Why Is It So Hard To Understand Why Kerry Wouldn't Endorse Edwards?

[THUNDER HANDS]

Edwards did nothing to help Kerry. He couldn't attract ANY media attention as VP. He lost his debate with Cheney. He couldn't carry his own state. And he flat out lied to Kerry about being the only person he would tell his dead-son story to.

Plus, I think it's obvious Kerry wanted Gephardt as his VP - but chose Edwards because he thought Edwards would bring more voters in.

But it was fairly obvious watching them that they weren't best buddies.

[MADem]

1. He didn't HAVE to endorse Edwards.

He chose the guy to be his VP. Edwards did everything JK's way during the campaign. He kept his mouth shut even when he disagreed. He was LOYAL to JK during the campaign.

JK rewards that loyalty by publicly fucking the guy.

It's not that JK had to endorse EDWARDS, he just could have WAITED and not endorsed anyone for awhile. No one threatened him with death if he didn't endorse TODAY, after all.

Instead, he fired for effect--he timed this so it would really hurt Edwards, coming off a second and third place finish, and kick HRC in the ass as she savors her first victory. It's a childish little 'two-fer.'

Petty and mean-spirited, is how it is coming across.

[redqueen]

2. You know... I didn't see it that way at first...

I saw it as Kerry just liking Obama more and thinking he'd be a better candidate to run against whoever gets the nod on the puke side.

However the more I read here... the more I'm tempted to perceive it the way you've described it.

[tritsofme]

3. Would Edwards have dropped out if Kerry was a candidate?

I doubt it, he was already in Iowa before the dust settled on 2004.

So if Edwards wasn't loyal enough to see if Kerry was running again before throwing his hat in the ring, what exactly does Kerry owe Edwards?

[MADem]

12. That's some nice fiction, but it isn't the way it went down. At all. The timeline:

Kerry took his size fourteen shoe and stuck it in his mouth with that "Stupid troops get stuck in Iraq" line. That happened in OCTOBER 06: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/11/01/kerrys_stuck_in_iraq_remark_ignites_firefight_with_bush_gop/

That business stunk up the room and pretty much axed any hope--not that there was much--of his running.

Edwards ANNOUNCED in DEC 06, well AFTER that implosion, and after it was crystal clear that JK wasn't going to recover from it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16239360/

Less than a month later, Kerry said he wasn't running, and it was plain that a lot went into the decision: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR2007012400943.html

The sources said his decision was not motivated by national and state polling that showed him trailing Clinton, Obama and Edwards in hypothetical 2008 matchups. They noted that Kerry has nearly $13 million in the bank, which could have been used to reintroduce himself to voters. But there are real concerns that a second national candidacy could endanger Kerry's standing in his home state.

...Edwards, who was Kerry's running mate in 2004, called the Massachusetts senator a "friend." He noted that "all Americans are fortunate to have John's experience, insight and conscience in the Senate."

Obama was similarly laudatory, predicting that Kerry "will continue to serve his country with honor and distinction in the years to come."

Many Democrats had regarded Kerry's decision as a foregone conclusion because of the competitive field, his baggage from the 2004 election and the historical unwillingness of the Democratic Party to renominate a losing presidential candidate.

Stephanie Cutter, Kerry's national spokeswoman in 2004, praised the senator for the campaign he ran, but she added: "The reality is the 2008 race moved past him months ago, and catching up would have taken much more than another candidate's implosion or last-minute surge."

Candidates can 'explore' all they want--it's the ANNOUNCEMENT that counts, though. Edwards did not announce until JK was no longer viable as a candidate due to his foot/mouth problem. Suggesting that JE's 'keeping his options open' was disloyal just isn't true.

[tired_old_fireman]

7. Kerry was for Edwards before he was against him

:sarcasm:

[MADem]

18. Heh, heh... NT

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

8. Come on, Edwards is already toast.

He hasn't won yet. He isn't going to win Nevada or South Carolina. He'll be going into super tuesday with no wins. He has zero media visibility. There's little more hurting to be done by John Edwards by Kerry or anyone else.

