You know what Bill Richardson owes Bill Clinton? Not a damn thing.

[cali]

What's this shit about Richardson owing some sort of fealty to the Clintons? They're not some fucking royal family. Bill Richardson was a 7 term member of the House when Clinton chose him as U.N. Ambassador. He then went on to serve as Energy Secretary. Presumably he performed to Clinton's satisfaction in those posts. He owed Clinton his due diligence in those positions, and when he left Bill's employ, he owed him nothing more. No loyalty into perpetuity. No endorsements for Bill's wife. Nothing.

It's sickening to see how many Clintonistas say that Bill Richardson or any other politician is disloyal because they don't bow down to the Clintons. Even if you argue erroneously that Richardson owes Bill something, he sure as shit doesn't owe Hillary anything, let alone his endorsement of her for President. He's not a vassal and neither is any other politician anywhere.

[TwilightGardener]

I should be stunned by the Clintons' lack of graciousness--

but I'm not. This is what we've come to expect from them--pure nastiness.

[anonymous171]

1. Clinton Dynasty demands loyalty above all else! nt

[jgraz]

16. And gives none in return.

Their treatment of Richardson should make any rational Democrat puke.

[goclark]

21. Except to the AA voters

While they have kicked us to the curb.

I just had a flash ~ remember when Bill went to sleep as MLK Jr.'s son was speaking in the church?

Everyone chalked it up to jet lag. Including me.

He and Hillary have fallen asleep on us this entire primary season.

[cboy4]

2. Actually, there is such a thing a loyalty.

I said the same thing when John Kerry stabbed Edwards in the back.

At least you find out who your true friends are I guess.

[cali]

3. That's just absurd.

Why should that be some standard? I much prefer that people use their honest judgment. As I said, there is not debt that's owed in these situations. None.

[cboy4]

11. That's perfectly fine if you feel that way. I just wouldn't

trust you with anything important involving my life.

Why would I surround myself with backstabbers? It would be dumb.

[Bicoastal]

4. Yeah, fuck Democracy and the right to voice your convictions! It's ALL about Cronyism!

Bill Richardson just doesn't get it...

:eyes:

[cboy4]

13. Well, he isn't sure whether gay people choose to be

gay or not.

So, I agree, he doesn't get it.

But besides all that, he just doesn't seem like a very loyal person. :thumbsdown:

[karynnj]

10. If anything Edwards stabbed Kerry in the back

He accepted the offer of becoming VP from Kerry and then would not even use the slogan Kerry chose, "Help is on the way" egotistically preferring his own words - leading to comments that the campaign could not decide on a slogan. This incidentally is per John Edwards, as told to the NYT in November 2007.

Edwards ran this time using the visibility he got as VP - a GIFT for Kerry - not the other way around. He paid that back by not taking the role as the junior member of the team and when it was over he and Elizabeth have criticized the Kerrys - the Kerrys, to their credit, have never said one bad word about the Edwardes. Not to mention, Edwards cut off communications - not the other way around.

Kerry helped Edwards once - giving him the VP slot. That hardly means he owed Edwards anything else - the debt goes the other way.

I don't remember you questioning why Elizabeth Edwards stabbed Teresa in the back - when Teresa was very kind to her. The comments in interviews when her book came out were politically cynical and despicable.

[cboy4]

17. Well, what ever happened, it's clear Kerry was angry about

it and holds a grudge.

[karynnj]

34. You also missed that Kerry endorsed Obama, but praised HRC and Edwards

as qualified to be President and said they would move the country in the right direction.

Read why Kerry said he endorsed Obama - it was because he would bring people together to jointly find solutions. Remember that Edwards said that both he and Obama were for change - he thought confrontation was needed - and said that Obama would negotiate. Kerry, the son of a diplomat, has always been on the negotiate side - not confrontation. Edwards' own words show that he is not what Kerry says is needed. (You can disagree and say Kerry is wrong - but, Kerry's view here is consistent with things he has always said.)

This is not a grudge - unless you are convinced that Kerry really thinks that Edwards would be a better candidate. I see no way to make that case - and picking him for VP doesn't mean he thought that - a VP is often chosen to balance the strengths of the President.

