What a parallel: McCain people going after Palin just like Kerry people went after Edwards

[beachmom]

Because McCain will most definitely not run for POTUS again, his people are free to get the truth out about Palin sooner than Kerry staffers could do the same about Edwards. It is clear that although Edwards was not the big disaster for the ticket Palin was, it seems Kerry staffers got an inkling to what kind of character JRE had, and wanted to make sure he did not get the Dem nomination in 2008. This was before his affair, of course, but it seems there were serious problems with him during the 2004 campaign.

First, McCain/Palin. In addition to the Vanity Fair article, these internal e-mails are really quite stunning:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/01/politics/main5128672.shtml

And Schmidt's reaction makes me feel that the Republicans are not TOTALLY insane. Hell, he sounds like a bunch of liberal bloggers here:

Palin sends an e-mail cc'd to a lot of people where she tells a blatant lie:

"That's not part of their platform and he was only a 'member' bc independent alaskans too often check that 'Alaska Independent' box on voter registrations thinking it just means non partisan. He caught his error when changing our address and checked the right box. I still want it fixed."

Check out this reply by Schmidt:

"Secession. It is their entire reason for existence. A cursory examination of the website shows that the party exists for the purpose of seceding from the union. That is the stated goal on the front page of the web site. Our records indicate that todd was a member for seven years. If this is incorrect then we need to understand the discrepancy. The statement you are suggesting be released would be innaccurate. The innaccuracy would bring greater media attention to this matter and be a distraction. According to your staff there have been no media inquiries into this and you received no questions about it during your interviews. If you are asked about it you should smile and say many alaskans who love their country join the party because it speeks to a tradition of political independence. Todd loves his country

We will not put out a statement and inflame this and create a situation where john has to adress this."

As Andrew Sullivan says:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/the-odd-lies-of-sarah-palin-xxxi-todd-and-the-aip.html#more

These are the words of a sane professional grappling with smeone who can only be called a pathological whack-job, unable to accept criticism and responding to it with pathetic untruths and diva-flame-outs and personal vendettas. This person could have been a heartbeat away from being president of the United States in a moment of economic crisis and national security peril. Her selection remains the most surreal moment in modern American political history. That she is a serious candidate to be the GOP nominee in 2012 is a sign of something very, very seriously wrong with the contemporary American right.

Clearly, Edwards was not as bad as Palin, but he still lacked basic tenets of a good character and was a total liar after the 2004 campaign. Although much of it will be sleazy, Andrew Young, Edwards's aid, is going to put out a book that will include info on the clashing that happened during the 2004 campaign. We mustn't forget this:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/18/edwardss_tough_talk_claims_of_04_disputed/

WASHINGTON -- As he campaigns for president based on his aggressive criticisms of President Bush, John Edwards, a former Democratic vice presidential nominee, has said repeatedly that he had wanted to fight back against attacks on his 2004 running mate, John F. Kerry, but was stopped by the Kerry camp.

Edwards, who first made the statement in interviews after the 2004 race, has repeated it recently in private meetings with party donors as he seeks to contrast his "backbone" with Democratic rivals whom he portrays as unwilling to confront Bush over the Iraq war.

But Kerry and more than a half-dozen former high-ranking Kerry-Edwards campaign officials dispute the idea that Edwards favored a tougher strategy in 2004, and maintain that Edwards often refused their requests to make sharper attacks against Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

The former campaign aides said Kerry made a personal appeal to Edwards in a face-to-face meeting in Ohio in early September 2004, and Edwards vowed to turn up the heat on their Republican opponents.

But the vice presidential nominee, who had presented himself as a campaigner with a positive message, continued to shy away from aggressive attacks, according to the former aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were describing internal campaign communications.

Indeed, Edwards responded to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth political advertisements only after Kerry delivered the first blow.

This forum has had its ups and downs discussing Edwards. But given all that we know now, picking him seems to be Kerry's greatest mistake in 2004. Not as disastrous a mistake as it was for McCain who picked Palin, but I do see some parallel here, and frankly, I am not going to walk around on eggshells about this fact anymore.

[TayTay]

1. I think it was a bad choice

that was "forced" upon the ticket that year. Presidential candidates do not construct everything by themselves. The Democratic Party and all the "Powers That Be" at the top structure of that Party have a hand in constructing the ticket. That is also what happened in 2004. This was a "shotgun marriage."

There were advantages to having former Senator Edwards on the ticket and it showed. There were also distinct disadvantages that revealed slowly as the the two candidates ran their campaigns. I am not sure we could have known ahead of time about the disadvantages; I think they had to unspool over time.

