Dodd Goes On Offensive Against Edwards Over Lobbyists

August 20, 2007 | Permalink

During yesterday’s ABC News Democratic Debate, John Edwards repeated his challenge over candidates’ acceptance of money from lobbyists:

EDWARDS: …Listen, Senator Clinton, both as first lady and as a United States senator, has done a terrific job. She’s been in Washington a long time. I’ve asked — Senator, I have never taken money from Washington lobbyists.

Senator Obama is not taking it in this campaign. I applaud him for that. And I’ve said: Why don’t we all make an absolutely clear statement that we are the Democratic Party; we’re the party of the people; we are not the party of Washington insiders?

And we can say it clearly and unequivocally, by saying we will never take another dime from a Washington lobbyist.

I’ve asked the other candidates to join me in that.

And at least, until now, Senator Clinton’s not done it.

ROAAAAAARRR! Senator Clinton initially dodged the issue, then eventually responded by saying that it was an artificial distinction. Debate moderator, George Stephanopolous then turned the question to Senator Dodd:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Dodd, will you accept the challenge from Senator Edwards?

DODD: Well, look, first of all, I find this sort of situational ethics here. I mean, over the years, the fine people taking money from one group or the other were sort of competing with each other as to which group is a good or bad group here.

The fact of the matter is: I’ve been supporting, for years and years, public financing of federal offices. That’s what needed in this country. We’re never going to solve this problem, unless we move in that direction.

And, certainly, it’s not only the money you take, but what are you doing? How are you casting your votes? Where were you on bankruptcy? Where were you on dealing with the estate tax reform?

Those critical questions that affect people in this country are very important considerations. But public financing is where we need to be….

Following the debate, the Dodd campaign issued a statement entitled “John Edwards May Not Take Money From Washington Lobbyists, But He Sure Acted Like It.” In it, the Dodd campaign takes issue with Edwards’ voting record, noting:

Edwards would not allow relief for people who were forced into bankruptcy from medical bills. Edwards also sided with the entire GOP caucus to vote against the Wellstone amendment to the 2001 bill. This amendment would have provided an exemption for debtors who were forced to file for bankruptcy due to medical expenses, under the rationale that health expenses are often unpreventable and can be an especially debilitating cost to low and middle income families. Chris Dodd was one of the 34 Democrats who voted for this amendment?a group that included Senators Clinton, Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry and Wellstone. [S.420, Vote 16, 3/7/01]

Edwards rejected a means test amendment that would have protected debtors from sudden financial misfortune. On the same bill, Edwards again voted with the entire GOP caucus to reject an amendment that would have included a more consumer friendly means test than that included in the original bill. The amended means test would have used the average of a debtor’s last two months of income to determine their ability to pay a certain threshold amount of debt, instead of the last six months of income. The amended means test was designed to protect debtors who face financial difficulties from sudden job loss or disability. Paul Wellstone, who authored the amendment, said the original test “will make it impossible for families to rebuild their lives.” 22 Democrats supported this amendment, including Chris Dodd. Dodd was accompanied by Senators Clinton, Durbin, Feingold, and Kennedy. [S.420, Vote 33, 3/15/01; CQ Quarterly, 3/5/01]

The political strategy here is to kick up some dust and hope the media catches on in order to get some attention for the campaign. In all likelihood, this won’t happen. However, if Dodd continues to levy attacks against top candidates, he only increases the chances that they’ll take the bait at least once. If Dodd can get Edwards (or Obama or Clinton) to engage him directly, then he’ll get the attention that he’s craving. However, like we saw last month and earlier this month, these attacks by Dodd and others against Obama and/or Edwards tend to leave Hillary Clinton as the principle beneficiary.

It might make more sense to avoid the “shots in the dark” and take Edwards on directly over an issue that he considers himself the champion of. If Dodd really wants to get a response from Edwards, he should directly engage him on the poverty issue.

[Photo Credit: Flickr user Michael Millhollin]

Related at 2008Central.net: