Obama calls on Edwards to stop 527 ad

[BeyondGeography]

The Swamp
by John McCormick

OSKALOOSA, Iowa – With advertising dollars increasingly flowing into Iowa from outside groups just before the presidential caucuses, Sen. Barack Obama charged Saturday that one of his leading rivals is being hypocritical by denouncing such groups, while also benefiting from them. The attention from Obama toward former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has grown in recent days as both men compete for caucus voters and seek to pick up support from other candidates that may prove unviable.

On Saturday, the Illinois Democrat's focus were so-called 527 groups that seek to influence the election by raising unlimited sums of money that often does not need to be reported in as timely a manner as other political committees. "We found out today that there's an outside group spending $750,000 – just bought three-quarters of a million dollars worth of television time – and the individual who is running the group used to be John Edward's campaign manager," Obama said during a stop here. "So, you can't say yesterday, you don't believe in 'em, and today, you're having three-quarters of a million dollars being spent for you. You can't just talk the talk."

Edwards, who has raised significantly less money than Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, said Friday that he has sought to discourage such spending on his behalf. The group Obama was talking about is called Alliance for a New America and includes Nick Baldick, a campaign manager for Edwards' 2004 presidential bid. David Axelrod, Obama's top strategist, said the group is planning to start running ads the day after Christmas in the Sioux City, Iowa, television market, an area of the state where Obama and Edwards have been fighting in recent weeks for independents and even Republicans. "It's a blow-out buy," Axelrod said.

Axelrod said he has not yet seen the ad and does not know whether it is an attack ad or positive spot. "Even if it is positive, it doesn't change the fundamentals," he said.

Repeating a message he has hit hard in recent days, Obama maintained that he has a stronger record than Edwards in fighting special interests

"Both of us agree that we've got to take on the special interests and the lobbyists. Both of us agree that they have too much influence in Washington. But I would argue that…I did something and John didn't. Then six years in the senate, he wasn't passing laws that would reduce the power of lobbyists. This year, I passed the toughest ethics reform legislation since Watergate, eliminating corporate meals and corporate gifts, eliminating corporate jets being provided to members of Congress, making sure that folks in Congress, if they got money bundled by lobbyists that that had to be disclosed. And let me tell you, that was resisted not just be Republicans, but by Democrats, too…And so I've got a track record, same kind of track record I established at the state senate…I don't just talk the talk, I walk the walk. I've been doing this all my life. And John does not have that same record."

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/obama_makes_charge_against_edw.html

[KennedyGuy]

1. Looks like MR Positive is going negative..

I don't expect him to be called on it though..

[Jane Austin]

14. Looks like Obama addressed this issue and went on to give

a very positive account of his own legislative record with respect to special interests' influence.

[calteacherguy]

77. How is defending his record going negative? nt

[Dawgs]

84. Are you talking about Edwards or Obama, cause Edwards is the one being a hypocrite.

And, also being negative.

[unapatriciated]

89. I watched the add and decided to fact check

Bush's energy bill was weak and he got it through by threatening to veto stronger legislation.

Obama voted for it and even praised it-does support expansion into Peru. At the IA debates he qualified his position on NAFTA with the need to a stronger enforcement of existing trade agreements

http://obama.senate.gov/press/071219-obama_statement_114/

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2558

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/breaking-obama-says-he-w_b_67780.html

I didn't find a direct link on the credit card interest rate but will keep looking.

I did think the add was too negative for my taste but found it to have fact to back it up.

[Adelante]

2. I hate these 527s in the primaries

They should be outlawed. :puke:

Or at least forced to stick to issues. If they're not allowed to campaign for a candidate, they shouldn't be allowed to campaign against candidates.

[lisainmilo]

9. They should be allowed to campaign for a candidate

and so they are, unlike PAC's and lobbyists (corporate interest, currently running the country), unions are for the workers of America, are you not for the workers in America?

check out this diary at DK: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/21/11513/443/921/42521


Besides like I said at your other post, legally both JE and HRC have no control over 527's!

