Kerry & Edwards Spar Over '04

The New York Times has a long story today about the ill-fated Kerry-Edwards ticket in 2004 and the differences the two camps had over substance and strategy.

A lot of the article, quite frankly, feels like Kerry advisors are blaming Edwards for things Kerry himself should have done, like forcefully pushing back against the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (which, by the way, Kerry is now doing--three years too late).

"We were getting our heads taken off and he [Edwards] was still talking about two Americas," Kerry's traveling chief of staff, David Morehouse, tells the Times. Yet wasn't it Kerry's responsibility to defend his own war record? If he wouldn't do that, why should Edwards be expected to? Vice Presidents tend to do what they're told (in the current White House, of course, it's the other way around).

A more legitimate criticism is that Edwards pushed Kerry to keep supporting the war in Iraq, even as realities on the ground grew worse and worse in the summer of '04. "Mr. Kerry had increasing doubts about the war," Kate Zernike writes. "But Mr. Edwards argued that they should not renounce their votes -- they had to show conviction and consistency." When Kerry finally called the war "a profound diversion" in a September appearance at NYU and said he would have voted against it, Edwards argued against the speech.

Edwards actually had his own doubts about the war even before it started. "He was skeptical, even exercised about the idea of voting yes," Kerry strategist Bob Shrum wrote in his memoir about a meeting in 2002. "Elizabeth was a forceful no."

But the political and foreign policy experts in the room said that as a junior member of the Senate, Edwards "didn't have the credibility to vote against the resolution." The candidate "didn't want to look 'liberal' and out of the mainstream." Eventually he signed on as a cosponsor to the war resolution.

After the election Edwards apologized for his vote with a simple and effective, "I was wrong." He repeats that mantra over and over on the campaign trail, as proof that he, unlike Hillary Clinton, has learned from his mistake.

These accounts say as much about the conventional wisdom inside the Democratic Party as they do about the candidates. Back in '02/'03/'04, Democrats had to look "tough" by supporting the war. Now, with the country overwhelmingly opposed to the war, the Democratic candidates are battling over who is the most antiwar. What was once "liberal" is now "mainstream."

Comments (28)

1. Some of the Edwards' fans around here, might now understand why we don't immediately buy his "Bobby Kennedy reborn" impressions and throw him into the same disengenuous corral with Her Majesty!

   Posted by Mask at 11/21/2007 @ 3:08pm

2. "These accounts say as much about the conventional wisdom inside the Democratic Party as they do about the candidates. Back in '02/'03/'04, Democrats had to look "tough" by supporting the war. Now, with the country overwhelmingly opposed to the war, the Democratic candidates are battling over who is the most antiwar. What was once "liberal" is now "mainstream.""

   Herein lies the big problem with mainstream politicians; they say what they think people want to hear. Around the time of these top democrats voting for the war, our country's collective, cultural climate was as right-wing as it's ever been. Edwards voted in accordance with that "tough on terror" streak our country had. Opposing it was tantamount to political suicide. But don't label me an apologist for these sycophants. Their electoral consciousness superseded their rational thinking.

   A bigger problem? That even today, as the vast majority of Americans oppose this war with fervor, it renders one a "fringe" candidate to speak of total troop withdrawal.

   Posted by MATTMAN at 11/21/2007 @ 3:29pm

3. you guys want to know why there is so much flipflopping?

   it's because these characters suffer from "poly-tics

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/21/2007 @ 3:32pm

4. Posted by MATTMAN 11/21/2007 @ 3:29pm

   This line is interesting...

   "But Mr. Edwards argued that they should not renounce their votes -- they had to show conviction and consistency."

   Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/21/2007 @ 3:32pm

   He who would pun, would pick a pocket!....heheh

   Which is EXACTLY the reason Hillary didn't start backing away from her vote for the war until a few months ago!

   Posted by Mask at 11/21/2007 @ 3:38pm

5. Posted by MASK 11/21/2007 @ 3:38pm

   Last line was for MATTMAN, FZ. Sorry.

