Edwards "maneuvered" self to center at Unity dinner, or is KSeelye an ass?

[AP]

But as Mr. Kerry's former rivals filled the stage, any choreography was lost. Senator John Edwards maneuvered smack into the center, between Mr. Clinton and Mr. Kerry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/26/politics/campaign/26DEMS.html

Katherine Seelye has written some nasty things about Edwards. I didn't see the Unity dinner, and CSPAN hasn't archived it yet. So for those who saw it, did Edwards maneuver himself to the center, or is this just another example of K Seelye's biased imagination influencing her reporting?

[sangh0]

1. I suspect Edwards did maneuver himself

This is a well-known and necessary skill for successful politicians. Schumer is so well-known for this (as well as for his other, numerous, tactics for getting into the press) that even the press sometimes makes jokes about it in the articles they write.

IOW, if Edwards WASN'T maneuvering, then he wasn't doing his job as a politician

[Thrill]

2. It looked to me more like

Clinton did it

[DemDogs]

118. It was pretty clear that Clinton did it

Edwards looked a little surprised, I thought.

[chimpymustgo]

4. I saw it. Edwards went up to Kerry, congratulated him.

They had a "moment" together. Then Edwards turned, and he and Clinton started shaking hands. Clinton then raised Edwards' arm in the victory salute as others were coming onto the stage, and everybody was raising their arms for the photo op - and Edwards was fortuitously between Kerry and Clinton.

Yes, JRE made the most of his moment. But it looked to me that Clinton had more to do with keeping Edwards front and center. He could have eased away from Edwards, but he made sure Edwards was front and center.

And it didn't seem to bother anyone except Kit (can I tell enough lies about Al Gore?) Seelye.

[sangh0]

6. Where was Kit Seelye when that dancing fool on American Idol

glommed the spotlight at the end of the show? :-)

[The Zanti Regent]

97. Read Bob Somersby's Daily Howler

He exposes ALL the PRESSTITUTES at the Screw York Times

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

Since Media Whores Online has gone on hiatus, Bob's page is the first one you need to read daily!

[mouse7]

15. Oh please. So that means there's a Carter/Sharpton alliance?

Look at the picture. Carter and Sharpton are next to each other. They must be teaming up.

Also, Kerry is holding Gore's hand higher than Edwards. That means Gore will be Kerry's VP and Edwards will be Att't Gen.

It must be true if the NYT says it.

[boobooday]

3. Seeleye

She is a total moron. I can't believe we have to tolerate more of her bullshit.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[Thrill]

5. Where is she going with that?

[Hav]

7. You can watch it on cspan, it's there by now.Much traffic though

Edwards only came from the other side(right). He greeted Clinton and stayed there right next to Kerry's left while Clinton was going to the left I think. So when Clinton came back, he needed to "push"(meant friendly) himself between Edwards and Carter.
In my opinion, I see no fault on the side of Edwards. He didn't push himself between Kerry and Clinton because Clinton was just about to greet someone else on the left. Maybe he positioned himself next to Kerry but I don't see anything wrong with that as he was just there after greeting Clinton.

[AP]

10. So, basically, NOBODY here agrees with Seelye's description.

What a fucking liar. So, not only was Edwards not opportunistically maneuvering himself to the center, but it wasn't the awkward moment she describes either.

Why does this woman hate the truth so much?

Is this a good quality for a reporter to have?

[citizen snips]

8. That is a good picture.

Edwards took advantage of a good situation.

[VOX]

9. Kit Seelye's full of horseflop. And that's a GREAT photo!

I read this piece in the NYT last night, and I thought, Kit's at it again. To hell with her.

IMO, that's a terrific photo of *all* the Democratic greats, past and present -- it's a kick and a comfort to see them all together, with a unified goal.

edit: typos

[Scoopie]

11. He manuvered

Yep - and what else would I expect from him?

Classless politician.
:puke:

[citizen snips]

12. ?

What do you expect him to do.

Is Edwards supposed to say oops Clinton I can't stand next to you I got to to the back of the line.

[spooky3]

13. Kit--is that you???

[Padraig18]

14. Shelton and OK are both over and done with.

Can't we all move on?

[citizen snips]

16. The Shelton hateing will never end.

[Padraig18]

17. So it would appear.

I wonder how sour grapes taste after they've been chewed this long?

[citizen snips]

18. It would taste like. . .

shit.

Because that conspiracy theory is very old.

[Padraig18]

19. Yeah.

But paranoia rarely yields to logic...

[citizen snips]

20. Do you like the new avatars?

[Padraig18]

21. I like them a LOT!

Elad did a great job. :)

[citizen snips]

22. I thought it was Skinner.

Whoever did it they did a great job.

[spooky3]

23. thanks, guys, I just changed mine!

