Split Ticket?

Last week, Edwards and Kerry were courting; now they’re fighting. What happened?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Last week, after an unusually civil Democratic debate in California, the media settled into a comfortable consensus: John Kerry and John Edwards were “courting” each other, holding back on the rough stuff with an eye to a Kerry-Edwards ticket in the fall.

Cut to Monday morning, after Sunday night’s debate in New York, and you get a very different picture. Edwards and Kerry gave the appearance not of courting each other, but of going through a particularly nasty divorce. Edwards was all scrappy belligerence, Kerry cold disdain. What happened?

Edwards, of course, has cast himself as a sunny, upbeat campaigner, so it was all the more striking to see him going after Kerry. New York was by far his most combative performance to date — odd, if the assumption is true that he’s vying for the No. 2 spot. Dan Rather attempted to call Edwards out on a run for vice president by asking, “are you in the position of saying, “Listen, it’s late on, and I’m pretty much playing for vice president now, and I don’t want to ask him the tough questions”? To which Edwards emphatically replied, “Oh, no. Oh, no, no. Far from it.”

Then, when Rather asked Edwards if Kerry has “enough Elvis to beat George Bush?” Edwards offered only a tepid endorsement of his rival. “I know John Kerry,” he said. “I like him very much. And he and I have known each other for years.”

William Saletan writes in Slate that the all- new Edwards was right on; in fact, he did what he should have done a long time ago:

“This was the performance John Edwards desperately needed to boost himself to a decent showing on Super Tuesday. Did it come too late? We’ll find out. Edwards should have done this Thursday night in Los Angeles. The panelists in that debate begged him to take over, but he failed. This morning’s panelists begged harder, and he delivered.”

Edwards clearly saw the debate as his last chance to show voters that there really is some policy daylight between him and Kerry. He returned — and returned — to one of his old standbys, the old “Washington insider” barb.

“The fundamental issue in this election,” he thundered, “is whether the people of this country believe that we’re going to get change that originates in Washington or change that has to come from out here in the real world.”

Kerry fired back: “Now, I just listened to John talk about Washington, D.C.,” Kerry said. “Last time I looked, John ran for the United States Senate, and he’s been in the Senate for the last five years. That seems to me to be in Washington, D.C.” Which seems fair.

As

The Los Angeles Times notes:

“At times, the debate felt like an argument on a New York street corner where everyone tries to talk at once. Edwards, who has seemed virtually unflappable in almost all of the earlier debates, regularly appeared piqued at Kerry’s responses.”

Working from the assumption that Kerry will win the Democratic nomination (a not too far-fetched assumption, according to a wins as big as he’s expected to, will surely end the fight for the Democratic nomination. Walter Shapiro of USA Today discusses the possibility that Edwards performance proves that he is earnest in his run for the presidency, and not just doing whatever it takes to be considered for the vice presidency:

“In his willingness to mix it up with Kerry on Sunday, Edwards may have put to rest cynical claims that he really has been auditioning for the role of vice-presidential candidate. What appears to be happening with Edwards is more subtle than such conspiratorial interpretations of his motivation in continuing as Kerry’s last plausible challenger.”

But let’s face it: Edwards most likely won’t win the nomination. And in that case, wouldn’t he love a spot on Kerry’s ticket? Dan Balz of the Washington Post speculates that this debate may have shown that a) Kerry might not want him, and b) their personalities might clash:

“…Democrats watching Sunday’s debate may wonder whether the chemistry between the two men would allow that, even if practical political considerations and pressures inside the party argue for it.

Kerry allies say privately that the senator is not a particular fan of Edwards, and a question to Kerry about what he has learned from Edwards about how to be a more likable candidate must have rankled the man who is in control of the Democratic race.
Edwards has run a generally positive campaign, and even in drawing distinctions with Kerry, he has been careful not to let things become too personal. But there was little evidence of any genuine warmth or affection between the two on Sunday.

There is no good way to campaign for the vice presidency. Edwards’s allies debate privately what makes the most sense, if Edwards is truly interested in being considered for the ticket. Should he campaign hard against Kerry in an effort to demonstrate his vote-getting appeal in primaries and caucuses, or should he scale back his criticisms in an effort not to inflict damage on Kerry that the Republicans could exploit in the general election?

On Sunday, Edwards walked that line carefully, nicking Kerry but avoiding an all-out attack. Still, Kerry did not look pleased. If the race goes on much longer, the senator and his advisers may be even less charitable toward Edwards and his tactics. That is why, once Tuesday’s voting results are in, Edwards will face a most difficult decision.”

Still, it’s important to keep in mind that all this guesswork about filling out the Democratic ticket may be an act of futility. The hype over who will be chosen veep most likely won’t end until the eve of the Democratic convention in July, and if history is any guide, the media guesses will be wrong. Howard Kurtz writes on Feb. 11:

“The veepstakes is a caldron of rumor, hype and guesswork. In 1992, various pundits said Bill Clinton would pick Bob Kerrey, Lee Hamilton or Bob Graham. Four years later, almost no one expected Bob Dole to pick his longtime rival Jack Kemp. In 2000, there was a flood of media predictions that George W. Bush would pick either Tom Ridge or Frank Keating, with a last-minute flurry around John McCain. Almost no one saw Dick Cheney, who supervised the vice presidential selection, getting the nod.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate