To be viable, Edwards will have to explain his less than stellar

[chieftain]

performance as Kerry's running mate. He intrigues me as a potentially exciting choice for the Democratic nomination, but I am troubled by his virtual disappearance from the national debate in 2004. Did Kerry stifle him? Was he misused? Did the corporate media decide to ignore him? Or was the over matched John Edwards we saw in his debate with Cheney what we should expect in 2008 if he were to be the nominee?
Edwards could be the Democrat that saves us from a ticket led by Hillary and likely defeat. But we deserve a clear understanding of how strong a campaigner he is capable of being.

[mrgorth]

1. His debate performance

sucked ass...and I like him.

[lwcon]

56. Glad to hear you say that

I've gotten reamed on DU for saying so. But while Edwards was fine on content, Dick "Gravitas" Cheney destroyed him on style points.

And I'm a Massachusetts resident who voted for Edwards in the primary over our favorite son.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[savemefromdumbya]

97. ITA

[ultraist]

62. Edwards won the debate

Obviously, Democrats felt Edwards won the Debate and Uncommitted voters also felt he won the debate:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/05/opinion/polls/main647648.shtml

Both men and women who are uncommitted in their vote gave the win to Edwards tonight.

In the days right after the 2000 vice-presidential debate, by 47 percent to 22 percent, voters said Cheney had won the debate over his Democratic opponent Lieberman; another quarter said the 2000 vice-presidential debate was a tie.

Edwards also greatly improved opinions of him among these voters, and Cheney also made some gains. Nearly half of these uncommitted voters said their opinion of Edwards has changed for the better as a result of the debate. Just 14 percent said they have a lower opinion of Edwards after tonight, and 37 percent didn’t change their views of Edwards.

[philgobluemi]

67. Actual Quotes from the Debate

"The facts are the vice president's company that he was CEO of, that did business with sworn enemies of the United States , paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false financial information, it's under investigation for bribing foreign officials."

"Yes, but they didn't fund the mandates that they put on the schools all over this country. That's the reason 800 teachers -- one of the reasons -- 800 teachers have been laid off, right here in Cleveland. One-third of our public schools are failing under this administration. Half of African-Americans are dropping out of high school. Half of Hispanic-American are dropping out of high school."

-- Note the debate was in Cleveland. See how he links the general problem to specifics effecting actual people (this is one of his rhetorical gifts]."

"Here's what's happened: In the time that they have been in office, in the last four years, 1.6 million private sector jobs have been lost, 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost. And it's had real consequences in places like Cleveland.

Cleveland is a wonderful, distinguished city that's done a lot of great things, but it has the highest poverty rate in the country. One out of almost two children in Cleveland are now living in poverty.

"During the time that the vice president and the president have been in office, 4 million more Americans have fallen into poverty."

"We don't just value wealth, which they do. We value work in this country. And it is a fundamental value difference between them and us."

The Transcript
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html

So, he called Dick Cheney a traitor and linked incompetence abroad and at home. Go back to the transcripts and you'll see he did a good job. Polls showed he won, especially among independence (which is hte point).

[NewYorkerfromMass]

96. Thanks! A fine defense of Edwards' debate

performance. I mean... how can a former highly successful litigator for plantiffs be bad in a debate? Especially against a suck ass like deadly-eye DICK?

[NNadir]

82. I didn't find that true at all.

I thought he was damn near steely eyed confronting the nearest thing to Satan we've seen in this country since Aaron Burr.

Edwards was not my favorite candidate in 2004, by a long shot. He's not my favorite for 2008 either, but his confrontation with the beast lifted him quite a bit in my estimation.

[westcott]

2. Hardball Oct 13 2003

MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq. I don’t think I would have approached it the way this president did. I don’t think-See I think what happened, if you remember back historically, remember I had an up or down vote. I stand behind it. Don’t misunderstand me.

MATTHEWS: Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295

[Le Taz Hot]

3. THank you for

posting this. Not that I needed it but it does serve as a great reminder.

[Brazenly Liberal]

4. I'd like to know what he's said about it recently.

I think I'll do a little search on that. This interview with Matthews is damning, but it's from 2003. I'd look at it differently if I saw him say today "I was wrong about that. I said that in 2003 when we didn't know what we know now about how intelligence was massaged and manipulated and redacted. More information has come out in the past three years that shows we were, indeed, misled. I was wrong."

My strongest support on this issue is for those who cast a reality based (read: NO) vote, but I can respect someone who was wrong and learned from it. We have to remember not to buy into that bullshit that X number of Dems voted to go to war. NOT TRUE!!! They voted to allow a war if all other methods were exhausted and no other resolution of the situation was possible. While this still isn't the right vote, it's not the hawkish support for invasion it's been portrayed to be.

[westcott]

6. Poll driven "oops"

Don't impress me, nor do they impress the half million people killed and over a million displaced and growing. I don't think it wise to play games with something as important as that.

It wasn't until November of 2005 that he acknowledged this as an oops for political purposes. Some may be sucked in because of their own cognitive dissonance as supporting him during the 04 Presidential election was the only available option to shut down PNAC and GW.

But going forward. Forget it. I accept his apology and won't push for him to be put in jail with the rest of them.. But he's done for anything relating to the White House

Judgement and Experience are important. Poll driven statements for political gain are the stuff of politics that I'd rather see no more of.

[Brazenly Liberal]

7. How do you know it was poll driven?

Is there evidence of that?

Edwards isn't my candidate, but I'd like to see him given a fair shake. There's a big difference between genuinely acknowledging he was wrong and just owning it for political gain. If there's evidence either way, I'd like to see it.

[westcott]

9. Couldn't be more obvious

You can keep defending the indefensible all you like. 

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush
is handling the situation  in Iraq?"

