Edwards Webisode

The Edwards campaign hired Rielle Hunter and her documentary team to follow the candidate 24 hours a day immediately after he announced his run for president. Looking back on their affair (detailed in the post below), Edwards said he was narcissistic and felt invincible at this point.

The footage does not dispute that.

Would We Lie?- Quote of the Day 8/11

"Of course it wasn't hush money!"

- Former John Edwards Finance director, confidante, and rich guy Fred Baron on whether the $15,000/ month he's been giving to former Edwards aide Andrew Young and former Edwards mistress Rielle Hunter is in exchange for the pair's stance that Young (and not Edwards) is the father of Rielle's baby.

Baron said he's given money to both Young and Hunter to leave North Carolina and escape press, and has also covered their "overhead" costs. He denies Edwards ever knew he was funding the pair.

Edwards recently admitted to the affair with the 42 year old documentarian, but denied he's the father of her child, even though he was photographed visiting them recently.

So, to recap:

• Oct. 10, 2007: The National Inquirer reports the affair
  
• Oct. 11, 2007: Hunter issues a denial: "The innuendoes [sic] and lies that have appeared on the internet and in the National Enquirer are not true, completely unfounded and ridiculous... my conduct was completely professional. This concocted story is just dirty politics and I want no part of it."
• Same day: Edwards denies affair
  
• Dec. 19: National Inquirer reports Hunter's pregnant and Edwards is the father
• Later that day: Through an attorney, Young issues statement that he's the father, is leaving the campaign, and Edwards had no idea about the relationship
• July 22, 2008: National Inquirer reports that Edwards visited Hunter and baby at an LA hotel
• July 23: Edwards denies story again- "The tabloid trash is full of lies"
• August 8: National Inquirer publishes photos of LA hotel meeting
• Same day: Edwards admits affair

So, after all that lying, they contend that Edwards is not the father and that he had no idea his close friend was paying the alleged father and mistress $15k/ month. Because that's something he'd be kept in the dark about...

Edwards claimed he met with Hunter at the assistance of a "mutual friend" to hear her story of struggle with the publicity.

Although Edwards claims he would take a paternity test, Hunter said she will not allow it.

Picture of the Day 1/30: the Long Goodbye

Rudy Giuliani blows a kiss to supporters before his concession speech last night in Florida, and with it kisses goodbye his presidential aspirations. Giuliani and John Edwards both dropped out today, leaving the presidential nominating contests to four contenders.

Edwards reportedly called both of his rivals to inform them of his decision and ask that they pledge to keep the poverty issue at the forefront of their campaigns. He has yet to endorse a candidate.

Rudy, meanwhile, has backed his friend and now-frontrunner Senator John McCain. Entire poli sci courses will be taught in college someday on the 2008 presidential primaries, and there will be a section called "How to sabotage your own chance" about Giuliani.

Obama's Curious Co-Chair

As NBC reports Barack Obama has tabbed former South Carolina governor Jim Hodges as a national co-chair for his campaign. Why is this odd?

Well, Obama hammered rivals (especially John Edwards) for ties to lobbyists and special interests, and maintained that no lobbyists will work in his administration or "set the agenda in Washington."

Earlier, in response to Obama's harping on what was really a tangential tie to a lobbyist, Edwards vowed not to allow any lobbyists in his White House. The Obama camp responded:

Early in this campaign, Barack Obama introduced the furthest-reaching lobbying reform proposal of any candidate in this race, and we appreciate that John Edwards is now following his lead. The truth is, in his six years as a U.S. Senator, John Edwards did not propose or accomplish a single thing to reduce the power of lobbyists while Barack Obama passed the most sweeping lobbying reform since Watergate.

So what's the big deal about Jim Hodges?

Well in addition to being a former governor, Hodges is a federal lobbyist. He founded Hodges Consulting Group, a subsidiary of Kennedy Covington Lobdell & Hickman, L.L.P, a law firm that represents clients in North Carolina and South Carolina. Hodges Consulting calls itself “well positioned to offer highly effective lobbying services and unparalleled state budget expertise. Hodges Consulting Group can also provide federal representation to clients."

Dems' Closing Arguments...

With the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries just a days away, Democratic candidates (lawyers all) are formulating their closing arguments.

