Kerry's Regrets About John Edwards

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1626498-2,00.html

Besides Gore possibly entering the race, Edwards was my favotite candidate, but this article changed my mind a bit. I hope Gore does decide to run.


..........
Kerry talked with several potential picks, including Gephardt and Edwards. He was comfortable after his conversations with Gephardt, but even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else—that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before—and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again. When they did, Kerry tried to get a better personal feel for his potential number two; as rivals for national office since 2000, shortly after Edwards had entered the Senate, the two men hadn't spent a lot of time together. Kerry also wanted a specific reassurance. He asked Edwards for a commitment that if he was chosen and the ticket lost, Edwards wouldn't run against him in 2008. Edwards agreed "absolutely," as Kerry recalled him saying. If Kerry had shared this at the time, I would have told him what I did later: it was naive to think he could rely on a promise like that. Unlike Joe Lieberman, who'd been plucked from relative obscurity by Gore, Edwards had made his own mark in the primaries. He was ambitious—and if he saw his chance the next time, he was likely to go for it.

........

that he hated gays. Funny the other people present during the same conversation had different recollections....
Of course it is to be noted that Shrum sucks at the teat of Clinton. Enough said.

Sorry, I know parents who lost kids 30 years ago that outwardly are fine, but when speaking of the actual details tend to "get lost in it". I'm not going to hold that against him.

Shrum is gunning for someone running against Edwards obviously.

You shouldn't let it change your opinion, just keep an open mind.

What a pathetic story. To use the death of John Edwards son in such a smarmy attempt to smear him is beyond disgusting.

Schrum really has not been successful as a campaign manager, so I take what he says with a grain of salt.

But, I wonder why Edwards has not returned calls from Kerry and Teresa. Of course, there may be another side to the story.

:shrug:

I don't trust the messenger.

Shouldn't it be about who is the best person for the job, and not some he-said she-said soap opera hurt feelings bullshit?

for a minute...bob fucking chumshrum?

I'd like to hear what Kerry and Edwards have to say about their FORMER politicallydead advisor.

So John Edwards told John Kerry the same story twice. Is that a big deal? He was probably just reiterating the facts. As far as the part about Edwards not running, seems that deal was only made if Kerry was running. I don't see a problem here.

Pardon me if I don't believe anything he says.

and I have some very personal things I rarely tell people that are connected to these losses and me wanting to help people. I have told friends similar things as this and then forgot I told them or something happened that created a feeling inside me that it felt right to talk about it again. It sounds like it did have a very profound impact on Edwards and it sounds like it is part of the motivating factor for him wanting to help people.

I think it sounds admirable.

A nice take on this attempt to degrade Quixote1818.

Edwards did not pick the best way in the world to tell others about a change he experienced as a result of the death of his son. There's not much "phatic" communication for this topic either, i.e. it's not something like the weather, for which there are many appropriate models to pick from when you want to say something about it. Intimate things ARE difficult to talk about, especially for men, so I'm not surprised Edwards was prefacing his anecdote with something such as "I have never told this to anyone else . . . ."

I'm not sure I completely understand what the concern is with what Edwards said; it wasn't a lie, as far as we know, he hadn't told anyone except JK. If he intended to remind JK of what he had previously told him, using the exact same words IS strange, perhaps he thought JK forgot, or perhaps Edwards forgot that he told JK. I'm going to have to think about it, but I don't see this as the horrible thing that others might. It's hard to talk to someone else about stuff like that, especially someone who ISN'T really a friend, someone who IS almost wholly focused on stuff that is more "important" than you are; this could cause a person to employ a very formulaic pattern.

And P.S. I'm a little creeped out by anyone who is creeped out by it.

I don't know when Shrum got demoted from consigliere to hit man, but he's finally found a job he's competant at. This is a very effectly character assassination against Edwards, feeding on the fear that he's a phony. Unless Kerry himself corroborates this story, I can't consider it true.

Everyone knows there are no "absolutes". The statement was made in a LARGE context, so whatever Edwards agreed to was relevant to that context. JK is going to have to tell us much more about that, before we can evaluate whether Edwards violated his agreement not to run against him.

This question IS more significant than the first anecdote, but until we know more, all we have is a very common behavior amongst politicians: they change their minds. I don't always like that and I DO try to limit my risks on KEY issues when I vote, but even if I do end up voting against someone, I also do understand why/how it happens.

The article is absurd.

For me, anyway. Possibly, Kerry isn't in the race because Edwards is running. The article gives a second hand account of Kerry's side, but I wonder what Edward's side is, as far as the lack of communication. I would like to find out all angles, but, in this case, we may never hear Edward's account.

:shrug:

This is Shrum, who is either lying or breaking a confidence.

He also did NOT write this book - Bob Schrum did. In some stories where Kerry is not involved, Bob Shrum and the Edwards disagree.

There is no reason to attack Kerry who has never said a single negative word on Edwards - even after both Edwards said unkind things about Kerry and his wife.

Whatever. I'm not buying it.

So, why are you spreading this shit?

Faux let you down?

Shrum sucked as a campaign manager, that is for sure.

There are surely two sides, and in this case probably three sides to a story.

I would be interested to see why Edwards hasn't returned calls to Kerry, though.

I am also interested in finding out objective aspects on the candidates, and weighing those aspects in my decision of who to support. I do not wish to be like those Fox viewers who threw in support of Bush simply because he was the guy their party was behind.

I worked for the local campaign, so pardon me for wanting to know why the two people I pulled for so hard may now be on the outs.

And, yes, I use the term BASHING, because it isn't constructive criticism, it's a clear effort to destroy Edward's campaign.

I've become *very* disgusted with it.

"I worked for the local campaign, so pardon me for wanting to know why the two people I pulled for so hard may now be on the outs."

I'm thinking they've been "on the outs" for quite a while now. Edwards was *very* unhappy that Kerry conceded so quickly. That had to have left a bad taste for him, as it did for so many of us.

The stories of vote caging recently have been enraging.

I like Edwards, but I think it is my job as a voter to find out all sides. Obviously, all sides didn't come out of this article, so it leaves questions on Edward's side.

And, hopefully a Carville type is hired by the nominee as opposed to Shrum, who has a habit of screwing things up.

I have to vote my own best interests.

However, he's coming out with some other stuff now that is intriguing, and I think he's capable of some great things.

We'll have to use some dynamite to move him further on the health care, though. :hi:

in 2005? Give you a hint: Kerry did and Teresa did, both Edwards was as quiet as a mouse. Elizabeth's book was written for political purposes - and that part is written pretty ambiguously - no way they wanted to look like tin foil hatters.

So Edwards decided to run; big fuggin' whoop. Maybe watchin' Shrum in action convinced him that anyone could do a better job.

It's been posted twice today and at least five times during the week.

I like both Edwards and Kerry and it was my impression in the days following the campaign that they were friendly - i.e., both said in interviews that they had had dinner with each other several times, etc. Maybe there has been a falling out between them, who knows.

And anyway, politics is the preserve of big egos - it's hardly news that two ambitious politicians have some personal conflicts. It's not like running mates are usually best of friends - Reagan and Bush were hardly friends, Dole and Kemp strongly disliked each other, Clinton and Gore were close but grew apart during the late '90s (when Al and Tipper were disgusted by the Lewinsky scandal and distanced themselves from Clinton in '00), Gore and Lieberman (let's not even go there)... Kennedy and Johnson, Johnson and Humphrey, Nixon and Agnew, Eisenhower and Nixon, FDR and ANY of his 3 running mates.

I don't see how this story has much bearing on what kind of president John Edwards would be.