		Approve Disapprove Unsure 	  	 
11/11-13/05	35 	63 	2 	*OOOPS 
9/16-18/05	32 	67 	1 	  	 
9/8-11/05	40 	58 	2 	  	 
8/28-30/05	40 	59 	1 	  	 
6/24-26/05	40 	58 	2 	  	 
5/20-22/05	40 	56 	4 	  	 
4/29 - 5/1/05 	42 	55 	3 	  	 
4/1-2/05	43 	54 	3 	  	 
2/25-27/05	45 	53 	2 	  	 
2/4-6/05	50 	48 	2 	  	 
1/7-9/05	42 	56 	2 	  	 
11/7-10/04	47 	51 	2 	  	 
10/14-16/04	46 	52 	2 	  	 
9/24-26/04	48 	49 	3 	  	 
8/9-11/04	45 	52 	3 	  	 
6/21-23/04	42 	56 	2 	  	 
6/3-6/04	41 	57 	2 	  	 
5/7-9/04	41 	58 	1 	  	 
5/2-4/04	42 	55 	3 	  	 
4/16-18/04	48 	49 	3 	  	 
3/26-28/04 	51 	47 	2 	  	 
1/29 - 2/1/04 	46 	53 	1 	  	 
1/2-5/04 	61 	36 	3 	  	 
12/5-7/03 	50 	47 	3 	  	 
11/3-5/03 	45 	54 	1 	  	 
10/6-8/03 	47 	50 	3 	  	 
9/8-10/03 	51 	47 	2 	  	 
8/25-26/03 	57 	41 	2 	  	 
7/25-27/03 	60 	38 	2 	  	 
7/18-20/03 	57 	39 	4 	  	 
7/7-9/03 	58 	39 	3 	  	 
6/12-15/03 	63 	34 	3 	  	 
4/14-16/03 	76 	21 	3 	  	 
3/29-30/03 	71 	27 	2 	  	 
3/24-25/03 	71 	26 	3 	  	 
3/14-15/03 	56 	41 	3 	  	 
1/31 - 2/2/03 	54 	42 	4 	  	 
1/3-5/03 	55 	40 	5 	  	 
12/02 	55 	39 	6 	  	 
10/02 	52 	40 	8

[Brazenly Liberal]

11. correlation does not equal causation

If that's what you call evidence, I'm not convinced.

By the way, what is that "You can keep defending the indefensible all you like." shit about? I didn't "defend" him. I asked for evidence either way.

[westcott]

16. You must have some other reason

that he picked the peak negatives on Iraq to say something like that public. That's fine.

I assumed that you were defending Edwards because of your first post "I think I'll do a little search on that." and you and I both know that he made that bs Mea Culpa.. You just think it's sincere. That's for you to decide ultimately and you seem to think it's A-OK and on to the White House and put him in charge of the US Military because his judgement is just fine. Hey.. He knows when he's wrong.. At least after it's clear that the rest of the world knows it was wrong.

If I am coming off as "Short" it's definitely more due lack of sleep than anything to do with you. My frustration after reading so many John Edwards dreamers that are actually buying into that "I was wrong" is probably showing more every day. :) It seriously blows my mind. This is not America Idol. Then again if Edwards could sing and dance.. We might have something there :D

[Brazenly Liberal]

19. No, you're not coming off as short, but

you're coming off as pretty freaking presumptuous when you tell me what my motives are and what I know or don't know. I think I'm a better judge of that.

I assumed that you were defending Edwards because of your first post "I think I'll do a little search on that."

Fact is I said I'd like to know something and then said I thought I might do a search on it. In other words, I'd look for the information I was wondering about instead of just expecting others to do it for me. How that adds up to defending (or attacking) Edwards is beyond me.

and you and I both know that he made that bs Mea Culpa.

"You and I" didn't know anything of the kind. If I knew he had changed his views, I wouldn't have wondered if he had. I'd still like to know more about exactly what he said and when and I probably will do a search on it.

You just think it's sincere. That's for you to decide ultimately and you seem to think it's A-OK and on to the White House and put him in charge of the US Military because his judgement is just fine.

Um, did you even read what I wrote before you went full steam after it? What part of "Edwards isn't my candidate" sounded like "on to the White House and put him in charge of the US Military" to you?

My frustration after reading so many John Edwards dreamers that are actually buying into that "I was wrong" is probably showing more every day.

Maybe before you get too frustrated, you need to review the information you have. :-) You do seem to have some difficulty interpreting what others are saying. After seeing your rather peculiar read of my posts, I can't help thinking there may be a disconnect there.

I'll look elsewhere for evidence on Edwards - evidence either way - but thanks for your input.

[westcott]

21. ok

Go look it up. If I read you correctly you'd be returning with those results instead of blasting my response to you. BTW Did you know that the Supreme Court has ruled that the word Obvious doesn't actually mean "Obvious".. Go figure.

[LittleClarkie]

86. I tend to give these folks the benefit of the doubt when I can

Hillary seems more the type to me to be poll-driven, not Edwards.

But you have your opinion, and we have ours. Doesn't make it fact either way, mind you. Hence I wouldn't sell my opinion as the unvarnished truth. And I won't buy your opinion as gospel either. It all depends on how the man strikes us. He does not strike me that way.

[philgobluemi]

70. Drove Polls, Not Poll Driven

Was it poll driven when he voted against the $87 billion "I support Bush's War" bill? Nope.

He came out in November 2005, just a few months after Feingold and Murtha (who, by the way, also voted for the IWR), with a withdrawal plan and accepted that his IWR vote was a mistake given what we know now.

November was before the December elections in Iraq when folks had yet to make up their mind, so it was not poll driven at all, if anything it was part of a movement that drove the polls.

[FrenchieCat]

94. You ask a question, so I will answer......

Yep, although not Poll driven per say, Edwards' vote on the 87 billion is what I would called Democratic Primaries Driven, which is all one in the same; voting not your convictions, but what will look best to satisfy one's ambitions.

Edwards' vote against the 87 billion was a tactical vote based on the fact that he was running for President at the time and appealing to the Dem Base. When Edwards was initially asked in a primary debate whether he would or would not vote for the 87 billion, this was his reply, although he later must have had a "change of heart"......or realized that since everyone else in the primary, including John Kerry took the position that they would vote not (if they had a vote), he would adjust his position accordingly:

"So let me start with you, Senator Edwards. How would you vote on the $87 billion?