[surfermaw]

122. I think, I smell sour grapes, forget it , Clark isn't going to happen

[LandOLincoln]

137. In your dreams. n/t

[Scoopie]

24. Sour grapes?

Nope - more like intelligently looking at the exit polls in open primary states.

Tennessee:
72 percent of those who voted for Edwards said they were enthusiastic or supportive of Bush.
Georgia:
62 percent of those who voted for Edwards said they were enthusiastic or supportive of Bush.

I smell even more neo-con tricks in Edwards' alleged "popularity" than I ever did with that Shelton shit.

I live in Tennessee and I don't know a Democrat or an Independent who voted for Edwards - but I do know several Bush-lovers who did. What does that tell you?

But, oh, yeah, according to you people - all us Southerners are stupid.
:eyes:

[Padraig18]

25. I don't think Southerners are stupid.

But I also know that on Southern Super Tuesday, every exit poll showed that Democrats preferred Edwards for VP, as do 8 of 14 state party chairmen.

[Scoopie]

28. And that's because they

hadn't looked at the exit polling.
My state chairman has, now, thanks to me and was very concerned.
:P
Also - they polled OK in that "Southern" poll. When did OK become a Southern state?

[Padraig18]

30. I'm referring to the 4 Southern states that voted.

FL, MS, LA and TX. In each state Edwards was the clear favorite for VP, including LA and FL, where he beat out Landrieux and Graham, respectively.

[Scoopie]

31. Oh and another thing

I don't believe polls.
Not when there are dirty tricks about.

But if Kerry puts that SOMW on the ticket - I'm not voting for him. THIS swing voter will write in a vote - and will encourage others to do so when I tell them of Edwards' inexperience.
Time to stand up to media bias.
Of course, I won't have to do that - the media will do it for me. If he's name, they'll attack him like they DIDN'T do in the primaries for that very thing.

[Padraig18]

33. Unless TN is very different, you'll void your ballot.

IN IL, you have to vote for the ticket--- both of them--- and if you write someone in without their having filed a formal statement to run as a write in, your vote will be spoiled.

Better check your state's voting laws before you throw your vote away...

[Scoopie]

36. It won't be voided

I've done it before.

I once wrote my dog in for sheriff.

He was a better choice than what was given me. :)

[Scoopie]

46. Or did you mean...

that I would vote for Kerry and not Edwards?

Because I meant that I wouldn't vote for Kerry/Edwards.

[Padraig18]

61. What I meant.

In IL, you cannot split your vote for President and Vice-President, because they run as a 'team/slate'; unless the candidate you write in has filed papers in advance of the election to run as a write-in, your vote is considered an 'overvote' and your ballot for President is spoiled.

[Scoopie]

75. OK..

I see what you meant.
No... I won't split my vote - I just won't vote for Kerry/Edwards. I will write in Clark/Kerry or Clark/McCain or just Clark.. I don't know.

Just so you guys know, I'm an Independent.
I was hoping the Democratic Party could provide me with some relief from Bush, but I'm not too impressed with the choices this year. It seems the Democrats aren't looking at the bigger picture in their choices. Kerry needs backing on the national security issue - that's why I would be for Kerry/Clark, Kerry/Cleland, Kerry/Graham or even Kerry/Richardson. I think Kerry can handle the economic stuff on his own (although, he DID use Clark's plan in his speech today).
God - why can't we go back to Clinton/Gore? That was the perfect middle-of-the-road ticket!

[citizen snips]

27. Edwards beat Clark in Tennessee.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Padraig18]

35. God forbid we'd have a candidate with crossover appeal.

Perish the thought...

[Scoopie]

38. It's wasn't crossover appeal!!1

AHHHHHGGGGHHHH!
You guys are totally missing the point!
The neo-cons voted for the person who would be WEAKEST against Bush - these people WON'T vote for ANYONE BUT BUSH in NOVEMBER!!!
I live in the neo-con captial of the world!!! I KNOW this! And, even if I didn't, I was told about "the plan" enough!

[Padraig18]

41. You keep missing a point, too.

Democrats in the Southern primaries overwhelmingly prefer him for VP, based on exit polling.

[Scoopie]

44. There weren't just Democrats

in those exit polls. We have OPEN PRIMARIES. How would anyone know who was a Democrat and who wasn't. We don't have to register with a party and it's not on our voter's registration cards.

[Padraig18]

45. FL, LA, MS and TX were open?

Those are the 4 primaries I'm referring to...

[Scoopie]

53. Yes

I'm not sure about Texas, but the other three are open primary state - yes. All the Southern states are (Texas is more of a South-western state, IMO).

[Padraig18]

55. You're SURE about that?

:)

[AP]

116. The general election is open.

All the more reason to get Edwards on that ticket.

Half the voters in the GE will be Republican.

[Skwmom]

49. So the Democrats prefer him for VP

Could it be the corporate *hores cheering for Edwards has swayed their opinion. Of course not. It's not like the media can manipulate public opinion.

