Just a reminder of who teamed up in Iowa...and an interesting comment about Edwards.

[madfloridian]

It is hard to come to the GDP forum because of the constant bombardment of posts about Edwards. I am supporting Edwards, but I don't see a need to attack others. My only gripe if you look at my posts are that I firmly feel Bill Clinton knew Iraq was no threat. I think he should have said so. He was a highly respected person whose advisors were telling others to vote for the IWR. That was wrong.

Now to my point. Here's the deal Edwards and Kucinich made in Iowa. It was an odd pairing off, because of their stances on the war. There was an anti-Iraq-war candidate running, so why did this deal happen? And why is Edwards becoming the whipping boy for many anti-war in the party?

Here's the deal. CNN from 2004. Iowa.

Edwards, Kucinich agree to share support in Iowa caucuses

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) -- Democratic presidential candidates John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich have struck a deal to support each other should one candidate fail to draw the minimum support needed to compete in Monday night's Iowa caucuses, Edwards campaign sources said.

The decision could give Edwards, a U.S. senator from North Carolina, a boost in the convoluted caucuses, the first major Democratic contest of the election year. An Iowa poll published over the weekend shows Edwards is in a tight race with the four front-runners. The same poll has Kucinich, an Ohio congressman, drawing the support of just 3 percent of likely caucus-goers.

..."Edwards and Kucinich have agreed that in any Iowa precinct where either candidate fails to garner the minimum needed to survive the first round, their supporters are urged to line up for the other candidate, Kucinich spokesman David Swanson said.

So the decision was made. If Edwards and Kucinich were willing to coordinate efforts then, why not now?

And why this statement from Kucinich's spokesman last week? Just a snip is all that is needed to show an odd thing.

A Last Path to Peace

Do you think John Edwards is handsome and wish he'd oppose an attack on Iran and be willing to join the majority of Americans on more issues? Then back Kucinich now. Do you think Barack Obama makes an attractive blank slate and wish he'd stop voting to fund the war, support ending it, and take a nuclear attack on Iran off the table? Get behind Kucinich right away. Are you impressed by Hillary Clinton and wish she'd admit she voted wrong, stop funding the war, support ending it, and oppose a new aggressive war on Iran? You get the idea. Do it with a $100 donation here:

http://www.kucinich.us

The money will drive the polls, which will drive the debate in Congress and force real action.

John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich have agreed to send their supporters each others' way if one isn't getting the votes needed to remain viable in a given caucus in Iowa.

The constant attacks here are not changing anyone's mind about who will be their candidate. Politics is politics, I have been told.

[madfloridian]

1. Another question.

Why was it so important to be sure a candidate who was against the war from the beginning did not make it out of Iowa?

Stuff was going on in NH at the same time. But that's another story.

And may I reiterate...I believe different people got varied info. I think many were really truly in the position to know...and their advisors were advising people to vote for the IWR.

Bill Clinton once said about Iraq: "I want it to have been worth it."
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1220

[karynnj]

2. I always thought that deal was weird

Do any 2004 Kuchinich or Edwards people have insight?

Two ideas I thought then were:

- Kuchinich did not thing Dean or Kerry were really anti-war enough - or he thought that if they were elected they would do the same thing. Therefore he bought Edwards 2 America's concept.

- Strategic - Gepheart was suppose to win. If Gepheart and Edwards came out 1 and 2, Clark, Dean and Kerry could split NH. Kerry and Dean would then be likely to drop out if they failed in the South intensive first multi--state day. If Clark did poorly in the multistate day, Kuchinich could have then been the only anti-war voice.

[madfloridian]

3. It was a weird deal. You are right. Some insight would be nice.

Too much blame is being attached. Many on the left still go after Dean with everything they have because they say he is not "really" anti-war.

I hate this war with a passion, but I think we need to put any blame at the feet of those who knew the most and did not speak out.

