FLAHSBACKS: John Edwards is an Ass

Let me count the ways:

1) Cheating on his wife.

2) Running for President with this skeleton in his closet. What if he were nominated or chosen as VP?

3) Holding out his endorsement as meaningful when this was in the news, knowing the truth underneath.

4) Releasing a statement in which he tries to play the victim. You’re not going to guilt your way around this one.

Now, we’ve noted the problematic nature of John Edwards’ character before:

Edwards Initiates Operation Apology Drop

Edwards Campaign Conceals Internet History

Bob Shrum Blasts Edwards in New Book

Franky, there’s been little substance in either of Edwards’ too runs for presidency aside from the health care plan this time around, which was almost certainly something from Elizabeth, and not him. Edwards’ hubris and self-righteousness is really quite astonishing.

PS: It’s too bad that Kucinich’s network of spies couldn’t break this news earlier.

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (04/05/08)

During this show, the gurus discuss the state of the race, the Clinton tax returns, Obama’s strategy in Penn., McCain strategy, a general election preview and much more….

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast). 

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net’s Presidential Election Podcast (01/03/08)

This podcast covers the results of the Iowa Caucuses. We discuss the significance of Huckabee’s victory, the state of the Republican race after Iowa and we also dissect Obama’s victory and analyze the rest of the Democratic race.

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for next week’s podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Subscribe to 2008Central.net’s Presidential Election Podcast

Sphere: Related Content

Daily Links (August 22, 2007): In The Mix

Today’s worthy reads…

• It’s not your imagination, candidates of all sorts regularly steal phrases from each other.
• John McCain is even behind in the polls in his own state, to Dem. Gov. Janet Napolitano. Good thing for McCain the race for his Senate seat is not until 2010.
• McCain is apparently not a big fan of Mitt Romney. In addition, McCain regularly goes n the Daily Show and Romney has never been on - and is probably the target of more jokes than any other candidate.
• There are battles raging in California that could dramatically affect the general election, if the state ends up splitting its electoral votes.
• It can’t be a good sign for Edwards that Elizabeth Edwards said that her comments on Obama and Clinton were made to keep him ‘in the mix.’
• Jim Geraghty at the National Review sees all of Richardson’s gaffes and terrible debate performances, and comes to the only conclusion possible: some voters ignore debates and make judgments only on ads. I think virtually everyone expects the Richardson bubble to burst if he ever gets extended attention in the news cycle.
• Bush today made comparisons between the end of the Iraq war and the end of Vietnam. Democrats pounced with reactions almost immediately.
• Megan McArdle examines the morality of single-payer health care.
• Mitt Romney is getting ready to make a push on health care, and released the names of his advisors on the subject today.
• There’s some controversy over donations that Newt Gingrich’s 527 received.
• Rudy Giuliani is touting his electability in a new fundraising appeal.
• Tom Tancredo is pleased that his message on illegal immigration is becoming so popular with presidential candidates.

Sphere: Related Content

John Edwards Keeps Trying to Play Footsie With Obama and Clinton, Now Over Lobbyists

Democratic candidates Barack Obama and John Edwards are now arguing over how much they agree, specifically on lobbyist money. This started at the Yearly Kos Convention, as the NYT recapped:

In an energetic performance, Mr. Edwards railed against the lobbyists, setting up a question to Senator Clinton, who said she would continue to take money from lobbyists, that they represented “real Americans” and that she would not be influenced by their money. Her answer was widely booed, and Senator Obama went in for the kill.

“I disagree with the notion that lobbyists don’t have disproportionate influence,” Mr. Obama said. “The insurance and the drug companies have spent $1 billion in lobbying over the last 10 years. Now, Hillary, you were talking about the efforts you made back in 1993 _ you cannot tell me that money did not make a difference. They are not spending that just because they’re contributing to the public interest.”

As Marc Ambinder specifically points out, the ensuing public tiff was between Clinton and Obama, with Edwards barely mentioned. This continues a trend on the trail, with Edwards continually getting slightly less traction, and Obama continually clashing publicly with Clinton. This has led to Edwards continually going back and forth criticizing either Obama or Clinton while on the trail. At first, he was in a fight to become the Clinton alternative and criticized Obama for lack of substance. Then, after Obama added substance with release of policies (with Edwards himself even saying Obama’s health care proposal was ’serious’ in the Youtube debate), Edwards tended to attack Clinton more, culminating in Elizabeth Edwards’s criticism of Clinton while John Edwards was in the middle of his poverty tour. This seemed to be intended to make him seem the Clinton alternative. But it never really took, and now it seems that Edwards is back to attacking mainly Obama, including Elizabeth Edwards recently criticizing Obama’s record on Iraq and his proposal on health care, even his message in general:

Obama gives a speech that’s likely to be extraordinarily popular in his home district, and then comes to the Senate and votes for funding. John, the first time funding came up, he was already suspicious. What he said was we’ve got two issues, one is the information and the other is not trusting your President. And he gave plenty of speeches at the time saying, “I’m not voting for the $87 billion because he has no plan.” You’ve got to do that for the men and women who are there: You’ve got to have a plan. And he didn’t vote for the $87 billion, and never voted for any dedicated funding.