Not to mention that Edwards entire strategy depended on winning Iowa and he lost by 8 points to Obama. Edwards had already lost Iowa - where he spent a huge amount of time and he did poorly in NH when Kerry endorsed. I know YOU think Edwards the best candidate - but I, quite independent of anything related to Kerry didn't. At the point Kerry endorsed, there was not a single state where Edwards was polling ahead, he was a very clear third in national polls and he was not getting enough contributions to really run through SuperTuesday.

I have read and seen most things Kerry has said publicly about the Edwards - and he has NEVER said one negative thing. Kerry is a very disciplined person and obviously learned as a kid if you can't say something nice, say nothing. The best case you have is that he never praised him - but given the NYT story that directly quoted Edwards (Kerry was unavailable because he was in South Africa seeing the AIDS work that he and Frist wrote the legislation to pass) - he has reason to be angry. What you should take from that story is that Edwards - three years later doesn't get that he was wrong - he volunteered this as part of his criticism of Kerry's campaign.

Why is Kerry endorsing Obama "backstabbing", while Edwards' steady stream of attacks on the Kerry campaign acceptable? As the VP didn't he owe Kerry any loyalty?

[cboy4]

41. Yea, Kerry is incapable of believing Edwards can also

"bring people together to jointly find solutions," because he's mad at him.

Maybe it's justified depending on which story you believe, but let's at least be honest that Kerry is mad.

That's classy he (Kerry) hasn't said "one negative thing," but silence can speak volumes sometimes.

But what's done is done.

Not saying everything Edwards did was perfect.

I just have a lot of difficulty accepting and understanding issues like this, because I place so much emphasis on loyalty in real life.

[karynnj]

50. The problem is that you start by ASSUMING that Edwards is best

There are two parts here - Who Kerry believes is best and loyalty. Even if you assumed that Kerry owed Edwards loyalty (but mysteriously Edwards owes Kerry nothing.), would that loyalty mean that he has to endorse him - even if he thinks someone else is better?

Loyalty
Answer this:

Was it wrong for the EDWARDSES to say negative things about the Kerrys?
Did Edwards show loyalty to Kerry while speaking of the inner workings of the campaign that he was privileged to be a part of?

Consider what would have happened if the Kerrys acted as the Edwards did - and criticized them while Edwards was running. This did not happen - and that shows that he did feel a sense of loyalty there.

Choosing who to endorse:

I read Kerry's endorsement - it reads true to me. The values he ascribes to Obama fit and they match values that Kerry has held himself for decades. On a personal level, I think Obama is closer to Kerry in both temperament and values than Edwards. They both have roots as activists, both have similar values on international relations. They both have strong records on ethics and corruption.

[LiveLiberally]

49. Have you read Bob Shrum's 2007 book.: No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner ??

Kerry was a major source and some of the anecdotes he relates cast Edwards in a terrible light. And, of course, there is no way to confirm these personal conversations as true or false. But the damage was done.

[karynnj]

52. Kerry was not a major source - Shrum was an insider

and the comments you refer to were - from context in the book - things Kerry said during the campaign or soon afterward. The comments are from Shrum. You make it sound like Shrum interviewed Kerry after the election and these were stories Kerry told him for the book. That is NOT what happened. Many of the Shrum Edwards stories that reflect badly on him have nothing at all to do with Kerry. In fact, Shrum tells Kerry stories as well.

The incident that seemed to bother Edwards people most was the one about Wade. Kerry was making the biggest decision of the campaign. It seems likely that that incident concerned him and he was under intense pressure to pick Edwards. It seems reasonable that he would tell this inner team his concern. They obviously persuaded him that it didn't show a big enough character flaw to rule him out. In 2004, Kerry insisted that NO DISCUSSION get out on the VP search to spare anyone the embarrassment he experienced in 2004. Kerry had no control over Shrum in 2006/2007 when he was writing the book. Shrum was never involved in Kerry's possible 2008 run.

Blame Kerry for Kerry. If Edwards had a problem with the stories accuracies he had to disavow them. Kerry has a decades long reputation for telling the truth. If there was a lie it was Shrum's, but Edwards objected to little.

Now, what of the things both Edwards actually said out of their own mouths?

[LiveLiberally]

53. I agree that Shrum was an insider & therefore ....

had access to information re: the Kerry-Edwards campaign because of that. You're also right that many find the incident regarding Wade most troubling. I'm sorry -- I don't buy the "most important decision argument" as an excuse for disclosing personal confidences. And it is not something that Edwards can publicly "disavow" either.

