Kerry's Regrets about John Edwards, and a Marriage Made in Politics That Never Quite Fit

[XemaSab]

After a day of filming at Edwards's summer home on Figure Eight Island in the Outer Banks, we went out to dinner. Afterward, while Elizabeth drove the car home, John and I headed back on his boat; as the darkness closed in, we got lost in the tall grasses of the shallow waterways. He finally found the channel; and back in his living room, we talked about the likelihood of war in Iraq. Edwards said no one had yet made the case to him.

That fall, as a vote loomed on the resolution giving Bush authority to go to war, Edwards convened a circle of advisers in his family room in Washington to discuss his decision. He was skeptical, even exercised about the idea of voting yes. Elizabeth was a forceful no. She didn't trust anything the Bush administration was saying. But the consensus view from both the foreign policy experts and the political operatives was that even though Edwards was on the Intelligence Committee, he was too junior in the Senate; he didn't have the credibility to vote against the resolution. To my continuing regret, I said he had to be for it. As I listened to this, I watched Edwards's face; he didn't like where he was being pushed to go. The process violated a principle I'd learned long before—candidates have to trust their own deeply felt instincts. It's the best way to live with defeat if it comes, and probably the best way to win.

The meeting we held in the Edwardses' family room did him a disservice; of course, he was the candidate and if he really was against the war, it was up to him to stand his ground. He didn't. If he had, it almost certainly would have been Edwards and not Dean who emerged early on as the antiwar candidate. But Edwards didn't want to look "liberal" and out of the mainstream; he was, after all, the southern candidate and thought of himself as Clintonesque. He valued the advice and prized the support of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. I had my own concerns: If he took the antiwar route, I knew I would have been characterized as a malign force moving him to the left—which wasn't true, although I wish it had been given that I now regard the Iraq invasion as one of the great mistakes in the history of U.S. foreign policy.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1626498-1,00.html

------------------------

For Edwards, a Marriage Made in Politics That Never Quite Fit

John Edwards, accepting his party’s nomination for vice president, roused a cheering crowd at the 2004 Democratic convention with the kind of buoyant refrain that had become his trademark: “Hope is on the way.”

The next night, wanting to give the American people something more tangible, John Kerry offered his own pledge, one intended as the ticket’s new slogan: “Help is on the way.”

But Mr. Edwards did not want to say it.

So the running mates set off across the country together with different messages, sometimes delivered at the same rally: Mr. Kerry leading the crowd in chants for “help,” Mr. Edwards for “hope.” The campaign printed two sets of signs. By November, the disagreement had been so institutionalized that campaign workers handed out fans with both messages, on flip sides.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/us/politics/21edwards.html

[fujiyama]

1. This whole affair mess kind of explains Edwards persona

and in hindsight, it shows him to be petty and narcissistic and fully obsessed with little beyond himself and his ambitions. I regret that in my search for a winner, I was briefly almost taken in by his BS, even though something about him struck me as insincere, too polished, and too slick.

[mike_c]

2. at the end of the day I really don't care what Edwards' or Kerry's motives were....

The time when their actions on the war really counted were when they voted in favor of authorizing it. Before and after was all political posturing and personal ambition. Both showed terrible judgment, apparently for slightly different reasons, but both lost all credibility with me the day they cast those IWR votes. The discussion in the OP reinforces my view that for Kerry and Edwards, and undoubtedly many of the other dems who voted in favor, the primary considerations in play were political ass covering and future political ambitions-- in other words, they were willing to commit a crime against humanity if they themselves came out looking good. Let's say that again for emphasis: Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, and etc were willing to commit the U.S. to a war of aggression for personal gain. That is utterly despicable.

[deacon]

4. And, thank out lucky stars this jerk didn't jeopardize our chances of getting rid of

mccbush.

[XemaSab]

11. It matters to me if a politician is willing to "lie" to get elected

I count pandering for votes as a form of lying, and it seems like that's what he did.

I also think the affair is bringing a negative side to his personality out in the open we haven't seen before. :shrug:

[karynnj]

13. Kerry spoke against rushing to war in early 2003

He had voted to give Bush the leverage needed for diplomacy - which was what Bush was saying he would do first. He was prominent enough in speaking against the war, that in early 2003 before the war started he was singled out as anti-war by the Republicans. His vote was wrong - as he has said thousands of times, but it is hard to argue that it was political, given he continued to speak of going to war as other than a last resort before the war started. With the others, had the war gone "well", they would have claimed they bravely supported it. (I notice you leave out Dodd and Biden, who also voted for it.)

