In Defense of John Edwards (fellow member of Kerry's speechwriting team rebuts Bob Shrum's claims)

[JohnLocke]

In Defense of John Edwards
By Wendy Button--Huffington Post
Posted June 18, 2007 | 03:42 PM (EST)
----
For three decades, Bob Shrum put words together for some of our greatest leaders. He understands the power behind a word, a phrase, and a story. That is what makes his statements about former Senator John Edwards in his new tell-all book, No Excuses: Confessions of a Serial Campaigner so upsetting. And in Washington D.C., if you don't say that a story is false right away, then the fiction becomes fact in an instant.

For three years I helped write speeches for Senator Edwards. The criticism about his haircut, his house, and his work at a hedge fund is all fair. The press and the chattering class want to paint him as a hypocrite, claiming that a rich man -- a man who earned every penny -- can't be a champion for the poor. It's politics. It's fair. But, it's nonsense.
(...)
Senator Edwards has always talked about his rise from nothing into the land of blessings. That history is with him always and his effort to end poverty in 30 years isn't a political issue for him; it's part of his soul. He's not perfect. He's made some mistakes. He's human and that's why people like him. Politics is a blood sport. It can get nasty and I have done some bad things myself and most of those stories will go with me to my grave. But at some point, the criticism stops being fair, stops being politics, and crosses the line.
(...)
The other story Shrum recalls is just as upsetting. In 1998, Shrum asked Senator Edwards about his opinion on gay rights. "What is your position, Mr. Edwards, on gay rights?" "I'm not comfortable around those people," Edwards replied."

First, pollster Harrison Hickman and Elizabeth Edwards were in the room and said that those words were never used by Senator Edwards in response to the question. And second, when you help write for someone for three years, you get to know them pretty well. The man I listened to in domestic and foreign policy discussions; the man I talked with on a plane after he'd learned about Elizabeth's breast cancer, and the man I watched shake hands and embrace thousands of unknown Americans is not a "those people" kind of man.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendy-button/in-defense-of-john-edward_b_52662.html

EDITED TO COMPLY WITH DU'S COPYRIGHT RULES.

[rinsd]

1. This author is apparently unaware of Edwards own comments on this

"To suggest that Senator Edwards has had an evolution on how he views the rights of any American is incorrect. Senator Edwards' core principle has been and will always be: we are all equal, no matter where you were born, the color of your skin, or who you love. We all have the same worth."


http://pandagon.net/2006/12/29/john-edwards-addresses-marriage-equality-question-in-nh-town-hall-gathering/

Edwards indicated that this issue was the “single hardest social issue” for him and that he had engaged in a lot of “personal struggles” over this issue. He believes that same-sex partners in committed relationships should have civil rights and should be afforded the dignity and respect to which they are entitled. He struggled with the question of “how we achieve this?.whether it is through civil unions or partnerships.” He indicated that he is certainly for all of the non-discrimination and equal benefits provisions.
However, he said that it was a “jump for me to get to gay marriage?I am not there yet.” He said that this was a “great conflict for him” and that he continues to struggle with the question internally. He ended by alluding to the fact that his daughter (and most in her generation) support marriage equality. (The crowd applauded after this last statement).

[underpants]

2. That sounds to me like he is wrestling what is obvious and what he has been taught

I have been a supporter of Edwards from the beginning. Yes this is throw out and that is throw out but in the end I think he is real. I do. I think he had the chance (unfortuneately) to sit back and reassess things I happened to be doing about the same thing at the same time so I get how hard it is to question everything and still not just change for the sake of change. He changed on some things. We all do over time, don't we?

I think he is real. I think that is what THEY (the inside crowd) is as scared of as much as the populist message. He knows now that he should have followed that message all along. Unlike those who are more interested in pretending the are rich Edwards is rich, filthy rich and that allows him to be able to look at things as if there is a safety net for him and it doesn't have to be a political one. Basically he isn't scared to be wrong or to HAVE BEEN wrong. And we all know that he has.

I trust him. Not blindly, I trust no one blindly. It's real and it shows and THAT is what scares them all to death.

[rinsd]

3. Do I think Shrum's comments are on the level? No.

Do I think to a degree that Edwards has had an evolution on this issue? Yes.

I see no problem with that other than the author's strangely defensive assertion that it is not true.

[LittleClarkie]

4. Be that as it may, he could still not have uttered those words

at that time, and at that place. Others in the room say he did not. That makes Mr. Shrum a liar, regardless of Edwards evolution on the subject. I do not trust this man. He's a slime.

[rinsd]

5. I agree, I think Shrum has been far less than truthful about this.

His hits against Edwards as being bullied into voting for IWR by his advisers don't pass the smell test either.

[Adelante]

6. Agree

It never made sense that Edwards would be agonizing over voting for a bill he was co-sponsoring.