[Adelante]

15. Unions can campaign for a candidate; 527 PACs cannot

(I don't believe for a minute Edwards has no control over this -- I believe he set it up to work the way it's working. That's why his former campaign manager is in there!)

527s who campaign for a candidate would be circumventing the election laws. There is no question about that.

[Triana]

3. So...Edwards got a bit to close to Obama's heels eh?

How telling this is. :)

[ClarkUSA]

5. You don't mind the seeming hypocrisy on Edwards' part, then?

After all, if he wanted the 527 to really stop its ad buy, he could simply pick up the phone and tell his former campaign manager.
Kerry did that to Move On during the 2004 GE regarding one of their commericals.

I'm sure if the shoe were on the other foot, I'd fully expect Edwards to bring it up as a point of contention with Obama.

[Inspired]

63. Why doesn't Obama step it up and accept public financing?

After all...he says he is for it.

[ClarkUSA]

74. Maybe he's where Edwards and Trippi were earlier this year before the campaign had trouble raising $

What Edwards said in early February 2007 according to USA Today:

Edwards said in an interview that he expects major candidates in both parties to raise unlimited private dollars rather than participate in
the public system. He said he needs to do the same "to have the funds to be competitive."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-05-edwards-money_x.htm

What Joe Trippi said in early 2007, according to Rolling Stone:

]Listen to Edwards’ own adviser, former Dean finance guru Joe Trippi. He told me earlier this year (prior to signing onto the Edwards
campaign) that opting for the limits of public financing would leave any nominee “flat broke like Mike Dukakis — getting the living shit
kicked out of him all summer long.”

http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2007/09/28/trippi-oping-out-of-public-financing-would-leave-nominee-like-dukakis-getting-the-living-shit-kicked-out-of-him-all-summer-long/

Then in September 2007, CNN reported they'd both changed their tunes and decided to follow "the Obama challenge":

John Edwards appeared to be stepping back from comments he made earlier this week in which he said he was committed to participating
in public campaign financing, and the limits that come from such a commitment... Joe Trippi, a senior adviser to the Edwards campaign, said
that what Edwards had meant to say earlier was that he was committed to a similar proposal Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, one of his rivals
for the Democratic nomination, had made to Republicans - that he would agree to public financing limits, if the eventual Republican nominee
did the same. "He was thinking of the Obama challenge to the Republican nominee," Trippi said in the article.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/29/edwards-clarifies-position-on-public-financing/

Last I heard, the FEC approved Edwards' public financing in light of the fact he's taken out a loan against the promise of FEC monies:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3876020&mesg_id=3876020

[Andy823]

98. Good point

Maybe he just "talks the talk, but won't walk the walk"! Edwards is gaining ground and he has the others a bit scared, especially Obama it seems!

[Andy823]

96. Yep

That's what it looks like to me. Edwards must have scared him, eh? :evilgrin:

Wonder of Obama would be complaining if a 527 came out for him?

[jpgray]

4. To go fully into bizarro land, does Hillary benefit from this?

Edwards taking IA is not -desirable- to the Clinton ethos, but it's way better than Obama winning IA. Barack has more money, -and- more NH clout at the moment. But remembering 2004, an IA win is not to be taken lightly. Also, of those three I support Edwards most.

[asdjrocky]

6. That is just too much!

:rofl:

[balantz]

7. Ha ha ha ha

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[polichick]

8. Guess Oprah isn't enough for him - wah, wah, wah nt

[cali]

10. Don't be mean to JE

He's trying really, really hard to have it... both ways.

What no one wants to recognize is something so basic, it shouldn't need saying: All the campaigns are going to engage in shit that in the best of all worlds, they wouldn't.

[BeyondGeography]

11. Obama did more to reform gov't in one year than Edwards did in six

==Edwards was part of the legislative team working to pass the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, but lobbying and campaign reform were nowhere near the top of his agenda in the Senate.