Here's what Bush speechwriter, David Frum said:

"How often do we hear it said that America is "rushing toward war"? Presidential candidate John F. Kerry warned against the "rush to war" in a major speech at Georgetown University on January 23. The day before, the leaders of France and Germany delivered a similar warning. So did the editors of the New York Times.
<snip>
Eighteen months after Pearl Harbor, and the United States was already in Sicily; 18 months since 9/11, and every one of the world's terror regimes except Afghanistan is exactly where it was a year and a half ago. Well, not exactly where it was: Libya has been promoted from mere membership of the U.N. Human Rights Commission to actual chairmanship of it. Otherwise, no signs of motion.

If ever any administration has moved with deliberate speed, it is this one. But no matter how slowly it moves, it is never slow enough. No matter how often it makes its case, it has never made the case enough. And no matter how much evidence of Saddam's dangerousness it adduces, the evidence is never convincing enough. When, do you suppose, would John Kerry and President Chirac and the editors of the New York Times think it a good time to overthrow Saddam? After another three months? Or six? Isn't it really the day after never?

It is not the speed of war that disturbs them. It is the fact of war. But this time, the fact of war is inescapable. War was made on the United States, and it has no choice but to reply. But there is good news: If the preparations for the Iraq round of the war on terror have gone very, very slowly, the Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts. The sooner the fighting begins in Iraq, the nearer we are to its imminent end. Which means, in other words, that this "rush to war" should really be seen as the ultimate "rush to peace."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3358606

[mike_c]

14. "He had voted to give Bush the leverage needed for diplomacy"

That's a lie, plain and simple. It's another example of Kerry engaging in politically expedient buttocks cover. If you doubt it, read the IWR. It does not call for any further diplomacy. Instead, it gives Bush blanket authority for war under the War Powers Resolution. Notwithstanding the contextual Whereas clauses that simply restate the lies Congress and the Bush administration were complicit in, the legislative portion of the act is brief and to the point. It mandates no new diplomacy, and authorizes complete authority for war, at the president's sole discretion.

THAT'S what Kerry voted for. I don't care what he says he thought he was voting for. The IWR is utterly explicit. If he read it, he knew he was voting for an illegal war of aggression.

[karynnj]

15. I have read it and the whereas are part of the resolution

There were 5 or more months between the resolution and the war - Bush did go to the UN and the inspectors started there work.

It is very clear Kerry did read the bill - he says he should have voted against it, but he gave the same reasons in September 2002, where he was seen as anti-war, in his IWR speech and in his comments before the war started and since.

There is no one who has worked harder on exit plans.

[mike_c]

19. then you simply don't understand the structure of a legislative bill....

The Whereas clauses are part of the Preamble and have no legislative consequences. None. Zero. They constitute the reasons and context for the Resolution that follows. The legislative portion begins with "be it Resolved" or similar language.

Discussing diplomatic efforts at the U.N. within the IWR preamble is little more than a smoke screen, just like the clauses dealing with weapons of mass destruction (a lie that Kerry endorsed when he voted for it), links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda (another lie Kerry endorsed), and links between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks (still more lies that Kerry was evidently comfortable with).

In the Resolution itself, one paragraph expresses Congress's recognition of prior diplomatic efforts, but that paragraph is entirely lacking in future actions. Again, none. Zero. Such requirements always begin with "the President will" or somebody else "shall."

The meat of the IWR is the authorization for the president to use force at his sole discretion, explicit authorization for an attack under the War Powers Resolution, and waiving of the normal WPR reporting requirements.

[karynnj]

20. You are wrong

Kerry never said there were links between Al Queada and Saddam or that there was a link between 911 and Iraq. He disputed those claims.

On WMD he stated in his speech that he COULD have them.

[mike_c]

23. did Kerry not vote for the IWR?-- yes he did, and in doing so...

...he voted in agreement with the following clauses:

(snip)

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

(snip)

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

(snip)

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

I mean come on-- Kerry is a Senator, he can say anything he wants, but his VOTES have far more concrete consequences than any of the speeches he makes to obfuscate his reasons for voting.

[Carolina]

24. give it up... after Kerry's own investigation

of Iran-Contra and his knowledge of the Bushes, he should have known better than vote to give a Bush so much power or authorization... Duh!

Rove and company forced the vote right before the 2002 midterms. The political cowards out of political ecpediency voted aye! But twenty-three Senators and a slew of House members got it right and cautioned against haste in voting and against a rush to war. Kerry didn't listen to Kennedy or Byrd who gave a cautionary, moving and now proven true speech.

Spin on but we at DU knew exactly what IWR meant on October 11, 2002. Kerry -- like Clinton, Dodd, Biden, Edwards -- was trying to cover his political ass then and now.

[ProSense]

26. It's not spin,

It's well-documented

[mike_c]

29. you're spinning faster and faster....

Let's not rehash old spin, please.

[ProSense]

30. "Let's not rehash" Really? The information is there for everyone to read. n/t

[mike_c]

33. you mean the propaganda is there for everyone to accept....

eom

[ProSense]

35. Which part is propaganda? n/t

[mike_c]

38. any suggestion that the IWR was anything but a blank check...

