The Bourbon Room

Posts Tagged ‘Edwards’

Do the 527 Two-Step; Obama and Edwards Are

Saturday, December 22nd, 2007

All day the titles of one Doors song and two Who songs (The Doors’ “5 to One,” and the Who’s “905″ and “5:15″) have been ringing in my head.

Why?

No other reason than to keep my toe-tapping to the relentless back-and-forth today between the Obama and Edwards camps over two union-affiliated 527 groups now airing more than $1 million in radio ads in Iowa that indirectly benefit Edwards. (Well, the fact that all three songs have “5″ in them may have something to do with it and that all are under-appreciated parts of both bands’ discography — but let’s not go there loyal Bourbon Room readers).

The groups (the 527s, not The Doors or the Who) are loosely backed by Iowa members of the Service Employees International Union and the Steelworkers union. The SEIU-affiliated group is headed by Nick Baldick, a former top operative in Edwards’ 2004 presidential campaign.

There’s serious money behind these ads, more than $1 million by the Obama camp’s count and that’s enough to saturate the biggest media markets in Iowa — as the groups no doubt intend to do.

In Oskaloosa, Obama came right to the edge of calling Edwards a fraud when he said Edwards should denounce and end the ads.

“You cant just talk the talk,” Obama said with intensity. ”The easiest thing in the world is to talk about change during election time. Everybody talks about change during election time, you’ve got to look at how they act when its not convenient, when its hard.”

Edwards’ first response?

He blamed Obama’s complaints on a change of fortune in the Hawkeye state.

“Senator Obama’s attacks seem to increase as momentum for our campaign grows,” Edwards himself, not a spokesman, said in a statement.  ”As for outside groups, unfortunately, you can’t control them, but let me make it clear - I think money has corrupted our politics and these groups should not be a part of the political process.”

“Can’t control” is 100 percent legally true, as everyone in this game knows.

No one controls a 527 except those who bankroll it with unlimited and undisclosed donations and the operatives who cash those checks.

But as camp Obama swiftly pointed out, Edwards demanded in 2004 that President Bush step away from such no-can-touch legal arcana and stop the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth ads against John Kerry.

Obama’s chief spokesman Bill Burton gleefully e-mailed these Edwards’ riffs on Bush and the Swift Boaters.

“There’s one person, one person who can put an end to this today if he had the backbone, the courage, the leadership to do it. And that person is George W. Bush,” Edwards said in an Associated Press report on Aug. 24, 2004. “Every day that this goes on and the president refuses to say stop these ads,we’re learning more and more about the character of George W. Bush.”  Reporters traveling with Edwards today hounded him on this issue. By sunset Edwards not only told reporters he would call for the union-affiliated ads to be pulled, his campaign farily trumpeted the turn-around.Here is part of an Edwards campaign press sent 5:11 p.m. EST:

EDWARDS: STOP THESE ADS

Edwards calls on 527 groups to stop running ads

Des Moines
, Iowa – Today, after an event in Coralville, Iowa, Senator John Edwards called on 527 groups to stop running ads: 

“I do not support 527 groups. They are part of the law, but let me be clear: I am asking this group and others not to run the ads.  I would encourage all the 527s to stay out of the political process.”

The 527 scrum now over, let’s quickly analyze it.

Obama wins by forcing Edwards to reverse earlier statements. But don’t count Edwards a loser. Edwards is now a big problem for Obama. Team Obama knows Edwards has a top-flight Iowa organization, knows Edwards is the second choice of clear majority of likely Democratic caucus-goers (every polls shows this), and, most frightening of all, Obama’s team knows if Hillary can’t win Iowa her next choice is to have Edwards win. 

If Edwards wins and Hillary finishes second and Obama third, Clinton can fight Edwards on stronger ground in New Hampshire and without the handcuffs of spending limits that Edwards must live with. 

Obama can’t afford to allow a single Edwards advantage to go unchallenged. And, of course, Edwards can call on the ads to be withdrawn but that doesn’t mean they will be because, as he correctly said, election law forbids any direct coordination between a candidate and a 527 — even if that coordination is to pull ads from the air. 