So you are going to get people behaving in a holier-than-thou way. But John stood up when he was in the Senate for exactly the thing he’s asking these people to stand up for now.

CNN pointed out that Edwards did not in fact vote against all Iraq funding. And I think crediting a candidate for being ’suspicious’ years later is a little suspect, as she mentions leadership, not just being ’suspicious.’ My point is that leadership is more than saying things - it’s also getting people to follow you.

On health care, Edwards said:

Hillary is saying we need to develop a political will. She hasn’t been talking to people if she thinks we need to develop it. We do not. There is consensus on this issue. And Senator Obama—I’m glad he has a plan. I don’t know why it took six months, but I’m glad he has a plan now. It doesn’t cover fifteen million people. If you’re one of those fifteen million, it’s not universal for you. The fact that he says he’ll fix it later, that’s not the kind of bold response we need on a problem that is this important to America.

I’m not sure who Elizabeth Edwards is saying there is a consensus among. Among rank and file Democrats, sure, but obviously in 1993 and 1994 it was obvious it takes more than rank and file Democrats to get health care changes. Edwards seems to be dismissing a legitimate concern of Clinton’s simply out of hand. Does that excuse a lack of a plan or any commitment from Clinton on specifics? I don’t know, I leave that up to you to decide. As for Obama, there seems to be a random attack on him for not releasing his health care plan sooner. And he released his plan on May 29 after entering the race officially on February 10. That’s 108 days, about 3 and a half months, not 6, and I would imagine that Obama would have had less time to write a plan since he had not essentially campaigned for president since shortly after the 2004 general election. My point is not to be pro-Obama, but to point out that the interview contains random and harsh attacks, mostly against Obama, that don’t tend to hold up well against even light scrutiny. These are definitely the words of a campaign fighting tooth and nail to stay in the top tier against recent trends.

She also seemed to imply that Obama was not even a real Democrat:

John gave a speech at the DNC meeting saying we don’t need to reinvent our party; we just need to remember who we are. And who we are is the party of working people, including people who want to work and can’t, people who have worked and are trying to retire. That’s who we are and have always been. Sometimes we need to be reminded of that. It’s easy to get misled with the DLC mantra “love the worker, love the employer.” The employers can pretty much take care of themselves. So as a party our job is to give voice to those people who don’t have a powerful voice. Unless that translates into votes or contributions, it turns out a lot of Democrats just ignore those people. They use language about working class people, but they are not out there with them. They use language about the immorality of poverty, but they are not out there. They generally support unions, but they are not walking picket lines. And so the difference it seems to me is not between old and new Democrats but between actual Democrats and rhetorical Democrats.

Sometimes it seems we have these beliefs but it turns out it’s like a Hollywood set: It’s all façade and there’s no guts behind it. You listen to the language of what people say, particularly Obama, who seems to be using a lot of John’s 2004 language, which is maybe not surprising since one of his speechwriters was one of our speechwriters, his media guy was our media guy. These people know John’s mantra as well as anybody could know it. They’ve moved from “hope is on the way” to “the audacity of hope.” I’m constantly hearing things in a familiar tone.

I imagine that if the perfect Democrat candidate and vice presidential candidate suddenly materialized out of the blue tomorrow and were nominated, where ever they went they would talk about ‘hope.’ It’s tough for me to believe that John Edwards has intellectual property right that extend that far. She implies that Obama and potentially Clinton do not do enough on the ground to help workers, but stops short of saying it. The problem here is the politics. Edwards is moving so far left that he can really be called Kucinich lite; anyone that Edwards appeals to would probably substantively like Kucinich more. Secondly, the drastic change in tone in this campaign from the last (which she tacitly admits to here) has led to a lot of rank and file Democrats shying away from Edwards. I don’t think the scorch and burn policy politically is that effective. It’s effective when railing against an abstract, such as Obama this year or Dean four years ago, but there’s not a long of success stories when getting specific, especially recently. I just don’t think primary voters think attack politics is really warranted.

