John Edwards 2008: What’s not to like

WASHINGTON — There’s losing. There’s losing honorably. And then there’s John Edwards.

-snip

Then there is John Edwards. He’s not going to be president either. He stays in the race because, with the Democrats’ proportional representation system, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton might end up in a very close delegate race — perhaps allowing an also-ran with, say, 10 percent of the delegates to act as kingmaker at the convention.

It’s a prize of sorts, it might even be tradeable for a Cabinet position. But at considerable cost. His campaign has been a spectacle.

Edwards has made much of his renunciation of his Iraq War vote. But he has not stopped there. His entire campaign has been an orgy of regret and renunciation.

– As senator, he voted in 2001 for a bankruptcy bill that he now denounces.

– As senator, he voted for storing nuclear waste in Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. Twice. He is now fiercely opposed.

– As senator, he voted for the Bush-Kennedy No Child Left Behind education reform. He now campaigns against it, promising to have it “radically overhauled.”

– As senator, he voted for the Patriot Act, calling it “a good bill … and I am pleased to support it.” He now attacks it.

– As senator, he voted to give China normalized trade relations. Need I say? He now campaigns against liberalized trade with China as a sellout of the middle class to the great multinational agents of greed, etc.

Breathtaking. People can change their minds about something. But everything? The man served one term in the Senate. He left not a single substantial piece of legislation to his name, only an astonishing string of votes on trade, education, civil liberties, energy, bankruptcy and, of course, war that now he not only renounces but inveighs against.

Today he plays the avenging angel, engaged in an “epic struggle” against the great economic malefactors that “have literally,” he assures us, “taken over the government.” He is angry, embodying the familiar zeal of the convert, ready to immolate anyone who benightedly holds to any revelation other than the zealot’s very latest.

Nothing new about a convert. Nothing new about a zealous convert. What is different about Edwards is his endlessly repeated claim that the raging populist of today is what he has always been. That this has been the “cause of my life,” the very core of his being, ingrained in him on his father’s knee or at the mill or wherever, depending on the anecdote he’s telling. You must understand: This is not politics for him. “This fight is deeply personal to me. I’ve been engaged in it my whole life.”

Except for his years as senator, the only public office he’s ever held. The audacity of the all-my-life trope is staggering. By his own endlessly self-confessed record, his current pose is a coat of paint newly acquired. His claim that it is an expression of his inner soul is a farce.

A cynical farce that is particularly galling to left-liberals of real authenticity. “The one (presidential candidate) that is the most problematic is Edwards,” Sen. Russ Feingold told The Post-Crescent in Appleton, Wis., “who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq War. … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.”

It profits a man nothing to sell his soul for the whole world. But for 4 percent of the Nevada caucuses?

Washington Post 1/25/08

John Edwards’s populist message has, without a doubt, helped distinguish him from the other Democratic candidates in Iowa.

But a central tenet of that message — that he is campaigning free from the influence of the powerful forces that control Washington — is being challenged in light of the most recent federal election filings by one of the outside groups advocating on his behalf, and has sparked a round of dueling memos by the managers of the Barack Obama and the Edwards campaigns.

As The Washington Post reported Friday, the independent expenditure group Alliance for a New America recently received nearly $500,000 from Rachel “Bunny” Mellon, a 97-year-old socialite who is the widow of Paul Mellon and daughter-in-law of industrialist Andrew Mellon. It is at least the second check that Mellon has written to an Edwards-affiliated entity. The first, for $250,000, came in 2006, to the One America independent group, which helped support Edwards’s political efforts between his presidential bids.

“These latest revelations make it clear why Edwards was able to announce that he could accept public funds while still spending all he needed to spend in Iowa,” wrote Obama campaign manager David Plouffe in memo released Saturday morning. “His campaign simply exploited the biggest loophole in the campaign finance system in order to get public matching funds while arranging through allies to benefit from a 527. That’s how they avoided the spending limits that are a condition of the public matching funds.”

Washington Post 12/30/07

The Gilded Age was a dark period in American politics, John Edwards recalls. Back before Teddy Roosevelt fought for reforms, he told a Nov. 26 town meeting in Bow, a few families wielded disproportionate power.

“The Rockefellers and the Mellons and the Carnegies, all these people, owned most of America or a big chunk of America and they used their money and power to dominate what was happening in the government and to dominate what was happening in the economy,” he said.

Edwards has often invoked Roosevelt on the stump as a hero and railed against the influence of money in politics. But at the same time, it appears that the pro-Edwards movement has had a huge infusion of cash from the old Mellon fortune.

Turns out, the labor-linked, pro-Edwards 527 that’s been running ads in Iowa and spreading pamphlets in New Hampshire has deep-pocketed friends outside of unions.