EDWARDS: Well, what’s happening, Gloria, is we have young men and women in a shooting gallery over there right now. It would be enormously irresponsible for any of us NOT to do what’s necessary to support them.

The second thing is, when we went into Iraq, we, the United States of America, assumed a responsibility to share-and I emphasize share-with our allies and friends the effort to reconstruct.

That does not mean George Bush should get a blank check. He certainly shouldn’t get a blank check under these circumstances.

So the answer to your question is, we will vote for, I will vote for, what’s necessary to support the troops.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3088203

[dragonkeep]

39. I saw him apologize for that vote

Said it was wrong. He has learned from it. I like that in a man and a leader.

[lwcon]

57. Absolutely

He took that stance when it wasn't yet popular to admit that supporting the war was a fuck-up.

I wish he had voted against it, though I do understand the rationale why some did: giving Bush the war powers did help us get more rigorous inspections in Iraq than ever before.

Edwards's failure was a failure of cynicism -- he didn't expect that Bush, having succeeded in getting unprecedented access for the inspectors would pull them out and start boming nonetheless.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[Radical Activist]

46. He did say he was wrong a while back.

I don't like that Edwards supported the war either, but his apology and his other assets as a candidate make him one of my top choices for '08. I also like that he was the second candidate after Kucinich to oppose the 80 Billion supplemental bill for the Iraq war during the primary, even when Dean still supported it. I could tell he was moving in the right direction then.

[Red Zelda]

5. WTF????

This hairdo-man makes NO sense at all.

[venable]

14. lame, lame

lame. stop it with the hair. so show maturity.

[venable]

13. It is absurd

to insist that Edwards was playing games with lives. If you look at his personal story, what unimaginable pain he has endured, you can not in good conscience say he is playing with the lives of sons and daughters. You simply can not. He did make a mistake that cost the lives of sons and daughters, because he thought, wrongly, that he was, in the end, saving vast numbers across the homeland. He believed what George Tenet told him privately and repeatedly and unequivocally.

It is cruel and wrong to suggest that such a man would not care about the lives of American sons and daughters, or even Iraqi sons and daughters..

He made a vote that he had the courage to admit, later, was a mistake. Show some appreciation for that, at least. It is callous not to do so.

He did not admit it was a mistake 'because of polls', he admitted that it was a mistake because he knew it was. In fact, I'd say he knew it for some time before he actually wrote it.

This Hardball interveiw, in Oct 2003, which is, for this war, eons ago, he also showed courage, IMO. I tell you why I think that: I believe that he thought then, "This is a bad war. I don't know when it will be over. I don't know when the troops will come home, or when the tide will turn and things will be stabilized. Many young men and women have died. I can not have their loved ones believe that this infinite loss was for naught. I will tell them that there was a reason, and good that came of it (ie Saddam is gone)." He knew, by this time, he was wrong, but he would not abandon the grieving parents and families. Well, time passed, and the reality and scope of the Iraq tragedy became clear, and he felt he had to be on the side that would make it all end, make new deaths and losses less likely. He admitted his mistake, even though he knew the pain it might cause those who had already lost sons or daughters.

He is a great, moral man, who made a mistake.

[westcott]

17. No no no.

He not only voted for a resolution to invade another country without pinning down the Administration on the intel, he went on multiple talking head shows and helped them sell the war!

You mention (Quite dreamily) that you believe that he thought then, "This is a bad war. I don't know when it will be over. I don't know when the troops will come home, or when the tide will turn and things will be stabilized. Many young men and women have died."

Well guess what. The estimates going in on casualty counts if Saddam and co actually dropped biologicals on our troops would have made our current counts look like a simple car wreck. And as Rumsfeld and friend have said.. They weren't throwing those protective suits on in 120 degree heat for nuthin'. So you can continue buying into this dreamy lovy dove garbage or you can face reality. Totally up to you.

And don't believe for a second that there weren't plenty of advisors timing that Mea Culpa for maximum effect. That's what they do!

[venable]

23. it's not 'lovy dovy garbage'

it is one particular person's reasoned take on an awful situation, based on long observance of the man (Edwards) and his career and statements and actions on a wide variety of issues. It's not easy for me, who never bought the Admin. line on WMD, but it happened. If you don't think he understands the suffering of the losses, you are wrong, friend. Just like Edwards was wrong to have believed what he did, which led to the vote he wishes he had never made.

You don't share my take. Fine. But it's not garbage.

[america_in_08]

59. What are these multiple talking head shows?

Hardball is only one. Edwards has never been the media darling others have been.

[Clark2008]

74. You were obviously under a rock in 2004.

He gobbled up ALL the remaining press not directed toward Kerry. Meanwhile, another candidate actually beat him in five of the nine races in which they both competed and not a word out of the corporate media about him.

:eyes:

[Catchawave]

76. You made no sense....and

is this how you welcome all the DU newbies? :rofl:

Edit: LQQK: He's getting an award:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3005169&mesg_id=3005169

[LittleClarkie]

87. Just because the dude is handsome and young-looking for his age

doesn't mean that anyone defending him is a teeny bopper collapsing at his feet.

[citizen snips]

33. that is not the status quo

you should include his recent opinions on the war.

[SmellsLikeDeanSpirit]

8. I'd like to know this too. Edwards added nothing.

I think Edwards was added to try to equal out Kerry's "dullness" with a fresh young face. Edwards didn't help Kerry in the south, in fact they did worse in the south than Gore did. Edwards didn't help in swing states considering that Bush ran with away with most of them. Looking back on it, Kerry would have been better served to of picked a Gephardt, Vilsack, or a Clark. People with experience in goverment, a governor from an important swing region, or a man that was a general to help make the military experience of each ticket more apparent than it should have already been. With a Clark, how does the Swift Boat thing play out?

[philgobluemi]

73. Kerry Ignored the South

just like he promised. You can't blame JRE for it, he wasn't in charge.

Here's a quick quiz (with answers).

How many times did the Kerry campaign send Edwards to NC? Answer: Twice, once in July after the announcement and once in October, for a total of 2.5 days.

