Dean brings Kerry and Edwards together in mutual disgust

It’s pretty common for candidates vying for their party’s presidential nomination not to get along. Bush infuriated Reagan for calling his tax policies “voodoo economics” in 1980, Dukakis hated Gore for bringing up problems with Massachusetts’ prisoner furlough program in ’88, and Clinton resented Tsongas’ accusations attacking his integrity in ’92. Sometimes intense rivals can patch things up and form a party’s ticket (JFK and Johnson in ’60), while sometimes they continue to harbor ill will for years (like Bush and McCain, who still don’t like each other and probably never will).

In recent months, we’ve heard all about how John Edwards’ campaign hates John Kerry’s campaign and vice versa. They’ve accused each of stealing each other’s ideas, of sabotaging campaign events, of interfering with fundraising, etc. Suddenly, however, there’s a new story. Edwards and Kerry are getting along just fine. They’ve been brought together by their mutual hatred for Howard Dean. (I guess that makes Dean the real uniter, not divider)

A week ago today, the Boston Globe reported on a conversation between Kerry and Edwards on the Senate floor. Kerry was seen placing his hand on his rival’s shoulder and nodding while Edwards was clearly animated. The North Carolinian told Kerry in a voice loud enough for reporters to hear, ”He got up there and lied.”

“He,” of course, was Dean, and the “lie” was Dean’s misrepresentation of Edward’s remarks on the war in Iraq.

The problem stemmed from speeches the candidates gave in California earlier this month at the state party’s convention. Kerry and Edwards received warm receptions until they mentioned their support for the war. Edwards’ remarks in particular generated intense booing from the party activists in attendance for his support of using force in Iraq. An hour later, Dean took the stage and criticized Kerry and Edwards by name for abandoning their positions on the war and telling the audience that the other candidates say one thing in DC, but something else in California. The crowd ate it up, but it wasn’t true.

Dean later apologized. Explaining the mistake, Dean said, “I didn’t know what [Edwards] had said because I hadn’t been in the hall and nobody told me. Had I known what Senator Edwards had done, I would not have said that.”

Sorry doc, but that’s not a great defense. You assail a rival for his speech but later admit you didn’t hear even hear it? Nobody “told you” what he said before you lambasted him for his remarks? That sounds a bit like “the dog ate my homework.” Candidates running for president should at least know what a competitor says before attacking his veracity.

This is likely to get uglier before it gets better. This week, Dean visited Iowa and once more accused Edwards of having “changed his position” on the war. His proof? Someone told him that Edwards gave another speech in California, which Dean apparently also did not hear, in which Dean said Edwards seemed “ambivalent” about his support for the war. (Being “ambivalent” is not the same thing as actually changing your position, but it was close enough for Dean.)

Edwards’ camp, naturally, is getting increasingly irritated by Dean’s unsubstantiated criticisms. And Kerry’s camp noted today that they are disappointed that Dean’s “tone has been so negative, so personal, and so divisive so early in the race.”

I also find it odd that Dean has been so aggressive in accusing others of lacking consistency on foreign policy issues considering his own discrepancies regarding North Korea and Iraq.

Obviously, the war is underway and its outcome will have a tremendous influence on these disagreements. If the war goes badly, there are huge U.S. casualties, and/or the battles last far longer than administration officials have predicted, Dean will have positioned himself to benefit politically. If the war is a success and is over within a few weeks, Dean will lose the one issue that’s been driving supporters to his campaign in droves.

Either way, the relationships between Dean and his competitors may never recover. He’s burned some bridges and I really doubt they can be rebuilt over the next year.