[Padraig18]

52. LOL!

Did I hear a 'Wes Clark Democrat' anthem playing softly in the background as I read what you wrote?

[citizen snips]

57. LoL.

:toast:

[Scoopie]

54. Thank God

for back up!!

[citizen snips]

56. Or could it be the voters.

[Scoopie]

65. Who will turn on his

inexperience once the media FINALLY points this out.
And, they will, trust me.

[citizen snips]

66. The same goes with Clark.

Clark is a bad campaigner.

[DemDogs]

119. What poop from scoop

Scoopie: "And, even if I didn't, I was told about "the plan" enough!"

Can you give this a break? Clark tried every way he knew how to step on Edwards, breaking his announcement on Edwards formal announcement day and taking false offense that Shelton, a North Carolinian who didn't like Clark, was willing to help Edwards' staff.
And now? Scoopie's in on "a neo-con plan to nominate Edwards" -- geez, you guys are the worst at losing a fight. It's over. Go home.

[surfermaw]

123. No they didn't vote for the weaker candidate, they just didn't vote Clark

[citizen snips]

37. Good point.

But after all Edwards beat Clark.

And their is not doubt about that.
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Scoopie]

40. But Clark beat Edwards

in every CLOSED primary state...
So I guess that proves my point some more.

[citizen snips]

42. Yes.

That proves my point even more that Edwards beat Clark.

[spooky3]

90. You're misunderstanding the numbers.

I guess we have to walk through them again.

1. People who were "satisfied with" or "enthusiastic" about Bush comprised a grand total of 11% + 3% = 14% of the total vote. Even if every one of those people were neocons crossing over just to be a nuisance, which you have no evidence that they were, that's a very small % of total voters.

2. The word "supportive" does not appear on the poll.

3. Of the 11% who were satisfied, 37% voted for Edwards; note that about half of them voted for either Clark or Kerry. So of every 100 voters, about 4 voted for Edwards AND were satisfied with Bush. 5-6 voted for either Clark or Kerry and were satisfied with Bush.

4. Of the 3% who were satisfied, 35% voted for Edwards; note that more than 25% of them voted for either Clark or Kerry. So of every 100 voters, about 1 voted for Edwards AND was satisfied with Bush.

5. Edwards got about 27% of the total vote. For the 5 Edwards voters per 100 who were satisfied with/enthusiastic about Bush, there were about 22 Edwards voters who were angry or dissatisfied with Bush. Another way of getting to the same number is that he got about 1/4 of the 85% of voters who were angry/dissatisfied with Bush, or about 22% of all voters.

[AP]

94. I suspect that the Bush "satisfied" number was entirely due to the fact...

...that Edwards gets more support the wealthier, whiter, and more suburban the voter is. These are people who are doing well, finacially speaking, so they're more likely to say that things are OK with Bush.

Curiously, Edwards's campaign was more explicitly about helping people who don't fit into that demographic than almost any other candidate.

Go figure.

[spooky3]

101. oops--in #4, "satisfied" should be "enthusiastic"--past my edit time.

[DemDogs]

120. Geez - great analysis Spooky!

This is impressive work. Not that it will stop Scoopie from posting the same thing next week.

[spooky3]

140. LOL! It's just baby math, but thanks.

[Darkamber]

47. Tenn....

I like Clark and I'd like to see him as a National Security Adviser. When he talks about military matters, he's very good.

However, I am tired of this old argument. And I looked at those exit polls and you are right about the "enthusiastic" part, but those figures don't show the whole picture. By the way, only 3% of the total vote was 'enthusiastic' about Bush and Edwards also beat Clark on the "Angry" at Bush group.

Of the Republicans 5%
Of those : Clark: 30%
Edwards: 26%

Of Independents: 20%
of Those: 25% Clark
32% Edwards

The real factor for Clark was the break of those who decided in the last three days.
31% Edwards
19% Clark

Those who decided prior to that...
25% Clark
24% Edwards

Last large factor...issues...Important issue = Jobs 38%
Edwards: 32%
Clark: 18%

What you are seeing here isn't so much "GOP" who voted for Edwards, but it seems more like Independent vote that did. This choice was made in the last three days. Another big factor was the issue of jobs that was the most important issue of the voters and those broke strongly for Edwards over Clark. The GOP's broke for Clark over Edwards.

What is more bothersome about Tenn is this unknown Independent Vote, but then Gore didn't win his own state either.

I'm not sure if this matters now in any case, but I like to show the whole picture. The fact is that unless you are going to vote for Bush if Kerry picks Edwards for VP, then it's really time to put this behind us.

Maybe Clark and Edwards should do some fundraisers for Kerry together. It might help to heal some of these bad feelings.

[Scoopie]

50. I still won't vote for a

Kerry/Edwards ticket.
Edwards scares me shitless.
And, I won't vote for Bush.
I'll write in a vote.
I refuse to be manipulated.

