing by renouncing his vote on the war, something he counseled Mr. Kerry not to do...." :puke:

Kerry and Edwards lost because of "fear" and "theft." Neither is to blame for being human.

:rofl:

Snake oil.

Except when he is asked about how he voted to give DimSon permission to use the Midle East as his private commode, or how he voted to "keep 'Murka safe" with the Enabling...er..Patriot Act...

or about half a dozen other Senate votes he now "deeply regrets."

since Elizabeth's cancer recurrence. Here's what I suspect-

He was a centrist and calculating politician, but in his core is that guy "raised by a dad that worked in the mill." His wife has always impressed me, and clearly has heartfelt convictions about the importance and opportunities to affect change for the better from the WH. John might be in it now as much for her as for him. I think he is sincere in his return to a progressive core, and feels more allied to her because of it. Out of political necessity and ego that must overwhelm nearly anyone willing to think they can be a Senator or President, he cared less about his core values than political calculation shile in the Senate and the 2004 campaign.

Call me naive, idealist, or whatever, but I think he is sticking with what he, and she, really believe in this campaign (since her medical news).

Any husband worth a damn that truly loves his wife and shares her convictions would do the same. I think he is that guy now.

and didn't bitch about it, which is one of the things I admire about him. I sincerely doubt if Edwards was ever one of Kerry's favorite people, but he was the second-place (distant) runner-up and so Kerry dutifully gave him the veep slot. Doesn't seem like Edwards did much for the ticket, though he probably didn't harm it particularly either.