My point is not to tarnish Kerry's reputation. I simply see the antagonism between Edwards and Kerry as mutual.

[karynnj]

54. I 'll just have to disagree

There are a few possibilities with the Wade thing:

It's clear that Edwards told the story at least once because if it were untrue, Edwards could and would say so - effectively calling either Shrum or Kerry a liar. Kerry has not spoken of this period to my knowledge. If you assume that the Shrum is telling the truth, then it is very likely that what Kerry described - hearing the story twice is true - and there ARE people who do that. It sounds like that disturbed Kerry, but the inner circle convinced him that it should not rule Edwards out.

This was a vetting process and sharing concerns within that circle should have been expected. There was no personal relationship between Kerry and Edwards then - this was a job interview. I have participated in job interviews in the past - including those where I was one of 2 or 3 possible peers who took the candidate out to lunch. It was our job to bring any disquieting concerns back to the group. I can see why Kerry would find the fact that this was something Edwards already told him troubling - as he said he told no one. He obviously hadn't told just Kerry, or he would remember that. (I assume that other parts of Edwards' character, record etc outweighed this as Kerry did offer him the VP slot.)

The VP decision was, of course, ultimately Kerry's. Assuming Shrum is not making things up, this was discussed and Kerry was persuaded that it did not disqualify Edwards. Would it have been better if Kerry simply returned to the small group and said that something he heard - that he didn't feel he should talk about made him uncertain? Shrum, in fact, violated the confidences of this inner circle. The fact is that in 2004, Kerry succeeded in keeping the VP selection process far more secret than past candidates did - to protect those considered. It was clearly not his intent to disclose anything - even who was considered - and he paid the price in having various rumors circulated.

I do agree that it was wrong of Shrum, having been inside this confidential bubble, to tell many of these stories. The problem with this story is that it reflects badly on Edwards - making him seem manipulative. (That private things are examined in that inner circle extended to Kerry - Shrum spoke of questioning him on the intern affair rumor - and in the book said Kerry had said he had been faithful to Teresa and there was no affair. ) That they are discussed is to be expected - that Shrum used them as fodder for a book is where the breach of confidence occurred.

I do notice that you have NOT commented on my point that the Edwardses BOTH spoke negatively of the Kerrys. I think Elizabeth Edwards was far worse in her comments on Teresa.

[LiveLiberally]

55. I did speak to the negativity of the Edwardses towards John Kerry....

I just said that I thought the antagonism was mutual and had been mutually expressed. In other words, I am not excusing negative comments made by John or Elizabeth Edwards regarding John K. or Teresa. I do take your point about Shrum; he should take the lions share of the blame for publishing the confidences of Kerry's inner circle.

But I still cannot excuse Kerry's decision to discuss with his advisers Edwards' confidential words about Wade. I too have participated in (and chaired) job searches involving the interviewing (and wining & dining) of candidates over a several day period, so I share your understanding of what "vetting" means. However, there have been several occasions when I have been told intimate personal details by the candidate that I have deliberately not shared with my colleagues. Why? Because my conversation with the candidate had not enabled me to a) interpret why this personal information was shared or b) measure the significance of this information in the candidate's life and therefore its relevance to the job position. The anecdote about Wade is in my view a similar case. Kerry was perturbed because he remembered Edwards telling him the same story a few years before. This suggested to him -- as you pointed out -- that Edwards was being manipulative or -- worse -- deliberately exploiting the tragedy of his son's death for political gain. I can understand why Kerry might be concerned about this; what I cannot understand is his assumption that Edwards was indeed being manipulative and he therefore needed to consult with his advisers as to whether this should disqualify him for the VP slot. By sharing this information, Kerry cast Edwards in an extremely negative light within his circle of advisers from the outset and the personal nature of the disclosure meant that Edwards had no way of knowing or countering that opinion. Moreover -- as Shrum's memoir testifies to -- once this information was shared, there is no way of ensuring that it wouldn't be leaked and given the same negative spin.

As for the possibility that Edwards did indeed share this anecdote more than once, let's concede that he did and in each case made it clear that this was a very personal story that he had not shared. This does not in itself indicate insincerity or an effort to manipulate. The sharing of personal tragedy -- and I personally can't imagine anything worse than losing a child -- is extraordinarily difficult, as it is impossible to convey the experience or its personal impact to someone who neither knows you nor has experienced a similar tragedy. And nothing is more painful than having personal revelations of this nature become the subject of gossip. Wade's death clearly had an important impact on Edwards' decision to enter politics. Edwards tried to encapsulate his feelings through this anecdote, which he told confidentially because he did not want to exploit it. From the moment he entered the Senate, Kerry was an important patron & it would have made sense for Edwards to share with him why he had entered politics, just as it made sense to share it again when he was being considered for VP. Obviously, in doing so he was unaware that he had shared the same story twice. If only Kerry had taken the opportunity to mention that fact THEN, it might have opened the door to a frank and open dialog that would have given both men a genuine understanding of the other. As it stands, Kerry's negative judgment -- and unwillingness to confront Edwards on the subject -- helped to sow distrust on both sides that neither could overcome in 2004 or since.

[karynnj]

61. Some points

1) Off topic, but a needed clarification - I was speaking of job interviews at a company, nothing political.

2) It was MY assumption that it could have been seen as manipulation - I have NO IDEA what Kerry thought precisely because he NEVER spoke of it publicly. He spoke only to the small group involved in VP selection. They clearly didn't find it that troubling - or they wouldn't have selected Edwards.

3) I seriously doubt it led to the distrust -It would be easier to make the case that refusing to use the campaign slogan would. Very few people would have known had the VP selection group not violated Kerry's trust in repeating it.

4) Kerry was not Edwards' patron in the Senate - from all accounts they didn't know each other well. They were not on the same committees and they did no legislation together that I know of. Therefore, my point was that Edwards likely shared this with many people and had forgotten that he told Kerry - he then said he had never told anyone. I do think it would have been interesting had Kerry called him on it - just to see his reaction. The way I see it, Edwards' blatant lie (that he never told anyone before) made the comment less privileged.

5) Your problem is that you see the story as casting Edwards in a negative light. If so, it is because something Edwards was supposed to have done was negative. Yet you are not doubting that it occurred. Edwards is himself responsible for what he did. It hurts because it comes close to some negative perceptions Edwards already had - that he was phony or willing to use emotion in a manipulative manner.

6) Had Kerry in 2006 - when both were intending to run - gone to the media with this, you would have a case. He didn't - nor was it him who told of Edwards refusing to use the campaign slogan - it was a tone deaf Edwards who in December 2007 still did not see that for the betrayal it was. It also was Elizabeth Edwards who went OUT OF HER WAY to try to paint Teresa as too rich and too elitist - an unfair confirmation of the RW attacks on her.

7) Whatever motivation Kerry had in 2004 for telling the small group helping him on VP selection it was not to embarrass or hurt Edwards, who he had not ruled out as VP. Kerry very specifically insisted that even the people vetted be kept 100% quiet. This was honored until he lost - the reason was respect for those considered.

[LiveLiberally]

63. I think we are beginning to speak at cross-purposes...

so maybe we should agree to disagree at this point. But in response to a few of your points:

a) Kerry was not a patron for Edwards, but that was not because Edwards did not look up to him. In fact, as a new, liberal senator from a conservative state, Edwards was eager to seek allies amongst the senate leadership. As to whether Edwards shared this story with "many people" there is no evidence to suggest that.

b)Re: distrust between Kerry's and Edwards' staffs during the 2004 campaign, there has been a lot written about this and no one disputes that communication was poor and that Kerry and Edwards often seemed to be on opposite pages. (and this is why, in fact, that problems over things such as the campaign slogan proved so intractable.) Kerry's doubts about Edwards (if not the specific reasons for them) did permeate beyond his inner circle and this negatively affected relations between both men and their staffs.

c) If Strum's account is to be believed, Kerry DID assume that Edwards' repetition of the story reflected badly on him and he passed on these concerns to his advisers. The assumption WAS that Edwards' character was in doubt (and hence his qualifications to be VP); there is no evidence that Kerry ever considered an alternative explanation. The fact that Kerry's advisers felt that the pros of adding Edwards to the ticket outweighed the cons does not change the fact that Edwards' joined the campaign with a mark against his name that he could neither confront not dispel. Any subsequent dispute would be judged within this negative context.

d) You can label Edwards' claim that he had told no one else this story as "lying," but -- as I tried to detail in my earlier post -- I think there is likely to be a more charitable explanation, particularly given that we are dealing with such a personally devastating aspect of Edwards' life. We simply don't know the backstory and so our assessment of this incident is inevitably shaped by our larger assessment of the man and his character.

e) Having said all this, I want to end by making it clear that I have great respect for Kerry (and Teresa) and worked hard for the 2004 ticket in my state. I am not questioning Kerry's truthfulness, but I am questioning his judgment. If he had serious doubts about Edwards' character or veracity, then he should have either confronted Edwards directly OR not chosen him as a running mate. To raise these doubts in a manner that made it impossible for Edwards to address them did a disservice to both of them. And I think we need to regard their subsequent relationship within this context of mutual mistrust.

