Edwards Camp To Press: Wake Up, We're Running A National Campaign
Attacks on the traditional press have become a key political weapon in the arsenal of mainstream Dem primary candidates, but this is taking things to a higher level.
We've just obtained an advance copy of a snarky, pointed memo that the Edwards camp will soon send out calling out the press for its general coverage of his campaign. While most such broadsides against the press from campaigns come in response to individual stories, this one is aggressively disputing a broader media meme: That Edwards, unlike Obama and Hillary, isn't really running a national campaign.
From the memo:
Dear Friends in the Press Corps,We here at the Edwards Campaign urge you to not swallow the spin of our rivals. John Edwards is, in fact, running a national campaign. In addition to the well-reported strength of our operation in Iowa, we have less-well-reported, but just as strong operations in states all across the country. We have eight times the number of field staff in the state of New Hampshire than the Edwards campaign had in 2004; we recently added two dozen field staffers in Nevada; and we were the first candidate to run ads in South Carolina (the state John Edwards was born in and won by 15 points in 2004). Given our support throughout the labor community and advisors at work in all February 5th states, we will have the infrastructure in place to seize on momentum from strong early place finishes. But you don’t have to take our word for it.
Introducing, Edwards By The Numbers...
The memo then comprehensively makes the case that his campaign is a national one with a fusillade of statistics. Full memo after the jump.
Clinton advisers believe she can survive a loss there to Edwards, who is running well in Iowa but who has smaller organizations in the other early voting states. -Associated Press, 12-11-07Some of Obama's people also suggest that a vote for Edwards is a wasted vote because he's a one-trick pony who can perform only in Iowa. -Des Moines Register, 12-18-07
Dear Friends in the Press Corps,We here at the Edwards Campaign urge you to not swallow the spin of our rivals. John Edwards is, in fact, running a national campaign. In addition to the well-reported strength of our operation in Iowa, we have less-well-reported, but just as strong operations in states all across the country. We have eight times the number of field staff in the state of New Hampshire than the Edwards campaign had in 2004; we recently added two dozen field staffers in Nevada; and we were the first candidate to run ads in South Carolina (the state John Edwards was born in and won by 15 points in 2004). Given our support throughout the labor community and advisors at work in all February 5th states, we will have the infrastructure in place to seize on momentum from strong early place finishes. But you don’t have to take our word for it.
Introducing, Edwards By The Numbers....
1: Number of presidential candidates actually born in SOUTH CAROLINA – John Edwards. He won the state by 15 points in 2004.
4: Number of television ads John Edwards has been up on the air with in SOUTH CAROLINA – his home state – since being the first to go up on the air in the state in mid- November.
5: Percentage of IOWA caucus-goers polled in November 2003 who supported John Edwards before he went on to finish second with 32 percent of the vote in the actual caucus.
6: Number of percentage points gained by John Edwards in the latest McClatchy poll of SOUTH CAROLINA voters, putting him at a very competitive 18%.
7: Number of percentage points separating John Edwards from frontrunner Hillary Clinton in the latest Clemson University Palmetto Poll of SOUTH CAROLINA voters.
7: Number of television ads John Edwards has gone up on the air with in NEW HAMPSHIRE, since launching his first major television ad buy on November 3rd.
7: Number of states where the campaign has organized “Road Trip for Edwards” volunteers to come to NEW HAMPSHIRE for canvassing, including the FEBRUARY 5TH
STATES of NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK, CONNECTICUT, RHODE ISLAND and MASSACHUSETTS.
8: Number of television ads John Edwards has gone up on the air with in IOWA since launching his first major television ad buy on November 1st.
10: Number of organizers John Edwards had on the ground in NEW HAMPSHIRE in 2003-2004. This cycle, we have eight times the number of organizers that we had in New Hampshire last cycle.
12: Number of state SEIU COUNCILS, representing more than 1.1 million working families, which have endorsed John Edwards for president, including those in the critical early states of IOWA and NEW HAMPSHIRE.
16: Number of field offices Edwards has in the state of NEW HAMPSHIRE.
17: Number of visits John Edwards has made to the state of NEVADA in 2007 – more than any other major candidate.
22: Number of states that will hold primary contests on FEBRUARY 5th .
22: Number of FEBRUARY 5th STATES where Edwards has state political advisers working on his behalf.
22: Number of FEBRUARY 5th STATES in which the Edwards campaign has organized statewide grassroots organizing calls this month.
23: Number of days Edwards has spent in his home state of SOUTH CAROLINA – more than any other Democratic candidate.
25: Number of field offices Edwards has in the state of IOWA.
27: Number of chapters of the Edwards campaign’s local service arm organized in the state of SOUTH CAROLINA.
34: Number of days John Edwards has spent in the state of NEW HAMPSHIRE during the 2008 primary campaign.
75: Percentage of NEVADA Democratic caucus-goers contacted by the campaign who identify themselves as “undecided,” which the campaign believes works in our favor.
80: Number of paid staff Edwards has in the state of NEW HAMPSHIRE in 2007.
99: Number of IOWA counties.
99: Number of IOWA counties where John Edwards visited – and took questions from Iowans – this year (and also in 2004). He was the first Democrat to do so.
99: Number IOWA counties where Edwards has announced steering committees, reaffirming the strength of his statewide organization. Again, he was the first Democrat to do so.
117: Number of public events John Edwards has held in the state of NEW HAMPSHIRE in 2007.
150: Number of paid staff Edwards has in the state of IOWA. (Note: Total number is greater than 150.)
1,000: Number of caucus trainings the Edwards campaign has conducted in the state of NEVADA.
1,690: Number of One Corps chapters, the local service arm of the Edwards campaign, across the nation, including 87 in WISCONSIN, 79 in OHIO and 74 in TEXAS.
6,000: Number of active and retired members of the United Steelworkers union in SOUTH CAROLINA, many of whom are actively campaigning and canvassing for John Edwards in the state.
8,000: Number of Communication Workers of America in ARIZONA who have endorsed John Edwards.