The single largest donor to the Alliance for a New America, according to new FEC reports, is a mysterious LLC registered to New York City’s high-end Essex House hotel. (We called the room listed as the source of the $495,000 check and got an automated voicemail: “The person in this room is not available to take your call. . .”)

According to reporting elsewhere, the group, Oak Spring Farms LLC, is linked to New York lawyer and Edwards backer Alexander Forger, who holds power of attorney over 97-year-old Rachel Lambert Mellon, the daughter-in-law of industrialist and banker Andrew Mellon.

Mellon and her deceased husband, Paul, had a farm called Oak Spring; property records in Virginia refer to it as Oak Spring Farms LLC.

In 2006, when the New York Sun reported on a $250,000 contribution from Oak Spring Farms LLC to Edwards’s One America Committee, Forger declined to say where the money came from.

“I’m simply acting on behalf of somebody else,” he said then.

Edwards has made a campaign issue out of kicking special interests out of politics and often cites his pledge not to take any money from lobbyists. He’s said he would outlaw 527s if he’s elected.

The Alliance for a New America 527 is advised by Nick Baldick, who managed Edwards’s 2004 campaign.

Concord Monitor 12/30/07

Democrat John Edwards insisted Saturday he has not taken any money from special interests as the Obama campaign complained about big spending by outside groups friendly to Edwards.”His campaign simply exploited the biggest loophole in the campaign finance system in order to get public matching funds while arranging through allies to benefit from a 527. That’s how they avoided the spending limits that are a condition of the public matching funds,” Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said in a statement.

Plouffe said the outside spending allows Edwards to stay within the limits required by public financing “while still spending all he needed to spend in Iowa.”

His memo was prompted by disclosure of a $495,000 donation from philanthropist Rachel Mellon to a 527 group called the Alliance for a New America that is running ads in Iowa in support of Edwards’ campaign. The nonprofit 527 groups can legally carry out some political activity but have come under scrutiny by the Federal Election Commission for their advertising during past presidential campaigns.

An FEC report showed the donation came from Oak Spring Farms LLC, the corporate entity that holds Mellon’s fortune. Mellon is the 97-year-old widow of Paul Mellon, the son of industrialist Andrew Mellon.

She also contributed the maximum $4,600 allowed to Edwards’ campaign earlier this year. The lawyer who serves as director of the investment fund, Oak Springs Farm LLC, also has contributed the maximum $4,600 allowed to Edwards’ campaign.
(more…)

Obama objected last week to the Alliance for a New America, which is run by Edwards’ former campaign manager and partially funded by local unions affiliated with the Service Employees International Union. The locals have endorsed Edwards.After Obama objected to the group last week, which now is running television ads in the state, Edwards said he had only just learned about it and called for a halt to its activities.

The argument gained new fuel Thursday, however, when a memo from October surfaced that summarized a conference call among the union locals that outlined several steps they planned to take.

Among them was general agreement that a 527 political group would likely be set up. A 527 is a political committee that can raise larger sums of money than typical political committees. The memo also said there were plans “to discuss with the Edwards campaign what specific sort of support they’d like to see from us.”

Coordination between 527 political groups and campaigns is heavily restricted, although some discussions are legal.

On Friday, The New York Times, which first broke the story about the memo, reported that campaign finance watchdogs were raising questions about the legality of the activity.

An official representing the union locals said Friday it has followed the law and it is inaccurate and “reckless” to link the memo to the Alliance’s activities.

“This was just a thought piece sent out by a leader inside of SEIU. It was an internal memo. It specifically said it had to be vetted with our legal team,” said Dave Regan, the president of SEIU District 1199, which is based in Columbus, Ohio, and includes members from Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia. “Everything that we’ve done absolutely complies with all legal requirements.”

An Edwards spokesman also said there was no wrongdoing.
(more…)

Did Edwards get caught coordinating with that pro-Edwards 527 that is running TV ads in Iowa? That’s the implication in today’s New York Times, which reports on an email message from the union leaders who created the 527 suggesting “that they were talking with Edwards campaign officials about ‘what specific kinds of support they would like to see from us’ just as they were planning to create an outside group to advertise in early primary states with ‘a serious 527 legal structure.’” The 527’s ties to Edwards already smelled a little fishy, given that his 2004 campaign manager — Nick Baldick — was running the group. Does this New York Times report make things smell a bit worse for the candidate who is attacking the influence of special interests? This could be a bigger problem for Edwards in New Hampshire, where the issue of campaign reform is always on the minds of those “live free and die” voters.

