Steve Schmidt's take this morning - Good and Bad

[Laura PourMeADrink]

Good:

He was asked if Palin, since 2008, is now more ready to be VP

He immediately said no. He said, at the very minimum, a candidate
should have a degree in history/government, and that she has
done nothing to educate herself.


Bad:

He summed up by saying the Republicans had screwed up on
vetting with Palin. And the Democrats screwed up vetting
with John Edwards.

I disagree with his making these two comparable. He was
lumping together someone with personal skeletons with someone
who was supremely unqualified for the job.

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. interesting comparison....Edwards and Palin.

One incapable because he was not thinking with his brain, combined with hubris. The other incapable due to the low capacity of her brain, combined with even more hubris.

[krkaufman]

40. The fair comparison between the two, I would think...

... would involve ego, narcissism and delusions of grandeur. They both tried tapping into their respective party's populism, Edwards targeting economic populism and Palin the modern GOP populism (aka racism and xenophobia), and neither should have been anywhere near the race, given their associated baggage.

[KharmaTrain]

2. So Edwards Actions In 2008 Weren't Vetted in 2004??

Edwards would be able to tell you what newspaper he read that morning or that Africa isn't a country. If vetting one's private life is comparable to being totally inept then Gramps McCain would have never been the nominee with his drinking and "skirt chasing". Pretty lame comparison...but then Schmidt seems not to want to take any of the responsibility of putting Grifterella on the ticket. Remember a lot of the spin in the movie is from Schmidt's perspective...vindication on the silver screen...

[Laura PourMeADrink]

5. His take this morning was that he was dealing with a "person in distress" and that he

takes responsibility for not being empathetic enough to another human being in distress.

he said the whole thing was a "team decision" not his alone.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

10. BTW, Schmidt didn't specify P or VP (and of course no followup from MoJo) on what vetting he was

talking about. He might have meant Prez 2008?

[KharmaTrain]

12. The Equivelency Game...

Sounds like he was trying to deflect some of the harsh criticism he's been getting from the great unhinged. My favorite is he was a hidden Romney plant who derailed the campaign on purpose. Honestly, there is no Democratic eqivelent to Mooselini...none! The vetting fiasco was unique as McCain's campaign was in such poor shape that they needed the "game change"...and we're about to see the same "movie" again in whomever "wins" the rushpublican demolition derby and attempts to find a veep to "fire up" whatever base is left on the outs.

Cheers...

[Laura PourMeADrink]

15. that's funny - a plant. He doesn't strike me as that savvy or conniving. In fact, watching him

on Morning Joe a lot lately, he seems kind of passive and dull witted. He seems to lack spirit and usually
just sits there without a rise ever. Guess he's more cerebral than aggressive. Woody portray him as
more of a dynamo.

[KharmaTrain]

19. We See Him In The "Beast Of The Belly"

Remember, he now works for the network he couldn't get McCain to turn off (one of the funnier tidbits of the movie...which you noted).

I'll bet in a hotel lounge over a couple double scotches with a couple of buddies, Steve can really let it go. I enjoy his give and take with Rachel...that's where he does show some pretty solid political instincts...but then this movie assures he'll never run another campaign (I suspect he won't miss that one bit).

It's interesting the roster of former rushpublican campaign staffers MSNBC has gathered...from Mikey Steele to Schmidt and Wallace to Chip Salzman (former Hucklenutz campaign chief)...beats the hacks that CNN uses by a mile.

[krkaufman]

41. Especially since...

... they're going to nominate Romney, whom I expect many of those on the hard right will still have a problem with. They've been flailing for months trying to find another candidate, to no avail.

I *do* expect Romney to nominate a female, though. And the sad thing is... she'll only have to seem more competent than Palin, most likely, to avoid much media heat.

[karynnj]

26. While I think Edwards an awful choice, there was no red flag found in vetting

I think he was a very poor choice because Kerry should have picked someone more like himself who could, if needed, immediately take over as President. There were stories in 2005 that Kerry's own first choice was Dick Durbin, but that all the strategists and important people like Clinton and Kennedy pushed for Edwards. In addition, Edwards - likely due to all the positive media coverage - focused grouped and polled best.