[Darkamber]

63. What does he scare you?

I'm really serious. Not trying for a fight, but I'd really like to know. It think it's important.

You see to me, I'm comfortable that even if something were to happen to Kerry and Edwards would step in that he would turn to people like Clark and other experts before making any choice in 'war' matters.
To me that's not the VP's job but the Sec. of Def., Joint Chiefs, etc.

Also, of my generation..I'm only 8 years younger then Edwards, none of us have any war background. There were no wars for any of us to fight. Also, I believe to have change then you need someone from the outside, who can bring change and who has vision.

But I would really like to know why Edwards scares you so much.

[Scoopie]

79. He simply has no real-world experience

In one debate, his comments about the Arab/Muslim world were sorely lacking in accuracy and nuance - just the sort of thing we already have and don't need more of.
We need someone who has real-world experience with the Middle East - whether that be from working with Muslims, like Clark, or spending years on committees concerned with foreign affairs, like Graham. Even though Cleland doesn't have that same sort of experience, he still has experience, all-be-it during a war, in living in another country for years.
In other words, these other candidates aren't myoptic.
I'm also afraid that he really isn't as popular as the media would have us believe. I'm a former reporter and I know how the game works - the media did not vet Edwards in the primaries, and, if he's named VP, they'll start with a vengeance. They will bring up those poor comments I mentioned above, his lack of FP experience, his lack of experience in anything but law.
I know that they'll "after" ALL the candidates - but I think Edwards is particularly vunerable because he wasn't really "popped" during the primaries.
If you want him because he's Southern, then this lack of military/international experience will actually work against him in the South, where we have a higher percentage of young people in the military.
Clinton was great and he had no military experience, but 9/11 hadn't happened and the country wasn't at war when he was elected. It's a different world.
In short - I don't think he's ready for the job YET!!
I wish he had decided to run for his Senate seat again and save the South from yet another loss to a Republican. Plus, then he could have, perhaps, depending on his committees, gained more international/foreign policy experience.
The press chastised Clark for never having run for office, but gave Edwards a pass for only having run for one and having not NEARLY the real-word experience of Clark. That confused me, until I was flat out told by neo-cons that I work with that they were voting for Edwards because Clark and/or Kerry would put up a much tougher fight against Bush.
Those are my concerns.
They are legitimate and the have nothing to do with Shelton or Serb halls.

[AP]

82. I thought what he said about Afghanistan was genius.

He took a question about foreign policy and turned it into a statement about the value of public education, infrastructure investiment by government, and a criticism of religion replacing government. Not only was it an accurate statement about what was wrong with Afghanistan, and wrong about American foreign policy, it was a not-so-sublte attack at a few domestic issues the Republicans push, like school vouchers. It was an incredibly progressive statement.

Meanwhile, Clark sits on the board of the NED.

[Scoopie]

84. Whatever

I still think Edwards is a fake, a phony and not very worldly.

[AP]

86. I think that's exactly what Linda Tripp thought of Bill Clinton.

And it's why she justified to herself trying to take him down. She thought people like Bush were born to rule, and people like Clinton were born to live in trailer parks.

It's basically a class thing.

My feeling was that Clinton's background gave him a great foundation for being president, and it was backgrounds like the Bushes' which make me ill thinking that they're the ones who get to govern.

[surfermaw]

96. I think Clark is a republican trying to stir something here

Yes I Do.

[Hav]

98. Do you have a link for these numbers?

I saw some "similar" numbers but I think you interpreted them wrong.
I think these polls said that of those who are supportive of Bush did overwhelmingly vote for Edwards and not that 70% of Edwards voters were supportive of Bush.

I looked at Tennessee:
75% Dems 5% Reps and 20% Indep. participated.
Of the 5% of Reps, 30% voted for Clark and 26% for Edwards.
Independent 25% for Clark and 32% for Edwards.

Of those who considered themselves 'Very Conservative':
28% for Clark and 26% for Edwards.

14% of all participants had an enthusiastic or satisfied opinion of Bush.
Only looking at these 14%, 37% who were satisfied with Bush voted for Edwards and 35% who were enthusiastic of Bush voted for Edwards.
It is plain wrong to say that 72% of those who voted for Edwards were supportive or enthusiastic of Bush.
It is even wrong to add these 2 numbers and say that 72% of those who had an satisfied and enthusiastic opinion of Bush voted for Edwards because you would somehow end up with 200% when you do the same with the other candidates. He got a bit more than a third of those and not 72%.
When I look at the numbers, making a quick guess, only like 5% points of his 27% where people who had a satisfied or an enthusiastic opinion of Bush. (take roughly a third of 14% of all voters) The other part of around 21% points were angry and dissatisfied with Bush.
Of Clark's total result, around 3% points (from 22/23% total) were people who had a satisfied or an enthusiastic opinion of Bush. The same for Kerry.