[karynnj]

65. OK

a) That he told "many" people is conjecture - had he told only a few, he would have remembered who - also this meant he told Kerry some time in 2002 - when there was no closeness between them by any account.
b) Communication or not it was clear from Edwards account that he rejected the campaigns slogan and it sounded like he made a case - that was rejected for his choice (Edwards said Kerry liked "help" because it was more tangible.) The fact is that the VP is number 2 and what the President says goes. Edwards' actions are a more likely cause of the bad relations. Kerry's reputation - even in 1971 - was that he easily rose above such things - but, I'm sure his closest people likely knew that he was not happy with this. The amazing thing is that this was kept internal and from the outside was not obvious.
c) I'm not sure what alternative explanation there is - Edwards prefaced the story by saying that he had told no one - but he had earlier done the same thing - personally to Kerry. What alternative is there - Kerry imagined he heard it before? This is also why I think the "never told anyone" is a lie. He told Kerry twice.
d) On Kerry's judgment, it likely means that he saw enough good that he was persuadable that a lie of this sort was not a deal breaker. Consider that NO ONE is perfect - and Edwards had and has a pretty clean record. There likely was no hint that Edwards was not prepared to be a team player. (That likely was a function of Edwards having so little political experience that he didn't realize that the VP, at least in the election, takes a somewhat subservient role. In every campaign there is the type of discussion that occurred here - and in Gore's many of those discussions leaked. What neither of us know is what Kerry and Edwards spoke of when Kerry offered him the VP. Kerry may well have brought it up.

My point is that this does show a less than positive Edwards moment - and that is something Edwards people need to deal with. Neither he (or Kerry for that matter) are perfect. As to Kerry - this shows that finding a flaw, he and others put it in perspective, weighed it and took Edwards anyway. It may be that the other choices looked at had worse problems - and many in the party were really pushing Edwards as able to help in the election.

As to holding a grudge - Kerry endorsed Webb who questioned his patriotism in 2004.

[LiveLiberally]

68. I see your points about Kerry and Edwards, but I'm still not sure that you see mine....

I agree with you that neither man is perfect and both men made mistakes. And I don't think that Kerry has held a grudge. But I do see a pattern of mistrust and I see Kerry's "vetting" of Edwards as a major source of it. You don't introduce a new team player under a cloud of doubt -- particularly one that speaks so fundamentally to his character and integrity WITHOUT giving the person a chance to confront & perhaps dispel those doubts. This is Personnel Skills 101. Kerry mismanaged the vetting process, just as he mismanaged Edwards (a relatively new politician thrown into the national spotlight.) Does Edwards share some of the blame? Of course. But Kerry -- as the experienced statesmen -- could and should have handled this situation in a more forthright, open manner. Moreover, I don't think this failing was isolated, but speaks to a pervasive personnel and communication problem within the 2004 campaign. It was Kerry's campaign and so the responsibility must ultimately rest with him.

I'll let you have the last word here if you wish. I've enjoyed this debate -- it's been great to discuss politics in a sane, rational way.

[karynnj]

69. I second your comment that it is great to discuss this rationally

First of all neither of us were inside that campaign - unless you were :). I don't see the same introducing the new team player under a cloud. From all accounts there were very few people in that VP selection process and it is also clear that among them there had to be advocates for picking Edwards and no one who validated the concern that Shrum describes Kerry having. Neither Kerry nor Edwards have spoken of the conversation they had when Kerry asked him to be VP. The likelihood is that Kerry either had resolved the issue in his own mind or he would have spoken to Edwards about it. He gave Edwards a pass on it, showing that he did not expect anyone to be perfect.