Source: MSNBC First Read 12/27/07

From: David Rolf [yyyyyy@seiu775.org]
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 6:27 PM
To: rickman.jackson@seiu; jschnell@seiu113;; SEIU205DD@; tom.woodruff@seiu; anna.burger@seiu; josie.mooney@seiu; tyronef@seiu-uitcw; srosselll@seiu-uhw; franel@opeuseiu; adale@seiu49; alice.dale@seiu; kristy.sermersheim@seiu521; dana.graham@mseaseiu; dianes@seiu1199mw.org; seiucathy@; dholway@nage; pthompson@seiu517m; dregan@seiu119; kcook@seiu925; mackerman@seiu105; nyen@seiutx; Gary Smith; ssegat@seiu888; David Rolf; jellison668@; cuttitam@seiu500
Cc: Stacy Peterson

Subject: SEIU for Edwards conference call

This email provides the notes from today’s “SEIU for Edwards,” meeting, a summary of decisions, and an announcement of our Saturday phone call. Skip to the end for the call-in numbers for Saturday if you were at the meeting and don’t need the summary. And also note everyone’s email addresses above, for future communications.

At today’s “SEIU for Edwards” meeting convened in Chicago upon adjournment of the IEB, we decided:

1) To spend this week moving the maximum number of states into a pro-Edwards position using the procedures adopted by the IEB. Our targets for an early round of endorsements are: AZ, AR, CA, CO, GA, IA, ID, KY, LA, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, MT, NH, OH, TN, TX, WA, and WV. (A potential second round might include any from the above list that can’t move as fast as this week, plus OR, RI, CT, NV, and PA, depending on some state-specific factors.)

2) To be prepared to roll out these endorsements in a coordinated press strategy with the Edwards campaign next week, possibly as early as Monday.

3) To discuss with the Edwards campaign what specific sort of support they’d like to see from us, given our new state-based strategy. Tom Woodruff will talk to David Bonior; I will talk to Chris Chafe; Cathy Singer Glasson and I will visit the Edwards operation in Iowa on Wednesday.

4) To bring on-a full-time staff person to coordinate our efforts and plan the campaign. Payroll & legal structure will be determined by attorneys, but will not be on SEIU International payroll, since SEIU International is not making an endorsement at this time. People should move suggested names to Tom W. There was general agreement that the campaign will likely involve fundraising, field work in the early states, media in the early states, and require full time staffing and a serious 527 legal structure for any communication beyond our own membership.

5) To operate this group as an “SEIU for Edwards” steering committee, and expand it to include local union executive officers from non-IEB locals that are pro-Edwards (for example, Missouri).

6) To meet again by conference call on Saturday, October 13 at 8 am PDT / 11 am EDT. The call-in number will be the same as previous “SEIU for Edwards” calls: 1-866-285-7778 participant code 775000; host code 465874.

Talk to you then,

David Rolf

Source: Politico 12/27/07

DES MOINES — In the final days before the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3, John Edwards has stepped up his criticism of outside organizations that spend money to influence elections, repeatedly disavowing a labor group that is blanketing Iowa with commercials supporting his candidacy.“As for outside groups, unfortunately, you can’t control them,” Mr. Edwards said last weekend as he distanced himself from the actions of the group, known as a 527 for the section of the tax code it falls under. He would prefer the group “not run the ads,” he said.

But the Edwards campaign may have expected the support of the group, Alliance for a New America, set up by a local of the Service Employees International Union. An Oct. 8 e-mail message circulated among the union leaders who created the group suggests that they were talking with Edwards campaign officials about “what specific kinds of support they would like to see from us” just as they were planning to create an outside group to advertise in early primary states with “a serious 527 legal structure.”

snip

The 527 organizations and other third-party groups have become an issue in the presidential campaign because they allow donors who are sometimes anonymous to spend large amounts outside the limits of the campaign finance laws. The groups are prohibited from coordinating their expenditures with the campaigns.

snip

The Oct. 8 e-mail message was sent by David Rolf, president of a Washington State local of the service employees union, to his counterparts at other union locals. It summarizes a meeting of “S.E.I.U. for Edwards,” a group of state-level union leaders rallying around Mr. Edwards.

The message discusses plans to swing as many S.E.I.U. locals as possible “into a pro-Edwards position” and to coordinate public endorsements with the Edwards campaign. The organizers plan “to discuss with the Edwards campaign what specific sort of support they would like to see from us,” and list specific meetings scheduled between union leaders and campaign officials like David Bonior, the national campaign manager.

The message says the organizers intend to hire a full-time operative to run their pro-Edwards effort as a legally separate organization. “There was general agreement that the campaign will likely involve fund-raising, field work in early states, media in early states, and require full-time staffing and a serious 527 legal structure for any communication beyond our own membership.”

The 527 that the S.E.I.U. locals ultimately formed, Alliance for a New America, is run by Nick Baldick, an operative who helped run Mr. Edwards’s 2004 Democratic primary campaign.