10,000: Number of Caucus for Priorities members in IOWA who have pledged to caucus for John Edwards.
11,000: Number of doors knocked on as part of Edwards’ “Bold Solutions to Your Issues” statewide canvass in NEVADA on December 15th.
28,000: Number of working families in NEVADA represented by the unions in the state that have endorsed John Edwards, including the Carpenters, Steelworkers, Transport Workers and local Communications Workers of America.
45,000: Number of UNITE HERE CHICAGO and MIDWEST REGION Joint Board members who have endorsed John Edwards.
96,031: Number of Transport Workers union members in FEBRUARY 5TH STATES who have endorsed John Edwards, including those in NEW YORK (53,729), OKLAHOMA (9,026), CALIFORNIA (8,860) and NEW JERSEY (7,574).
130,000: Number of phone calls Edwards campaign volunteers in NEW HAMPSHIRE made to voters in the state last week alone.
220,000: Number of NEW HAMPSHIRE voters in the 2004 primary.
235,000: Number of doors Edwards campaign volunteers have knocked on in NEW HAMPSHIRE.
330,044: Total number of dollars Edwards had raised in the state of SOUTH CAROLINA at the end of the 3rd quarter fundraising deadline – more than any other Democratic candidate.
656,000: Number of working families represented by SEIU CALIFORNIA, which has enthusiastically endorsed John Edwards and campaigned widely on his behalf.
3.2 million: Number of union members in states all across the country represented by the labor unions who have endorsed John Edwards for president.
Momentum from strong finished in early states: PRICELESS.
Comments (84)
VAmon wrote on December 19, 2007 2:22 PM:John Edwards would be a sitting duck if he captured the dem. nomination because he has handcuffed himself by accepting matching campaign funds. Anyone in Iowa should choose another candidate because Edwards cannot go the distance.
Mirror Mirror on the wall wrote on December 19, 2007 2:22 PM:Pretty boy attacks while holding a mirror
therefore he is qualified to be President
Tim wrote on December 19, 2007 2:25 PM:If you look in a Mirror at your reflection as many times a day as Edwards does you will not have time to govern - but you will have time to put in a call to your hairdresser
journalschism wrote on December 19, 2007 2:27 PM:It's not an "attack," it's the truth. But ho-hum, another day, another negative spin from TPM about Edwards. You can set your watch by it.
Edwards gets and endorsement from Iowa's First Lady (a tacit endorsement from the state's governor), not one mention on the homepage. That gets buried on your site.
But of course, a bulls*t push-polling story putting the Edwards campaign on the defensive, that leads your top wire stories today.
Can you be an more transparent in your bias against Edwards??!?!
Mike wrote on December 19, 2007 2:31 PM:So your assuming to contradict all the evidence that Edwards is obviously the one doing the push polling
schmed wrote on December 19, 2007 2:32 PM:Unfortunately, the first few comments posted here demonstrate the media's efforts to marginalize Edwards from the start. Perhaps there really is something so challenging about parts of his message that he can't be allowed to be taken seriously.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 2:34 PM:If you look in a Mirror at your reflection as many times a day as Edwards does you will not have time to govern - but you will have time to put in a call to your hairdresser
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0721,tomorrow,76693,9.html
Michael Scott wrote on December 19, 2007 2:34 PM:If the criticisms of Edwards are as vapid as comments #2 and 3, above, he'll be in good shape -- matching funds or not.
journalschism wrote on December 19, 2007 2:35 PM:Awwwwwwww, new polling info getting Tim a little angry? Johnny doing a little better than you expected? All that lobbyist and corporate cash and the best THE ONE and The Queen can do is tie that good ol' boy from the South--who just so happens to look like every other president that has been elected for the past 218 years.
Relax. I'm sure Obama can grab a smoke with his mafia fence builder and Hillary can fall into the comforting arms of young Huma for comfort.
And VMon, you have no idea, and I mean ZERO idea of what you're talking about. Edwards accepted matching funds for the primary. NOT the general election!!!
Carol wrote on December 19, 2007 2:39 PM:I believe that Edwards using matching funds is actually pretty gutsy considering that the rest of the candidates are up to their necks in special interest money. How do you spell SOLD to the highest bidder?
Jeremy wrote on December 19, 2007 2:39 PM:schmed. The argument that Edwards can't compete in the GE because he's handcuffed financially is made by Markos Moulitsas. Edwards supporters need to get over the "MSM is out to get me" paranoia and respond to the criticism directly. The problem is: they can't because there's no good counterargument. Obama has proven his ability to build a nationwide grassroots organization that competes with even the Clinton machine on fundraising, and without taking lobbyist money. He's set records for individual donors and innovated with his use of the web. Edwards wants to talk about fighting. Before you fight you have to ORGANIZE.
Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 2:40 PM:This really is kind of silly by edwards. He is begging for media attention. The reason why is obvious, but he has to beg? Way too funny. This guy thinks he can be president????? Way too funny.
Andy mcSheffery wrote on December 19, 2007 2:40 PM: First off: Where is the attitude you mention in the lead to the story. This response to the national media just gives the facts.
Secondly: Edwards can go all the way regardless of matching funds because of the caliber of the competition from the Republicans. He can also beat Clintons and Obama because he is not being forced to take on support that will later want repayment in the form special interest legislation or other favors he is actively campaigning against. Obama and the Clintons will make deals that leave most people out so they can get in.
Finally: This is not a two horse race despite what the media and this blog would have most people believe. Edwards is running a strong campaign that is resonating with the middle class because his message is clear and detailed. It is not confusing as is the Clintons design or full of hope with no real substantial plan as is the Obama canonization.
Vote for real change not just rearrangement of the furniture. Vote Edwards.
Keith wrote on December 19, 2007 2:41 PM:The one thing he doesn't mention is how many campaign offices he has in any of the states, or how much money he can spend on ad dollars in each of the states. Things like that will matter, especially come February 5th.
Also, unless I missed something, just because a union endorses you doesn't mean that each member will vote or work for your campaign.