During the 2004 campaign, Edwards gave a useful speech outlining his plan to limit lobbyists' influence. But, unlike the other Democratic candidates, he refused requests to reveal the identities of his big fundraisers. This time around, after considerable prodding, Edwards agreed to release the names of fundraisers -- all his fundraisers, with no specifics about how much they had collected. His campaign argues vehemently that it should be praised for this avalanche of information, not faulted. But the candidate knows who has reeled in $1,000 and who raised $100,000. Why shouldn't voters?

Clinton has shown no zeal for or even particular interest in the issue in the Senate; nor did she while in the White House. Indeed, as her handling of the health-care task force and Whitewater documents illustrate, Clinton's instinct is for secrecy, and her default position is to disclose only the minimum legally required. She consented to reveal her major fundraisers only after repeated editorial hammering -- and only after all the other leading Democratic contenders had agreed.

On this issue, Obama leads the pack -- I'd say PAC, but he (and Edwards) don't take their checks, either. He helped pass a far-reaching ethics and campaign finance bill in the Illinois state Senate and made the issue a priority on arriving in Washington. Much to the displeasure of his colleagues, Obama promoted an outside commission to handle Senate ethics complaints. He co-authored the lobbying reform bill awaiting President Bush's signature and pushed -- again to the dismay of some colleagues -- to include a provision requiring lawmakers to report the names of their lobbyist-bundlers.

He has co-sponsored bills to overhaul the presidential public financing system and public financing of Senate campaigns. It's nice to hear Clinton talk about how "we've got to move toward public financing" -- Edwards backs it, too -- but I don't see her name on those measures.

Obama readily agreed to identify his bundlers. Unlike Clinton and Edwards, he has released his income tax returns. Perhaps most important, Obama has pledged to take public financing for the general election if he is the Democratic nominee and his Republican opponent will do the same.

Any Democratic candidate wanting to "get the money out of American politics" (Clinton) or demonstrate that "the Democratic Party is the party of the people" (Edwards) ought to leap at this chance. The candidates' silence on Obama's public financing proposal -- they'll "consider" it -- has been more telling than anything they have actually said.==

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101420.html

[Quixote1818]

12. Well, at least the add makes valid points and doesn't suggest he is a drug dealer

and a Muslim. Perhaps he should answer the ads assertions? :shrug:

I would suggest Edwards denounce the ad but I don't think Edwards has much control over what that group does.

[ClarkUSA]

28. The ad makes very negative claims against Obama's record with no sourcing whatsoever...

Edwards can do what Kerry did in 2004 and ask the group publicly to stop airing the ad. Right now, it looks as if he wants to have
it both ways. Kerry did that to Move On in 2004 and they stopped airing an anti-Bush ad immediately, as I recall.

[Quixote1818]

37. Well you are 1/2 right

Kerry was cool with most 527's.

While Bush has called on Kerry to criticize the harsh campaign ads of 527s in general, the Democratic nominee has not done so. He did recently, however, criticize one MoveOn.org ad that charged Bush used family connections to get into the Texas National Guard and then failed to fulfill his obligations.

On the sourcing of the claims? They are talking about specific votes so they are sourced.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/23/bush.kerry/index.html

[ClarkUSA]

61. Then what are the sources for the Edwards 527 ad's claims? Because I'd like to see them.

I did not hear any votes being specified in the ad, just vague amorphous and very negative claims against Obama's record.

[unapatriciated]

91. I did some fact checking read up thread.

meant to post it on original op but clicked on the wrong one, sorry I'm still a novice at this

[Andy823]

97. No candidate

Has control over a 527, and I am sure that if a 527 comes out on Obama's side, he won't be telling them to back off either!

[zalinda]

13. Okay, this is weird

Doesn't Obama have a lot of people in his campaign that used to work for Clinton? Does that mean that those people still work for Clinton or that they now work for him? Just because someone used to work for a campaign doesn't mean anything, we have seen that time and time again. And since he hasn't seen the ad, he doesn't know what the ad is or who the ad would favor.