So yes, this group preferred Edwards and but it is far away from your numbers.



Make no mistake about it, I really like Clark but I also like Edwards and we should be honest and fair in regards to every candidate.
These "70% of Edwards' voters were for Bush" numbers that got repeated on DU quite often are just plain wrong.

[Scoopie]

26. It's spelled HATING

EOM

[citizen snips]

29. Who gives a damn?

:wtf:

[Scoopie]

34. It proves a point, actually.

[citizen snips]

39. My point is that the Shelton hating will never end.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[citizen snips]

48. Yeah I read I know how to spell hating.

[R3dD0g]

51. Who is Shelton

And what did he / she / it do to appear in so many messages?

[Scoopie]

58. Hugh Shelton

The neo-con former general who said he'd never vote for Clark because of unnamed "character and integrity" issues.
Edwards hired him as a "consultant" in his race.
Which is pretty low, but it's not one of my major concerns.

[R3dD0g]

60. Oh, that Shelton.

Edwards hired that piece of shit?

I didn't know that.

In that case, I'm with whoever said that Edwards is a deal killer.

[Padraig18]

64. No, Edwards did not hire Shelton.

Hugh Shelton was never a part of the Edwards campaign. They are friends through the university alumni association, and Edwards consulted with Shelton on some military matters.

[Scoopie]

67. What is the difference?

The point is he took advice from "that piece of shit."

[Padraig18]

68. The point is this:

As I said, he was never a part of Edwards' campaign, and to task Edwards with Shelton's answer to a reporter's shouted question says a great deal about some Clark supporter's level of maturity. He may well be a 'piece of shit', but he was not EDWARDS' piece of shit.

[Scoopie]

69. It still isn't high on my concern list

I was just answering the question posed.

[Padraig18]

70. So was I.

:)

[Scoopie]

71. BTW

I WOULD vote for a Kerry/Graham, a Kerry/Cleland or a Kerry/Richardson ticket.
It's not Clark or nothing with me.
I just want to make that clear.

[Padraig18]

74. I'll vote for Kerry/whoever-the-hell-he-picks.

It's his choice, and he should kbnow better than I who is most likely to serve him, and us, well as VP. I don't have enough hubris to think that I know better than Sen. Kerry on that point.

[Scoopie]

83. But I can't vote that way

I just think too much, I guess and I really would be scared of Edwards being a heartbeat away.
I'm not being mean, I'm just telling it like it is.

[citizen snips]

88. I am sure you live.

If Edwards is choosen to be Kerry's running mate.

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

127. I'll vote for Kerry regardless

though I'm happy if he chooses Edwards.

As for "writing in a vote," well you may was well vote for Nader if he gets on the ballot. Geez.

[surfermaw]

145. And you are using this excuse to help a republican get elected

The only reason Clark isn't running on the republican ticket is because the republicans want have him.

[Jai4WKC08]

132. That's just not true, Pad

Shelton was officially listed on Edwards' staff. Foreign policy advisor, I think was the title.

[AP]

77. That's like me saying Clark's connection to N.E.D. means that if he's on

the ticket, I won't vote for Kerry.

It makes no sense.

(By the way, I'd vote for Kerry-Clark, but I wonder what'd happen to VZ if there were TWO people on the ticket who don't seem to like the way the democratic process works down there.)

[Scoopie]

85. I'm sorry...

What's VZ?

[AP]

87. Venezuela

[surfermaw]

144. Edwards and Shelton are of the same state

didn't Bush get rid of Shelton because he was a democrat?

[citizen snips]

62. This is who Shelton is.

http://edwards.senate.gov/press/2002/0919a-pr.html

[Jai4WKC08]

134. No, that's who Edwards says Shelton is

Shelton is really a POS who stabbed a fellow officer in the back. There is nothing lower. He lost a lot of respect from other officers when they found out what really went down.

[surfermaw]

121. You know the power of manuvering, don't you ...tried it with REP.

[flpoljunkie]

59. Hi, AP. Edwards did join Kerry & Clinton, and they both welcomed him...

in my opinion. Kit Seelye is an incredibly immature hack who sought to destroy Al Gore in 2000 with her snippy idiocies.

[AP]

72. Thanks. I'll check it out on the CSPAN archive, but I trust all the DU'ers

who saw something other than what Seelye reported.

By the way, I don't think Seelye is immature. I think she's a very sophisticated hack who knows exactly what she's doing when she tells lies like the ones she did in this article.

[flpoljunkie]

73. It shows a lack of maturity to trash Democrats the way she does.

Okay, she's a bitch, too.