And journalschism, just because others on here are morons, doesn't justify you trying to smear other candidates. By all means defend your guy, but leave the smears out of it.
The matching funds decision is a challenge, true. But there is no denying the resonance of his populist - Kick Elites In The Teeth - message. He's a solid second choice among many democrats, which might prove to be his trick.
Anonymous wrote on December 19, 2007 2:44 PM:And guess what Jeremy??? Markos is WRONG!!!! That fact has being diaried MANY TIMES by on DKos.
It's funny how people just conveniently forget election history.
Carol is right. It was a gutsy, "put your money where your mouth is" move by Edwards.
Edwards will be rewarded by voters for his integrity.
Louise wrote on December 19, 2007 2:47 PM:I was waiting for the snarky part.
Tim wrote on December 19, 2007 2:47 PM:journalschism
Not angry but certainly bemused.
I find it just a little bit amusing to say the least that "folks" who's primary source of news comes from magazines titled "How to hook that big bass" and "Warm boots - know what your buying" would support someone who played with his hair for no less then 60 seconds as an adult on camera - this after paying 700.00 dollars for the haircut that he is sprucing up.
That could buy a whole lot of chew!
Michael wrote on December 19, 2007 2:48 PM:Does anyone else find it almost solipsistic that Edwards supporters thing their candidate has the title of "people-powered" and "not owned by corporate interests"?
LOL, Obama has more small donors, and more millions in small donors, than Edwards could dream of. I actually think Obama raised more money from contributions of under $200 than Edwards raised overall, including his generous maxed-out donations from hedge funds CEOs and trial lawyers associations.
As for those numbers, they're nice, but I don't think Edwards should be bragging about running a "national" campaign or about his presence on the air and on the ground in SC and NH. If he's making the claim that he's aggressively campaigning in those areas, then how does he square that with the fact that he trails badly in polls of all 3 areas (NH, SC, and nationally)? The only way to make that make sense is, "Edwards is getting his message out in early states and nationally, but voters aren't responding."
Not exactly a compelling pitch.
Jeremy wrote on December 19, 2007 2:49 PM:Anon. Maybe Markos is wrong, but my point was that this argument is not coming from a vast anti-Edwards media conspiracy not that the argument was right. I happen to think that there's more to it that Edwards supporters acknowledge and I stand by my contention that Obama is doing the best job organizing for the coming fight, but the larger point I was making was just this: QUIT WHINING.
Hillary and Edwards' whining just makes them look weak. It's counterproductive to their campaigns, which is fine with me, but it's also counterproductive for the party, which isn't. So, QUIT IT, ya big babies.
Anonymous wrote on December 19, 2007 2:49 PM:No Dutch!
I'm sick of these Obama/Clinton people and their haircut comments, but when you mention anything remotely untoward about THEIR candidates, it's suddenly below the belt.
So while I don't agree with the smears I mentioned against Obama/Clinton, I wrote them to make a point. Their supporters can f*ck off! I'm tired of turning the other cheek.
Anonymous wrote on December 19, 2007 2:49 PM:"another negative spin from TPM about Edwards"
Yep.
Landon wrote on December 19, 2007 2:52 PM:I think Edwards is absolutely right. The MSM has largely succeeded into turning this primary process into a soap opera, with Obama and Clinton in the two starring roles. Given the amount of support Edwards has, his campaign and the merits of his arguments have been vastly underreported. Just look at the ridiculous phenomenon of the Edwards haircut story. Edwards' hair has gotten more coverage during this primary than have his ideas. And why is that? Because he's the only candidate discussing the topics that make those in power uncomfortable. And by the way Obama and Clinton have taken loads of corporate donations while Edwards has not. For more on all this see today's Glen Greenwald post: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/19/establishment_candidates/
DancingBear wrote on December 19, 2007 2:52 PM:Actually, Keith, the memo says he's got 16 offices in NH and 25 in Iowa.
LJ wrote on December 19, 2007 2:53 PM:Edwards can go all the way regardless of matching funds because of the caliber of the competition from the Republicans.
I have to disagree. I can't think of lower caliber competition than George W. Bush, and the Dems lost to him twice.
With severe spending limitations compared to the Republican nominee, he won't be able to respond effectively to Republican attacks. He'll have to stretch his primary cash from February thru August while his opponent spends freely. It's a substantial disadvantage.
along wrote on December 19, 2007 2:56 PM:I'm glad you changed the headline. But you should still alter the gist of your story. this is not an "attack" on the press. Rather, it's a response to the spin of Edwards' rivals, quoted in news reports. I haven't checked, but those reports probably did not call the Edwards camp for comment or rebuttal. But the Edwards camp doesn't even accuse the press of that here. They're just making sure that they get their spin out there.
The fusillade of numbers seems a bit too much, but they do seem to support the assertion that he is running just as vigorous a campaign as the two front-runners.
Also, I can find no snark here at all.
Keith wrote on December 19, 2007 3:00 PM:My bad (thanks Dancing Bear). Information over load.
I'd still be curious as to how that matches up with Obama and Clinton in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. His viability is being measured against each of the other front running candidates, not some objective metric.
CalD wrote on December 19, 2007 3:05 PM:John Edwards! I remember him -- speaking of guys who haven't been getting much scrutiny from the press much lately either. Only in his case it certainly isn't because the press has been too busy heaping overblown adoration and wonderment on him.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 3:06 PM:I believe that Edwards using matching funds is actually pretty gutsy considering that the rest of the candidates are up to their necks in special interest money.
An interesting claim. Care to back it up with some documentation?
votenic wrote on December 19, 2007 3:07 PM:2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
New YouTube Video!
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening At Midnight.
CalD:
Hate the game; don't hate the player.
Kefa wrote on December 19, 2007 3:14 PM:He'd better leave the VRWC dogs alone. They will be using the Slate/Drudge/NE cheating preg. story on him soon. The MSM has given him a free ride except the hair deal pretty much. He'd be better off leaving this alone.