[MADem]

16. He hurried to get the knife in BEFORE JE left the race... nt

[Elidor]

9. He was halfheartedly loyal, and somewhat insubordinate

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.

To the end of their disappointing run, the two men were unable to agree on the script, whether for slogans or more substantive matters. And like so many political marriages, the one between Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards — Senate colleagues who became rivals then running mates but never really friends — ended in recrimination and regrets.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/us/politics/21edwards.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

He makes a good candidate, but he doesn't do very well as second fiddle. Even though I'll be voting for him in the primary, Clinton and Obama would be foolish to pick such a strong-willed veep.

You sound very bitter, btw.

[MADem]

17. You need to stop ascribing "personal" assumptions to the analysis of others

I am not "bitter." I'm an undecided voter who is down to two candidates. I have been an active campaigner and long-term financial supporter of Kerry since his failed run in Lowell (when his first wife was absolutely MISERABLE on the campaign trail). Look that up to see how far back I go.

Just because you are an advocate for someone, do not ever assume I am your opposite number. I can actually look at a situation and make a judgment without having a dog in the fight. It's a capacity more here might develop. DU gets very tiresome when one has to wade through continuous ASSumptions, frankly.

You provide me a POST MORTEM analysis of the election to bolster your assertion that there were "problems" between the two running mates.

My point, which whooshed right over your head, is that all of that "after the ball" analysis was NOT apparent to the voters while the campaign was underway. All that "insider" bullshit didn't come out until LATER.

While the campaign was going on, Edwards kept his mouth shut, did his job, and played the second banana role brilliantly. So did Mrs. Edwards, who was battling health problems and bullshit remarks about her weight. Edwards, while it MATTERED, was loyal and took the backseat. He kept his mouth shut when he probably wanted to scream. His wife got out there and worked like hell even while sick.

It's just not the mark of a gentleman to kick someone who stood by you when you needed it while they're down. Especially when it just isn't NECESSARY.

[TheDebbieDee]

4. Theory heard on Randi Rhodes states that

Kerry endorsed Obama after hearing from Obama and Edwards that Obama will pick Edwards to be his VP. Just a theory, but an interesting one if true!

[kimmerspixelated]

11. Well, that's a more positive outcome, I hope!

Otherwise, I would've hoped that he could just wait to see how things were progressing.

[MADem]

14. That's insane. The corporatist and the populist? Obama would pick Ron Paul as quick as he'd pick

Edwards....

[rocktivity]

5. Hopefully Kerry will take it a step further

and tell Obama what NOT to do.

:evilgrin:
rocknation

[BlueStater]

6. "And he flat out lied to Kerry about being the only person he would tell his dead-son story to."

Your only source for that story is that asshole Bob Shrum.

[kimmerspixelated]

10. Touche'!!!

[GreenArrow]

13. First Kucinich, now Kerry

To know him is to love him, apparently. Leaving Kucinich aside, I think Edwards wasn't a real good team player so far as the Kerry campaign was concerned. I believe Edwards himself admitted not being real comfortable in the second banana role. And once he was on the team, it wouldn't have been real easy to replace him (see, Thomas Eagleton).

[AndyA]

15. What BULLSHIT. That's a lie.

The issue between Kerry and Edwards likely came about right after the election in 2004.

John Kerry:

"My friends, the harsh fact now is that in the last election more than one million African-Americans were disenfranchised in one of the most tainted elections in history. We can do better - and we have to. We have to see to it in November that every vote counts - and every vote is counted."

He didn't do what he said he would do. Every vote didn't count in 2004, and Edwards wanted to hold out but Kerry decided to concede. Kerry threw the American people, his supporters, and everyone who stood in long lines to vote for him to the wolves: another 4 years under the Bush Regime.

And furthermore, repeating a story that was likely offered in confidence doesn't bode well for Kerry, either. And the source of that story? Shrum? Strange how others present during the same conversations don't remember them the same way Shrum does, which makes him a dubious source at best.

[THUNDER HANDS]

19. has Kerry denied the story?

just curious?