Now today, the Edwards campaign took a different tactic: asking Obama to join him:

Mr. Edwards sought Thursday to enlist Senator Obama to join him in asking the Democratic Party and all Democratic presidential candidates to refuse to accept contributions from registered Washington lobbyists and their political action committees.

Mr. Obama’s campaign declined the invitation, noting that Mr. Obama already refuses such contributions and has started his own efforts against lobbyists.

This whole episode is really just an other episode in the game, which will probably repeat itself in Sunday’s debate. Edwards will call on all candidates to join him in stopping to accept money, and Obama will respond by saying it is about more than money, it’s about stopping influence, and citing his reform proposals. There’s nothing at stake whatsoever substantively, it’s just that neither candidate wants to agree to something the other said.

There’s little if any substantive difference here. It’s all for show…

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net’s Presidential Election Podcast (07/29/07)

This week’s podcast covers:

• CNN/YouTube Democratic Debate (July 23, 2007)
• Clinton-Obama Fracas
• Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney back out of proposed CNN/YouTube Republican Debate
• Republican candidates in a political spitball fight (Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, Newt Gingrich)
• Spotlight on John Edwards’ tax plan

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for next week’s podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Subscribe to 2008Central.net’s Presidential Election Podcast

Sphere: Related Content

Weekend Calendar Preview

Democrats prepare for the debate on Monday in South Carolina with busy schedules, while Republicans keep on plugging along…

Barack Obama

• Obama has a rally and a townhall meeting in New Hampshire this morning, while Michelle Obama opens the Chicago volunteers office of their campaign. Obama addresses the AFSCME convention in Des Moines tomorrow night, and the Counciil of La Raza Sunday in south Florida.

Bill Richardson

• Richardson campaigns in Iowa today, before going to South Carolina on Sunday to campaign before the Monday debate.

Chris Dodd

• Dodd’s wife, Jackie Clegg Dodd, will open a technolog center in Orangeburg, SC on Sunday. Dodd will be in Iowa today, and has announced he will be in New Hampshire this weekend, but does not currently have any details up on his website.

Dennis Kucinich

• Kucinich has an AFL-CIO forum Saturday in Columbus, Ohio.

Hillary Clinton

• Clinton will also address the AFSCME forum in Des Moines tomorrow.

Joe Biden

• Biden campaigns again in Iowa today.

John Edwards

• Edwards has a relatively calm weekend for him. Elizabeth Edwards has a fundraiser tonight in Oklahoma City, and John Edwards gives a speech to Louisiana democrats on Sunday night.

Mike Huckabee

• Huckabee gives a speech in Las Vegas tomorrow before fundraising in Texas.

Mitt Romney

• Romney has a full schedule of events today and tomorrow in Iowa, before going to New Hampshire on Sunday..

Ron Paul

• Paul is in South Carolina tomorrow, eating lunch with state GOP and then holding a rally.

Rudy Giuliani

• Giuliani is speaking to firefighters in South Carolina today and holding a “Inaugural Retreat” for fundraisers in New York tomorrow.

Sam Brownback

• Brownback spends today in Iowa wrapping up a campaign swing.

Tom Tancredo

• Tancredo also is campaigning this weekend in Iowa, wrapping up a couple days of campaigning.

Visit our up-to-date campaign calendar section for complete schedules.

Sphere: Related Content

Elizabeth Edwards Questions Hillary Clinton’s Strength On Women’s Issues

In a recently published interview with Salon.com, Elizabeth Edwards discusses her recent confrontation with Ann Coulter, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton’s plan to reduce the participants in debates, her support for gay marriage, poverty and a few other ‘08 tidbits.  The interview is certainly worth a read, but by far, the most interesting part is Elizabeth Edwards’ criticism of Hillary Clinton’s credentials and advocacy of women’s issues:

Joan Walsh: Do you ever have twinges about, well, you’re supporting this great guy, your husband, but against the first credible woman candidate and the first credible African-American candidate in the race?

Elizabeth Edwards: No, I don’t. I wind up talking about this a lot. My job as the mother of daughters is to make sure my children see that every opportunity is available to them. What we hope to achieve is a society that doesn’t value a white man because he’s a white man, but also doesn’t value a woman because she’s a woman, or a black because he’s a black. So it bothers me that the pitch is made, as it is, that there’s an obligation of people to give support. When I was a lawyer, I was the first female lawyer many people had ever seen. I had an obligation to my client to do the work right, but I thought constantly about my obligation to the women who came after me. If I didn’t do a good job, they wouldn’t get a chance to sit where I’m sitting. I think one of the things that make me so completely comfortable with this is that keeping that door open to women is actually more a policy of John’s than Hillary’s.