DTM wrote on December 19, 2007 3:18 PM:Seems like a good idea to me. He is basically pre-spinning a good result for him in Iowa in an effort to keep people from discounting his ability to translate such a result into winning the nomination.
And as I have long maintained, I don't think he is wrong.
Kefa wrote on December 19, 2007 3:21 PM:btw....before HRC is accused of doing this
Ann C. started this on Tucker C's show on MSNBC 10/10/07
Slate.com also Wonkette.com also.
VRWC
Kansas-City-Dem wrote on December 19, 2007 3:21 PM:Why is John only saying the National Enquirer story "is false" instead of completely denying every single facet of the story, and saying something like "I have not fathered any children, born or unborn, other than my 3 kids that are home with my wife right now."
I think Edwards is in deep trouble. Remember, it's not the crime, but the coverup.
Tom wrote on December 19, 2007 3:25 PM:The corporate media hates Edwards because he actually represents change. This is a fight to destory the evil corporations that have been stealing profits while our workers toil in poverty. Hopefully, the people of Iowa are smart enough to understand that.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 19, 2007 3:30 PM:And by the way Obama and Clinton have taken loads of corporate donations while Edwards has not.
I think that this is a good bit off the mark. Opensecrets.org documents each campaign's largest contributors. In the list of Clinton's big donors, the corporate totals come to ~$3.3 million. Her overall fundraising comes to ~$91 million, so these big corporate donations amount to ~3.7% of her overall take. Similarly, Barack Obama has ~$3 million from corporate donors documented in his big donations, which (out of a total raised of ~$80.3 million) amounts to ~3.8% of his overall take. John Edwards shows ~$1.2 million from corporate donations in his big donors documentation, which (out of a total raised of ~$30.3 million) amounts to ~4%. 99% of both Edwards' and Obama's funds and 88% of Clinton's come from individual small donors, so the idea that Edwards is less beholden to corporate interests is not borne out by the actual data.
hestal wrote on December 19, 2007 3:32 PM:I am disappointed with the press' coverage of the Edwards campaign as well. I think that more coverage should have been given to Edwards' positions on gay marriage, school prayer and federal funding for faith-based groups.
Gay marriage: as far as I can tell Kucinich is the only candidate who supports gay marriage and Edwards' supporters say that Edwards' position therefore is no different than the rest, but I don't think so. Edwards, and Huckabee, as far as I can tell, are the only candidates who blame their Southern Baptist upbringing for their rejection of gay marriage. Edwards' said on MTP and ABC with George that the Southern Baptist culture is "part of him." I know that culture well, and Jimmy Carter rejected it when he resigned from the SBC in 2000. So I think the press should be asking Edwards what else about the Southern Baptist culture does he support. And does he place the Bible above the Constitution as the Southern Baptists clearly do.
On BeliefNet.com Edwards said that school prayer is "a good thing." He does not think that the teacher should lead prayer but there should be a moment of silence. As one who grew up a non-Christian in a small Texas town where a moment of silence was the norm in public school I can tell you that a moment silence is far from silent. Everybody knew everybody else and everybody knew that I was not praying. That moment of silence separated me from my classmates and it still does today more than 50 years later.
In addition if Edwards is serious, and I think he is not -- he is just trolling for votes, then he needs to explain just he would implement his policy. To make such a proposal would create such a furor that every student would know very well what was happening in their schools, and the press would be on the watch for any hint of controversy. It would be a circus, but a victory for religion in its war against the Constitution.
In the case of federal funding Edwards makes qualifications saying that the churches couldn't discriminate and they would have to keep records and endure audits, but that is not the point. Churches deny civil rights to gays, and churches would forbid atheists from ever holding office if they could, but their tax money would make up a portion of the money that would go to faith-based groups under the Edwards plan. Insult on top of injustice.
So Edwards has gotten a pass on these issues. The press needs to ask him how he stands on the Constitution and the Bible. They need to ask Edwards to explain in detail how he would implement faith-based groups funding, and school prayer, and what he personally would do for gay civil rights if elected.
Unless and until the press asks him these questions or until he volunteers honest, complete answers then he should quit his bitching.
nikto wrote on December 19, 2007 3:32 PM:If only Chris Matthews knew how good Edwards smells, he would simply adore him.
But Matthews already has a lip-lock on both Mr. English Leather, Fred Thompson, and Mr.
Punji, John McCain.
Huckabee smells like burning flesh (witches, perhaps?).
Giuliani also smells like burnt flesh (that's the 9-11 Legacy)
Hillary smells like corporate ledgers.
Mitt smells like Grecian Formula.
That's politics in America today...
Smell trumps all.
Jim Martin wrote on December 19, 2007 3:42 PM:This board is constantly deluged with Clintonistas whining about the "Hillary-haters" around here, the "presumed Democrats" who "drag the leader through the gutter."
And then, when there's an Edwards post, we get stuff like
Pretty boy attacks while holding a mirror
and
If you look in a Mirror at your reflection as many times a day as Edwards does you will not have time to govern - but you will have time to put in a call to your hairdresser
and
someone who played with his hair for no less then 60 seconds as an adult on camera - this after paying 700.00 dollars for the haircut that he is sprucing up..
Thanks, Tim and "Mirror, mirror", for sticking to the issues. You really know how to discuss substance, don't you.
This stuff comes right out of the GOP playbook. The main point is to try to feminize Edwards, which is red meat for right-wing men desperate to prove their masculinity, and right-wing women who fall for it. And it's because they actually can't attack Edwards on the issues, and neither can you.
For the record, my favorite candidates in the primary are (1) Kucinich, (2) Dodd and (3) Edwards. That would be based on the issues. Dodd did the country a great services yesterday. Senators Clinton and Obama were no-shows.
nogo war wrote on December 19, 2007 3:49 PM:Edwards has been running a campaign of
"fight the power"...
Given the recent FCC decision consolidating the media power..well.
Edwards may have kissed the ass of power some in 2003-4. But he is not doing it this time around on many levels.