How many times did Kerry visit NC? Twice, in July, for a total of 5 hours and in August for a few hours.

How many days did Kerry advertise in NC? 5.



Still, it should be noted that polls showed Kerry within 5% in Virginia and NC in September, but he still blew it off to throw all his marbles into Ohio.

[mtnsnake]

10. Edwards won't be the Democrat that saves you "from a ticket led by Hillary"

Obama will be that Democrat if he runs. Edwards won't be around for exactly the reason you mentioned in your OP. He was less than stellar as a VP candidate.

[venable]

12. Edwards was banished during the campaign

He was chosen because Democrats around the country made Kerry choose him. Everywhere the new nominee went, he was implored to take Edwards.

He didn't want to because it was not a good chemistry mix. Edwards speaking before Kerry on the stump just pointed out the grave difference between the two men. Edwards would sweep the crowd up, and Kerry would let them drift off.

Same with Elizabeth speaking before Ms. Heinz.

This was not a good dynamic.

So, as a result of various internal pressures, Edwards, and Elizabeth, were 'disappeared'. And Democratic hopes along with them.

The south was abandoned. Kerry could not, on his own, win even Edwards home state. Not sure any Veep candidate could have lifted that candidacy in NC.

I think Kerry is a very good man, but an abysmal campaigner.

Watch Edwards in the primary season. That's the Edwards we need. Indefatigable. Inspired. Selfless. He spoke about the country, not about himself. As a Veep, he needed, understandably, to speak about a man, not a movement, or an ideal, which is his forte.

[1932]

20. They sent him to Missouri to campaign, and then announced they were pulling out

of Missouri while he was there!

And then Missouri ended up being close enough that they could have won it if they hadn't pulled out!!

[Catchawave]

22. I think that happened in Virginia too, so close

as proven by the election of a Dem Gov in '05, then defeating George Allen in '06.

[chieftain]

26. I thought the decision to pull out of Missouri was stupid.

It struck me as a prime example of the stunted world view of DC Democratic operatives who don't believe that our message will sell anywhere but on the coasts. Claire McCaskill, John Tester and Jim Webb, among others, demonstrated that this point of view is wrong and lethal to our electoral chances.

[Radical Activist]

47. I saw Edwards in Illinois a few weeks before the election.

What the hell did he need to be in Illinois for that close to the election? Kerry won there by at least 10%.

Your post is absolutely correct. Edwards was hidden away.

You may be right that no VP candidate could have helped Kerry win a Southern state, but I think it was a mistake not to try for NC and at least one other Southern state.

[GreenArrow]

49. they likely would have done better in the West

if Clark had been VP choice; they wouldn't have done any worse in the South.

[chieftain]

51. I'm not sure they would have done worse in the South if Hillary

had been the VP candidate.

[Radical Activist]

53. The problem with doing well in the South was having Kerry at the top.

No VP candidate could change that.

The west doesn't have the electoral votes yet, and the two most Republican states are Utah and Idaho.

[GreenArrow]

54. it's all moot now

But assuming Clark had been on the ticket, not only would popular vote numbers in the south and west have improved, but New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado might likely have been won, for a total of 271 electoral votes for Kerry. FWIW, I think there was treachery afoot in NM and Nevada, so maybe those states went Kerry anyway. Again, it's all moot.

[benny05]

63. Agreed

But Kerry's campaign managers made some huge tactical mistakes. I think they know it now, or if they don't, I would suggest not rehiring Bob Shrum or Mary Beth Cahill.

If Edwards had been allowed to go back to NC and SC to campaign half as many times as he was asked to do in OH, the tides may have been different. OH had more votes, but NC and SC would have been more significant in picking up Southern states, and perhaps persuade other Red States to vote otherwise. Really makes a difference. Moreover, Edwards did ask to fight for all votes counted in OH, but there was some decisions made that it would not be worth it at the time. Hard to say, but I appreciated Edwards wanting to fight, regardless.

One cannot presume (as one can in MA) that a Dem from a Red State will carry it automatically without some campaigning. Edwards passed the test in 1998 by defeating a Jesse Helms machine...by campaigning every where--and everywhere. This year, he campaigned for Heath Shuler, who won, and for Larry Kissell, who only missed the win by less than 380 votes. Kissell is one to contend with in 2008 either for Rep or Senate. I think he could win the Senate.

Kerry's handlers didn't get it at the time. And I wonder if Kerry was misled by them. Just IMHO.

[CarolNYC]

79. Wow, way to take a swipe and John AND Teresa all in one fell swoop...

I actually have never seen Elizabeth or Teresa speak but, when I was working with ACT in PA before the '04 elections, some of my fellow ACT workers got a chance to see Teresa. I, unfortunately, missed it as I was out meeting with some of the election day drivers, giving them a little orientation class. They were funny too, a bunch of crusty old Teamsters who didn't take too kindly to an "outsider" from NYC coming in and telling them what to do...no matter that I actually grew up there. Of course, after they found out that I went to school on a Teamster scholarship, I could do no wrong in their eyes. :)

Anyway, those who did get to see Teresa were totally wowed. They could not stop talking about her...and making me jealous at the same time. I have no doubt that Elizabeth is a strong speaker but it seems to me that Teresa can hold her own with a crowd also.

As for the two Johns, I've never seen either of them speak (although my Mom did get to meet Edwards at one of the back porch things)...I did get into a Kerry fundraiser in NYC during the campaign but the line was so long to get in, he'd finished speaking already. Still, I did get there in time to see the crowd mobbing him afterwards...Didn't look like they'd drifted off to me.

BTW, you speak so confidently when you say that because of "internal pressures, Edwards and Elizabeth were 'disappeared'". Did you work for Edwards during the campaign or something? Or is that something Elizabeth said in her book, that the Kerry people disappeared them because they were afraid to be outshone by them?

Thanks!

[blm]

15. I heard the word 'lethargic' used to describe it, but in all fairness, Elizabeth was ill

already with cancer at the time and it likely showed up in their energy level.