[AP]

76. I think it's what she gets paid to do, frankly.

[flpoljunkie]

78. AP, read dailyhowler.com today; it will make you feel a lot better.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh032604.shtml

“KIT” SEELYE’S WORLD OF SPIN: Katharine “Kit” Seelye lives to spin you. More precisely, she lives to spin you against Major Democrats. We’ve told you before: Seelye’s reports are drenched in spin—and this morning is no exception. The scribe pretends to report on last night’s Democratic “Unity Dinner”—an event which produced the page-one lead story in this morning’s Washington Times. Yes, the Washington Times thought this was big news—and Stephen Dinan reports the event fairly straight. But Seelye drips spin from beginning to end. Try to believe that this was published and delivered right to our doorstep:

SEELYE (pgh 1): To swelling trumpets, the biggest stars in the Democratic firmament strode on stage here Thursday night, but true to form, they seemed to lack a certain coordination.
True to form, Seelye injected her negative spin from the start; the Democrats “seemed” to “lack a certain coordination,” she opines. The negative imagery was there to guide you. But to what troubling event did Seelye refer? This is what had the scribe troubled:
SEELYE (2): Leading the parade were two former presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, followed by the party’s presumptive nominee this year, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, then former Vice President Al Gore.

(3) But as Mr. Kerry’s former rivals filled the stage, any choreography was lost. Senator John Edwards maneuvered smack into the center, between Mr. Clinton and Mr. Kerry.

(4) The stars grasped hands and lifted them in an awkward semicircle, then dropped them, unsure of the next step. Laughing, Mr. Clinton turned to Mr. Kerry and said, “O.K. John, you’re running this, what are we supposed to do?”

The problem? Edwards stood in the center, not on the end! All the choreography was lost! At the New York Times, this troubling event produced the negative imagery which led this morning’s clowning “report.” Dems were “awkward” and “unsure,” we were told. But then, that’s how Big Dems always “seem” when this clown makes a joke of your discourse.

more...

[AP]

80. Yep. I'm glad I'm not the only person who noticed.

[spooky3]

92. thanks!

[tishaLA]

81. Seelye is an idiot

She's not worth me wasting my beautiful mind on. Or a good sentence that doesn't end in a preposition.

[JI7]

89. Edward's DID move to towards Kerry

when the other candidates who ran in the primary came out, edwards was the only one who went up directly to kerry and kerry gave edwards a hug. the other candidates kind of stood around and shook kerry's hand when he reached out. so in comparison to that edwards was much more assertive. after kerry gave edwards a hug, clinton came by and put this arm around edwards. and then kerry grabbed edwards hand to do the raising of the clasped hands thing.

[citizen snips]

91. That was a great event.

I am glad Edwards received a warm welcoming from Kerry.

That event raised a lot of money for Kerry.

[surfermaw]

146. Don't you think it was a signal to the world

This is going to be the VP..If he isn't many people will be disappointed, many people voted for Kerry because they thought Edwards would be the second man on the ticket..however they thought Kerry would be the most electable

[ScreamingMeemie]

93. Might I say...."Big Whoopty"

This is all she can report on? :hi:

[surfermaw]

95. Edwards was placed exactly where he was wonted, this is a team

This has been a team since day one, each one had a part to play and they each played their parts...Unity my friends, you were looking at the Presidential Candidate, the V.P. candidate and the Former President. When you dd Edwards to the ticket, Kerry jumps 10% in the polls...

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

128. Re: "Edwards was placed exactly where he was wanted..."

I thought it is interesting...if you look at the photo, you have the former VP, John Kerry, Edwards and then the former President. It's as if the former administration is "bridging" the hopefully soon-to-be-elected new one (or new ticket).

Just my perspective. It is possible that the placement of Edwards was completely planned. Also, notice how Dean and Clark (and today, Gephardt) have been very visible, stumping for Kerry. I wonder if Edwards is behind the scenes, gearing up for the long-haul. Just a guess.

[cosmokramer]

99. It wasn't just Seelye who reported it that way...

...other networks and reporters did as well and it was OBVIOUS to everyone there and everyone who saw it. He practically knocked down five people to get there, and ruined the Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Carter photo shot.

Too bad he is muscling up and kissing up for nothing. He won't get VP. At best, it's AG, and that's all.

[Cuban_Liberal]

100. WHO else reported it that way?

May we have links to the news accounts, since it's such common knowledge, cosmo? :eyes:

[cosmokramer]

102. How tiresome. Here's more proof, and more to come...

"""I want you to look at something. I'm probably the only guy who notices things like this but look at this picture from the big Democratic National Committee Unity Dinner (search) rally Thursday in Washington.


The guy who wants to be president – Sen. John Kerry -- with two Democrats who "were" president: Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. And Al Gore too.

What the heck is John Edwards (search) doing?

He manages to crash a perfectly planned unity photo shot by muscling into the picture. Look at him! I think he took out five guys getting up there!

I mean, is it me, or is this Edwards guy pushing it?

All the other presidential candidates relegated themselves to the sidelines. There was Al Sharpton and Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt all dutifully playing second and third and fourth fiddles.