Maybe you folks have no problem with Nancy and Harry kissing the power's ass. Maybe you truly believe that kissing the ass of power is the ONLY way we can transform.
That's cool..I am sure you find it necessary in your daily job and expect no more from your leaders.
Skykomishone wrote on December 19, 2007 3:49 PM:John Edwards is going to be a great president. I can't wait!
Mike wrote on December 19, 2007 4:01 PM:Well sorry you will have to wait
doesn't matter what you "hope for"
People in this country will not vote for a man who plays with his hair incessantly
It doesn't matter what he is running for
I mean he seems like a good person
But Face it - it's just a fact
jd wrote on December 19, 2007 4:03 PM:You know how W.C. Fields remarked that he wouldn't want to be a member of any club that would have him as a member? Reading these puerile comments from Clinton and Obama supporters simply makes me want to run in the other direction. I don't want to be a member ot their clubs, boy-howdy! I haven't listened to such nasty stupidity since I taught middle school. If this is the kind of supporters Clinton & Obama attract, bring on John Edwards, baby!
Les wrote on December 19, 2007 4:09 PM:I am an Edwards supporter
I just think he cannot get past
the hair thing with American voters
After the last few elections I don't have much faith
I mean adults just shouldn't play with the hair thing
paulie wrote on December 19, 2007 4:10 PM:I have to say, I was surprised by the TPM lead-in, especially since there was no attitude in the actual piece. Snarky? Come on! Edwards would make a great president but America's corporations won't allow him to be elected. He is more for change than the media darlings obama and clinton. As for the people making comments about his hair/haircut, try to grow up a little before you post again.
pu·er·ile wrote on December 19, 2007 4:12 PM:Kind of like his infatuation with his hair
pu·er·ile
Pronunciation
–adjective 1. of or pertaining to a child or to childhood.
2. childishly foolish; immature or trivial.
The dickheads with the hair comments know he's the strongest candidate, that's why the pettiness comes out.
As for Markos, et al. He worships big piles of money, as do a lot of media, print or online. That of course, is part of the problem.
Edwards wins Iowa. The ONE comes in third. After that the dynamic changes.
DJShay wrote on December 19, 2007 4:15 PM:Please people. Stop with the hair. It lowers the discussion to that of Drudge and Politico. I thought readers of this site had more integrity than that. One of the biggest complaints is that the media spends too much time on crap like that and here you are parroting every word. Nice work.
correctnotright wrote on December 19, 2007 4:25 PM:I like John Edwards: He has mostly the same policies as Obama. Unfortunately, I won't vote for him, because he was such a disappointment in the 2004 VP debate with Dick Cheney - and it is seared in my memroy as such a failure.
I was cheering him on and he was doing well on domestic issues and then - he got to foreign policy and let Cheney blantantly lie about the false links between al quaida and Saddam Hussein - without challenging the VP. The rest was downhill - the trial lawyer failed to win the day or even put up a legitimate fight against an opponent like Cheney.
He sounds good now - but he failed in the debate against a proven liar (Cheney). I don't want a repeat of that in the general election. My vote goes to Obama for now. Obama can say he was against the war and doesn't have to excuse a vote for AUMF (the war in Iraq) like Hillary and Edwards.
lambert strether wrote on December 19, 2007 4:27 PM:I'm pleased that the press and the paid trolls hate Edwards. It makes me support him all the more, because he's made the right enemies.
Mary wrote on December 19, 2007 4:30 PM: I hate to bring up the hair thing again
but I think it is a consideration
Not unlike bushes mountain biking mania
there is something off putting about it in a presidential aspirant
anon wrote on December 19, 2007 4:36 PM:I am struck by the vitriol and nastiness that both the Hillary and Obama people instantly unleash whenever even the remote possibility of Edwards comes up. Edwards seems to be the only subject that can keep the Hillary and Obama people off their more daily obsession with being vitriolic and nasty with eachother.
And the two corporate Democratic candidates camps have a definite and very similar profile about their immature backbiting and character assassination attempts. They always consist of the same two bit garbage.
It's never any substantive objection. They don't say anything about Edwards trying to focus the nation on lifting up the poor and strengthening the middle class. They don't say anything about his stand against the corruption and decay they thrive on in Washington DC nowadays. It's never anything about the fact that his position on ending the war in Iraq.
Instead, it's always the same crap that the Obama and Clinton campaigns have gotten into the media over the past year: childishm sniping about the man's hair or his house or his looks. They've recently added the idiotic story line that somehow accepting matching funds in the primaries is a bad thing that will weaken Edwards as a candidate in the general (as though money alone is the important thing and the positions of the candidates mean nothing). Of course, corporate Democrats actually do think it's money alone and that the positions on the issues are mere props to be used and discarded at will. Accepting matching funds (up until this year) was always viewed as a sign of who the clean candidates were and who was not going to be completely subservient to the special interests who can generate obscene amounts of money outside the long established campaign finance system.
Methinks all this indicates that some in the crowd are a bit nervous about Edwards' message getting out too so they do all they can to keep talking about things that are of little or no importance like hair. And it isn't just the corporate media who are afraid of Edwards' message and don't want people to hear it: it's the corporate Democrats too! And of course, since Obama and Clinton are representing the corporate wing of the Democratic Party this year and duking it out to see who can be most similar to the Republicans while still laying some claim to Democratic rhetoric none of this is terribly surprising.
I hope Edwards stomps them both in Iowa and then in NH. Go John!
Henk wrote on December 19, 2007 5:07 PM:anon: Thanks, you are exactly right. For a second there I thought I was on Powerline or something. I find it hard to believe that the venom spewed toward Edwards, here on this site, is coming from progressives. Good Grief!
Rionn Fears Malechem wrote on December 19, 2007 5:09 PM:Nice Nader shout-out by the Edwards team! Everyone remember Priceless?
Brian wrote on December 19, 2007 5:11 PM:Edwards is the ONLY progressive Democratic presidential candidate. If he doesn't win the nomination then it is very likely I will be voting Green (and NO I didn't vote for Nader in 2000, I wholeheartedly supported and worked for Al Gore).