[ClassWarrior]

18. Apparently Elizabeth Edwards' book cites examples where...

...JE wanted to fight the fraudulent election results and Kerry's people shut him out.

As far as disappearing in 2004, apparently you haven't been paying attention. See http://www.OneAmericaCommittee.com.

NGU.

[venable]

24. Right - He absolutely did want to fight the Ohio vote count

Mark Crispin Miller's book on the subject recounts the morning after conversation.

[blm]

29. Woodward's book says Kerry was also fighting the count, then Carville told Matalin

that Kerry was going to contest over the provisional ballots - there were 250,000 of them - then Matalin told Bush and said call Blackwell, then Kerry's camp was informed that the number was 'actually' 150,000 making it mathematically impossible to take Ohio.

Edwards knows Kerry was going to contest just as Carville knew - why would anyone IMPLY that Edwards was arguing with Kerry that they should contest when Kerry was arguing for contesting, too?

I don't recall Edwards ever making a statement at the time that explained the legal grounds HE would have contested or explain the case that HE had that no one else saw?

[GreenArrow]

32. more Edwards posturing

no sooner than the 2004 race had been called, he was posturing for 2008.

[venable]

35. Again, on Edwards, you are wrong, Green Arrow

it's not posturing, it's a fact.

Edwards had been asked by Kerry at 2 am that morning to go address the rain soaked crowd in Copley Square. He told them, as was the unified message, to not give up. That all the votes would be counted.

He gave them his word that would happen. The crowd needed to hear that, and they believed him.

So, Green Arrow, how do you think he would have felt if 5 hours later he was told they were conceding? Do you think he would have resisted? Do you think he would have forgotten that he had promised them the votes would be counted. Edwards made the promise. His words.

Upon what legal basis would the votes be challenged? That would have to be determined, a determination that would never come if the ticket conceded.

It's more complex than your distrust and dislike of Edwards, which, by the way, grows very wearying. Don't like him. Fine. Message received. Over and over and over again.

[GreenArrow]

43. of course it's posturing

I think there's as much reason to believe that Kerry wanted to fight as there is to believe Edwards wanted to. No doubt, both did. But the fact of the matter is a) Kerry was the head of the ticket, the "boss", and Edwards was there to do as he was told. So, he gave his speech, at Kerry's behest.

Edwards "gave them his word"? No, he delivered a message from John Kerry. When Kerry decided to not go ahead and contest, it wasn't John Edwards who was going to bear the heat of the concession; it was John Kerry. And while I have little doubt that the election was stolen, there was not at the time adequate evidence to contest it. It would have been a public relations disaster. The legal basis has already taken many months to compile; imagine, in the wake of the 2000 election, just how delighted the public would have been with another disputed election, which ultimately, would likely have ended exactly as it did when Kerry conceded.

So what does Edwards do? Instead of doing what he can to help carry water, he decides to water Kerry, immediately leaking that he, John Edwards, had wanted to contest, and by implication, John Kerry didn't, a leak which in no way benefited his and Kerry's lost campaign, but just might play with the "base" of the party in a future run. His wife even brought it up again in her recent book. It was pure posturing. It was geared to make him look good and Kerry look bad.

As wearisome as my opinions on Edwards may be to you, I assure you that they're nothing compared to the thought of this glistening and glib goof running the country for four years.

[venable]

68. Don't be so sure

that your opinions are not as wearying as 'the thought of this glistening and glib goof running the country for four years'

They are much more wearying, to many.

It should also be mentioned that common wisdom recognizes that ad hominen attacks are about the speaker, not the attacked.

As to your points: If you believe that John Edwards speaking at 2 am after election night is not giving HIS word, than you and I understand speech, and the meaning of 'promise' very differently. Did he say, "I have no say in this, but I am told by my boss that he intends to count all the votes. He asked me to tell you he promises that."

No, he didn't. He said: We will count all the votes. Tell me that is not his word. Even better, don't.

[blm]

30. Elizabeth never gets specific there. It was the Dem party number crunchers and

they would have been the same Dem election experts even if Edwards was the nominee.

And Woodward's book tells us both Kerry and Edwards wanted to contest, then Carville told Matalin, Matalin told Bush and they called Blackwell - then the numbers on provisional ballots fell from 250,000 to 150,000 and the Ohio DNC was so structurally weak it had no possibility of securing the exact number of ballots.

Can you cite the case Edwards had wanted to take to court and what legal evidence he had to make that case, and did he ever share that evidence?

[venable]

36. Edwards wanted to not concede

so that a judicious study could be made of the possibilities of finding a viable legal case to challenge the statistically virtually impossible disjunction of exit poll and vote tabulations.

Do you think that anyone would have their case ready to present at 8am the morning after the election? Come on, now. Think a bit before you accuse Edwards of making something up.

He had no case. He had an improbable result in Ohio. Every statistician, every pollster, agrees. He wanted to explore. Kerry's concession killed that possibility.

[blm]

38. Except it was Kerry who would have to take it to court and show legal cause which

the Dem election experts told him he had no case and the math wasn't with them to pursue a case. The same legal team who told Gore there was a case to make.

Did Edwards ever say at the time that he offered a specific legal reason how a concession could NOT have happened?

I don't recall ever seeing one. In fact, RFK Jr. even made it clear there was no legal case to stop a concession.

If there was a specific case that could have been made, wouldn't Edwards be more specific about it at some point over the last two years? Surely he's not being coy - if he could have been specific he WOULD have been specific.

[venable]

64. I said he had no case

but who could hours after the polls had closed?

That's no reason to concede the next morning at 8 am, which is when the decision was made.

Spend a day or two looking into the possibilities of fraud, or tampering. Democracy depends on it.

Why the rush to concede? Because Kerry didn't want to look bad. So what if he looks bad. Democracy depends on it, as I said. It's bigger than some one person's reputation.

I can't believe we are arguing about this.

[blm]

75. It wasn't about looking bad - it was about not having a legal case to make.

That was all it was - and since that time Edwards has not said what case he THINKS could have been made that the election experts didn't see at the time.

If he could be saying it, he WOULD be saying it, but it appears it's enough to let the internet myths persist.