   Posted by Mask at 11/21/2007 @ 3:38pm

6. Posted by MASK 11/21/2007 @ 3:38pm

   no probs.

   madame hillary seems to tick everybody ('cept ol' tony blair) off anyway.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/21/2007 @ 3:44pm

7. "But the political and foreign policy experts in the room said that as a junior member of the Senate, Edwards "didn't have the credibility to vote against the resolution." The candidate "didn't want to look 'liberal' and out of the mainstream."

   Mr. Berman, congress authorized the use of force in 2002. There were no political flying monkeys to prevent the former junior senator or the current senior senator from casting a nay vote, crediability notwithstanding.

   Like Al Gore, they a poor campaign.

   Posted by ACook at 11/21/2007 @ 4:13pm

8. Correction "they ran a poor campaign."

   Posted by ACook at 11/21/2007 @ 4:13pm

9. I can somewhat understand the initial vote for the war. The country had been hit hard and people were rallying to do something...anything. Passion of the moment is something that is really hard to overcome. Even I was rooting for the war. "Payback time"!!!

   Imagine standing on the senate floor listening to others' rallying cry and speaking of the loss of life and tragedy that was 9/11. Granted, Iraq didn't attack us but they were the scapegoat for the country's desire to strike back at something. There was nothing in Afganistan that was, to the American public (in my opinion), equivalent to the World Trade Center so the collective angst had to be unleashed somewhere. I can see and sympathize with those who mistakenly voted for the war, including myself.

   My kudos go to those who saw, long ago, how bogus it was to go to Iraq. Dennis gets major points for that. My kudos also go to those who realized the war was a mistake and owned up to the calamity that was their vote to enter the war. I think Edwards gets points for that. Where is Hillary in all this? Blaming the Bush administration for faulty intelligence? Granted, I'm sure there was but when someone makes a mistake, they should own up to it and work towards rectifying it. We won't see that from Bushco and frankly, I don't expect to. I don't see that at all with Hillary.

   What is her withdrawal plan? Does anyone know?

   I'm most certainly interested because I've been there 3 times in the last 4 years and have no desire to return anytime soon.

   Posted by FritztheCat at 11/21/2007 @ 4:17pm

10. Hillary exemplifies the politician who seemingly ONLY acts in the interest of perceived electoral outcomes. Regarding her war vote, had she the foresight and done the necessary reasoning for a decision of that magnitude, she may not have to strike the defensive pose on this issue. Her and other democrats' decision to back Bush on these cockamamie inceptions was short-sighted, and indicative of an opportunistic thought process. Her pragmatic approach is ultimately self-serving, and therefore not in the interest of righteousness, justice, or any real progress.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 11/21/2007 @ 4:26pm

11. Hillary exemplifies the politician who seemingly ONLY acts in the interest of perceived electoral outcomes. Regarding her war vote, had she the foresight and done the necessary reasoning for a decision of that magnitude, she may not have to strike the defensive pose on this issue. Her and other democrats' decision to back Bush on these cockamamie inceptions was short-sighted, and indicative of an opportunistic thought process. Her pragmatic approach is ultimately self-serving, and therefore not in the interest of righteousness, justice, or any real progress.

    Posted by MATTMAN 11/21/2007 @ 4:26pm

    Doin the timewarp!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 11/21/2007 @ 4:27pm

12. Posted by FRITZTHECAT 11/21/2007 @ 4:17pm

    Well said.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 11/21/2007 @ 4:29pm

13. Posted by MASK 11/21/2007 @ 3:38pm

    Last line was for MATTMAN, FZ. Sorry.

    Posted by MASK 11/21/2007 @ 3:38pm

    Stay away from that line FROSTY!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 11/21/2007 @ 4:31pm

14. Stay away from that line FROSTY!

    Posted by MATTMAN 11/21/2007 @ 4:31pm

    And don't touch that squirrel's nuts!

    (there's an semi-obscure ref for ya!)

    Posted by Mask at 11/21/2007 @ 4:37pm

15. Posted by JOMAMMA 11/21/2007 @ 4:43pm

    Hey, if that's true, let's get the fuck out of there! And if it's not true, let's still get the fuck out of there!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 11/21/2007 @ 4:51pm

16. Posted by JOMAMMA 11/21/2007 @ 4:43pm

    Posted by MATTMAN 11/21/2007 @ 4:51pm

    Yeah, sort of a rhetorical infinite regression, MAASCH.