If the nominee is Hillary I will definitely be voting Green; if Obama then I'll have to see how he does before the general election.
Interestingly enough, just about every poll shows that John Edwards does the best nationwide - even pulling in Southern states that will 100% definitely not go for Hillary and probably not Obama either.
Bro wrote on December 19, 2007 5:16 PM:You seem to be more obsessed with his hair than even he is. OCD is not terminal, but I hear you lose your hair if untreated.
Hair scare wrote on December 19, 2007 5:16 PM:I don't care about his hair.
He likes his hair but I don't think his hair should be a topic of discussion. Let others talk about their hair.
Hair is not on the agenda - stop talking about his hair. All I hear is John Edwards hair.John Edwards haircuts.John Edwards hairstyleist. Enough with the hair. Who cares about his hair. There are others things to think about other then hair. Leave his hair alone. Brown hair curly hair short hair long hair.
Does it matter. It doesn't matter that he likes his hair, who doesn't like a man who likes his hair and wants others to like his hair.
It should also be noted that Edwards consistently runs away with 1st place in the DKos monthly straw poll, despite whatever Markos sez to talk Kossacks out of supporting him. I think he polled 41% in today's survey, compared to Obama's 27% and Hillary's 6%. Granted it ain't a scientific survey, but those are real numbers on a heavily-trafficked website populated by serious polticial junkies.
Gus wrote on December 19, 2007 6:18 PM:Didn't Robert Kennedy play with his hair a lot?
Would anybody on this forum dare claim that it made him a bad candidate???
I didn't think so.
colonpowwow wrote on December 19, 2007 6:28 PM:Yeah:
I'm tired of hearing people talk about a guy running as a populist who happened to get a $400 haircut once. Sheesh!
Also, I'm sick of people pointing out that the environmentalist, commonsense energy policy advocate clearcut about 40 acres of animal habitat timberland and built a 28,000 square foot gated mansion from the ground up.
I'm sick of people talking about how Edwards campaigned against offshore hedge fund tax dodges in his 2004 stump speeches, then went to work for one as a 1/2 million dollar "consultant" right after losing.
And I can't stand those people who point out that although he doesn't take campaign donations from K-Street lobbyist firms, he gladly accepts huge sums of money from corporations who hire these lobbyist firms (see $165,000 in contributions from employees of aforementioned tax dodge, Fortress Investments.
I'm especially tired of those who point out that Edwards's lifetime Senate voting record on progressive issues (as rated by ADA) is a paltry 78% (including twice voting against Wellstone's amendments to the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill), while his two main opponents both are rated 95% plus.
Why won't these nasty people consider the "real" John Edwards? Honestly.
colonpowwow wrote on December 19, 2007 6:46 PM:Oh, one more thing:
You know what I really can't stand? I can't stand it when some nasty person points out that John Edwards built his 28,000 square foot gated estate without requiring that his contractor use any union labor.
I mean, how can a national candidate like John Edwards be expected to show personal leadership on such issues?
Come on, people! Listen to what he SAYS about things, not what he DOES about things. Get with the Oughts' Attitude! Again, sheesh!
Liberal Larry wrote on December 19, 2007 7:01 PM:Bush-Lite and her K $treet allies want to put your local newspaper out of business.
nutun wrong with a little hair flair wrote on December 19, 2007 7:30 PM:You go John Beaufont
pjsauter wrote on December 19, 2007 7:37 PM:I don't really get what's wrong wit this memo. If Obama had issued it, it would have been lauded as a great move, taking the media to task (much like his "correction" of Paul Krugman). Hillary, of course, would have been praised as being tough (and also demonized for the same thing).
The Edwards campaign, however, is called "snarky," and Clinton and Obama lackeys feel the need to parrot "pretty boy" taking points.
colonpowwow wrote on December 19, 2007 7:43 PM:And Edwards's supporters like pjsauter feel the need to call supporters of the other candidates, "lackeys."
Read my last two posts. These are not "pretty boy" issues. These are the personal responsibility factors that continue to paint Edwards in voters' minds, as rhymes with "ba-loney."
The Realist wrote on December 19, 2007 7:44 PM:Hestal,
Concerning Edwards stance on "Gay Marriage", his position is that his upbringing in the church tells him it is wrong but that he will not let his personal beliefs influence his decisions as president. His wife and daughter are for " Gay Marriage" and they have alot of influence.
As a gay man, i am supporting John Edwards because i trust him more than i trust Hillary or Obama. Hill and Obe have consistently talked out of both sides of their mouths and while this may be considered a talent, it just makes me turn away. Edwards has been consistent with his message and has spoken to the issues.
You Hair folks..
C'mon sing along
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMwd-W5efQc
nogo war wrote on December 19, 2007 8:12 PM:Colon...
I assume you support Obama or Clinton..
They are both "rich" by our standards.
They both live in very nice houses.
They both ignore the poor and working poor as a focal point in their campaigns.
Your point is that another rich candidate who does is a hypocrite?
Those of us who lived though hard times do not forget..or should not forget.
Edwards says he has it better than most.
Did your candidate make a poverty tour?
Does your candidate repeatedly speak about poverty?
Like your candidate Edwards is very wealthy..but unlike your candidate...unless you can link..
Edwards Recognizes that most do not share his status.
So go ahead and support Clinton and Obama..
after all
You have never been broke.
Your parents never sacrificed to make your life better..
You have always had and will be able to afford health insurance..
College education no longer results in serious debt...
Yep the poor do not vote..and it is a waste of time to pretend they do..
nogo war wrote on December 19, 2007 8:31 PM:Colon...I apologize...I misread your post...
hestal wrote on December 19, 2007 9:30 PM:The Realist,
I think that none of the candidates, except Kucinich, offer much hope for gays getting the civil rights they already have under the Constitution.