...for initiating a war of aggression-- the supreme international war crime-- is propaganda of the foulest sort. You're pissing in the wind of subsequent events. The resolution established that the only condition necessary to attack Iraq was Bush's determination that it should happen. Those clauses have been published twice already in this thread.

[ProSense]

41. That's your subjective interpretation. n/t

[mike_c]

44. and the only one supported by real, actual events since....

eom

[Carolina]

22. thank you, I am so tired of those who still spin

the IWR. It was a vote to give Bush (!!!) unilateral authority to go to war. PERIOD.

And those who voted for it thinking they were saving their political hides deserve to lose.

I didn't have a choice in 2004, but this election cycle, I refused to vote for ANYONE who voted aye back on October 11, 2002! NO to Hillary, Edwards, Biden, Dodd and all repukes.

[ProSense]

25. No, it's not a lie.

There were NO UN inspectors in Iraq when Congress voted on the IWR

Your Characterization is wrong. The IWR explicitly stated that Bush should not invade without exhausting all diplomatic channels and proving a direct and imminent threat. He didn't, and that's why he should be tried with a war crime.

[mike_c]

27. the IWR does not say that ANYWHERE....

It says Bush has sole authority to determine that diplomacy is useless and to use military force as he chooses.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

[ProSense]

28. It doesn't say anything about "sole authority"

otherwise Bush wouldn't have had to manufacture evidence to send to Congress and Colin Powell wouldn't have did his show and tell.

[mike_c]

32. oh for pete's sake....

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

The IWR specifies WHO is given authority to use military action against Iraq. Do you see anyone there other than "The President?" That means it gave Bush sole authority to attack Iraq.

Further:

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Paragraph (b) cites that specific authority.

[ProSense]

34. Pete had nothing to do with it. Bush lied, and then lied some more. n/t

[mike_c]

36. and John Kerry, along with Edwards, Clinton, etc helped him get away with it....

Do you think the numerous dems who voted AGAINST the IWR were voting against diplomacy? If the IWR is such a benign resolution, what do you think of the folks who OPPOSED Kerry and the others who voted for it?

[ProSense]

40. No, Bush lied on his own.

You mean the others who voted for the similar resolutions at the time? The others who voted against a timetable for withdrawal, whcih could have had the troops out last year? The others who refused to cut funding? The others who voted to warn Iran?

Bush lied on his own and launched a war without justificatation.

[mike_c]

42. no I mean the IWR-- you're just trying to obfuscate now....

eom

[tritsofme]

45. I can't believe you're still selling this lie.

All Congress asked Bush to do was "determine" that it was "necessary and appropriate" to invade Iraq.

And if he determined it was, then Congress said he can go in guns blazing.

That's the resolution that was voted on, whether you like it or not.

[ProSense]

48. Bush had to provide justification to Congress within 48 hours

He did so in a letter accompanied by manufactured evidence two days before launching the war.

One week into the war, Kerry was calling for regime change in the U.S.

[tritsofme]

39. Whatever, you had to be an idiot to not know what the IWR did.

It gave Bush carte blanche to go to war.

It was political posturing that lead many Democrats to vote for it, there's no reason to pretend otherwise.

We're all adults here, no reason to lie to yourself.

It is what it is.

[ProSense]

43. You have to be an idiot to believe the IWR could alter Bush's determination.

He was going to war. That's why he lied to Congress.

[tritsofme]

47. I don't at all. I'm just calling a spade a spade.

Bush would have went to war regardless.

But there's no reason to pretend the resolution meant something that it didn't.

[ProSense]

49. "Bush would have went to war regardless."

That's why this is all nonsense. The resolution was clear. Bush violated it, and he should be dragged into a war crimes trial, for his war and torture policy.

[tritsofme]

54. Sign him up for whatever subsequent war crimes you want.

But the IWR gave him the power domestically to launch the war.

If he didn't have that authorization, would have went? Yes, I'm sure of it.

I'm not even one of those people that think the IWR is some horrible thing that you should be burned at the stake for supporting at the time. It was political posturing, maybe some Democrats saved their asses in 2002 by supporting it. I understand that.

I just don't like it when people pretend the resolution said something it didn't.

[mike_c]

55. interestingly, I don't think any dem who voted AGAINST the IWR...

...suffered any political consequences at all, giving the lie to the spin that some dems only went along because it would have been political suicide not to. On the other hand, I think one can make a compelling argument that the burden of Kerry's and Clinton's politically ambitious IWR votes contributed directly to both of their failed presidential candidacies-- as they should.

[tritsofme]

56. They may have paid with their teeth years later.

I certainly don't doubt that.

Many politicians made the gamble that this was the politically expedient thing to do, and many of them and all of us are reaping the rewards of their actions today.