The larger point of today’s clash — other than putting three great rock songs in my head — is that Obama fears Edwards and can’t dare let a single tactical advantage of his go without a fight. Obama fought. He fought hard and, on points, he won. 

But as he returns to his corner, Obama knows Edwards has staying power and will fight to the death in Iowa. As The Bourbon Room has noted before, if Edwards doesn’t win Iowa, he’s done. 

Obama can take a second place finish in Iowa to Edwards, but not a third to Edwards and Clinton. Hence the pre-Chirstmas ferocity of his response.  

Clinton talks Iraq Withdrawal, hugs higher minimum wage

Friday, December 21st, 2007

Hillary Clinton highlighted her antiwar efforts and embraced John Edwards’ $9.50 minimum wage as her five-day Iowa blitz drew to a close, a clear signal camp Clinton needed to do more than hop-scotch across the state on a “Hil-a-copter” and dispatch surrogates statewide to tell tales of the “human side” of Hillary.

In Grundy City Thursday, Clinton talked up her Senate votes to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq within a year.

“In the Senate, I’ve been fighting the Bush administration to change course and end the war,” Clinton said. I have voted to complete the redeployment of our forces by December 2008. I have voted repeatedly against continuing to fund the war.”

In response to a question about timetables for withdrawal, Clinton said: “I think we can bring nearly everybody hom, you know, certainly within a year if we keep at it and do it very steadily.”

These remarks left two campaigns – Edwards’ and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s – with the impression Clinton was now embracing a full U.S. pullout from Iraq by the end of next year. If so, it would represent a stark contrast with her oft-stated “safe and responsible” troop withdrawal goal that lacks a hard timetable. Not incidentally, the Edwards and Richardson camps see it as a massive position switch more in line with their long-standing calls for rapid Iraq troop withdrawals.

Of the two, only the Richardson campaign complained on the record.

“Senator Clinton’s statement that we could ‘certainly get all the troops out within a year’ is a stunning flip-flop from what she has been saying all along,” Richardson said in a statement. “She consistently has called for leaving troops in Iraq to fight al-Qaida, train Iraqis, and protect U.S. assets. Has that suddenly been abandoned? If so, why has she changed her mind?

“In a September debate, she said that she could not commit to getting our troops out in five years, let alone in one year. Has anything changed about the logistics besides her position in the polls? It is clear that she is responding directly to my latest ad and my statements that she repeatedly has called for leaving thousands of troops in Iraq indefinitely. Rather than defending her position, apparently she simply has changed it.”

Clinton’s camp says there no change in her position.

“Governor Richardson knows that Senator Clinton has been clear and consistent: if George Bush has not ended the war in Iraq, she will,” campaign spokesman Phil Singer said. “As she has said, she would accomplish that by beginning to withdrawal our troops within 60 days after inauguration at the rate of one or two brigades a month. This would mean that nearly all troops could be home within a year.”

Clinton aides say she has not and will not abandon the belief that a “small contingent” of U.S. combat troops would need to remain in Iraq to guard against a resurgent Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

On the minimum wage, Clinton has now proposed legislation to increase the minimum wage to $9.50 and dropped that bill just before Congress adjourned for the year. This last-minute legislative move strongly signals Clinton feels the need to shore up support among working-class Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire – households that once formed a core part of her base.

Edwards welcomed Clinton’s pre-Christmas embrace of a $9.50 wage threshold, something that for five months he’s called on all Democratic presidential candidates to embrace.

“Just 14 days before the Iowa caucuses, Senator Clinton has answered my call,” Edwards said in a statement. “But changing America demands all of us do even more. In this spirit, I hope she will join me in rejecting the money of Washington lobbyists that is corrupting our system and hurting middle-class families.”

As for Barack Obama, he hasn’t set a target number for the minimum wage. He has advocated indexing increases in the minimum wage to inflation. Campaign spokesman Bill Burton says that approach would increase the minimum wage to $9.50 per hour “as fast” as Edwards and now Clinton propose.

Poll tidbits: The New Gallup/USA Today poll today shows Obama and Clinton tied at 32 percent with Edwards at 18 percent. In four of six of the most recent New Hampshire polls, Clinton has lead with margins from 3 points to 14 points. Also, today’s new Strategic Vision poll in Iowa shows Obama at 30 percent and Clinton and Edwards tied at 27 percent.