Hillary's New Hampshire ad:


In a recent "closing arguments speech," Obama harped on his change theme, arguing that his had already set the tone for the Democratic debate:

"...We felt that we might be able to not just change political parties in the White House, but that we might be able to change our politics. That was our bet and now 10 months later that faith has been vindicated, 10 months later what people said couldn't be done, we might do."

He also made a comeback comment to Bill Clinton's warning that the American people would be "rolling the dice" with an Obama presidency:

"Don't … try something different because that's going to be too risky, you… don't know what you're going to get. So even though you know what's been done in the past doesn't work, stick with it."

John Edwards unveiled this ad in Iowa, but for a very interesting in-depth look at his closing argument, check out the Caucus videos on the right sidebar here, and watch "John Edwards' Iowa Closing Argument."

Jackson: The best candidate for African Americans? John Edwards

In today's Chicago Sun Times, civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson, a formidable presidential candidate in 1984 and '88 wrote an op-ed about the failure of Democrats to speak to the plight of Black America.

Jackson points out that blacks provided the margin of victory for Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in key battle ground states. He asks: Can Democrats get the votes they need by simply not being Republicans?

In a campaign with two minorities at the top of national polls, including perhaps the most "viable" African American candidate ever, Jackson singles out a white man as speaking the best to the tough issues facing Black America.

Yet the Democratic candidates -- with the exception of John Edwards, who opened his campaign in New Orleans' Ninth Ward and has made addressing poverty central to his campaign -- have virtually ignored the plight of African Americans in this country.

Wow. Think that caught the attention of Barack Obama's campaign? Hillary Clinton, the wife of "America's first Black president," is stung by the assessment, too, but her campaign probably likes it because it makes Obama look worse, especially with Oprah getting ready to hit his campaign trail.

All in all, though, it's hard to argue with Jackson's points. It's not an unique sentiment. Obama's numbers among African American voters have been less than spectacular, prompting his wife to assure that Black America will "wake up and get it" when it comes to supporting her husband.

Well, it looks like Jackson is sleeping through Obama's campaign thus far. And that, in his view, Democratic candidates are sleeping through a tremendous opportunity with Black voters. Well, almost all of them anyway.

New Edwards Ad

Here is John Edwards' new ad that's running in Iowa. It plays up his working class roots, and his commitment to the middle and lower classes.

As his deputy campaign director said: "What this ad does is begin to build on the argument John made the other night that … right now we face the moral test of our generation."


Yesterday, I argued with a friend who said that Edwards is now so rich that he can't relate to the people he claims to protect. His haircuts cost hundreds, he lives in a gigantic mansion, and made millions as a trial lawyer. But he's the son of a North Carolina miner (I think) and the first in his family to go to college.

To me, his talk about "Two America's" is genuine, and comes hard won. Most importantly, he has the detailed proposals to back it up.

New New Deal on the way, if Edwards gets his way

John Edwards has been in the news recently. It's go time for his campaign. Yesterday, I posted that Obama was gearing up to take on Hillary more directly, well that goes double for Edwards, times 10 (that's 20x overall, for those keeping score). Edwards staked his campaign on winning Iowa, and he's now running third (albeit a close third). So he's gotten serious, outlining bold policy propositions and forcefully criticizing Clinton.

On the policy front, Edwards has proposed a slew of New Deal- esque programs to fight poverty. Edwards would look to raise the minimum wage to $9.50, provide a million new Section 8 housing vouchers for the poor, and also pledged to start a government-funded public higher education program called "College for Everyone."

"It is central to what I want to do as president to do something about economic inequality. I do not believe it is okay for the United States of America to have 37 million people living in poverty. And I think we need, desperately need, a president who will say that to America and call on Americans to show their character."

Edwards said his top three priorities are: Ending the war in Iraq, enacting universal health care, and overhauling our energy policy.

As for the Hill, he ripped her for taking money from federal lobbyists and for her vote calling Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. Edwards said the vote could give the president the authority to bomb Iran. Obama missed the vote, but attacked Clinton similarly.

I feel bad for Edwards, he's not winning this thing, and he's damaged goods so the VP slot's not happening. The only thing that could save him may be an endorsement from SAM Online... but we're not there yet.

Speaking of endorsements... NBC reports that after heavy lobbying by the Democratic field, the New Hampshire SIEU, one of the state's largest unions, has endorsed Edwards. The nod could be a big help for him, who is way behind in New Hampshire polls, because it means votes and volunteers.

This is the 12th state SEIU endorsement Edwards has won; the others include Iowa and California.

By the way, SAM is also being lobbied for our endorsement. We're leaning Gravel, but nothing's final just yet.

Straight from the TMI Dept.

A moment in the Esquire profile of John Edwards goes from tender to curious to gross...

"I hope this isn't too personal," I said to Edwards, "but I was reading about how Elizabeth discovered her cancer this second go-around. It was a broken rib, correct?"

"Yes," Edwards said.

"The papers said you were hugging her -- which is always nice to hear, a married guy hugging his wife. It must have been bizarre. What happened, you just hugged her and heard a snap?"

"Maybe it is a little personal," Edwards said, laughing self-consciously.

"Maybe I don't want to know?"

"It was a perfectly reasonable question," he said, bailing me out.

"So hugging was perhaps a euphemism?"

"That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it," he said, raking his forelock with his fingers.

'08 Update

The presidential election is a mere 439 days away... so let's take a quick look at where we're at:

Clinton: Still leading comfortably in every national poll, Clinton has accomplished her main task- she can essentially just play defense and ride out the primary season. In baseball terms, it's like she's a pitcher with an 8 run lead in the 5th inning. She just has to relax, throw strikes, and trust her defense will come through. It's hers to lose, she just has to avoid any major gaffes (shouldn't be a problem for such a seasoned and savvy pol) and downplay her differences from her rivals. That's how you know she's winning, because the press is running with the "experience" vs. "change" theme, and that's a winning theme for Hillary. She's framing the debate, and any time a candidate can do that they're good as gold.

Obama: His campaign is kind of in neutral. He's established himself as the primary alternative to Clinton, which is huge, but that only gets you so far. Obama is still the second banana, and while he's closed (or eliminated) the fundraising gap, he hasn't had as much success with the polling gap. On the other hand, if I were in his campaign I'd be content with his decent polling numbers, because Clinton's support could erode when voters think about her electability in the general election. Look for Obama to give a lot of "Republicans want you to vote for Hillary" speeches this fall.

Edwards: I know I write a lot about him on this site, but I just find his campaign damn fanscinating. Right now, he's attempting to hit the restart button, and do a take two. Serious problems with his cash flow, silly issues with his hair, and the need to reinvent himself have played against Edwards. I think it's too bad, because he has potential. Bottom line: His Iowa springboard strategy is a long shot, and, therefore, so is he.

Giuliani: I have kind of agreed with the "expert" analysis on Rudy: He just can't win, just wait 'til conservative voters get what he's about, and his support will fade. Yet, the man has only gotten stronger. His staying power has been the major story on the Republican side (along with McCain's collapse). That said, I'm still waiting for the other shoe to drop and I have to believe it's coming.

Thompson: As James Carville put it: "A lot of people want to be president, but not a lot want to go through what it takes to get there." This is a guy who nearly dropped out of his Senate run because he hated the campaign life. Is he ever going to announce? Or does he just like his picture on TV every night (as if the constant L&O reruns weren't enough). If I were Giuliani or Romney, he honestly wouldn't scare me much.

McCain: ... cricket... cricket...

Romeny: He's the favorite by default, I really like his Iowa strategy, and think he would take Rudy out in a one- on- one match up. He's got electability, is faking conservative credentials, and has lots of dough (by Republican standards).

Edwards Gets a Bump from an Unexpected Source

A recent New York Times column sings the praises of former Senator John Edwards. Its source might surprise you: David Brooks, the Times' conservative voice, appears to really like Edwards.

The portrait he paints is very interesting. I should point out that I wasn't able to read the entire article because it's in the "Times Select" selection (think ESPN Insider) and requires a subscription. But there are a bunch of summaries and reviews online.

Brooks talks about how every candidate has a story they tell on the stump, "Some talk about being part of a great movement [Obama]. Some talk about surviving an ordeal with a band of brothers [Kerry]. John Edwards’s stories begin with family, continue with work and solitary struggle and conclude with triumph over privilege." Edwards' stump speech, which Brooks calls "the best of the last decade," basically won him his nomination as vice president in '04.

But 2008 isn't 2004, certainly not for Edwards. The people have heard the speech, have met the man. So in reshaping his campaign 4 years later, Brooks expected Edwards to move left, outflanking Clinton and Obama. But, instead, Edwards has stayed true to his populist economic message:

"...it’s clear that the Edwards campaign is based on the same conviction that organized his last campaign: no one understands regular people the way he does. No one else can get out of a bus in places like Pocahontas, Iowa, and bond with the farmers, nurses and hairstylists the way he can. No one else comes from their ranks the way he does." According to Brooks, Edwards' disdain for children of priviledge created a rift between him and Kerry that was palpable in 2004.

In fact, Brooks calls Edwards "a culturally conservative anti-Washington liberal," as evidenced by that "2 Americas" stump speech, which takes Washington to task for creating our country's extreme wealth disparity. The point is that Edwards is a Democrat because he grew up a poor boy in North Carolina; he wants to do for people like his parents, people like the ones he's desparately trying to convince in Iowa.

The major difference between Edwards then and now is that "This time, Edwards is not as exciting a campaigner. But he is more substantive. He seems to have concluded that eloquence alone can’t make him presidential. So he talks less about himself and mixes his bromides with wonkery. His answers on everything from China to ethanol are filled with complex, multipart arguments. He passes on opportunities to be demagogic."

So Edwards seems to be a more attractive candidate now. But the star power of Clinton and Obama and the stench of 2004's disappointment are conspiring against him. Whatever the outcome, he's got an unlikely fan at the Times.

Quote of the Day 7/31

""The American way is not single-payer, government-controlled anything. That’s a European way of doing something. That’s a, frankly, a Socialist way of doing something... If single-payer systems are cracking all over the world, why would we do it in America? Michael Moore wants to take you to Cuba for your health care. Anyone want to sign up? I didn’t think so. Maybe the Democrats will sign up."

- Rudy Giuliani giving an important health care speech in New Hampshire before an audience of Conservative think tanks and interest groups. NBC reports: he didn't outline specifics of a plan, but railed against Michael Moore and Democrats. He cited long wait times in Canada for even MRIs and took issue with the potential cost of Democratic-proposed universal health care plans. When pressed by a questioner on what steps he would take on health care, Giuliani said, first, he would "bring down the cost, so other people can afford it." Then, "give people a tax advantage to go buy individual insurance."

I don't pretend to be a health care expert, and I don't know the feasibility of covering a country with 300 million people, but close to 50 million people don't have health care in this country and something has to be done about it. This is primary season, time for politicians to make political headway, but can we hear SOME specifics? How, specifically, will you address health care in your administration? And spare me the Michael Moore/ Cuba crap please... what a waste of time.

John Edwards is the only candidate I know of who outlined a comprehensive plan. When asked if his plan would call for a tax hike he replied, "Yes."

My hope is that health care doesn't turn out to be for Democrats what abortion has been for Republicans, where the party wants the issue more than they care about the cause. Republicans use abortion to motivate their base and attract voters, so, politically speaking, some might want to keep abortion legal, so they can criticize it. I just hope Democrats don't plan on running the same "broken healthcare system" speeches every election to motivate their base.

Ok, I'm rambling and I have to study. I haven't been posting too much, because it's the middle of finals for my summer program. Two more tomorrow, and it's off to Paris on Thursday. I'll be back in the good ole' USA August 7. Hopefully some other bloggers will be posting.

And if you want to contribute to SAM email me or just comment to a post.

Quote of the Day 7/27

"This stuff's not an accident. Nobody in this room should think this is an accident. You know, I'm out there speaking up for universal healthcare, ending this war in Iraq, speaking up for the poor. They want to shut me up. That's what this is about. 'Let's distract from people who don't have health care coverage. Let's distract from people who can't feed their children.... Let's talk about this silly frivolous nothing stuff so that America won't pay attention.'

They will never silence me. Never.

If we don't stand up to these people, if we don't fight em, if we don't beat them, they're going to continue to control this country. Thye're going to control the media. They're going to control what's being said. They do not want to hear us talking about health care for everybody... You think these people who make $100 million a year want to pay their fair share of taxes? That's what they hire all them lobbyists for in Washington DC."