He just sunk lower in my eyes. It certainly is one thing to talk about issues, but this is whining. Edwards didn't whine when Obama brought Oprah on board, and she has more money than any 527. I guess HE can't take the heat.

zalinda

[Quixote1818]

16. For anyone who is interested, here is the ad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfuy2w0acnc

[ClarkUSA]

18. Wow... that is a very negative ad with somewhat poor production value.

My estimation of Edwards has gone down.

[comradebillyboy]

27. how dare edwards supporters be so mean to poor wittle

Barak. Get real people. I see the most vicious attacks on other candidates at DU coming from the Obama supporters here.

Besides, was there anything untrue in that ad?

[ClarkUSA]

WTF are you talking about? Stop trying to pit Obama supporters against Edwards' fans.

Was there anything true in that ad? You tell me, because I couldn't see any sourcing to the negative claims at all.

[polichick]

23. Thanks!

Well, if that's all true I don't see what the fuss is ~ though I would've mentioned the liquid coal thing too.

[ClarkUSA]

31. Um, after further consideration, Obama voted AGAINST his co-sponsored "liquid coal" legislation

See this report from treehuggers.com:

Tip O'Neill said "all politics is local" and perhaps it is if you are a senator, but it sure gets complicated when you are running for president. The
state of Illinois sits on 100 billion tons of coal, and its senator is Barack Obama; it really should be no surprise that in 2005 he attached a
provision to the energy bill for 85 million dollars to test using Illinois coal for transportation, or that he co-sponsored legislation earlier
this year for billions of dollars in subsidies for coal-to-liquid technology... Since introducing the bill in January Obama has been "refining"
his position, and now will support subsidies for CTL only if the fuel can be created with 20% lower CO2 than petroleum based fuels, a goal
that is not currently technically feasible. When push came to shove he voted against his own co-sponsored bill.

President of American Coal Company Robert Murray says "on the one hand he says he 's for CTL, but then he votes against it. I am going to
assume that he is not a friend of coal'.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/06/obama_refines_h.php

[polichick]

33. Good - that idea sucked! nt

[BeyondGeography]

36. There he goes again

listening to people who disagree with him, admitting a mistake and coming around to the proper position.

Let the debunking begin. :thumbsup:

[ClarkUSA]

56. Yeah, funny how that happens, eh?

:toast:

[Windy]

17. Edwards was coming up in the polls... this may hurt him

People in Iowa don't like going that negative with childish ads. You can point out differences in issues without resorting to juvenile antics.

I don't think this ad is going to go over very well with undecideds.

[Adelante]

19. Oh, my dear, but Edwards has nothing to do with it

Bwahahahaha :rofl:

[Windy]

20. People know better. Not a smart move by his campaign team

Especially after Trippi was on Hardball lambasting Penn for playing dirty politics.

It will not go unnoticed by the people who haven't made up their mind yet.

[ClarkUSA]

22. But will people know it's by a 527 headed by Edwards' former campaign manager?

I dunno... however, there's no doubt that to Iowans, it would be considered a very distasteful ad.

[Quixote1818]

30. How is it distasteful?

It attacks Obama on the issues. I like Obama but the ad is a fair ad.

[ClarkUSA]

34. Because it has no sourcing whatsoever while it makes very negative claims

Also, it's distasteful to me - and this is my personal feeling - because I really was liking Edwards for not going negative
on Obama and vice versa. This makes me question his words about getting rid of special interests in politics --
unless he makes a public call to this 527 to stop airing its ads (like Kerry did successfully to Move On in 2004), then
I will conclude that he wants it both ways, that special interests in politics are okay as long as they benefit him.

[Adelante]

45. And we never know who is really paying for them

Not until after the early primaries when it's too late. They can take $5000 from anybody. Wrong in so many ways.