In Shrum's book, there was a discussion that Kerry had a negative gut feel because Edwards told him a maudlin story that he said he never told anyone of how he came to be political figure while viewing his son who had recently died -- that he had already told Kerry months before. Kerry, who was not impressed by him asked to meet Edwards again because of this.

One thing he had to consider was that the media and party were 100% behind Edwards - and any non-favored pick like Kerry would have been negatively received - and the media was already saying that anyone other than Edwards would be because Kerry was jealous of Edwards' charisma and excitement - ignoring Kerry beat him soundly - usually by double digits all over the country. (In fact, the media events when Edwards was announced are painful in retrospect - with Kerry being asked if it bothered him that Edwards could outshine him.

[blm]

3. Also, John Edwards didn't even begin his personal slide till 3 years after he was the VP choice.

And he was far more educated, experienced and qualified than Palin.

Though I always expected Edwards to be the VP nominee I wasn't really a fan of his - I just knew that the establishment Dem powerstructure was pushing him onto the ticket. IMO, they did it to make it easier for HRC in 2008, since that was really their only goal in 2004. And when I mean 'they' I mean McAuliffe, Carville and the rest of ClintonInc.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

6. interesting. what do you mean? how would having him on the ticket in 2004 help Hillary in 2008?

[blm]

18. Because he'd have already had a go at it - and someone had been advising him

to not let Kerry campaign cast him in the role of attack dog, so his people fought with Kerry campaign refusing to tarnish Edwards' nice guy persona. It's pretty apparent that advice came from 'seasoned strategists' who had no intention of Dems winning WH in 2004.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

23. facinating insight. I have always suspected on the Republican side that the PTB do

deep analysis and pick and chose the best years to go all out to win. I'm convinced they didn't want to win in 2008...nothing to do with Palin. They knew Bush had sapped every single cent out of the treasury and that the trickle down scam could not possibly survive if the government collapsed. Besides, why not let the Dems take over and try and fix the mess. We'll leave them with no money to help the wretched poor.

[blm]

24. and they don't want to win this year, either...by 2014 they know their voters won't care

about anything but winning, and they'll all get behind Jeb Bush, because, by then, the Bush folks will convince the skeptical that only the Bush MACHINE can win the WH for the GOP. They are laughing their asses off at the hooligans running this year.

[CTyankee]

4. I would have liked being spared the humiliation I felt for my support for Edwards until the

bitter end when I had to concede what a bastard he was. I was never so wrong about a candidate, even tho my support for John Anderson's independent candidacy so many years ago was badly misguided.

I hope that I will never, ever again be led astray by a politician. We Dems should have vetted him further. And I should have been more thoughtful and less gullible.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. Edwards always gave me a sort of "oily" feeling

that made me uneasy about him in '08. I saw him as slippery, willing to take on whatever colors he needed in order to secure the votes.

Then in 2008, after it became clear that Al Gore wasn't gonna do it, I started looking at Edwards as the only viable quasi-liberal. I liked the fact that he was willing to discuss poverty, I liked his positions in general better than I did those of either Obama or Hillary. And the alternatives, be they Kucinich or Richardson, weren't going anywhere.

I'm disappointed in myself for letting my wishes override my judgment, and for failing to attend properly to what that still small voice in the back of my head was telling me.

All in all, I'm just glad he didn't get the nom & have this all blow up in late October 2008. I will bet you that the Republican oppo people were ready to blow him out of the water if he got the nom.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. That's exactly how I felt about him.

The very night before he dropped out I went to a rally for him in Minnesota. It was way below zero but a whole lot of enthusiastic people showed up. And he gave a good speech about poverty and economic inequality, and I really liked what he had to say - and at the same time I couldn't quite suppress that little feeling that he was just a bit too slick. Still, I thought he had the best positions of the lot of them, especially regarding domestic issues, and I decided to ignore my misgivings. During his speech he emphatically stated that he was in the race for the long haul, wasn't going to give up, etc., etc.