John Edwards speaking before a crowd of what looks to be mostly blue- haired ladies in Iowa, where he currently leads in polls and has staked his campaign's future.

As Ben Smith points out at his blog for the Politico, there's really no mention of who "they" are. Mr. Smith has a better account of the speech here. I could criticize Edwards for using scare- tactics, but this is what campaigning is. Just like Hillary Clinton is playing the embattled woman card to her advantage (see below post), Edwards is trying to use the BS stories about his hair to his.

Who's to say both aren't right? Edwards does have the most populist message out there, he also has the most comprehensive plan for universal health care.

Either way, though, the speech comes off as either manipulative or paranoid, and maybe even delusional (are "they" responsible for Edward's poor polling numbers and fundraising, too?).

Senators Gone Wild!

A week ago the Washington Post ran an article, in its Style section that noted Hillary Clinton's low neckline in a speech she gave on the Senate floor. The article is pretty ridiculous, but it's in the Style section, and written by a Pulitzer Prize winning fashion reporter.

Crass as it was, the piece was great news for the Senator's presidential campaign. Clinton has made an effort to play up her gender, and its historical significance, in speeches, commercials and emails.

The article has given the issue loads of free publicity, and Clinton has capitalized on it by sending out a fundraising email based on its contents. As Clinton aide Ann Lewis put it,

"Frankly, focusing on women’s bodies instead of their ideas is insulting. It’s insulting to every woman who has ever tried to be taken seriously in a business meeting. It’s insulting to our daughters — and our sons — who are constantly pressured by the media to grow up too fast."

The fund-raising email asks: "Clothes? Cleavage? Make- Up? What's really important in this race?" (A seeming take- off of John Edwards' youtube video about everyone making such a big deal about his hair)

The move is smart because it can even attract more women to vote for (and donate to) Sen. Clinton. All the attention would be to Clinton's political benefit, because it keeps her issue (rightly or wrongly) in the media.

The constant talk about a candidate's gender, a silly topic to begin with, could make some women indignant and movited. Women getting angry that such a big deal is being made is great for the Senator, so long as no one's angry at her.

Link to a good article

Here's a solid article by Chuck Todd, NBC's chief political correspondent, on what's changed (and what hasn't) over the first 6 months of the presidential race.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19654377/

Some highlights:

- Mitt Romney leading the GOP candidates in: Money spent, campaign organization, NH and Iowa polls

- John McCain "no longer controls his own destiny, and needs all 3 of his rivals to implode"

- Some Republicans set their social concerns aside because the offense- minded Guiliani is their "general" in the ongoing war against radical Islam.

- Clinton vs. Obama shaping up as contest of realism vs. idealism... seems to be an old storyline on both sides of the political aisle. Sometimes idealism nominations work (Reagan '80) and others they fail miserably (Goldwater '64).

- John Edwards' "window is closing fast"

Dems Dominate

Sites and newspapers are agog over the disparate fundraising numbers of Republican presidential candidates and their Democratic counterparts. Here's a run down:



Dems
Obama $31M
Hill $21M
Edwards $9M

Repubs
Gules $15M
Mitt $14M
The Candidate formerly known as John McCain $10M

Those were how the numbers shook out until the Camp Mitt got some great news. Out of nowhere it got a HUGE donation of $6.5M to its campaign. The source? A certain super-wealthy, Mormon, former governor, who shares his name with a piece sports equipment... yup, Cleats Cuomo. No wait, that would be Mitt Romney himself. What a generous guy.

So why are the Dems dominating the fundraising race?

It seems the Conservatives haven't really fallen in love with any of their candidates. The Dems are flawed, for sure, but their base is so jacked up for this election, they seem willing to look past it. 6 years of the Bush presidency will do that to you.

Beyond that, though, you have to just give it up to Hillary and Barry... they've got to be two of the best fundraisers in modern political history. You put two candidates with that kind of talent in this charged atmosphere, and all records are going to fall.

That's not to take anything away from the guys on the other side. Guiliani is talented, and moves people to act (and give) because his association with 9/11. Mitt looks like the real deal. And McCain, well, it seems like he's just trying to stay in the game long enough to save face.

Check out the NY Times Article for details:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/us/politics/04repubs.html?hp