Shrum versus Edwards?

I have a review forthcoming of Bob Shrum's memoir, so I don't want to say much about that at the moment. My review didn't, however, really deal with the subject of Mike Crowley's piece on the book which focuses on the idea that Shrum deliberately slams John Edwards in the book. I had a very different reaction to the book than did Crowley. I agree that Shrum paints Edwards in a bad light in several places, but what I thought to myself while reading them was "the crazy thing is that Shrum seems to think this makes Edwards look good!"

At any rate, Crowley makes a convincing case, but what motivated my alternative reading was that unrelated portions of the book dealing with other people indicated to me that Shrum likes to deploy a very heavy hand when grinding his axes. The Edwards passages didn't feel like that to me. One source of contention, for example, is that Shrum says in the book that Edwards' vote for the war was basically a political position move that Shrum (among others) advocated that went against Edwards' instincts. The Edwards campaign has made it clear that they really don't like this story, and instead prefer to focus on the issue of flawed intelligence and misplaced faith in George W. Bush. It seems perfectly plausible to me that Shrum would have believed that Shrum's account paints Edwards in a more favorable light -- Edwards is a man of sound judgment who in a moment of weakness bowed to expediency and has ever since learned to stick to his guns. Obviously, Team Edwards doesn't see it that way, but it continues to be a bit unclear to me what mistake, exactly, Edwards is trying to say he made with that vote.

Comments

Re "it continues to be a bit unclear to me what mistake, exactly, Edwards is trying to say he made with that vote."
--------
As Microsoft would note, that confusion is not a bug -- it's a feature.

Posted by Don Williams | May 23, 2007 8:25 PM

Edward's official line at least, is that he listened to the dem national security elite, and let them guide him. I saw this on a charlie rose interview on google video last year, long before the campaign and debates started. He strongly denied having trusted Bush, and critical of Kerry for using that excuse.

That's also perfectly plausible and could be what he referred to in the debate.

Posted by David Weman | May 23, 2007 8:30 PM

Actually, looking at google video, it was probably the one from November.

Posted by David Weman | May 23, 2007 8:34 PM

MY,
How could you mention that waste of dead trees and not point out the other interesting relevation in that book. The one about Joe Klein. What a fraud he is. How he has lost his moral compass. How he revels in conflicts of interest.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | May 23, 2007 9:19 PM

When a man who has failed at eight different businesses and succeeded at none criticizes your business skills is that an insult or a compliment?

Posted by Linus | May 23, 2007 9:38 PM

Um, maybe the mistake where all the dems have been spooked ever since the first Iraq war where some of them felt like they torpedoed their presidential ambition by not beeing "tough" enough. So then they all torpedoed their ambitions by signing onto the wrong war a decade later.

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 23, 2007 9:41 PM

The nice thing is most people write their memoirs at the end of their professional careers. Lets just hope this hold true for Shrummy.

Posted by Fred | May 23, 2007 9:48 PM

Given Bob Shrum's impeccable political judgement, MY's take seems pretty sound to me: the guy always has been utterly and completely clueless about how the real world works. His favors are headaches for their intended recipients.

On the other hand, Shrum's a slimy enough character that the whole thing could be a load crap anyways.

Posted by faux facsimile | May 23, 2007 10:08 PM

Shouldn't the fact that Edwards took policy advice from BOB SHRUM be the most damaging detail in all this?

Posted by blah | May 24, 2007 12:00 AM

I think Shrum's account, if true, is extremely devestating. It means that on an absolutely critical question of national security Edwards ignored his own judgement and signed on with his advisors for purely political reasons. That's absolutely unpresidential and basically a disqualification for that office. I would never vote for Edwards if that were the case, I'd write in someone else instead.

The key word is, of course, if it's true. And I doubt that it is. I think Edwards was simply ignorant and wrong, as opposed to informed and duplicitious. Which is actually much better--you can learn from inexperienced mistakes, but you can't change your fundamental character.

Posted by Korha | May 24, 2007 12:18 AM

And I doubt that it is.

You notice all the top tier dems made the same call? It was all about "electability", don't fool yourself.

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 24, 2007 12:24 AM

So. At what McDonald's branch is Shrum working?

Posted by Nick Kaufman | May 24, 2007 12:35 AM

"You notice all the top tier dems made the same call? It was all about "electability", don't fool yourself."

Huh? I'm almost positive Clinton, for example, thought invading Iraq was not that bad of idea. She thought Saddam was a bad guy, that Iraq had WMD, and that eventually there would be a reckoning between him and the U.S. Better now than later, and besides it was wartime and we ought to support the president's negotations. A lot of the democrats who voted for the Iraq AUMF and eventually supported the war most likely thought the same things.

Obviously politics is omnipresent, I wouldn't argue otherwise. But here's the thing: if you realize that the Iraq War is going to be poitically damaging to the president, then the smart political strategy would be to oppose the war. Clearly, most of the people who supported the war didn't think so, and thus they didn't think that the Iraq War would be a disaster. Some of the "top tier" democrats probably didn't think it was such a good idea, and they said some things along those lines), but they didn't do all that much to oppose it. I put Clinton and Biden in that category. That is, they wanted to support the war initially, and they did so. They made the call. They made the wrong call; but it's not a presidential disqualifier.

Now Shrum on the other hand is painting a picture of Edwards going against his own instincts and that of his wife to vote for the AUMF, because his advisors pushed him into it. Basically Shrum says Edwards didn't want to vote for the resolution but got bullied into it by his handlers anyway. That's pathetic; if Edwards can't stand up to Bob Shrum he's going to stand up against powerful lobbies, or against terrorists? It destroys any credibility he might have.

But again: I don't believe it. I think Edwards absolutely wanted to vote for AUMF, because he genuinely thought Saddam Hussein was a menace and needed to be stopped. I can also believe that Elizabeth Edwards was opposed to it all along.

Posted by Korha | May 24, 2007 12:58 AM

As long as the Shrums of the party are the leading consigliere for the Democratic leadership, we Dems ain't going anywhere. For the life of me, I can't begin to understand the political calculus of this moron Shrum and nit-wits like him. Why would you even want to be involved with the party if you are so politically/philosophically alienated from the vast majority of the base in your sensibilities.

I'll give Edwards a pass on this. I care more about where he's at now in his positions and sensibility. We can psycho-analyze his past motivations for this and that 'til the cows come home. Fact: he apologized and said he made wrong decision. These sorts of {character indicators}, for what reason did he do this or that, can sometimes get over-blown.

Posted by Warren | May 24, 2007 2:54 AM

Why does anyone still listen to Shrum? Do they hire him because they WANT to lose?

Posted by merlallen | May 24, 2007 2:59 AM

I think the story kerry recounts about edwards twice told tale about his dead son(in which both cases edwards tells kerry he has 'never told this to anyone before') could damage edwards if it gets widely known. It paints edwards as extraordinarily cynical, sickeningly so.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | May 24, 2007 3:26 AM

In your review "Shrum and Dumber" you say "The resulting Reagan administration was a disaster for the poor and working-class Americans." Well, not really. I voted for Jimmy Carter twice and against Ronnie twice, but if you bother to look at the results, not only did Ronnie get re-elected, he managed to elect his vice-president, something that Ike, LBJ, Carter, and Clinton all failed to do.

I like most of your stuff, but 90% of this review is simply "how come that schmuck gets a big, fat paycheck when I'm twice as smart as he is?"

Posted by Alan Vanneman | May 25, 2007 8:09 AM