The New York Times 12/27/07

NASHUA – Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Wednesday that independent groups financing mail and ads on his behalf, known as Section 527 committees, should be outlawed and will be if he’s elected in 2008.

“I think the 527s should be outlawed, and what we ultimately need to do is not just stop the 527, but have public financing of all campaigns,” Edwards told reporters after going door-to-door with Nashua supporters Bill Barry and Helen Honorow.

“It’s a centerpiece of my campaign to get this money out of politics.”

On Friday, Democratic rival Barack Obama chastised Edwards because a former top campaign aide, Nick Boldick, is a paid adviser to the Alliance for a Better America, a 527 affiliated with the SEIU union that’s now bankrolling $1.3 million in TV and radio ads endorsing Edwards in Iowa.

“The fact is that this is somebody who worked for John Edwards for who knows how many years,” Obama said.

“He’s a good friend and colleague of Edwards who’s now running a 527 that’s running ads on behalf of John Edwards. You’re telling me that he has no influence on him; that’s just not true.”

The Telegraph reported last Tuesday on its “NH Prime Cuts” blog that the Alliance paid for a statewide mailing to Democratic and independent households in New Hampshire.

Edwards campaign spokeswoman Kate Beddingfield said the candidate and campaign has had no contact with Boldick or anyone associated with the 527s.

“He’s done everything he could do under the law,” Beddingfield said. “It would be illegal for him to have contact with Nick or anyone else.”

A San Francisco-based 527, Vote Hope, formed last spring to promote Obama.

Obama criticized the group in August and urged they simply support his campaign. Records to date show the group has spent about $40,000, none of it on paid advertising or mailings.

Both Obama and Edwards have made their refusal to accept donations from Washington lobbyists a major theme.

Several media outlets reported over the weekend that when Edwards ran for president in 2004, Jonathan Prince, a senior adviser, left the campaign shortly before the Iowa vote to start a 527 that paid for mailings to caucus voters.

Prince is currently deputy campaign manager for Edwards.

Edwards is accepting federal matching money and can spend no more than $59 million to win the nomination.

Nashua Telegraph 12/27/07

By the way, the position of the top three Democratic candidates on putting spent nuclear fuel inside Yucca Mountain are as follows:

Obama: No.

Clinton: Absolutely, positively, I-will-chain-myself-to-the-foothills no.

Edwards: The fact that I once voted yes should not be interpreted as anything but a no. And do not call this waffling. There is only one waffler in this pack, and I don’t even like the way she dresses.

Something weird is going on with John Edwards, who was cheerfulness incarnate when four years ago he was the moderate-Southerner-who-can-speak-to-the-Reagan-Democrats. Then he morphed into a sorrowful populist who thought we should vote for him because he cared the most about the poor. Now he’s running around like a rabid gerbil, telling people he should be president because he’s the angriest. Soon, he’s going to run out of adjectives to embody.

New York Times 11/15/07
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/opinion/15collins.html

Former Senator John Edwards (N.C.) has been accusing his rival Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) of double-talk for a week, since she refused to say clearly whether illegal immigrants should get driver’s licenses – but his own position on the issue is also incoherent, experts say.Immigration policy experts on both sides of the debate say they’re puzzled by Edwards’ stance, which appears to hinge on blurring the distinction between state and federal powers.

“He supports licenses as part of a path to citizenship. He doesn’t support the Spitzer plan because it doesn’t include a path to citizenship,” said Edwards’ deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince in an e-mail referring to the New York governor’s plan that prompted the question that flummoxed Clinton.

“That’s not a rational position — Eliot Spitzer couldn’t ever offer somebody a path to citizenship,” said Margie McHugh, the Co-Director of the National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy at the Migration Policy Institute, which favors immigration reform.

“I don’t know if they think you’re stupid or what they think,” said Frank Sharry, the executive director of the National Immigrantion Forum, another broadly pro-immigration policy shop.

Sharry laughed aloud when read Prince’s statement of Edwards’ position.

That is “sort of like saying I oppose the confederate flag in Southern states because there’s not a corresponding flag burning amendment to it. It’s nonsensical,” Sharry said.

Indeed, opposing Spitzer’s plan on those grounds amounts to de facto opposition to any driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, something Edwards and his aides have not previously stated.

That’s a dramatic shift from Edwards’ stand in 2004, when he told “Hardball’s” Chris Matthews, “I’m for it,” when asked about licenses for illegal immigrants.

Edwards may be changing his position to court working-class Iowa voters, among whom illegal immigration is an emotionally charged issue.

However, his effort to soft-pedal the change seems aimed at a party establishment that is resisting populist anti-immigration forces, and hopes to win the vast bulk of the Hispanic vote in the general election.
(more…)