This place is just like 03...attack central.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

12. It wasn't a a weird deal at all

as far as the Iowa caucus process went, and having campaigns (on the ground) understanding that process.
They were both low viability candidates (actually Edwards fairly viable alone) looking to boost their numbers wherever and however they could. I believe Kerry and Gephardt people did the same thing and Kerry definitely got Kucinich people to come over to him in some cases.
It was a peculiarity of the Iowa caucus- boosting viability was more important than ideology.
Dean didn't have enough people who understood this and he suffered for it.

[madfloridian]

13. Then you agree, it was politics....and they all do politics to win.

And an anti-war candidate did the politically correct thing in Iowa in 2004.

That is all I am saying.

Deals are made. So why all the Edwards is not pure enough attacks here at DU now?

No one is pure.

[GreenArrow]

4. I read a quote from Kucinich -- I'll see if I can find it --

that basically ran something like this: "If I were trying to partner with someone in Iowa that I agreed with on most of the issues, I wouldn't find anyone. But John Edwards and I are friends and one thing we agreed on was that we both want more delegates."

Edwards wanted moderate leaning delegates that might have gone to Kerry or Gephardt; Kucinich wanted anti-war delegates that might otherwise have gone to Dean. The deal ended up favoring Edwards, and I wish Kucinich had never made it.

[madfloridian]

5. They knew just what was needed.

"They both have a positive approach, and they both have an optimistic vision," Swanson said. "Where we need 15 percent, we've got 9 and he's got 6, they'll come to us, and where he's got 9 and we've got 6, we'll go to him."

It was a sad deal with no real meaning to it.

[karynnj]

8. Thanks

It is always interesting to hear the back stories.

[karynnj]

7. Thanks

It's always nice to get the back stories. I love the honesty of "the one thing we agreed on was that we both want more delegates."

[madfloridian]

6. To back up my contention...

that Bill Clinton's advisors were giving advice to vote for the IWR...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1041

"Feingold says it’s even deeper - he says this is a battle
between Democrats’ Washington consultant class and the rest of the country -
and he specifically targets the D.C. elites from the Clinton administration,
who he accurately notes largely supported the war from the get-go."

Edwards: "On top of that I’d—beyond that, I went back to former Clinton
administration officials who gave me sort of independent information about
what they believed about what was happening with Saddam’s weapon—weapons
programs. They were also wrong. And, based on that, I made the wrong
judgment."

And when Dean once admitted he thought Saddam had WMDs (though he later in the same interview said he did NOT think Bush had made the case for imminent danger...he was asked where he got that info from.

""Talks with people who were
knowledgeable," Dean told me. "Including a series of folks that work in the
Clinton administration."

I do not blame anyone who trusted a former Demcratic president. Thoughts from 3 men at 3 different times in 3 different settings.

[blm]

11. I believe there was another aspect to the Clintons urging Dems support the Bushboy...

they NEEDED him to stay in power...

The preponderance of the evidence cannot be ignored...



This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:

http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."
>>>>>>


http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg

I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.
On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.
>>>>>>

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Keep adding - Did McAuliffe not bother securing the election process for 2002 and 2004 because he was focused on 2008 along with the rest of the Clinton team?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[Czolgosz]

9. Gotta love Kucinich; gotta love Edwards.

[madfloridian]

10. I like all of them.

I just think we need to be realistic about things. The constant attacking here is not good.
:hi:

[Czolgosz]

14. I think there is frustration among people who are supporting a candidate that isn't going to run and

without anyone to support with positive threads, they have nothing to do but post negative and inaccurate bullshit about other candidates. Perhaps there is also similar frustration among some people who are supporting a candidate whose candidacy isn't taking off in the way they hoped and so they are fueling negative threads out of jealously and frustration.

I'd be thrilled with Kucinich, Edwards, Obama, Dodd, and I'd happily work for our candidate even if one of the more conservative candidates win the nomination. Those people who don't share the idea that they need to work for our nominee even if it is not their favorite candidate are starting and perpetuating these false ans hateful attack threads.