My point, which I apparently made badly, is that Edwards takes positions that are consistent with his "Southern Baptist" upbringing. He is placing the Bible above the Constitution. I think we don't need another religious nut in the White House. There are many things about the Southern Baptist "culture," which Edwards has said is a "part of" him, that are very undesirable. He needs to be called on it. I don't want school prayer in any form. I don't want faith-based groups being funded by tax dollars. I want gays to have their rights. These things are all Bible-based and Edwards is a Bible-thumper. He said so, that is the Southern Baptist culture.
When I first brought this up his defenders jumped on me and said he is a Methodist. Maybe so, and if it is so, then why did he bring up his Southern Baptist culture? Methodists are against gay marriage just like Baptists. I think Edwards brought up the Baptists is because there are 16 million of them and only 2 million Methodists. All of this is very cold political calculation.
xrated sex pictures wrote on December 19, 2007 9:30 PM:E3Sraf0 full lesbian movies http://full-lesbian-movies.fashionbuzz.info sex pornography pictures http://sex-pornography-pictures.ispfaq.info petite amateur girls http://petite-amateur-girls.softcentral.info xrated sex pictures http://xrated-sex-pictures.ispfaq.info nude amateur sex videos http://nude-amateur-sex-videos.softcentral.info xxx videos free http://xxx-videos-free.fashionbuzz.info hardcore tiffany teen http://hardcore-tiffany-teen.ispfaq.info free anal videos http://free-anal-videos.fashionbuzz.info hot teens strip http://hot-teens-strip.ispfaq.info amateur male college models http://amateur-male-college-models.softcentral.info extreme teen sex http://extreme-teen-sex.ispfaq.info amateur woman sex ireland http://amateur-woman-sex-ireland.softcentral.info teen titans nude http://teen-titans-nude.ispfaq.info amateur bottoms girls http://amateur-bottoms-girls.softcentral.info asian hardcore teen http://asian-hardcore-teen.ispfaq.info pre teen hardcore http://pre-teen-hardcore.ispfaq.info videosz management sample http://videosz-management-sample.fashionbuzz.info kinky sex pictures http://kinky-sex-pictures.ispfaq.info amateur oral sex galleries http://amateur-oral-sex-galleries.softcentral.info sex for teens http://sex-for-teens.ispfaq.info wet teen hardcore http://wet-teen-hardcore.ispfaq.info
totallynext wrote on December 19, 2007 10:18 PM:Sweat!
The Realist wrote on December 20, 2007 1:24 AM:Hestal,
First let me start out by saying that i am Methodist, and, yes the Methodist Church has been struggling with the gay marriage issue.It is a struggle because many, including clergy, within the church believe we should be able to marry. As a member of the church, however, they have never refused me communion,a voice,or a seat in the church. I guarantee, the Methodist Church will be the first of the majors to recognize and bless gay and lesbian couples. http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=1753
Second, John Edwards has consistently stated that his personal religious beliefs will not influence his duties as President and i don't remember him ever really going into detail about his beliefs with the exception of The beatitudes( blessed are the meek, etc...)
with which, personally, all the candidates should familiarize themselves. The fact that no one is clear whether he is baptist or methodist is a good indication that perhaps it has not been a major part of his campaign. He is Southern Baptist. He did give an interview with David Kuo, however, that you might find interesting.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/213/story_21312_1.html
I trust this man. Hill and Obe? not so much. I trust John Edwards like i have never trusted a presidential candidate before and if you knew me, you would find that hard to believe. I do not trust easily.
This 'discussion' is a good reason to ignore the haters and vote to uplift America. Vote for John Edwards -- His hair will beat them all!
:-)
I've always thought that the fact that FDR was wheelchair-bound didn't have much relation to his ability to govern. I've also thought that John Kennedy's and Bill Clinton's predilections for extramarital sex had very little to do with their executive abilities either.
So why would I see FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) propaganda about Edward's personal grooming, how big his house is, who freaking built it, who he's lawyered for, the fact that he's a Trial Lawyer (as was Lincoln), or any of that other stuff as anything more than a bunch of unadulterated bullshit? Peaople focus on those things to distract from what the candidate is talking about.
What its about is what the candidate would do as President. I happen to think Edwards is saying the right things, which is BTW, what candidates actually "do". If he were to do as good a job as President as he does as a candidate, he'd be a great one.
From what I have gleaned from research on campaign matching funds, Edwards has committed only to funds for the primaries, not the general election.
Additionally, it's really only a recent thing (2000 and 2004 elections) in which using matching funds wasn't the norm. It was never a bad thing before 2000 (and how much of that stems from the corporate bucks that went Bush's way?).
One more thing: Isn't the important thing to get a Democrat into the White House? I'm not partial to any one candidate right now, but I don't see how it does good to snipe within the party. Shouldn't the people who best represent the progressive values of the Democrats be the ones we evaluate carefully before making exclusive decisions? The best way to get a Democrat in, IMHO, is to make sure that all of the candidates uphold those values in their platforms for the presidency. Each one of them seems to have something good to offer. I'm trying to evaluate who offers the broadest range and deepest commitment to progressive values. I'd like to see how well each one behaves, frankly, to decide who gets my vote by the time the primary comes around.
Is it really likely that whoever gets the Democratic nomination is going to lack for funds for the general election campaign? Will someone who currently favors Obama (or Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, Kucinich, Biden, or whoever else there is) truly withhold financial support for another Democrat if he or she gets the nomination? That would certainly be self-defeating.
hestal wrote on December 20, 2007 6:44 AM:The Realist
I read the beliefnet interview when it was given, and it is one of those that disturbs me. It is interesting that you and I could read the same words and come away with different reactions.
First Edwards is asked about prayer in school:
"Would it be your hope that a John Edwards Supreme Court would allow public schools to encourage more prayer in schools?
What I'm not in favor of is for a teacher to go to the front of the classroom and lead the class in prayer. Because I think that by definition means that that teacher's faith is being imposed on children who will almost certainly come from different faith beliefs. Allowing time for children to pray for themselves, to themselves, I think is not only okay, I think it's a good thing."
This is wrong. As I said upthread, I grew up in this very situation and it was fine for those who were Christian but not for people like me. I was ostracized because of it. Still am, among many of my old classmates.