When I got home I thought I should donate a bit online, but it was late so I decided to put it off until the next morning. And a good thing that was, because the first thing I learned upon peering into my Internet tube was that he'd dropped out. And I was, WTF??? I'm still wondering what, exactly, happened after that rally. Was he planning to drop out even as he told that crowd he was staying in, just so as to get a few more last minute donations?

In any event, when the news came out about his affair with that ridiculous woman I realized that we had dodged a bullet big time, and that I should listen more closely to my gut instincts.

But still, it's not fair to compare him to Palin. He was a hound dog, but when he didn't let the little head think for the big one he was a pretty bright, well-informed person. The only thing they have in common is arrogance.

[CTyankee]

21. what was so upsetting to me was that he had us all believing that he and Elizabeth had

this loving, caring relationship and he was at her side in their journey through life. I actually believed that sh*t. I can never forgive him for that forgery and I kick myself for allowing myself to believe him. When I found out the truth and the gritty details, I was in a state of shock and grief. And his duplicity got worse when he involved that aide that had to come out and say that Hunter's baby was fathered by him instead of Edwards. The whole thing was an absolute travesty. Elizabeth died in bitterness no matter what they said. Edwards himself is of no use to anyone that I can see. I just hope his kids can get beyond this disaster in their lives...

[karynnj]

27. It may not have been a fraud until after 2004

I do think the media exaggerated the "perfect couple" in 2004. If I had to guess a reason, I think that the oft quoted comment that he was "Clinton without the bimbo erruptions" tells part of the story. The infatuation with Elizabeth as a brilliant woman, who was the perfect wife and mother was there too. To me, it seems they were looking for a better version of what had last been a success - the Clintons. Edwards was a better looking, cleaner version of Bill - and they credited him (based on very very little) the political accumen of Bill Clinton. Elizabeth, like Hillary was brilliant, educated and an equal intellectually, but softer.

The image was so strong that if you read comments in the left blogospere, theirs was considered the perfect marriage. When I first tired of it was long before I heard the name, "Rielle". It was in 2006 when Elizabeth's book attacked Teresa and Elizabeth in an interview attacked Hillary speaking of how her choices (to stay home) made her happier that Hillary's (to work when Chelsea was young). The latter was sick because she worked as a lawyer when her two older kids were young and she was in fact "working" for most of the two little ones' lives - on two Presidential campaigns and a Senate campaign.

[CTyankee]

31. what bothered me, too, was that Elizabeth felt compelled to inject hormones into her body

so that in her late 40s she bore two children. According to her book, it seemed a kind of desperate way to make up for Wade's tragic death. The injections probably caused her breast cancer. I simply do not understand taking such a risk when you probably know the down side. It is totally incomprehensible to me. But, of course, I did did not experience her grief at the loss of her son, so I am not in a position to judge. It seemed so extreme...I wondered about her mental state...

[karynnj]

34. It is something that I really found difficult to understand, but it seems that it was part

of what got her past the death of her son. I can't imagine what it would be like to lose a child - however, I really don't think having a second family would have been a path many would take. It still does not fill the hole that that would be there. It does sound like she was likely clinically depressed at that time. The entire family seems to have really needed help. There are stories of Cate sleeping in the room with her parents for TWO years - likely until she went to college. ( The NYT says this is because she was the glue that held the family together - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/us/politics/09edwards.html )

Both Wade and Cate were talented, very intelligent children. I just wonder if there was on the part of both Edwards a latent sexism that caused them to feel they had lost all (or most) their hopes for the future generation with the loss of their son.