    "Things are getting better in Baghdad...so we need to stay...but the mission's not open-ended...but if we leave things will go to crap again....but things are getting better....but we can't leave until the Iraqis can take over....but they're not so we need to stay....", etc., etc.

    Posted by Mask at 11/21/2007 @ 4:55pm

17. Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/21/2007 @ 5:19pm

    Well, fortunately, Hillary's position isn't that far from Bush's so she can enjoy that too!

    Posted by Mask at 11/21/2007 @ 7:20pm

18. Kucinich is the only contender who was correct in decrying the precipitous unprovoked preemptive war which continues to be a "Mess-a-pot-am-I-ahhh;" from the start. When Hans Blick and the U.N. Inspection Teams were finding no evidence of WMD, and the MSM failed to emphasize this fact, in fact, made melodrama as I recall by pointing out Sadam's "palaces" being dangerously "off limits." What a big f-ing joke it is that hundreds of thousands, if not millions worldwide, including myself in Gainesville, Florida, marched to "give peace a chance" in the early months of '03 and all but Kucinich and Michael Moore and Howard Zinn and on and on were all but ignored. Arghhh!!

    Posted by lewwelge at 11/21/2007 @ 8:09pm

19. Well it was certainly nice of the NYT to finally run a major piece about Edwards. After all they ran 3 for Obama & 2 for Clinton already. Do you suppose the Public Editor shamed them into doing it when he wrote his piece the other day commenting that Edwards had been given less coverage in the Times than Obama & Clinton?

    What a pity that after finally giving Edwards a major story the Times chose to turn it into a forum for Kerry people & people like Bob Shrum to take pot shots at Edwards. I'm almost afraid to see the next one they do. It will probably be worse and come out right before the Iowa Caucuses.

    Boy, you sure can tell by following Edwards' media coverage that corporate media REALLY hates trial lawyers. The Boston Globe even ran a piece recently devoted to knocking Edwards for being tardy to campaign events. No, I'm serious. I know it's hard to believe but they really did and no it was not tongue in cheek. If what they're doing to Edwards wasn't so serious it would be funny.

    Posted by pmorlan at 11/21/2007 @ 9:23pm

20. Shame on Dems! The problems in the party - that should be of the people - are:

    1) Individuality: everybody is entitled to his/her opinion. This enriches the arguments, specially in the Houses. In time of election though, while obviously keeping the personality, the party must agree to certain basic ideas to defend. Specially between the two candidates for Prez and biz. I know that people on the other side are simplistic, mentally challenged, but they have some truth when they say for example: "the Dems don't have a solution to Iraq". They're right because the party ranges from Kucinich & Richardson to Clinton. Nobody knows for sure what the party will do about Iraq!!!

    2) Let's stop being "mainstream" just to win elections. The party has a liberal philosophy and should stay there. People have a right to know whom they choose for office and why, options should be clear. If an independent is out to vote for someone who will "push the economy and corporations" why would he vote Dem, since Reps are held to do that better? For example now and looking at Iraq alone, why would someone vote for Hillary instead of Giuliani? If someone was voting only to manage the war (what they say "victory or honorable retreat"= we know its b..), they would vote for Giuliani because he is backed by the party "of national security". And if one would want to put an end to the war, why would he/she vote for Hillary anyway? That is what we get for being "mainstream"!! 'Responsible' in national security! 3) The party should always be bold. Again, Congress men and women beginnning with Ms Pelosi need to make clear the differences with the Reps

    The circumstances are very favorable for the Dems for the next year elections... BUT...Dems and only Dems are capable of LOOSING a so much winnable election mostly with what they are nOT willing to say clearly and firmly.

    Time for a 3rd party a little bit more lefty?

    Posted by Frank42 at 11/22/2007 @ 12:08am

21. Even with their lame, stupid, weak campaign they almost won. I wonder what would have happened if John Kerry hadn't acted like a huge pussy?

    Posted by MADLIB 11/22/2007 @ 11:25am

    Apparently, they never seem to learn.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 11/22/2007 @ 11:49am

22. Apparently, they never seem to learn.

    Posted by MATTMAN 11/22/2007 @ 11:49am

    maybe they should focusgroup their focusgroups in order to understand what is most focusgroupable.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/22/2007 @ 12:08pm

23. I think a more relevent article on the nation would be the story in the NYT front page on how things seem to be calming down in Baghdad...talk about zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

    Posted by JOMAMMA 11/21/2007 @ 4:43pm

    Boob-boy, JO-MAMMORIES, weighs in.