Not Edwards. He was right there with Kerry. Gosh, he looked like his running mate. Maybe that was the point.

But Sen. Edwards, may I offer a suggestion? Stop trying so hard. You're bordering on looking like a suck-up. And worse, a party crasher. You're Eddie Haskell in pinstripes!

You just ruined your party's money shot. And don't those guys know it.

No offense, Sen. Edwards, but you can kiss your running mate hopes goodbye. That one smarmy move will cost you.

Don't get me wrong. Bosses like to be sucked up to. They just don't like it when you make it so obvious."""

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115359,00.html

And wait, there is more...give me 24 hrs to round all of them up for you since you are going to complain that the New York Times, AND Fox (which is sometimes questionable--but they were not the only ones who reported it this way) AND CNN are not good enough for you...

How tiresome.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cosmokramer]

104. Excuse me?

You are incredibly rude!

Apparently, you didn't read the end sentence did you???????


The New York Times, Fox, AND CNN all viewed it the same.

Seems to me the bias is yours...there aren't enough sources to make you believe anything! Oh, but wait, there will be more, but I suppose you didn't read down long enough on the post to find out...

[citizen snips]

106. Fox News wrote it.

[Cuban_Liberal]

107. I don't see a link to CNN.

As for being rude, the truth sometimes IS impolite. I've yet to see a single one of your posts in any thread that even mentioned Sen. Edwards that didn't contain a brute-force bludgeoning of him, or some ham-handed attack on his character. :shrug:

[citizen snips]

108. I have been saying it all throughout this thread.

The Edwards hating will never end. The primaries ended a long time ago lets just grow up already.

[atre]

111. There is a contingent of Clark to Kerry folks here

who are poor excuses for Democrats. These are the most angry people on the face of the earth (and I am a very angry, bitter person myself), and they resort to ANYTHING- anything at all- to attack people they view as a stumbling block to whatever goals they hope to achieve. These people they attack are almost exclusively Democrats. In fact, if you peruse these theads for these individuals' posts, you won't find but a handful of anti-Bush posts; they only target fellow Democrats and traditional Democratic constituencies, it seems.

What's most scary is the power of cognitive dissonance among these folks... Fox News? Neil Cavuto? Rush Limbaugh? Sure, they'll believe them if they say what these guys want them to say. What's next for these guys? RNC talking points? Bush Cheney 2004 campaign literature? Who here would really be surprised? Not me.

If Clark is anything like his supporters on this website, then I hope he has no future whatsoever within the party. Fortunately, I do not think that is the case.

[citizen snips]

112. They will find anything to attack Edwards with.

Now I see post from what Neil Cavuto said who is a repuke. This is stuff is lower than RNC talking points.

[LandOLincoln]

138. You mean those RNC talking points

that you lot regularly use(d) against Wes Clark? Those talking points?

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Carolinian]

133. WELL SAID ATRE

I have been amazed by the Clark crowd. Do you read their blog? Unbelievable!!

[spooky3]

142. You don't sound "angry, bitter" to me--you sound RIGHT!

The only thing I would add is that there are some very nice Clark supporters here too.

[AP]

117. Kit Seelye @ NYT, CNN and Fox are the biggest media whores going today.

If there's a party line on this event coming from those quarters, you could probably interpret the OPPOSITE of what they say as the truth, and you can assume that the event was HELPING Democrats.

Furthermore, I've now watched the event on CSPAN and I can tell you that Kit Seelye is definitely full of shit.

The group walked up on stage, they were milling about shaking hands, and Clinton intitiated the hand raising when he looked around as realized that at that moment it would look pretty good.

And if they wanted another shot for the press with Clinton and Kerry in the center, they could have done it.

And the idea that they were looking for a shot Carter and Clinton -- former presidents -- in the center is absurd. Carter is probably a pretty decent guy, but I don't think a "money' shot for the Dems would have him anywhere near the center.

[surfermaw]

124. Edwards...is plainly going to be the VP

V.P Gore...Next Kerry, and next his VP Edwards and then the former President Clinton...it was cut and dried as it has been from day one, no matter who would have been elected,Edwards would be the V.P...Cry if you want to, Clark isn't going to happen....Edwards brings KErry and automatic 10%....Clark looses him and instant 10% That is the way the ball bounced and the cookie crumbled.

[cosmokramer]

125. hahahahahahahaahahaha....

...You are a positive RIOT!

I never said Clark WOULD be VP, but his odds are far better than Edwards. Regardless, Clark will be in the administration.

Edwards doesn't have a CHANCE at ALL of being VP, so cry if YOU want to.

Edwards does NOT bring Kerry 10%+ nor does Clark LOSE 10% for Kerry (if that were the case, why is Clark so often Kerry's spokesperson? Why is CLARK stumping all over the country for him? Kerry TRUSTS him to be his mouthpiece). To make such a blatant, unsubstantiated allegation is preposterous.

