Kerry/Edwards bullsh*t in Newsweek!

[wisteria]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13773998/site/newsweek/

... and the two Johns are now eying each other as potential opponents. There is history here: before inviting him to join his ticket, Kerry asked Edwards if he would run against him in 2008 in the event they lost the election the first time around. Edwards, according to two former campaign aides who asked not to be named describing closed-door discussions, was taken aback and ducked the question. (Edwards declined to comment on a private conversation; Kerry was unavailable for comment.)

Lies are what they are. This is IMO red meat for Edwards people. Suggesting that Kerry was looking to 2008 and wasn't focused on 2004.This could even imply that Kerry threw the election to Bush. It also makes Edwards look like a real threat to Kerry if he would run again. Again, all info reported by former aids who couldn't be named.

I am going to write to Edwards and suggest he address this misinformation and call it out for what it is-bullsh*t.

[Mass]

1. Who cares? This is MSM BS.

However, this confirms what I thought, that Kerry did not trust Edwards when he chose him, hence the question. He thought that Edwards had other ambitions and was using this nomination as a platform to run in 08 and would not be totally devoted to 04.

[wisteria]

3. So you think this is true?

I mean, I never heard this being suggested before. The situation as I see it is that people to read and accept as truth what the MSM reports. So, for me, this is more about calling out untruths that place Senator Kerry in a bad light. Unfortunately, not all voters are aware of or read the blogs.

it is interesting that kerry did in fact possibly not trust Edwards.I though however, that the Edwards' and the Kerry's were still friendly towards each other?

[Mass]

5. I dont know. There is no way to know as there is no source anyway.

Kerry and Edwards can be in good terms and still understand they are fighting for the same job. This blurb is hardly the worst thing I have read, but I dont think that Edwards was Kerry's first choice (not that I know that).

We cant call out all the untruths about Kerry, and as long as he does not care, is it really important? I prefer to see him talk about issues and present what he thinks should be America in the next 10 years. This is really more important.

[wisteria]

7. Important yes, but if he wants to get elected, this may not be enough.

he may have to confront and address misconceptions being thrown out or small suggestions could possibly escalate. Anyway, just my opinion.

[Mass]

9. Yes, but he cannot address them one by one. He has to get out, speak to

people about issues and do what he did in Iowa. When Kerry speaks to people repeatedly, the preconceptions tend to disappear quickly.

Addressing each little issue (and this is a very little issue, IMO), is not that important.

[karynnj]

15. I think you're right

Although we can point out, as you did, that there is no source and Newsweek's credibility on Kerry is suspect. I also agree that this is not a big deal. In fact, the only logical reason I can think of for Kerry asking it, would be to see if Edwards was being straight with him in the interview rather than saying what he thought Kerry wanted hear.

[Mass]

4. It is a lot more important that Edwards is vocal about poverty issues and

economical matters, and that he does that where it matters (Iowa and Ohio this week).

Politically speaking, this is a smart move to take some distance from DC and talk about bread and butter issues directly to people.

[wisteria]

8. True! n/t

[blm]

2. Corpmedia puts up this "heard" stuff all the time, and I doubt there's any

truth to it.

It's a sounder guess that a myth is being promoted to divide the two to get interesting fireworks so the two of them attack each other to make room for Hillary.

Like the myth that Edwards told Kerry there was evidence to continue fighting in Ohio and that they should not concede - yet no one has been able to provide any actual proof of that.

Don't trust what comes from Corpmedia whenever they are trying to pit Dems against each other with no real evidence.

[wisteria]

6. Oh, I don't trust it as truth, however others do and as I explained

it pits Kerry and Edwards against each other and Edward's comes out more positively.i figured t was something to be aware of. It could be used to add "fuel to the fire" so to speak.

[Island Blue]

10. This sounds like bullshit to me too.

In the first place, I think Kerry probably understood very well just how ambitious Edwards was (is). You don't make the leap from lawyer, to one term Senator, to running for president if you don't have a very definite goal in mind. I find it very difficult to believe that Kerry didn't think that Edwards would try again if they did not win.

[karynnj]

13. Very true

The other thing is that the whole idea seems to stem from Lieberman's vow not to do so in the wake of their loss. As many people were saying Gore should be given the nomination AND no one was saying Lieberman should run, it was likely just Lieberman looking for attention. Lieberman never ran for President before Gore picked him, Edwards was out running after 3 year as Senator (he was mentioned in the invisible primary April 2002 summary.)

The idea that they want a Kerry/Edwards fight is quite possible - I doubt they will get one. It's in neither's interest. Edwards needs to be seen as a nice guy - it was his biggest sales point. Kerry has to be seen as the dignified Presidential guy and it would help if people saw that he is also a nice guy. (Their best bet would be to jointly deny it, if it was false. With Kerry adding that it is fair for Edwards to run. (which it is)

[karynnj]

11. This seem typical Newsweek

They were one of the few major media that didn't like him in 1971. They called him a "randy conspiracy nut" in the 80s. Newsweek was also the culprit which put the fabricated picture of the supposed US prisoners still held by the VN that Kerry and hi committee exposed a fake. Evan Thomas was negative when Kerry ran against Thomas's friend, Weld. They printed the unlikely McCain as VP story, that grew from the original story they printed during the campaign. Zakaria on a MTP round table mis characterized Kerry's IWR vote, his vote against the $87 billion and a then current Iraq position as political and not what he really believed - in spite of the fact that each of these was well explained at the time they were made.

It seems another in a series of Newsweek Kerry hit pieces. This does sound unlikely - both because Kerry likely thought he would win and because I doubt he would have seen Edwards, who he very easily beat and who would be out of office after 1 not extraordinarily impressive term, a his main competitor in a race he was likely not thinking of. The clear competitor would be Hillary, who media people talked up in 2004 even as Kerry won all the primaries. (Clark would even seem a bigger competitor - with more experience with the media, campaigning, and clear Democratic credential for at least 4 years.)

The other point - if Kerry were to ask this question, it would likely be in a 1 to 1 meeting, so who is the source. Edwards is "not commenting" on a private conversation - which i disingenuous, as it implies there was such a private conversation and Kerry was not reachable. (One questions how hard they tried as Kerry has issued several statements this week, so he is likely in touch with his office.)

[blm]

12. You should put this defense up in GD, too, when it comes up there.

.

[karynnj]

14. Thanks

It would likely be best to combine it with the point someone made up thread that the likely goal was to get Kerry and Edwards fighting, which is in neither of their interests. (I will be on and off this week - so feel free to take it as is if it comes up)

[karynnj]

16. This is not even being mentioned on DU-P from this article

which is the puffiest puff piece I've ever seen. Edwards is the most viable candidate, Edwards is mentioned in conjunction with RFK on poverty. (In a DU post, someone says he's BETTER than RFK who did nothing for the poor. They mention that he was on the board of a charity before he went into politics - like everyone at that level of society.)

[sandnsea]

17. Maybe it was a "sizing-up" question

Considering the Gore-Lieberman stuff, maybe this was part of the process for every VP candidate. One of those things where the answer wasn't as important as the honesty & character behind the answer. I'd rather have a 100% gung ho, well hell yes; than a wishy-washy mealy-mouthed butt kiss.

I'd really like to know who these blabber mouth campaign aides are though.

[ray of light]

18. the media is testing memes out there. The same way they

tested the "Hillary is angry" meme.