I don't know how correlated the hormones needed for her to have the two little kids were to cancer. It may have been a risk she understood and accepted because she needed to have more kids. What is really sadder is that she had to know this put her at higher risk and she avoided tests that would have found this early.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

45. interesting. I didn't know she had cancer before she had her kids. nt

[karynnj]

48. She didn't

The point we were talking about is that there is a correlation between taking a lot of hormones and cancer - so it could have increased her risk of cancer.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

49. Didn't know you had to take hormones to have a child. Never heard of that. nt

[karynnj]

50. Most women don't, but she was 48 (and 50) years old when she had the later two

Note that even articles that spoke of it included language that the details were not made public, but she did confirm she took hormone shots. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2007/04/the_lurking_elizabeth_edwards_question.html

(For what it is worth, women were in that time period still often advised to take hormone replacement therapy when they reached menopause, so the risk was likely not as well known then. )

[Laura PourMeADrink]

51. Thanks karynnj for getting me up to speed on all this ! I read Edwards' advisor's book

a year or two ago...but have forgotten a lot of details

What's happened to the Edwards' is a modern day Shakespearean tragedy.
Death and sadness.

I can not easily think of a more dramatic "fall from grace" as there's was, albeit
self-inflicted. To go from VP candidate to Presidential candidate to a pariah
in such a short period of time is amazing.

[karynnj]

53. I agree wholeheartedly

I was surprised when Kerry used the word "tragedy" when he was asked about Edwards when everything came out. It took me a moment to realize that it completely fit the definition of tragedy.

Both Edwards are, in the end, tragic figures. No one can know if different choices - not to have the little kids, to have regular mamograms, to have different treatment in 2004 - could have saved her life, but the thing I think tragic is that while dealing with all that she learned in the worst possible way that the man who was not just her love and husband, but the focus of their goals and efforts was a fraud.

As to JRE, you are right that it is hard to find a more dramatic fall from grace. I suspect part of the reason was that so much of the "height" was build on people's hopes and beliefs in him rather than more prosaic building blocks of accomplishments. When built on resume and accomplishment, it is rare that the person is idealized to the degree Edwards was. That meant - not only -that he started higher, but it meant that when he fell it was like a meringue sculpture crumbling leaving nothing there - other than the disappointment of many who really believed.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

54. very well stated. great insight. A bit of irony hit me the other day. For a politician, people

will forgive you if you've had an affair, if it is in the past, or if it is in the midst of your term of office. It is not
okay if you are having one while campaigning. Since John's resulted in pregnancy, he was doomed by the
sheer permanence of it all.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

8. Maybe you are being too hard on yourself. To me, Edwards was an anomaly

We had little demonstrable behavior to go on that would suggest he would (1) cheat on Elizabeth and (2) steal from
his campaign to support his mistress.

They were always portrayed as the adoring, golden couple. He was always shown as a champion for the
little people. And, Elizabeth always maintained a public face that all was well. How could we possibly know
unless we spied on them 24/7?

The only thing I can even think of that might have been a clue - however slight and obscure - would be that
clip of him obsessing over his hair before going on camera. It showed his inordinate vanity.

[CTyankee]

22. when I saw that clip I had a sinking feeling, which I quickly rejected. I shoulda known...

[dsc]

36. Even if the right wing prosecutor is telling the god's sworn truth

he didn't steal from his campaign. In point of fact, a key element of the case against Edwards is that the donors knew full well where the money was going and gave it to him specifically for that purpose with the direct purpose to aid his campaign. That, it should be noted, is the opposite of stealing.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

38. Rachel ‘Bunny’ Mellon, the 100-year-old widow of banking heir Paul Mellon, who gave $725,000

knew it was to support his mistress?

I didn't know that.

[dsc]

43. Yes she did

the question is why did she give the money. Did she do so to help his campaign or simply to help the mistress. the first reason makes it an illegal contribution, the second doesn't.

[karynnj]

57. The story I heard was she gave it after the media bashed him for the expensive haircut

She wanted him to have what in essence was a slush fund to pay such things.

I have never read that she knew about Rielle. The fact is, if she knew and wanted to help support Rielle, she could have given the money directly to Rielle - rather than to anyone connected to Edwards.