I'm just not going to burn a politician at the stake for being a politician, unless they pretend they are something else. I don't have any illusions about any man that seeks out governmental power, they're all slime, every one of them. Some are more tolerable than others.

[deacon]

3. It shows me on vetting isn't enough. You can't trust any of them. n/t

[JI7]

6. well

it shows that the candidate should have just done what he felt was right. it's ok to listen to constultants sometimes but if they really feel a strong disagreement as was in this case then they shouldn't always do what they say.

[Island Blue]

5. Just for the record -

Figure Eight Island isn't on the Outer Banks. Why the hell can't people get a simple detail correct?

[KharmaTrain]

7. We Come Not To Bury Edwards...

...but to pile on. But then, that's what he deserves in letting down so many people and, apparently, still hiding things.

If someone had asked me a year ago where I was leaning, I would have said Edwards...after watching him at the YKos debate and trying to sort out who was what in a very large field...but in the end, his vote FOR the IWR was one that I couldn't overlook...even with his renouncing it. I didn't want to go into another election with the "voted for it before he was against it".

Yes, he was an opportunist...but then one doesn't go into this "work" without having a lot of ambition...and the "drive" that goes with it. In many ways it's the same drive that propelled many other great leaders, but in a different time and country. In the end, Edwards became his own worst enemy as he played with fire...thought he was smarter than others and now is paying the price.

No piling on here...just the sadness of seeing yet another fall from grace...our lives, and his and his family now moves on. The measure of the man will be where he goes from here...while his electoral career is done, he still can make contributions to this country.

[Occam Bandage]

8. The affair is a big deal not because of the sex, but because it helps define him once and for all.

Many people have been teetering between "he's a self-absorbed preening jackass" and "he's a mostly good guy with good intentions." Cheating on your cancer-stricken wife, lying about it, and funneling donation money to hush her up casts all the previous warning flags in a very harsh light.

[LittleClarkie]

9. I'm not sure I'm enthused about hearing from Bob Shrum on this issue

Is he trying to excuse himself for the loss because of Edwards? Is he throwing Edwards under the bus when he's down?

The second article I've seen before, and is one of the reasons I had trouble getting behind Edwards.

[XemaSab]

12. He put a book out a while ago that most DU'ers were very critical of

I dredged it up so that people could read what he said back then in a different light. :shrug:

[Mass]

17. The Time article is more than one year old. Whatever his motives were,

Shrum was not shooting somebody that was already down. If anything, Edwards was a serious contender at that time.

[charlie and algernon]

10. this part is particularly disturbing

From the Time article
"Kerry talked with several potential picks, including Gephardt and Edwards. He was comfortable after his conversations with Gephardt, but even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else—that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before—and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again."

[Mass]

16. Well, it should tell us that a candidate should go with somebody he feels at ease with,

not necessarily a friend or somebody close, but somebody with whom he feels comfortable.

Let's hope that Obama gets the lesson. The choice for VP is yours, not the one of people who have various agendas.

[JI7]

31. in Kerry's case it was really bad

because it wasn't just that he felt more comfortable with Gephardt and others. but that he really felt turned off by Edwards. it was bad enough that he should have gone with someone else. and Shrum and the other guy(i think Devine) seem like idiots to me because they pushed Edwards based on some poll. but most people know that those polls are largely based on how well known the names are. those who get the least support are usually because people just don't know who they are.


i know Clinton and Gore weren't such great friends either but they were able to work together well as Pres and VP candidate with Gore doing what he was asked by the pres candidate.

so far i can't see OBama being uncomfortable with anyone the way Kerry was with Edwards but i really think he should just go with someone like Dodd or Biden over someone who may come from a swing state (or be seen as bringing votes in other ways) but that he does not get along with.

i am hearing that he isn't really looking for someone based on bringing electoral votes so i hope that is true.

[Cleita]

18. I think a lot of Democrats with political ambitions were convinced to

bend toward the conservative DLC as the right way even though their more liberal minds were telling them that it wasn't really what their principles were telling them. Edwards and Kerry weren't the only ones to be seduced by that siren's song. It's time for the DLC to be descredited and the Democratic Party to go back to its roots as the party of the working man and the underclasses.

[CrazyDude]

21. Kerry voted for the war n/t

[MetaTrope]

37. Amazing, under no other circumstances would Time and NYT give Kerry any column space

[otohara]

46. I Wish Al Gore Would Voice His Regrets

about Joe Lieberbush.

[XemaSab]

50. No shit.

x(

[Condem]

51. Kerry can bitch all he wants

He ran one of the shittiest campaigns in all of history. Losing to the ultimate loser.

[ProSense]

52. Edwards ran two "shittiest campaigns," cheated on his wife and lied to his supporters. n/t

[Condem]

53. No argument there, Prosense

I caucused for him in Iowa. Yessir, I feel cheated. What a fucking asshole. Hollow Man.