From my point of view, it was also not that different than the publicly known channeling of a brain damaged baby's thoughts while being born. There is a flamboyant side to Edwards. Turned to issues, as they were with New Orleans, that same oratorical ability and use of emotion to move people is a plus politically- and if you listen to Kerry's 1971 testimony, his 2006 Dissent speech or his last Senate speech on Alito, Kerry has this talent too, but has used it for the most part to move people on political issues. (The point being that Kerry would understand this more than someone with none of this in their own personalities. I hadn't thought of this before , but this is one of few similarities between them.) In fact, Edwards' use of that skill in pushing the issue of poverty does to some degree show that he has come to channel that ability for public good. Which is both good for him and validates Kerry's judgment in not ruling him out for that reason.

Going just by what was in Shrum's book and other accounts, I don't see this incident as leading Kerry to distrust him - in fact, he obviously considered it insignificant enough to offer Edwards the VP slot. This was a time where he was excited and very positive about the campaign. His introduction of Edwards was very positive. Shrum's recitation of the account was obviously because it would be picked up and might make people buy his book because of its nature.

I would agree that Kerry did not vet Edwards enough. Not for deep dark secrets - he had none - or they would have come out in 2004 or since. He clearly missed - or Edwards did not convey - the type of VP Edwards wanted to be. In Kerry's defense, he expected Edwards to do what all other VPs have done - to act as the top surrogate for the President. From the Edwards told story on the campaign slogan, Edwards saw himself as independent and that he thought that he could project his own message. It's clear from the account that he argued they use "hope" and lost - but proceeded to do that anyway. The best interpretation is that he thought he knew better than Kerry who had soundly beat him for the nomination.

My guess is that taking the subordinate role is very hard for the high profile people who are capable of being a VP. Consider how Gore, who ran in 1988 for President and had he run in 1992 might have defeated Bill Clinton, felt taking a secondary role. You need a very healthy ego to run for President, especially with very little credentials. The VP slot requires that you hold that in check. The likelihood is that Kerry and his advisers had no reason to thing Edwards wouldn't toe the line. He had, in the last few debates, essentially repeated whatever Kerry said and he was far less experienced than Kerry on foreign and domestic policy.

It might have been that because Edwards had only been a politician for a short time and before that did not seem that interested, that he had less idea what being a VP would be than anyone would have thought. He may well have bought a lot of the media praise that he was the best natural politician since Clinton. It has to be a pretty heady feeling having people support you for the Presidency - especially if you have such a short record.

The stories coming out from people aligned with Edwards and one account from anonymous Kerry people there clearly suggest that Edwards wouldn't take direction. What isn't known is whether Kerry or others did enough to explain how doing what they asked was better for the campaign. The real problem is that they had no leverage. If Edwards felt that things he was asked to do were not in his long term - in case they didn't win - they could not threaten to "fire" him if he didn't do them. That would sink the campaign. From the stories afterward, they did a very good job not letting the in-fighting show.

What it does mean is that some people, Edwards included, are not "designed" to be VPs. The main things needed are someone who adds no negatives, makes no waves in the campaign and who can represent the nominee and get people to vote for him in places where the candidate can not be. (Edwards himself may think this now as he did say he wouldn't go for VP back in 2007.) They should not have to be stage managed. (Compare the job Gore did to what Edwards did.) I would guess that a less unconventional politician than Edwards would have worked better for Kerry. If the slogan issue was not atypical, managing Edwards took some amount of energy. Kerry and his advisers likely did not see the extent to which this would be needed at selection time.

None of this says anything about how he would do running for President or being President. In those roles he does get to be the one making the decisions. Even when Kerry endorsed Obama, he said that Edwards and HRC were qualified to be President. He clearly stated why he thought Obama, as President, had the best chance of doing what had to be done. Everything Kerry said was needed were things he spoke of for years and many are things that describe Kerry himself. Obama, wanting to unite people with solutions all can accept is vintage Kerry and they sound pretty similar on foreign policy at times. The 2008 Edwards was far more confrontational than the 2004 Edwards. Choosing the President is different than the VP, where considerations of balance and what he brings to the table consider what the strengths of the President are. Had Edwards been 2008 Edwards in 2004, I doubt Kerry would have picked him - even though on every issue 2008 Edwards is closer to 2004 Kerry than 2004 Edwards was, because of the jarring projection of anger in 2008. (Can I win the prize for most convoluted sentence?)