Reading between the line in the polls. Edwards announced this morning that uniquely among top-tier Democrats he will be in New Hampshire — NOT IOWA — the day after Christmas for events in Conway, Laconia, Manchester and Salem. This indicates Edwards sees a real chance to win in Iowa and doesn’t want to neglect New Hampshire so he can capitalize on a possible Iowa victory. Of course, with Clinton and Obama in Iowa, Edwards can dominate the New Hampshire media market. But if Edwards were feeling uneasy about the must-win state of Iowa, he wouldn’t dare venture to New Hampshire and leave the Iowa media market to Clinton and Obama.

In a release, Edwards touts 80 paid staff in the Granite State, “eight times the field organizers it had on the ground during the 2003-2004 cycle.” Edwards says he can compete with “anyone’s” field operation in New Hampshire. It’s worth noting that while the Obama-Clinton battle in New Hampshire has ebbed and flowed, one constant in the polls has been a slow Edwards climb since mid-November from the low teens to the high teens. Still, he has yet to break 20 and probably needs to cross that threshold before the caucuses — which may be another reason to hit New Hampshire on Boxing Day.

Hillary sees a dictator (and a small crowd) in Iowa

Sunday, December 16th, 2007

Council Bluffs, Iowa — In her revised stump speech today to kickoff a five-day “Hil-a-copter” tour of Iowa, Hillary Clinton added a new riff to her latest meditation on change.

After repeating the riff she debuted at Thursday’s Iowa Public Television debate that change must be worked for, not hoped for (Barack Obama), or demanded (John Edwards), Clinton added that to achieve necessary “change” a president needed to know “when to stand your ground and when to find common ground. ” Lest anyone miss the point, Clinton added the rhetorical candied cherry. “This is not a dictatorship.
It was safe to assume this was a direct reference to John Edwards. But assumptions usually work out poorly. Clinton staff confirmed Edwards was the target.

Clinton drew (by my count) fewer than 250 people to her much-ballyhooed “Every County Counts ” launch at Thomas Jefferson High School here. Twenty minutes before the event was scheduled to start, the room was nearly half empty. But even when the crowd trickled in to fill the available seats, all the tell-tale signs of advance team “shrinking the room” tactics were well in evidence.

The rows had double-First-Class leg room. The aisles were unnaturally large. Clinton’s podium was shoved into the room. And the press corps and risers were unnecessarily close to Clinton (unless, of course, the idea was to make the room look small and packed on TV cameras). Big swaths of unused space was filled up by three tables of coffee and cookies (who said small crowds are all bad). In characteristic Clinton fashion, the event started late — 30 minutes late this time.

Team Clinton announced the event on Friday and brought former U.S. Sen. Bob Kerrey from neighboring Nebraska (just across the river from here) in to announce his endorsement. Kerrey appeared genuine and that struck me. I well remember his often biting criticism President Bill Clinton’s political timidity.

“Please don’t let us down,” Kerrey implored, speaking to potential caucus-going Democrats. “We are counting on you.”

Then Kerrey, one of those politicians least likely to invoke prayer in public, concluded with this: “I give you my senator and soon, I pray, our president.”

Despite Kerrey’s presence and all the advance hoo-hah of the Hil-a-copter, the event still felt underwhelming — especially since camp Clinton pointed to it as a demonstration of newfound energy.

Clinton gave it her best, promising to bring “perseverance and perspiration” to the Oval Office. “Our campaign is energized, we’re picking up momentum and we’re going all the way to January 3rd.”

On the road to January 3rd, Clinton will no doubt keep an eye peeled for looming Democratic dictators.

Mari Culver to Endorse Edwards on Monday

Sunday, December 16th, 2007

Mari Culver, wife of Iowa Democratic Gov. Chet Culver, will endorse John Edwards for president for tomorrow at noon in Des Moines.

The governor will remain neutral. Iowa’s First Lady will say Edwards is tested, inspirational and electable. Edwards will use the endorsement and his cover treatment in Newsweek to buttress his argument that his time has come.

Close
E-mail It