[venable]

80. I'm not saying he would ever have had a case

or that he had one then. I'm saying the opposite.

I'm saying he did NOT have a case in the early hours of the day after the election.

He did, however, as most did, have a very bad feeling about the exit polls relation to the vote count. Ask Zogby.

So, all I'm saying, and all Edwards said was, 'let's not concede. let's meet with people. check the results. see what happens in the next day or so. if nothing emerges, let's concede then. it is all too fishy to just NOT look in to it."

Once the concession happens, it's up to watchdogs and concerned legislators (Mark Crispin Miller, Conyers) to find out what happened. The concession is the official end of the election.

There were many people, all over the country, who were shocked when they conceded.

[madfloridian]

25. Two anti-Edwards posts on the front page right now

And that is just on a quick check, haven't really read much yet.

[PeaceProgProsp]

27. So what happened this week? SurveyUSA and Rasmussen

have polls showing he's very popular and does very well against Republicans.

It looks like some people here don't like that.

[Skwmom]

34. Those polls are meaningless.

I've known many people who had a favorable opinion of Edwards until they learned more about him (including myself). He's the Democratic version of George Bush - all manufactured political image - no substance.

[venable]

37. Your experience is not that of most others

I say this entirely anecdotally, but the dynamic seems to be the opposite of yours - people think him too polished at first, but as they get to know him, they find the substance.

You went the other direction.

Don't discredit polls based upon your own experience, as it is not universal.

Anyway, these polls are based on a very high familiarity with him. He is not a blank slate to most observers.

[ChiciB1]

41. Ever Gone To One Of His Rallies???

He can hold your attention and it not ALL polished. He talks easily and well, and he is VERY intelligent! One of the most likeable, hard workinging politicians I've seen since BOBBY!

[chieftain]

48. I have not been to see him in person, but my brother has.

He says that the guy electrifies an audience the way no one he has ever seen before. That seemed to be the consensus of John Edwards the primary candidate in '04. That is why I am troubled by what has to be called a lackluster performance in the General Election. It seems to me that before he is entrusted with the nomination next time, we should have a better understanding of which campaigner John Edwards really is.
Any positive judgment on his ability as a campaigner does not absolve him for his vote in favor of the Bush Iraq Resolution. This one vote does not preclude my voting for him but it does raise serious questions about his susceptibility to patently bogus arguments. A successful trial lawyer ought to be able to spot a smokescreen when presented one.
All that said, I will be watching him very carefully to see if he is the candidate that I can support.

[GreenArrow]

44. a little like George Bush, but more like Reagan I think

except Reagan was a better actor, with better writers.

[venable]

65. that is pathetic

these comparisons are an insult to anyone unfortunate enough to read them. They are an insult to anyone, anywhere, come to think of it.

What, exactly, is your problem? Your disdain for Edwards is out of control..

Like Bush, indeed. Get a grip. I used to read your stuff, on Edwards and others, and not agree with you some of the time, but always had a respect for your intelligence. Though it won't matter a whit to you, that early assessment is long gone, in my paltry book.

[GreenArrow]

81. what's so pathetic about it?

Reagan was elected twice. In landslides. People loved Reagan. He was positive, an optimist. He was folksy. He grew up in small-town America -- Tampico, Illiois. His father was a shoe salesman. He was a lifeguard. He made it big in the Movies. He looked like a cowboy. He told Mikael Gorbachev "tear down that wall". Now they want to put his picture on the dime, Mount Rushmore even.

He was also the first, second, or third worst President in this country's history, IMO. But regardless of that, he was able to create an image, sell it, and achieve a considerable amount of what he desired. He was extremely successful and gifted as a politician. I think Edwards has some of those same political gift, and that's where the comparison is made. At the same time, I don't believe that those sorts of gifts are always in keeping with what's best for the country.

I'm certainly not equating Edwards with Bush; Edwards has him whipped in intelligence, curiosity, compassion, and ability. I don't see him as vicious and vindictive as Bush clearly is. I believe Edwards is in politics for reasons of ego, Bush for reasons of power. Somehwere along the line those two motives intersect. The only way I see him as comparable to Bush is in terms of media savvy, and via the use of personal charm. I think viewed as political creatures Reagan is a fairer comparison.

[venable]

84. OK

I took it as a comparison. An equating of the two. Or three.

We then just disagree on why Edwards is in politics. I think his motivation is mainly public service. There must always be some ego involved, but only so much as is necessary for one person to be able to believe enough in themself enough to even conceive of being president. By definition, nobody with less ego than that has ever been, or will ever be, president.

Other than that, I agree with your last post.

I happily withdraw my harsh complaint.

[1932]

69. Yeah, that's why his numbers got better every day of the campaign.

That's why his numbers are still strong.

How do you explain the fact that he got more popular every single day of the campaign?

[tishaLA]

28. I thought the campaign mishandled Edwards

and didn't give him the chance to perform up to his potential. He has an ability to connect with voters and they kept him in the shadows and/or the media didn't cover him effectively.

[FrenchieCat]

31. I can't necessarily blame John Edwards for how he campaigned

during election 2004. There has got to be an "unexplained" story on that, because what happened in terms of his low visibility didn't make any sense at all. Edwards was pushed to be the VP candidate from the day that only he and Kerry were left on the primary trail by the conventional wisdom of the pundits so forcefully, until I was almost shocked that John Kerry complied dutifully (after having pledged to select one with strong Foreign policy knowledge).....and yet, John Edwards was literally disappeared once the convention was done with.

One day we will know what the story was on that, but until then, I can't honestly place direct blame on John Edwards.

I will also glady concede that John Edwards has many positive attributes that would have made him an attractive candidate in 2008, but I will also say that those positives are trumped in my opinion due to his lack of judgement on a very important issue from the onset; the run up to the war in Iraq.

So no, I do not want John Edwards as the Democratic nominee in 2008 (regardless of how well he did or did not do on the campaign trail), but my lack of support has more to do his flaws then with his attributes.