I don't think the ticket ended up working out. However, the choice in 04 was not mistaken because of this. They went with the best info they had at the time with the best intention of constructing the best ticket they could. Hindsight is a powerful thing, but we shouldn't use it to blind us to what the circumstances were at the time. What we know now was not known then, to the sorrow of many.

[TayTay]

2. speaking of saying difficult things in public

How long will the Democrats be able to tolerate Sens. Byrd and Kennedy being absent from the Chamber. There is a good chance that neither Senator will make it back. Should they resign their seats? (Both would have Dem replacements, but MA would have to hold a special election so it would take 6 months to fill the seat.)

[YvonneCa]

3. I know; it's sad. Maybe waiting until...

...the end of the year would give some stability to the numbers and a chance to get things done first. Start the new year...and Obama's second year...off with new members.


??????

[beachmom]

4. Unfortunately, we need their votes for health care and climate change.

As in they can't phone it in; they must physically come to the Senate to vote. I fear that neither are able to make that trip, and will never be able to. And we need those votes. Very tough situation.

[YvonneCa]

5. If that's the case...and it's really sad to me, if true...

...then they should resign. The question then becomes... Are they well enough to make that decision themselves? I don't know the protocol for such things. Who must decide?

[wisteria]

9. I for one an not ready to face that possibility. I think we should just wait and see what happens.

I don't think either one should feel forced to resign.

[Inuca]

14. ....

:cry: Does anybody know anything more specific about Teddy or we just assume that things are bad because he practically relinquished thr control of thr heslth bill to Dodd?

[sandnsea]

6. I thought it was a good choice

I can't think of anybody, except perhaps Obama or an unforeseen woman, who would have been any better at the time. It wasn't really Edwards' character issues that were the problem, in the sense of scandals. The problem was his reluctance to go all out for the ticket. He put his 2008 dream ahead of 2004 reality. I don't know how you see that kind of opportunism ahead of time. I don't see anything in JRE's history that would have indicated an inability to work with national campaign experts or be determined to win the White House. Turns out he wasn't, but I don't know how that could have been foreseen, and don't know if anybody else would have been much more help for the exact same reasons Edwards didn't help.

[beachmom]

7. I thought it was a good choice until the fall when I saw that docufilm

by Alexandra Pelosi, where JRE's obvious fakeness was quite apparent, and his lackluster debate performance, where Dick Cheney railroaded him. I think there were other candidates who would have been much better. In the context of 2004 with zero hindsight, I would say Edwards added ZERO to the ticket but did not subtract from it either. Still, JRE did not put one state in play, did not play the attack dog (which actually may have made the difference in August), and performed poorly in the debates. And given what we know now, it's kind of embarrassing that he was on the ticket.

[JI7]

10. Kerry thought he was a phony before he was pressured into picking him

[ginnyinWI]

17. I was lukewarm on Edwards, too

I saw him in person at two different rallies (swing state!) and each time he was the same--came off as kind of phoney or pre-packaged. Stump speech the same each time. He got cheers and crowds, but like me, many of them were probably Dems who wanted Kerry to win and get rid of Bush.

I remember thinking it wasn't worth trying to get to the front of the ropeline to get a handshake.

By stark contrast, the Kerry rally was a lot more exciting. Teresa was there as well as JK, and he was absolutely charismatic.

[wisteria]

8. I will be kind and just say I was not thrilled when I heard he had been chosen as VP.

I could not put my finger on it at the time, but I just thought he seemed insincere. I was always hoping he would have chosen Gephart. He was a little less exciting, but I though they made a good fit. I never thought Kerry and Edwards meshed.

[JI7]

12. i was on DU then and it's an example of how DU can be soooooooo Wrong about things

people were ready to attack Kerry if he picked Gephardt. when that newspaper claimed he picked Gephardt a lot of attacks already started and people started claiming he was jealous of Edwards and other shit.

first of all Gephardt has a far more liberal record than Edwards so those attacks were not justified in the first place.

i agree, looking back Gephardt was probably the best pick for Kerry.

[wisteria]

13. I wasn't around then so I was not aware that the blogs were for Edwards.

You are right, they can be so wrong some times.

[JI7]

11. the Edwards people were very nasty to Kerry after the election and until he admitted

to the affair. this includes people on the campaign and just regular supporters.

remember the crap aobut how Edwards wanted to fight but Kerry woudln't let him ? so Edwards was willing to go against Kerry during the campaign when it came to certain slogans and signs but when it came to recounts and votes he couldn't go against Kerry ?

you know how many times i saw that crap "Edwards wanted to fight" without any proof. and this came from his wife also.