Joan Waslh: How do you see that?

Elizabeth Edwards:On the issues that are important to women, she has not … well, healthcare, that’s enormously important to women, all the polls say, and what she says now is, we’re going to have a national conversation about healthcare. And then she describes some cost-saving things, which John also supports, but she acts like that’s going to make healthcare affordable to everyone. And she knows it won’t. She’s not really talking about poverty, when the face of poverty is a woman’s face, often a single mother. She gave that speech on abortion a few years ago [saying abortion should be "safe, legal and rare"].

Look, I’m sympathetic, because when I worked as a lawyer, I was the only woman in these rooms, too, and you want to reassure them you’re as good as a man. And sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women’s issues. I’m sympathetic — she wants to be commander in chief. But she’s just not as vocal a women’s advocate as I want to see. John is. And then she says, or maybe her supporters say, “Support me because I’m a woman,” and I want to say to her, “Well, then support me because I’m a woman.” The question is not so much how she campaigns — that’s theater. The question is, what does her campaign tell you about how she’ll govern? And I’m not convinced she’d be as good an advocate for women. She needs a rationale greater for her campaign than I’ve heard. When she announced her candidacy she said, “I’m in it to win it.” What is that? That’s not a rationale. Same with Senator Obama — I’ve yet to hear a rationale. John is extremely clear about what he can accomplish and why he’s the one to do it.

As we discussed in last week’s podcast, Elizabeth Edwards often serves as as fierce attack dog for John Edwards.  As a non-candidate and a  woman, she’s able to take actions and levy criticism that her husband, the candidate, is not able to offer.  Outside of the Clintons, no other couple in the race operates with such effective synchronicity.  With respect to Elizabeth’s criticism of Hillary Clinton, I’m just not sure I fully accept it.  I recognize the need to appeal to women voters and therefore the importance of the campaign to tout their credentials in the field of women’s advocacy.  However, I’m not really sure that saying that Hillary isn’t strong on women’s issues is a worthwhile strategy; especially when that criticism is juxtaposed with a suggestion that Hillary Clinton isn’t as strong on the choice issue as she should be.  These remarks seem to deny reality to the point of almost becoming intolerable.  I’m sure some of the extreme left elements within the Democratic party will eat them up, however, these people are likely to be supporting someone other than Hillary Clinton in the primary already, so I fail to see who Elizabeth’s target audience was.  If anything, it seems strategically foolish, since it runs the risk of a backlash against the Edwards campaign (people are typically uncomfortable with “those that eat their own”).

Regardless, this is a sign that the Edwards campaign intends to increase pressure on the two frontrunners - Obama and Clinton.  In the coming weeks, you can expect the Edwards to take the moral high ground on the poverty issue, which they’ve earned, connect other issues to poverty (as Elizabeth did above with women’s issues) and use this leverage to issue new criticisms of their opponents and possibly develop new pockets of support.

As an aside, I have to again take issue with Elizabeth Edwards’ remarks about the vitriol in this presidential campaign and her encounter with Coulter:

When I travel, so many older people thank me for what I did. Because the vile kind of way Ann Coulter thinks and talks, that was not ever part of the public discourse until recently.

Indeed, I applauded Elizabeth Edwards for taking issue with Coulter’s nonsensical tirades, however it is worth noting that history does not support Elizabeth’s claim that vile comments, like the one Coulter often makes, are a recent addition to political discourse [read my post on the mudslinging in past presidential campaigns for more information].  Something about revisionist history really gets me fired up, so I just wanted to set the record straight.

From a political perspective, aside from my disagreement over the handling of Hillary Clinton and women’s issues, Elizabeth’s interview with Salon.com was a good idea.  Given some of the negative press that John Edwards’ has received lately after the whole ‘Clinton-Edwards secret debate plot incident’ and the lack of press for his poverty tour, it was certainly the perfect time for Elizabeth to get out there and shake things up - much like she successfully did for the Edwards campaign prior to the close of the second financial quarter.

[Photo Credit: Flickr user Lindsay Beyerstein]

Related at 2008Central.net:

• The First Wives Clubbing? (7/16/07)
• A Historical Perspective On The Continuing Edwards/Coulter Clash (7/5/07)
• Edwards Camp and Coulter Clash Twice More; Coulter Now Backs Hunter (6/26/07)
• Elizabeth Edwards Supports Gay Marriage (6/25/07)

Sphere: Related Content