[karynnj]

56. Not quite - Bunny Mellon gave the money to be used for things that campaigns usually don't

pay for - but there was no suggestion that she knew that Rielle was carrying John's baby and that the money was going to her.

[The Wielding Truth]

9. Edwards had a failure of marital fidelity, but he had everything else he needed to lead.

Palin was and is unable to hold rational thought or comprehend international politics. She is not suited for national or even state leadership.

[Zalatix]

42. CLINTON!!!

How does Edwards compare?

[The Wielding Truth]

44. I said nothing about Clinton. ?

[Zalatix]

47. Dems gave Bill Clinton a huge pass on his infidelity

John Edwards? Not so much.

[The Wielding Truth]

52. Hillary was not dying. Not quite the same comparison.

[karynnj]

58. On his vows to his wife, worse - on his resume, worse

Clinton, as he said, caused a lot of pain in his marriage and he created an unneeded crisis for the country. Edwards actions were worse as they were done at the time his wife needed and deserved his support the most. On their records, even if you take Bill circa 1992, he has a far more extensive resume than a mediocre one term Senator.

[mulsh]

13. what does this have to do with Steve's massive fuck up?

Wasn't it part of his job to vet VP choices? He's nearly as corrupt as McCain

He's lucky Mr. Steele vouched for him at MSNBC, even Fox passes on his um...expertise. He's even luckier Rachael Maddow can and the other hosts on that new can tolerate him.

[hifiguy]

25. It wasn't really Schmidt's fault

McGrump wanted Moldy Joe LIEberman as his VP and when it was explained that such a ticket wasn't possible the whole process went into chaos. Eventually Bill ("the next time I am right will be the first!&quot Kristol somehow commandeered the discussion and pimped the hell out of Princess Dumbass because - it was implied - he clearly had a thing for her and though a woman VP candidate would attract Hillary voters.

All of this was gone over at some length in a long article I read a couple of years ago; it may have been in the New Yorker.

[LynneSin]

14. John Edward's affair was AFTER he was candidate for VP

Just saying....

[Laura PourMeADrink]

16. yep. Schmidt didn't specify whether he meant VP or P vetting. Surely he would know

Edwards shenangins were after 04. Might have been the standard republican BS...through
some bullshit out there - our base will never actually "look it up."

[LynneSin]

17. When have we ever vetted primary presidential candidates?

I mean if we did how could Newt Gingrich run for office with all the cheating he has done?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

20. haha good point ! So, you just proved he spoke bullshit ! Guess it's ok

to have an affair before you run or after you are in office -- but not while you are running.

No one knew, at the time Edwards dropped out, that he was using campaign money to
shack her up, right. Timing of it all escapes me.

[JI7]

28. that makes no sense because Edwards didn't do well in 2008 , it's like saying Cain or Perry

were not vetted for 2012.

[karynnj]

30. He actually did less well than Gingrich is doing now in 2004 -

It is true that he was "second", but that is because other candidates, who could competed with him for number two quit - Dean, Clark and even Gephardt might have been competitive with him.

[JI7]

33. yeah,Clark got 2nd to Kerry in a lot of places

a lot of the edwards stuff was media driven. but looking at numbers Clark or Dean came in 2nd a lot of places.

Kerry pretty much dominated unlike Romney right now. but the media still treats Romney like more of a frontrunner than they did Kerry. Kerry didn't just win the EAst coast and other traditional liberal areas he won much of the south Easily. he won the lower income groups everywhere. the only income groups he lost in some states were the higher income ones that went to dean and/or edwards.

[karynnj]

35. What the media did not say is that Kerry had the most dominant win in either

party for an open seat (ie when there was no incumbent President or VP as the natural nominee).

Kerry lost only SC and OK before becoming the defacto nominee. (He lost VT on that day to VT's favorite son, who had already left the race and he lost a later NC caucus that went for their favorite son.) Most of the wins of the big super Tuesday were by double digits.