    If Baghdad is calming down into neoClown paradise, will we see ...

    * ... JO-MAMMORIES on his way over to swing "business deals" and waddle through the streets with a Bush-Cheney tee-shirt riding up his back (and thereby exposing a healty swath of unstoppable plumber's ass crack)?

    And, if not, why not? After all, the order there was designed by neoClowns without meddlesome "progressive" input from radical state dept marxists like Colin Powell, so it should be better than the business environment in America by JO-MAMMORIES's reasoning.

    * Putting aside the dead who are not coming back to life and the people who continue to be killed and maimed at a rate they were not in, say, Febraury 2003: Are any of the 4,000,000 refugees on their way back to Iraq and Baghdad now that JO-MAMMORIES sauys that it is "calming down"?

    As an ardent, if notably wussyish, keyboard bound cheerleader for the invasion, is JO-MAMMORIES paying for the people displaced by it? Or, in the style of a totally orthodox conservaLoser, has he passed the bill along to the Syrians, Jordanians, and the UN High Comission for Refugees, all because JO-MAMMORIES has left the restaurant and indignantly refuses to foot the bill for the vandalism committed by his neoClown party?

    It is characteristic of sickfuck conservaLosers to do this: "Solve" a problem that does not exit, like Iraq's non-existent menace to the US in 2003, with the most meatheaded and radical measures -- and then walk out on the bill.

    Posted by John_Shaft at 11/22/2007 @ 2:36pm

24. whoa!

    that was freaky!

    i hit the submit on the 50 SHOPPING DAYS FOR PRIMARY DUDES thread and it was gone!

    http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/allcomments?pid=253852

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/23/2007 @ 08:20am

25. To all the Hillary Rotten BALL LICKERS out there....The BITCH is going down hard....and I'm not refering to Rotten giving her old lug of a husband B.J. a bj....

    She has done nothing, has run NOTHING and is as qualified as the white house cook to being president...

    I am quite sure if her head was shaven, 666 would be easily visable...

    The only thing entertaining about it all is the fact B.J. the other day when confronted with John Edwards...(aka the slip and fall lawyer) could not stop singing to Edwards.....

    "YOU AIN'T WOMAN ENOUGH TO TAKE MY MAN"

    Trust me when I say....real Americans will not want that fucking soap-opera again in our White House...except maybe to get all the furniture back the Clinton Crime family stole when they left before!!!!

    Posted by Frankshitsz at 11/24/2007 @ 2:40pm

26. Democrats are vying to be the most against the war? Really? I mean, Really? Well, yeah sure, the rhetoric is flying on the campaign trail, but what's really happenning? Are they sending fudning bills with deadlines up to the idiot in chief over and over and over again? Are they passing bills against invading Iran? Are acting in the Senate as they are on the campaign trail? No, no, and no. You of all people should not confuse poltically convenient rhetoric with real political action.

    Finger in the wind Dems will nearly always find a way to lose -- people smell posturing a million miles away. Did the Republicans go center after Goldwater got trumped? No, they actually went further right, and tried to take as many people with them as they could, seeking to make the majority hold their beliefs, rather than seeking to believe what the majority believed. They nearly succeeded.

    We're so busy calculating and pandering,in tactical Shrum-like sound bites, we haven't yet figured out that a strategic position based on our core issues is our greatest poltical asset.

    Posted by atcheson at 11/25/2007 @ 12:46pm

27. And too, Atcheson (ancestor is Dean?), P.T. Barnum's cynical "there's a sucker born every minute," is also eminently applicable.

    Posted by lewwelge at 11/25/2007 @ 3:12pm

28. Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table" was/is a devastating blow to any efforts to reform or change course.

    That said, explicitly identifying those few Dems who fail to support dissenting measures would mark them as unworthy representatives of constituencies who overwhelmingly desire an end to this ongoing odious occupation.

    Posted by lewwelge at 11/25/2007 @ 3:16pm