Here are the FACTS about Edwards NOT being VP:

1)He has legislative only experience, and minimal at that. Kerry will not, without question, choose a running mate with legislative only exp.

2)He cannot win his home state, and is doubtful to help at all in the states that will really matter.

3)He offers nothing by way of FP/Diplomatic experience to the ticket, which THE KERRY CAMPAIGN said they would require of the VP, and which Kerry currently LAGS Bush in public opinion polls. Edwards cannot, and will not, add anything that Kerry needs in spades (i.e. more FP/Diplomatic exp).

So take your personal attack ('cry if you want to') back to the playground.

[Carolinian]

131. The photos aren't impressive

Empty suit
Breck Girl
Eddie Haskell
SOMW
EdWarts
Chucky

Kramer, you will reap what you have sown.

[DemDogs]

135. No one puts Clark in the cabinet

He is a loose cannon. He said Kerry had a bimbo. He said he was a general and outranked Kerry, and he didn't say it with a smile on his face. Who in the world is going to trust their reputation to Wesley Clark? Not John Kerry. This is his one shot.

He is apparently a smart man, but being a general means you don't have to answer to anyone and he thought that was still true -- that he didn't have to know anything about domestic affairs. (He said was pro-abortion! Pro-abortion! What a dunce. When he was asked about Fannie Mae, he obviously knew nothing whatsoever, so he talked about when he bought a house. Geez.) At most debates he looked like a deer in the headlights.

When his ENTIRE staff told him to get out after Feb. 3rd, he still wouldn't listen to advice. Gert said stay in so he did.

[LandOLincoln]

136. So nice to see people posting the same old same old...

bullshit.

Clark NEVER said Kerry had a "bimbo," and more importantly, he never suggested the Kerry campaign would "implode because of an intern problem," or whatever Sludge claimed he said.

TNR's Ryan Lizza--who was present when Clark said whatever it was he said--debunks the Rovian smear here:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/campaignjournal?pid=1337

And of course Kerry and Clark tossed that grenade right back into Karl's tubby lap when Clark flew to Milwaukee on 2/13/04 to endorse Kerry.

Nice try, though.

[atre]

130. Cosmo

Go look at the CSPAN website video.

I expect a sincere apology after you've done that. Be sure to mention how silly it was for you to have relied upon a Bush mouthpiece working for the NY Times and FoxNews' own Neil Cavuto (!?!?) of all people!

Surely, in retrospect, even you now realize how wrong you really were?

[citizen snips]

105. Look at post #89.

Edwards did not knock down anyone.

[atre]

109. Are you sure you're on the right website?

This isn't a forum for hurling constant attacks at Democrats, especially ridiculous ones refuted by every single reputable source to address the issue. When you've resorted to Fox News for your daily anti-Democrat soundbyte, you know this isn't "home" to people of your type.

You're showing your true stripes, Cosmo.

[citizen snips]

110. I have seen it posted twice.

It has been posted twice already can you belive it?:wtf:

[LandOLincoln]

139. Pot...kettle...black.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Didn't one of y'all just aim that at us Clarkies?

[zulchzulu]

114. Hey! Nice job cropping out the other candidates!

It is on CSPAN, btw...

[sadiesworld]

115. Is BOTH an acceptable answer?

[Darkamber]

126. Check it out over on CSPAN now

Just looked at it twice and it looks just like Edwards walked up to shake hands with Clinton first. Then he stepped forward and gave Kerry a hug. Kerry turned to the other side and shook hands with everyone on the other side of Gore. Clinton stepped away as well. Edwards turns and shook hands with Sharpton and most likely Carter as well. Kind of hard for him to climb over Kerry and Gore to get on the other side at that point.

Then Clinton came back and moved in between Edwards and Carter. Edwards could have moved the other direction, but Clinton seemed to have made the choice and picked that spot.

It wasn't any big deal. Just a ton of movement quickly with alot of hand shaking followed by the hand holding. But Clinton could have easily stood next to Kerry if he wanted to from what I could see.

Seems to be this is all a much to do about nothing....

[VOX]

143. Excellent account, Darkamber...

I haven't caught this yet on CSPAN, but your account is so detailed that I may not have to!

:toast:

[Carolinian]

129. JRE is smart and handsome

He made the most of the moment. Given the chance, that is just what Gen Clark would have done, so BACK OFF OF EDWARDS. Every day the Clark blog if full of hatred for Edwards. Plots and plans are always being made by the Clark crowd to tear Edwards down. Why? To what end? So Clark can be VP? If that's the case, why can't you just sell Clark based on his merits and leave Edwards out of it?

[spooky3]

141. Welcome to DU, Carolina Girl NC!

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

147. Ditto the Welcome!

Love that "Hunk with the Spunk!"

Val ;)