To conclude, I do not think that anything I said here shows Edwards to be a bad person. If he were, I would need to question how both Kennedy (who mentored him) and Kerry were impressed by him. I do agree that it was Kerry's campaign - and I think that it in many ways was a very good campaign. There was a reason HRC didn't run in 2004. In December 2003, Bush polled in double digits over generic Democrat and 20 points above Dean, the only Democrat polled then. As Kerry won primary after primary and had victory speech after victory speech, where he had a platform to attack Bush, he changed the numbers radically and gave people hope of winning. But, it is hard to overstate how uneven the playing field was in 2004. In spite of everything, without the OBL tape, they very likely would have won. Because it was so close, everything gets second guessed. The fact is that they likely were neither extremely worse or better paired than the average combinations.

Anyway, as you said, this has been an interesting discussion. Best wishes to you and the other Edwards people.

[jakem]

14. trust is earned, not owed.

[cboy4]

18. Of course trust is earned, not owed. I'm talking about

loyalty.

[jakem]

20. loyalty is also earned. clearly Richardson didnt feel all that obligated to clintons.

[cboy4]

22. Yea. He's definitely untrustworthy.

He'd be nowhere without Bill Clinton.

[AllentownJake]

59. Clinton didn't make Richardson

He didn't make Bill Richardson competent. Richardson served with distinction and loyalty. Bill Clinton owes the people who he appointed as well. Because without them his Presidency wouldn't have gotten things done. Sorry it cuts both ways loyalty just doesn't flow upwards.

This because he appointed him he made him nonsense gets me fired up. Someone can give you an opportunity if you do well on that opportunity you make yourself.

[shraby]

29. That loyalty thing really works great for the

good of the people...anyone remember "Good job Brownie"? Those kinds of actions don't belong in the government where capability should be the rule of the day.

[ginnyinWI]

51. excuse me? you mean his endorsement of Obama?

Only in Bushworld does loyalty to a single person trump loyalty to one's country. He endorsed Obama for the good of the country, and the Dem Party.

Richardson doesn't owe the Clintons; he gave good years of service to them as an appointee. That's what they asked of him and they got it.

[Turn CO Blue]

57. Disagree. Public servants owe their loyalty to the PUBLIC

not to the Clintons, nor to Obama - they owe all their best to the ideals that bring about the greater good. Loyalty oaths are for monarchists and fascists - like Bush and his ilk.

[zonkers]

67. RICHARDSON SHOULD BE LOYAL

to his own heart and mind.

[bahrbearian]

5. Calm down Sweetie

Take a deep breath , hold it , now exhale. It was just a nightmare, now look around, every thing is OK.

[cali]

6. um, don't mistake rhetorical style for being upset,

dearie. It's not remotely the same thing.

[bahrbearian]

8. OK , Honey .

I guess you have your agenda to work.

[cali]

9. duh.. brilliant

sweetums. Of course I have an agenda. I support Obama and I call 'em as I see 'em. that's my agenda. Glad to see you can grasp the obvious, even if it takes you a while. Very good, dear.

[bahrbearian]

15. Sweetcakes, I'm not an Idiot, I'm just slow.

But is a "rhetorical style" the same as a "agenda", now I'm confused, Darling.

[shadowknows69]

7. And some people still wonder why we get a

Machiavelli vibe from the Clintons

[VolcanoJen]

12. Precisely.

The Clintons would have us believe that, years ago, Bill Richardson made a deal, perhaps unspoken, that if the Clintons used his expertise in foreign policy by elevating him to a role of service to the American people, he would in turn, years later, support a hypothetical Hillary run for the White House.

It's laughable when you think about it.

[ruggerson]

19. I don't think he owes him anything either, but the anger quotient doesn't serve your point

[stray cat]

23. Actually what does he owe Hillary - as she is the one running!

Either way, Richardson is responsible to his constituents not Hillary or Bill. Not that he is a rubber stamp for his constituents - since he has a brain he should do what he thinks is best for his state and the country.

[dsc]

27. His constituents voted for her

she won the NM primary. Admittedly it was a very close race but she did win.

[cali]

31. It was less than 1%

essentially a tie. I said the same about Hillary and JE in Iowa. And of course, I've never believed that an SD is obligated to go with the voters- except at the end of the process if it comes down to the Convention. Then I do think they should go with the candidate who has the most pledged delegates and the greater share of the popular votes. It's different if that's split. Then I think they have to figure things out using additional metrics.