[ClarkUSA]

64. Exactly... in his response, Edwards' hardly seems bothered by THIS particular special interest group

And he's lying about his being the only candidate who's never taken Washington lobbyist money when last month he said:

"Sen. Obama … is not taking lobbyist money in this campaign," Edwards continued.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/09/edwards-im-more-similar-to-obama-than-clinton/

[ClarkUSA]

21. Yeah, and Hillary had nothing to do with that AFSME flier, either!

:eyes:

[surfermaw]

82. Edwards has never been behind in the polls, why do you think Obama and hillary spent so much money

In Iowa,

[BenDavid]

24. Gee Edwards hired Axelrod in 04 and now he's anti edwards..I

guess one can whore themselves in all kind of ways as long as the money is good..

[Cameron27]

25. Good for Obama,

the 527's just spread smears and innuendo usually without any accountability.

[derby378]

26. This is what killed Howard Dean in 2004...

DLC-funded 527s that maneuvered Dean's campaign into a death-spiral with the Gephardt campaign. Beware.

[BeyondGeography]

29. Dean got angry; Obama keeps his cool

I love Howard, but temperament wasn't his strength.

[Adelante]

40. That's exactly what happened

Although I've never been convinced, leaving no questions behind, on who exactly was behind that disgusting anti-Dean ad. But 527s should not be used against Democratic candidates in the primaries, not if we care anything about campaign finance reform or clean elections. It's a loophole that needs closing, imo. The GE when we're running against another party is different.

[balantz]

32. Edwards' statement on the issue:

Des Moines, Iowa – Today, Senator John Edwards released the following statement in response to attacks from Senator Obama:

"Senator Obama's attacks seem to increase as momentum for our campaign grows. The truth is I am the only candidate in this race who has never taken a dime of PAC or Washington lobbyist money – ever. And, it's why I support public financing of federal elections.

"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.

"Of course, if Senator Obama is serious about real change, I hope he and Senator Clinton will finally end their silence and join with me in calling on the Democratic Party to end the influence of Washington lobbyists by once and for all rejecting their money."

[MaineDem]

35. Awesome!

I'm really liking this man more and more.

[Quixote1818]

39. Great response. nt

[BeyondGeography]

41. The funny part is you believe him

"These groups should not be part of the process" and there's only one out there running ads in Iowa, led by an ally of Edwards targeting Clinton and Obama.

Just another instance of how a little sunlight doesn't reflect well on Edwards.

[asdjrocky]

44. Why do you thin accusing someone of being naive answers the question?

I can spot a phony from a mile off. Get Obama to put down all the dirty money, then we'll talk.

[BeyondGeography]

49. Your candidate plows half of his wealth ($24 million) into an unregulated, undertaxed hedge fund

He wakes up with dirty money up to ears every morning. The boys he works for, when they're not calling in subprime loans, have put over $190,000 into Edwards' campaign. It's safe to say they'll want a return on that investment that won't quite work out for us little people.

I'd say your bullshit detectors need upgrading.

[asdjrocky]

52. Over 900 thousand from Hedge Funds to your guy?

And my guy is dirty? Here's another number: Over 1.3 mil. form Health Professionals. Oh wait, here's another number for you: 800 thousand+ from chimerical banks.

Come on man, let's try to play fair here.

[ClarkUSA]

54. Where are your links and sources? I still don't see any....

Oh, and how much did Edwards get from trial lawyers in 2003-4 and this year?

[asdjrocky]

67. Okay....

Thought everyone here knew this link by now,

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

Just look at the money Clark, and tell me people don't expect something for it.

And, as for trial lawyers? John's done real well with trial lawyers, in fact the only candidate that's taken more money from trial lawyers is Hillary.

But then I've never been of the "First we kill all the lawyers" school, because without our lawyers, we lose the nations watch dogs.

[ClarkUSA]

68. That's it??? That's not proof and you know it.

All your ugly, nasty claims are based on nothing but biased partisan speculation. Sad.

[asdjrocky]

76. Ugly? Nasty?

This is, after all, politics. Gee, it's not like I'm talking about his childhood, or making personal attacks.

