|
First of all neither of us were inside that campaign - unless you were :). I don't see the same introducing the new team player under a cloud. From all accounts there were very few people in that VP selection process and it is also clear that among them there had to be advocates for picking Edwards and no one who validated the concern that Shrum describes Kerry having. Neither Kerry nor Edwards have spoken of the conversation they had when Kerry asked him to be VP. The likelihood is that Kerry either had resolved the issue in his own mind or he would have spoken to Edwards about it. He gave Edwards a pass on it, showing that he did not expect anyone to be perfect.
From my point of view, it was also not that different than the publicly known channeling of a brain damaged baby's thoughts while being born. There is a flamboyant side to Edwards. Turned to issues, as they were with New Orleans, that same oratorical ability and use of emotion to move people is a plus politically- and if you listen to Kerry's 1971 testimony, his 2006 Dissent speech or his last Senate speech on Alito, Kerry has this talent too, but has used it for the most part to move people on political issues. (The point being that Kerry would understand this more than someone with none of this in their own personalities. I hadn't thought of this before , but this is one of few similarities between them.) In fact, Edwards' use of that skill in pushing the issue of poverty does to some degree show that he has come to channel that ability for public good. Which is both good for him and validates Kerry's judgment in not ruling him out for that reason.
Going just by what was in Shrum's book and other accounts, I don't see this incident as leading Kerry to distrust him - in fact, he obviously considered it insignificant enough to offer Edwards the VP slot. This was a time where he was excited and very positive about the campaign. His introduction of Edwards was very positive. Shrum's recitation of the account was obviously because it would be picked up and might make people buy his book because of its nature.
I would agree that Kerry did not vet Edwards enough. Not for deep dark secrets - he had none - or they would have come out in 2004 or since. He clearly missed - or Edwards did not convey - the type of VP Edwards wanted to be. In Kerry's defense, he expected Edwards to do what all other VPs have done - to act as the top surrogate for the President. From the Edwards told story on the campaign slogan, Edwards saw himself as independent and that he thought that he could project his own message. It's clear from the account that he argued they use "hope" and lost - but proceeded to do that anyway. The best interpretation is that he thought he knew better than Kerry who had soundly beat him for the nomination.
My guess is that taking the subordinate role is very hard for the high profile people who are capable of being a VP. Consider how Gore, who ran in 1988 for President and had he run in 1992 might have defeated Bill Clinton, felt taking a secondary role. You need a very healthy ego to run for President, especially with very little credentials. The VP slot requires that you hold that in check. The likelihood is that Kerry and his advisers had no reason to thing Edwards wouldn't toe the line. He had, in the last few debates, essentially repeated whatever Kerry said and he was far less experienced than Kerry on foreign and domestic policy.
It might have been that because Edwards had only been a politician for a short time and before that did not seem that interested, that he had less idea what being a VP would be than anyone would have thought. He may well have bought a lot of the media praise that he was the best natural politician since Clinton. It has to be a pretty heady feeling having people support you for the Presidency - especially if you have such a short record.
The stories coming out from people aligned with Edwards and one account from anonymous Kerry people there clearly suggest that Edwards wouldn't take direction. What isn't known is whether Kerry or others did enough to explain how doing what they asked was better for the campaign. The real problem is that they had no leverage. If Edwards felt that things he was asked to do were not in his long term - in case they didn't win - they could not threaten to "fire" him if he didn't do them. That would sink the campaign. From the stories afterward, they did a very good job not letting the in-fighting show.
What it does mean is that some people, Edwards included, are not "designed" to be VPs. The main things needed are someone who adds no negatives, makes no waves in the campaign and who can represent the nominee and get people to vote for him in places where the candidate can not be. (Edwards himself may think this now as he did say he wouldn't go for VP back in 2007.) They should not have to be stage managed. (Compare the job Gore did to what Edwards did.) I would guess that a less unconventional politician than Edwards would have worked better for Kerry. If the slogan issue was not atypical, managing Edwards took some amount of energy. Kerry and his advisers likely did not see the extent to which this would be needed at selection time.
None of this says anything about how he would do running for President or being President. In those roles he does get to be the one making the decisions. Even when Kerry endorsed Obama, he said that Edwards and HRC were qualified to be President. He clearly stated why he thought Obama, as President, had the best chance of doing what had to be done. Everything Kerry said was needed were things he spoke of for years and many are things that describe Kerry himself. Obama, wanting to unite people with solutions all can accept is vintage Kerry and they sound pretty similar on foreign policy at times. The 2008 Edwards was far more confrontational than the 2004 Edwards. Choosing the President is different than the VP, where considerations of balance and what he brings to the table consider what the strengths of the President are. Had Edwards been 2008 Edwards in 2004, I doubt Kerry would have picked him - even though on every issue 2008 Edwards is closer to 2004 Kerry than 2004 Edwards was, because of the jarring projection of anger in 2008. (Can I win the prize for most convoluted sentence?)
To conclude, I do not think that anything I said here shows Edwards to be a bad person. If he were, I would need to question how both Kennedy (who mentored him) and Kerry were impressed by him. I do agree that it was Kerry's campaign - and I think that it in many ways was a very good campaign. There was a reason HRC didn't run in 2004. In December 2003, Bush polled in double digits over generic Democrat and 20 points above Dean, the only Democrat polled then. As Kerry won primary after primary and had victory speech after victory speech, where he had a platform to attack Bush, he changed the numbers radically and gave people hope of winning. But, it is hard to overstate how uneven the playing field was in 2004. In spite of everything, without the OBL tape, they very likely would have won. Because it was so close, everything gets second guessed. The fact is that they likely were neither extremely worse or better paired than the average combinations.
Anyway, as you said, this has been an interesting discussion. Best wishes to you and the other Edwards people.
|