To give an idea of how different the media was, the NYT had an oped the week before Super Tuesday, when Kerry had won 14 of the 16 contests and Edwards had won 1 - and Kerry was polling ahead by double digits in the contests the next week. The oped said the Democrats' nominee would be John, but could be Kerry or Edwards - then made a case for Edwards. Contrast that with the media crowning Romney after a "win" in Iowa and in NH - and again after FL. They were stronger on Romney being the inevitable winner than they were with Kerry - until on supertuesday on March 2, Kerry had the regular delegates needed to gain the nomination. (Even then, Carville at least once spoke of how it was possible that some of the delegates were not bound and there could be a brokered convention.)

In fact, Romney's race may look more like Bill Clinton's 1992 run. Clinton was a media favorite, who then nearly imploded, leading him to call himself the comeback kid when he won a second place in NH. Clinton won the entire south, while his opponents split the usually more Democratic North. The media cheered every Clinton win - just as they cheer Romney more than the others. (Mirror image of this year, with Romney getting states that are usually Democratic, while his opponents are winning most of the typical Republican states.) Now - I DON'T jump to suggest that this makes it more likely that he beats Obama = GHWB had an approval rating at this point that was below 40%. Obama's approval rating is higher and his personal favorability is MUCH higher.

In addition, there were dynamics unlikely to be repeated that helped Clinton. By June, Perot and Bush outpolled Clinton - so, you can argue that Clinton, like Romney was harmed by the primaries (and some real Clinton flaws) Then Perot dropped out with a seemingly crazy claim against the Bush family was out to harm his family. This led to Clinton taking the lead as he gained the Perot supporters, which he kept even when Perot returned. In addition, the media covered the happy excited crowds that came to see Clinton giving him momentum. In 2004, Kerry broke those attendance records, but the media did NOT show the crowds or the positive parts of Kerry's campaign speeches. I strongly believe that had they covered the campaign as they have covered every other campaign, Kerry likely would have won.

[karynnj]

29. Vetting for President is done by the voters

and the Democrats across the country REJECTED Edwards. They did this even though after Iowa and NH, the media encouraged them to consider him. In state after the state, the answer in 2004 was "no". He won just SC. In 2008, his second (completely different) campaign won him no states at all.

[Renew Deal]

32. Didn't Edwards begin his relationship with the mistress after 2004?

[B Calm]

37. Edwards put his name in the hat

there was no vetting.

[karynnj]

55. Huh? He was vetted in 2004 - and they found no reason to rule him out

[krkaufman]

39. Also... enough of the Steve Schmidt love

If 'Game Change' was accurate, as Schmidt says, then it clearly shows Schmidt pushing hard to pawn-off a fraud on the American people. I'm not gonna give the guy much credit for being able to state the bleeding obvious. The bar needs to be higher.

[DeschutesRiver]

46. Edwards wouldn't have been the disaster of a president that Palin would have been

No comparison, and I never liked Edwards.

If I think of President Edwards, I don't see someone whose lack of vetting would prevent him from running the country.

If I think of a President Palin...well...a proper vetting would have revealed that everything about her prevented her from running the country (which as a VP to an old cancer survivor could have happened).

Edwards had no good sense in his personal life, and yes, it showed he had a corrupt side, but I can name a ton of leaders of countries and movements that had the same but did good in other ways. It isn't good; however, it isn't catastrophic for a nation in and of it self. Has the potential to lead to some pretty bad stuff if the character flaw is very deep, but am reading a book right now about FDR and all his personal stuff - sometimes it just "is".

But if you haven't a brain, then you can add that to being corrupt (which Palin also was) and the result is a flat out inability to manage anything, more less our country. Palin's flaw of being completely unqualified is in a whole 'nuther category than Edwards, etc. I don't think I can name another President who was in Palin's category. I can think of plenty that I disliked, that I'd say weren't all that smart, but as bad as Palin? No. She is as bad as it has ever been (and I even remember old Dan Qualye).

The lack of vetting on the Republican side could have lead to an epic crisis here at home, and Schmidt knows it.