What is behind Edwards-Kerry "rivalry"?

[mountebank]

I think the real question is why Edwards is staying in the race, not Kucinich and Sharpton. The differences between Edwards and Kerry are trivial and mostly based on personality and background, not issues (you are free to disagree with that assertion). So why is Edwards staying in this thing when he's trailing Kerry by wide margins in many states voting on Super Tuesday? And why are they so damn friendly?

I figure he either honestly thinks he's going to win this thing, and there's been no pact between Edwards and Kerry, and he'll drop out after Super Tuesday if he loses substantially; or he's making his case for VP until Super Tuesday, when he'll graciously drop out.

OR, and this my choice, there's been a devilish pact between Edwards and Kerry for Edwards to stay in so they can monopolize the coverage and keep the "debate" within certain acceptable standards, i.e. the status quo. So it appears there is a debate, when there isn't. If Edwards had dropped out, resistance to Kerry would have coalesced behind an anti-Kerry, probably Kucinich, whose message of substantive change would have been given more coverage. This, of course, would be unacceptable.

[Kahuna]

1. He wants the VP nod.

nt

[Armand]

2. Because Edwards has every right to stay in and keep running.

[Kahuna]

3. That wasn't the question. The question is why is he...

running. The motive has got to be other than he has the right to run.

[Armand]

7. The question was changed after I replied.

[Kahuna]

8. Oh.. So sorry.

:hi:

[mountebank]

11. Well, actually only the title was changed. n/t

[JI7]

4. he can still win since primary isn't over

whatever one thinks of his chances, they are still not IMPOSSIBLE. i still would not say i'm 100 percent or even close to that amount in thinking kerry will win the nomination. but i like edwards so if he wins in the end i could support him.

[rucky]

5. Ask me again on Wednesday

[King of New Orleans]

6. What's to lose?

If he somehow draws an inside straight and gets the nomination he's sitting pretty.

If he loses all 10 states, then he's a guy with 6 years of elective experience who burst onto the scene and gave Kerry a run for his money.

The devilish pact theory seems far-fetched.

[mountebank]

9. Do you believe the media and Establishment limit debate?

I think the theory is only as far-fecthed as what, to me, is the obvious doctrine of limiting the scope of the debate used by the media and Establishment. Hence why you don't see Noam Chomsky that much on TV, or even the newspaper (yes, I know he recently had a piece in the Ny Times). Kerry and Edwards keep the debate within certain acceptable limits that do not substantively challenge the powers that be.

[sangh0]

10. I don't think he thinks he's going to win

I think he thinks he has a chance to win.

[DjTj]

12. He still has enough money to compete.

The facts have come out that Clark and Dean basically quit when their campaigns had fallen into debt that could not be repaid if they continued their campaigns.

Somehow or another, Edwards has been able to remain solvent, so he has no reason to drop out.

I gave him money to run for President, and I expect him to spend my money on running for President. He's keeping that promise - no secret deals required.

[SEAburb]

14. media paid transportation sure helps

Why hasn't Edwards changed campaign tactic, when his current tactics fall short at every primary? If Edwards had taken a more aggressive style of campaigning after Dean and Clark dropped out, I'd believe he was really in to win.

[TheDonkey]

13. Edwards is running a positive campaign. Like Kerry, JK likes JE

as as a friend.

They are in the same party and want to help America. Unlike some people on DU you can have a civilized discussion with someone you disagree with slightly (and the differences are slight).

[mountebank]

15. I'd like to see some Kucinich supporters weigh in on this one. n/t

[RichM]

16. Your last paragraph basically nails it, IMO. The word "pact" should

not be taken to imply an explicitly stated agreement - but in effect, the process amounts to that.

The whole point of what's happening is, in your apt phrase, to keep the "debate" within certain acceptable standards.

Note, for example, how little substantive discussion of Iraq there was last night. A Martian who'd just arrived on Earth for the debate would never realize, from what was said, that the US had launched a war based on allegations of WMD, and FOUND NONE. The word "oil" wasn't EVEN MENTIONED (DK often manages to slip it in, but he didn't last night). The horror of the occupation; the killings of Iraqi civilians -- was not EVEN MENTIONED. The tens of billions of contracts to Bush crony corporations was NOT EVEN MENTIONED. The fact that Kerry & Edwards voted "Yes" on the war was mentioned, but the fact that they both tacitly support the occupation was ignored, and the implications of this was left completely unexamined.

If that isn't a "narrow debate," I don't know what is.

[mountebank]

17. Yes - and aren't THESE issues the source of outrage?

Everything you mentioned gets at the heart of why we all were so originally outraged by the actions of the Bush Administration. But perhaps what is not realized or acknowledged by many on the left is that the difference between Bush's policy and that of other Presidents, including many Democrats, is merely one of scale and brazenness.

[JohnLocke]

18. Uh...sure.

:eyes::eyes::eyes:

[mountebank]

19. Could you offer something substantive? n/t