His wrongness on the issue of Iraq was very deep and long, regardless of the fact that he apologized years later. In his apology, John Edwards took "responsibility", but what was that supposed to really mean? :shrug: To be honest with you, being accountable is supposed to mean more than just putting out an OP-Ed. Demonstrating contrition should mean that John Edwards would realize that, after being so wrong for so long, that he should not expect us to just sweep his recent enough actions under the rug (as his supporters encourage)that were his views just a few short years ago.

If being held accountable and responsible means that John Edwards now expect Democrats to reward him by supporting his aspirations of becoming our next Commander in Chief, I don't understand the "responsibility" part of his mea culpa op-Ed.

I have outlined via documented sources how wrong John Edwards truly was at the link below for those interested. I would encourage that his supporters ignore the information that I detail, as the truth of John Edwards' position is not a pleasant one and cannot be rationalized as "parsing" his words.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2996680&mesg_id=3003406

I know ahead of time that I will be accused of "Smearing" John Edwards for the crime of not allowing bygones to be bygones on an issue that I care about. I also realize that there may be attempts to retaliate by dragging the candidate I support into this via cut and paste and the parsing of his words, which fortunately....unlike John Edwards are defensible when left whole and taken in the context in which they were originally presented. I only anticipate the possible responses because that's what usually happens.

I wish good luck to me for having the temarity. ;)

[Catchawave]

55. He's getting the AFL-CIO Paul Wellstone Award !

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3005169

:toast:

[benny05]

61. Yep, he's the workin' man's candidate

I'm very proud of what he has accomplished...even more so after the 2004 campaign. He's learned so much, and he's not afraid to say he made mistakes or missteps. :thumbsup:

[ChiciB1]

40. He's STILL MY Number One!!! I've Stated Reasons Before....

I know ONE THING for sure.... NO HILLARY, even at this early date! At least Edwards went out after the election and worked hard for those less fortunate!! Elizabeth is SUCH an asset and I can't say enough about her.

I don't understand why Hillary keeps polling so high, but it's early! If Gore were to jump in, I would LOVE to see a Gore/Edwards ticket. But will Edwards do "another" second banana?? I don't know, but for me this is a great ticket!

I'm just adding my praise for him, but not going to go into ALL my reasons why I think Edwards would be fantastic!!!

[Fabio]

42. I voted for Kerry in the primaries

and worked for the Campaign. I was and is a John Edwards fan, but Kerry was my man in 2004. In defense of Edwards, he ran a disciplined campaign with a solid Iowa effort, a strong, identifiable theme in "Two Americas" and, overall, good return on investment relative to the dollars he raised. When he joined the Kerry ticket, he was no longer his own boss and I think the Kerry Campaign, predictably, did not know how to use (ie market) him as well as he does himself.

[Radical Activist]

45. Kerry and the DNC didn't want Edwards to outshine Kerry.

The only way to make that happen was for Edwards to disappear. I think Kerry would have won had he been willing to make better use of Edwards, especially in Ohio and North Carolina. It was a dumb move, but it is not Edwards' fault.

[venable]

66. Exactly

And we, and the rest of the world are paying for the DNC's, Mary Beth Cahill's, and the Heinz-Kerry's decision.

[blm]

77. Baloney. Edwards was being sent everywhere. DNC 's lack of party infrastructure

in red and swing states lost the many votes to suppression and machine rigging tactics when they failed for 4yrs to secure the election process on every level where the votes get made and counted.

[Radical Activist]

85. Those are two seperate issues.

Why would Edwards be sent everywhere instead of primarily the swing states? I saw what happened. Edwards could have been used much more effectively and he had to change his message, which made him less effective.

[lillilbigone]

50. The media wouldn't show him OR Kerry.

Instead of showing Kerry speaking, they would have their correspondent characterize his remarks.

Edwards, they didn't even do that, they just pretended like he wasn't even campaigning.

[chieftain]

52. I listed that as one of the possibilities, but the media had

loved him in the Primary. It is certainly plausible that their corporate masters brought every-day reporters back into line. This does not explain, however, his less than brilliant performance in the debate, a venue that most of us thought he would walk away with due to his reputed brilliance as a trial lawyer.

[lillilbigone]

58. I agree that his debate performance sucked.

He seemed to be more interested in coming across as likable than anything else.

[chieftain]

60. You have put your finger on another concern of mine.

My recollection is that Edwards was very proud of his refusal to "go negative". Telling the truth about Republicans requires one to be negative and anyone representing us cannot be squeamish about going toe to toe with liars and bullies.

[machka]

72. Self-defense and negativity

I recently attended a book signing in Dallas for Edwards' new book "Home," where he answered questions from the audience. One attendee spoke of things in the same vein as you have: The right-wing noise machine will and does attack Dems relentlessly, and the querent felt that Dems had not done enough to refute those (often personal) attacks. He asked Edwards, "If you are the nominee in 2008, what would you do to fight back against their attacks?"

Edwards replied that he disagreed with the belief that personal attacks were required in politics, but outright lies should be refuted immediately:
"Fighting gets you more fighting, and I don't believe that's the kind of leadership that America and the world needs from us...I honestly believe there's too much at stake."

"If somebody says something that's blatantly false about us...we need to tell the truth about that, we need to tell it immediately, and we need to tell it extensively -- but I'm not interested in becoming a counter-point to Rush Limbaugh. I don't believe we have to tear down other people to lead."

IIRC, during the 2004 general election, Edwards was eager to respond to and refute the Swift Boat liars, but the campaign advisers didn't want him to do so, apparently believing that the story would blow over quickly (as had a previous dust-up btwn Kerry and the Swifties) - unfortunately, Faux News and the M$M were only too happy to lend the Swifties' claims "legs."

[chieftain]

78. Thanks for the information. I have to say that it increases my

concern rather than reduces it. Whether we like it or not the Limbaughs of the world influence the environment in which campaigns are waged. They do use blatant falsehoods, true. But they also use small distortions, ad-hominem ridicule and diversion tactics. To think that any Democratic candidate can operate without regard to the lies, vitriol and poison that the RW noise machine generates is naive and dangerous. I realize that your post does not say that Edwards is that naive, but it does leave the question open.
That said your post is a valuable contribution to the discussion and I welcome your future participation.