[dsc]

38. I never said you did

but the poster I responded to did say he owed his constitutents. I pretty much agree with you on the SD. Hillary should drop out if she doesn't have a win the popular vote. Though I do think that is more operative if FL and MI revotes.

[knixphan]

24. loyalty is to the constitution. nothing else.

[cboy4]

33. I can't believe what I'm reading. You're not loyal to your

family or friends?

[Fredda Weinberg]

25. Fealty? Royal family? Last time I checked, reciprocity was a good thing

My tagline offers details. Of course, in this silly season, vice is virtue as long as it serves the current political fad.

This is so 60's ... McGovern supporters were just as foul and vicious. For those of us who remember his defeat, it was almost a relief.

[cali]

28. Reciprocity? Richardson did that in performing his job

ably. You're ridiculous to suggest that he owes anything more than that. And the rest of your post is simply sanctimonious nonsense of the first order. I don't owe a former boss anything, even if they were a good employer. No person does. Richardson hasn't spoken unkindly about the Clintons. To the contrary. Do try using logic some time. Oh, and your comparison to McGovern is a poor one.

[H2O Man]

64. As a rule,

those who speak of the McGovern campaign in the context of "so '60s" tend to be best ignored. Right century, wrong decade.

[DearAbby]

26. According to some here....and Carvell

Richardson owes the Clintons his life long loyalty and his firstborn child.

:sarcasm: for the impaired

[rug]

30. What does Obama owe Richardson now?

[cali]

32. I have no idea

I'm not privy to any insider info. You?

[rug]

39. Just an educated guess.

Since Clinton already put him in a cabinet, the only thing left is the vice presidency. Or else Bill endorsed him just because it was the right thing to do, don't you think?

[karynnj]

35. In the best of all worlds, just a sincere thank you

This not being that world, I assume we will see.

[Tatiana]

36. The Clintons have no one to blame but themselves. Richardson wanted to endorse Hillary.

But she, via her "kitchen sink" campaign strategy, gave him every reason not to.

He stood on his principles rather than patronage. This, to me, is a sign of Richardson's character.

[tammywammy]

37. I agree

:)

[Cha]

40. The clintons only believe in "loyalty" when

it's a one way street.

[gulliver]

42. Richardson would be about an 11- or 12-term Congressman...

...but for Clinton. I've never been impressed with Richardson.

[cali]

46. You know this how?

And what does that have to do with anything? Bill Richardson worked for Bill Clinton. He owed him loyalty while he was in his employ, not forever after. I do think it's incumbent on him not to bad mouth Bill, but beyond that, he's a free agent. duh.

[AllentownJake]

60. Agreed

Bill Clinton did not make him Govenor of New Mexico. Richardson got elected there on his own. His experience under the administration may have helped him but Bill Richardson made Bill Richardson.

Nobody can make you. You make yourself. This isn't 17th century Europe where we have Dukes.

Crap now Duke of Earl is going to be stuck in my head.

[Life Long Dem]

43. 3:00 AM He emialed the Clintons his Obama endorsement!

Who answered at 3:00AM Bill?

[ecstatic]

44. Exactly! Saying that Richardson "owes" them implies that he wasn't qualified for the position

and was given an undeserved gift.

[Citizen Kang]

45. The Clinton's...

fancy themselves as the Democratic Bush Crime Family. Thankfully, most Democrats don't put up with their bullshit.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

47. K n R

[ejbr]

48. Bill Clinton chose Richardson for his good judgment..

Richardson's endorsement of Obama should demonstrate that Bill Clinton made a good choice.

[LVjinx]

56. Which is exactly what he'll be receiving in return.

[OhioBlue]

58. very true. n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

62. We went through this when people were upset with Kerry for

endorsing Obama, too.

I still don't understand it.

[dusmcj]

66. he came off as a cheesy clown, what with the new beard and all

if he was trying to commit political suicide he did a good job. Like it or not, politics is about animal behavior and group dynamics, and lacking loyalty to your godfather is a deadly sin in more primitive cultures. If you don't think Big Bill was his godfather, please don't post cause we have nothing to discuss.

[BigDDem]

70. "It should reflect the vote of my state,

it should represent the vote of my constituency."
Bill Richardson in Feb

Now, the flip flopper political leach has a different opinion.
Put me down as shocked.