What might be considered sad, is we are at a time in our country has 37 million people go to bed hungry every night, that is sad. And some would say that is ugly. Another sad thing, all the people in New Orleans who still don't have a home, that my friend, is really sad.

You have to look for where the money comes from, I really believe that. If one of my kids showed up with 80mil, I'd sure as hell want to know where it came from, and what they did, or would have to do, to earn it. Goldman Sachs is not on my list of good Democratic donors. He does pretty well with Big Insurance money to, coming in third behind Dodd, and Hillary.

Think whatever you will, I'm not sad or nasty, and people don't give money without expecting something in return. Not at this level. Give me trial lawyers any day of the week.

[ClarkUSA]

78. "dirty money" = ugly ------> nasty = no proof of your accusations

What's sad is you purposefully accused Obama of corruption without a shred of any proof.

[asdjrocky]

86. IMO

The industries he takes most of his money from are dirty. That, again, is how I feel. I'm anti Goldman Sachs, I don't like big banking, and I've found Obama says little about reform.

I base my opinion on the sheer amount of money. It might not be palatable for you, but we've been talking about one thing I said for some time now, and you, my friend have not had a single answer of any of my questions.

Don't they want something for all that money? What about Goldman Sachs, do they care about the people of America? How about the "medical professionals", do they have the peoples best interests in mind?

Just think man, just by the numbers, some of it's dirty. How do you think these people make their money?

[ClarkUSA]

92. Are you anti-hedge fund, too?

Do you think the hedge fund Edwards has his money invested in is "dirty money"?

[asdjrocky]

93. Yes.

I don't like that money either. It is a lot less, then what the others have gotten. I'm not naive, I do not expect perfection from my candidate. While I know there are no absolutes, I do find the sheer numbers to be worrisome.

Again, it's just my opinion. I just try to ask common sense questions.

[ClarkUSA]

50. What "dirty money" are you referring to? Examples and source links?

Why is Edwards contradicting himself and lying about Obama in his response?

Funny how he used to say that Obama and he were the only candidiates who were not taking PAC and Washington lobbyists money.

This is from Nov. 9, 2007:

Edwards: I'm more similar to Obama than Clinton

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) – Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Friday that he differs from Sen. Hillary Clinton significantly
more than his other rival for his party’s nomination, Sen. Barack Obama.

"The differences between Sen. Clinton and myself are much more dramatic than the differences between Sen. Obama and myself,” the former
North Carolina senator said at a news conference.

Edwards cited the issues of Iraq, Iran, and corruption in Washington as the key areas in which there are "really big differences" between
Clinton and himself.

"Sen. Obama … is not taking lobbyist money in this campaign," Edwards continued. "I think also on some of the substantive issues we're
closer than I am with Sen. Clinton."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/09/edwards-im-more-similar-to-obama-than-clinton/

Who's being the phony? And who's being the lying hypocrite?

[Cameron27]

46. I think he's being disengenuous...again.

His longtime aide's trying to knock down his rivals with a 527 and Edwards can't persuade him to stop. :eyes:

[Adelante]

55. Edwards? Disingenuous?

Nick Baldick is everywhere! Anyways, what's a little lobbyist as one of your chief bundlers?

Loyal Edwards Fundraiser Killed Ethanol Initiative In Wisc.

Scott Tyre, a Wisconsin lobbyist who sits on John Edwards’ national finance committee, has worked to kill ethanol mandates in Madison. In fact, Tyre’s own firm, Capitol Navigators, advertises his efforts to tank that bill next to quotes from longtime Edwards loyalists Ed Turlington and Nick Baldick praising Tyre’s “work ethic” and “brain power.”

“Scott is regarded as one of the top contract lobbyists at the Capitol. When it comes crunch time and you need votes as we did during the ethanol mandate debate in the 2005-06 session, Scott was one of the first persons I called for help. His contacts and lobbying skills are certainly one of the reasons we were able to kill the bill in the Senate.”
–Erin Roth, Executive Director of Wisconsin Petroleum Council/Division of the American Petroleum Institute

Tyre is an Edwards bundler, according to Public Citizen.