[venable]

91. the swift boat thing is a perfect example.

The poster is right in recounting the dynamic in campaign office when the Swift boating began.

Edwards said: 'I will go after them. This is a lie, and I can turn this on it's head'. Kerry and Cahill said, 'No, let's ignore. It's not a problem'.

For a month (August) Edwards kept asking 'permission' to take on the swift boaters. He kept being told, even as the Kerry numbers dropped precipitously, leave it alone.

Same thing with the throwing away of the medals. Kerry was being savagely attacked for this. Edwards said, I'll straighten this out. Kerry and Cahill said leave it alone. He did...until Imus asked him about it. Edwards replied to Imus: "Cheney, who didn't serve, and Bush, who didn't serve, have the gall to complain about what John Kerry did with his war medals. Shame on them. Shame on them"

At that point the attacks stopped.

Edwards is tough as nails when he needs to be, and eloquent in defense of what he believes.

And he is right - you can't wallow with Rush. You will only get his stank.

[chieftain]

92. That is very useful information. I didn't see Edwards defending

the ticket against attacks which I have always thought was a key duty of the VP candidate. If it was misguided strategy on the part of Kerry advisers that stifled him rather than some personal commitment to being viewed as a "positive campaigner" This is exactly the kind of data that I was hoping to get when I made the OP. I hope Edwards gives us reason to believe that he can stand up to the thugs that populate the Republican party.

[PeaceProgProsp]

93. Clinton didn't ask Gore to address the bimbo erruptions.

[LittleClarkie]

89. I remember that. "Where's Edwards"

With their hands over their eyes.

Bush, they'd just play the audio. Kerry, they'd tell you what he said "Same old, same old, blah, blah, blah". Edwards they'd pretend fell off the earth.

[philgobluemi]

71. Edwards Did Well Where he was Sent

What Edwards was set out to do was win over small and medium size towns. This is one of only two demographics where Kerry did better than Gore (towns between 10-50K). It was in a November 2004 Cook Political Report. Kerry gained 10% in this area, going from 37% to 47%. So, where Edwards was used, he was quite successful.

[zulchzulu]

83. I think there was a media blackout of Edwards' VP efforts in 2004

I remember a couple CSPAN broadcasts of him campaigning, but the MSM was too busy letting the Swiftboat assholes on the air long after they were debunked by more responsible media channels.

I saw him at a couple public events and absolutely nothing was reported in the local or national media about the events.

The same can be said for a dozen or more Kerry events before large crowds that had absolutely NO coverage while coverage of The Chimp was covered because they were told there would be a "policy speech", which always turned out to be a contained, controlled Bush rally where he was free to lie about Kerry at will and without any response to his deceptiveness.

[Clarkie1]

88. If Obama runs, I think his youthful enthusiasm will neutralize Edwards.

A large part of Edwards appeal is his youthful energy and freshness. Obama neutralizes that, and would make the poverty issue his own.

[venable]

90. agree, in part

I agree that there's nothing fresher on the shelf than Obama. In addition to being young and bright, he is also a blank slate, to most.

I completely disagree on the poverty thing. Edwards has done great work on poverty, comes from poverty moreso than does Obama, and is absolutely, congenitally committed to the cause. Obama is no lightweight on poverty, but he does not instantly assume the mantle of spokesperson for the issue.

[USA_1]

95. More Importantly ...

what are the Democrats going to do to defeat what will surely be a strenuous Republican smear campaign against him or any other Dem candidate?

When the Swift boating begins, will the Dems wait 3 months before they finally attempt to refute the lies as Kerry did?

Will they again allow such lies to be accepted as "truth" by the mainstream public because they went undenied or unrefuted?

Will the Dems again be too timid to answer back to the Republicans?

Will they make their own charges rather than allow the Republicans to frame the issues?

Will web forums such as Real Cities be flooded with right wing hatemongers who continually taunt and smear Democratic candidates while Dems will continue to squawk among themselves in this forum where they are free from right wing criticism? Will Dems finally have the guts to stand up to right wingers in those forums?

Will progressive millionaires and billionaires refuse to buy radio/TV stations or other media where they could balance out all the right wing propaganda in the controlled media? Or will they finally come to their senses and buy those stations for the good of America and the world by presenting the truth?

Will Dems always remain on the defensive or will they develop the guts and character to take charge and to put Republicans on the defensive?




In his book The Age of Anxiety Haynes Johnson wrote that the problem with Democrats is that they are too timid to fight back against the Republican lies and smears. The Democrats had no business giving up the White House in 2000 or 2004. The primary reason why they lost is because of their fear of Republicans.


WILL DEMOCRATS STAND UP AND STOP BEING AFRAID OF REPUBLICANS???

If the answer is 'no', then expect another Republican in the White House in 2008.

[savemefromdumbya]

98. but they won't swiftboat Hillary

they daren't

[USA_1]

100. "Stop Hillary"

I saw this bumper sticker here in St Paul. Don't know if there will be a huge distribution of these but, as you can see from the other reply to my post, RW's don't play by the rules during the campaigns.

[chieftain]

99. As we evaluate who should be on the Democratic ticket in '08,

positions on issues will not be the only criterion which should be satisfied. The Republican Party has won its success by lying, ridiculing and subverting the electoral process. Whoever leads us must not only be a liberal but also someone who recognizes the fascistic tendencies which have overwhelmed the opposition's playbook. The corporate media is complicit in disguising how craven and dangerous the RW is. So we have to have a liberal leader who is under no illusions that our competition will play by the rules and who has the spine and the intellect to beat these people.
I supported Clark last time and remain impressed by him. But I intend to relook at all those who have run before like Gore, Kerry and Edwards as well as the newcomers in '08 like Obama and Clinton.It is not melodrama to say that the future of the US as a country of humane and democratic values will be at risk as never before. The stakes could not be higher. The sharing of information here on DU will be one of the most important avenues available to learn about our contenders.Thank God that Al took the initiative to help fund the internet.