After Kerry endorsed Obama it was the Edwards people who were the worst to Kerry. worse than the Hillary people. they acted like he owed Edwards something. as if it was Edwards who had picked him to be VP .

[karynnj]

15. It is an interesting parallel - I think Kerry's was more understandable.

Both were bad choices, but Palin should easily have been seen as unacceptable, where it is harder to see that Edwards was at the time of choosing.

It was more important to win, even with a mediocre VP, than to lose with a stellar team. Also, like in 2008, if you looked at the list of possible VPs, many high profile choices had problems. Clearly from Shrum's account Kerry did not trust Edwards and he had an additional meeting before selecting him. I would assume that Edwards in that meeting must have been able to diminish Kerry's concerns.

It is very likely they could have won, if Edwards was exactly what he seemed in June 2004. 2004 was close and Edwards was, at best, dead weight. Kerry didn't even get what he had all rights to expect - a VP, who would perform at the level he had for the previous 6 months. Edwards in the general election (even at the convention) was a pale, unenthusiastic version of what he was in the primaries. Also in the last primary debate, he (annoyingly) had "me too" answers for every question Kerry was given first - far from the rogue "I'm not using your slogan" Edwards of the campaign. It was reasonable for Kerry to expect Edwards to be at least as enthusiastic as he had a far better chance winning the VP than he did the nomination and loyalty. Given Edwards' storied past as a trial lawyer, he should have been able to expect Edwards using those skills to defend him (Kerry). That past, with debate training on the issues, should made him likely to do far better against Cheney.The question is whether any other VP's contributions would have exceeded the likely negative media reaction - likely claiming Kerry was jealous of Edwards' "star power" (visible mostly to the media only.)

Both Kerry and McCain faced tough races, where the other party started with the advantage. Both likely knew they needed the strong backing of their party and the support of the segment of the media that was on their side. Picking someone these people wanted would seem the way to get as much of that support as possible. In McCain's case, he did get the support of the right wing media and I think all the support he wanted from his party. Even after picking the party darling, Kerry didn't get either.

Edwards supposedly had Kennedy and Clinton pushing him plus a lot of mainstream media support. When EE had her recent book tour, Time and other media lined to their coverage including videos of a joint interviews of the couples when the Kerry/Edwards ticket was first picked. Nearly every article or video I saw essentially insulted Kerry by asking him questions such as whether Edwards brought the energy and charisma he lacked and spoke of possible concern that he could out shine Kerry. Now, the primary results show Kerry was preferred over Edwards by at least 2 to 1 - and the video from Iowa of their rallies show Kerry as the one with the far more enthusiastic crowds. So, those questions were biased and quite possibly fed Edwards' narcissism and it created a negative impression of the far more impressive and interesting Kerry.

Two questions I have are whether Edwards and Palin really passed the threshold to be President and whether the vetting was sufficient. I think Edwards was adequately vetted. Nothing came out that the campaign didn't know about. I think that Palin was poorly vetted - either McCain knew all the baggage and recklessly picked her or they missed all this stuff that was immediately available.

The harder question is whether they were ready to be President. Palin clearly was NOT, but Edwards had passed some "tests". During the primaries, the media for the most part considered he met that test and he had considerable support from them. He also was seen by powers in the party as a possible future President. It is hard to define what a President needs. Kerry did say that after a time period of being VP, he was comfortable that Edwards could be a credible President. This though speaks to things like intelligence and speaking skills. However, Kerry had qualms about his character and integrity. There is likely nothing that is really more important in a President. There are many examples of Presidents with major gaps here. Nothing in June 2004 suggested Edwards had more problems in this area than Bill Clinton.

Edwards was clearly chosen because he was seen as the best chance to win. Given everything at stake, a choice of a person with more integrity and better personal qualities, if he/she were thought to be less likely to make the team a winner really could not be justified. It backfired because it seems that early on Edwards must have decided Kerry could not win, so he used 2004 to enhance his own image. This was not predictable because running a good campaign with his original energy and working harder on the debate would have been better even if Kerry lost. Not to mention, did he really thing HRC would not be favored in 2008?

[karynnj]

16. Here's a HP article that questions in light of Palin and Edwards the selection process

The diaryist gets called on his view that the top of the ticket is vetted by the primaries and there is less on the bottom of the ticket. Edwards did make it through the primaries in 2004 with no major flaws exposed.

The fact is that he had not yet had his affair and had he become VP, it is likely he might not have as his life would have been different.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lincoln-mitchell/sarah-palin-john-edwards_b_227195.html