"What do you think about Ten Commandments being displayed in local courthouses?
I guess I've been in courthouses where I've seen the Ten Commandments. I've never had a strong reaction to it. I do think that it's the same issue. How would Muslims feel if they went into that courthouse, and how would people of other faiths feel, Hindus, others feel, if they were in the same circumstance?
So I'm sensitive to that. You know, of course it wouldn't offend me because I'm Christian. And I'm certainly not offended by the idea of expressing faith in that circumstance. But probably it causes more trouble than good."
There is no probably about it. His position, and the position of any presidential candidate should be that there will be no religious symbols in our public buildings. It is not a question of which religion, but any religion.
"President Bush, obviously, has talked a lot about empowering faith-based organizations. Vice President Gore during the 2000 campaign talked about it. Yet, there's been a lot of hostility from the Democratic Party about the idea of using faith-based groups. Would an Edwards presidency see aid to faith-based groups expanded?
Well, I'll tell you what I have seen, first, as the foundation for what I believe.
In the last few years, I have been all over the country going to Community Action centers, faith-based local organizations who are providing help to the poor because of my work on the issue of poverty. And there are a lot of places in America that, without faith-based groups there is no support for the poor. It's just that simple. And [the poor] would not survive without the existence of good, effective faith-based organizations.
Before I ever got in politics, I served on the board of Urban Ministries in Raleigh, North Carolina, which is a group set up by a consortium of churches. So I know how important faith-based groups are.
So the answer is I think is that in an Edwards presidency faith-based groups, I believe, could be used. But I think it is also tricky business. I think you have to be careful about how you implement it for all of the separation of church and state issues, because you don't want discrimination. You don't want federal money going to any organization, including a faith-based group, that's discriminating. So, you have to be very careful about that.
And then secondly, I would just be concerned from what I've seen practically about the burden that comes with getting federal dollars--you're going to have accountability, you're going to have audit systems, and you just need to be certain that the faith-based groups are prepared for that, because I think some are not. And that's not the way in which they're used to operating, and I think it could cause a lot of trouble and cause a lot of disenchantment.
But, the bottom line is, if you can work through these problems, I think there is a great potential delivery system there."
Like he says, the "bottom line" is that he would support federal funding of faith-based groups. This is clearly against the Constitution, and his position is too smooth by far. He knows exactly what he is saying and he is saying that he will put the Bible above the Constitution.
I see no evidence that all the petty stuff about haircuts and his house are doing any serious damage to Edwards.
Of course Edwards does have real political problems, most notably that he has to convince people that his current positioning as a firebrand populist and anti-war candidate is genuine in light of his record in the Senate and his positioning as a candidate in 2004. And I get that people are trying to weave the haircut and house stuff into a general attack on his sincerity. I just think they undermine their own case by focusing on that stuff, rather than more serious matters.
Anon wrote on December 20, 2007 8:26 AM:The ridiculous attacks here on John Edwards are evidence that you don't have to be informed as a citizen in America to participate in the democratic election process. If you believe that the candidate who raises the most money should be the next president, regardless of the candidates' relative positions on the issues, then there is no need to have an election which requires voting --we can just tally the massive campaign contributions reported on federal campaign disclosure forms and announce the winner right along with the day's DOW Jones report. Of course in that case you will get as your next President the candidate chosen by the corporate/special interests. And that friends is what John Edwards is fighting to change for the benefit of the American People.
The Realist wrote on December 20, 2007 10:20 AM:Hestal,
I understand your concern with the prayer in school Q/A. I'm not in favor of any type of prayer or moment of silience for the very reason you state, but i cant let that one thing cloud the overall picture.I'll fight that when and if it becomes an issue.
As for the Ten commandments, John stated that he could understand how some would have a problem with it. He did not say he would support it.
He also stated that faith-based funding has its problems. If i were a church, personally, i would not want to use gov't funds for the very reason you and i would oppose it. No religious organization would not and should not want the gov't telling it how to worship. Any religious organization that would provide assistance on the condition that the recipient of said assistance, convert or participate in their religious activities is reprehensible. I don't have a problem, per sey, if oversight could insure that the money was being used to help and not convert and the money was being distributed evenly and fairly amongst all faith-based(i.e Christian,Jewish,Muslim,Wicca,Atheist, etc...) groups applying and not disproportionately to one particular group or belief. I'm not sure that is possible but if the gov't could distribute aid to those who need it and use these "tax exempt" organizations to distribute that aid responsibly, effectively, and quickly without promoting a particular belief, why not? Those with an agenda might find it too difficult to qualify or comply with the restrictions. Seriously, if oversight and strict guidelines were enforced, most the organizations looking to profit would not participate. I'm not saying I am all for faith based funding. What i am saying is that we need a way to distribute emergency aid quickly and if we can insure it is being distributed fairly, without strings, i have no problem trying it this way, and i believe that is what John Edwards is saying.
Re: the girly-man.
For an ESPN Magazine piece a few years ago, Edwards absolutely torched three North Carolina University players, who'd just won an NCAA hoops championship, in a game of H-O-R-S-E.
Ufortunately the Edwards campaign memo only mentions six or seven states that they are making efforts in and mostly mentions efforts in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. What about the other forty plus states?
South Carolina is an interesting case because it was the only primary Edwards won in 2004. I saw a current poll that showed Clinton and Obama almost tied in the mid-forties with Edwards at eleven percent. Eleven percent!
In other states the memo cites union endorsements as being part of Edwards efforts in those states. Those endorsements may or may not translate into votes.
The memo does not refute the impression that Edwards is somewhat thin on funding and organization once we get past the early states.
A good showing in Iowa will help but it can't perform a political miracle for Edwards.
cal1942 wrote on December 20, 2007 11:59 PM:Disgusting to read so many comments using cheap, irrelevent Republican style attacks on John Edwards.
You don't seem to get that when you use GOP slurs against any Democrat you taint all Democrats.
You're the people who will cost us an election we should win.