Edwards has said on the campaign trail that ethanol is one key to moving the country toward energy independence.

snip

But Tyre’s anti-ethanol efforts — his firm has also represented the American Petroleum Institute — contradict Edwards’ campaign trail pitch for expanded production of renewable energy sources. And Edwards, as we all know, slams lobbyists at every diner, community center, debate and school rally. It seems perplexing at best then that he’d have one on his team who is fighting his very policies.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/12/loyal_edwards_f.html#comments

[ClarkUSA]

51. In Edwards' response, he's lying about being the only one who's not taking Washington lobbyist $$

Funny how he used to say that Obama and he were the only candidiates who were not taking PAC and Washington lobbyists money.

This is from Nov. 9, 2007:

Edwards: I'm more similar to Obama than Clinton

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) – Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Friday that he differs from Sen. Hillary Clinton significantly
more than his other rival for his party’s nomination, Sen. Barack Obama.

"The differences between Sen. Clinton and myself are much more dramatic than the differences between Sen. Obama and myself,” the former
North Carolina senator said at a news conference.

Edwards cited the issues of Iraq, Iran, and corruption in Washington as the key areas in which there are "really big differences" between
Clinton and himself.

"Sen. Obama … is not taking lobbyist money in this campaign," Edwards continued. "I think also on some of the substantive issues we're
closer than I am with Sen. Clinton." Now he says he's the ONLY candidate who doesn't.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/09/edwards-im-more-similar-to-obama-than-clinton/

[cali]

62. It isn't funny. It's creepy that people are

doing this. JE could absolutely stop this. His close friend is the one doing it.

[ClarkUSA]

43. So Edwards is NOT denouncing the 527 attack ad publicly AND he's making a false claim against Obama

Funny how he used to say that Obama and he were the only candidiates who were not taking PAC and Washington lobbyists money.

This is from Nov. 9, 2007:

Edwards: I'm more similar to Obama than Clinton

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) – Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Friday that he differs from Sen. Hillary Clinton significantly
more than his other rival for his party’s nomination, Sen. Barack Obama.

"The differences between Sen. Clinton and myself are much more dramatic than the differences between Sen. Obama and myself,” the former
North Carolina senator said at a news conference.

Edwards cited the issues of Iraq, Iran, and corruption in Washington as the key areas in which there are "really big differences" between
Clinton and himself.

"Sen. Obama … is not taking lobbyist money in this campaign," Edwards continued. "I think also on some of the substantive issues we're closer than I am with Sen. Clinton."
Now he says he's the ONLY candidate who doesn't.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/09/edwards-im-more-similar-to-obama-than-clinton/

Okay, now we know how Edwards really stands on 527s: they're okay as long as they benefit HIM.

[Bitwit1234]

38. Oh no no every body is starting to pick on Obama Idoler

boo boo hoo...everybody cry.

[ClarkUSA]

59. How's your girl's "Likeability Tour" going? Anyone like her yet?

:rofl:

[frogmarch]

42. There are enough sour grapes here

to make some pretty tart wine.

What in the ad was untrue? Nothing.

[polichick]

48. "What in the ad was untrue? Nothing."

I don't see what the fuss is all about.

[ClarkUSA]

57. What in the ad was true? I didn't see any sourcing at all, just bogus one-liner claims.

Give me the links that prove the 527's claims. I've asked several times now, and no one seems to have any.

:shrug:

[polichick]

58. Which claim upsets you?? nt

[ClarkUSA]

60. All of them. None of them sound true to me... I'm the type that needs facts and proof.

So far, the Edwards campaign and their friends over at the 527 is coming up very short. To his discredit, Edwards is already lying about being
"the only candidate" who hasn't taken Washington lobbyist money (in his "response" to Obama) when he just said last month:

"Sen. Obama … is not taking lobbyist money in this campaign," Edwards continued.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/09/edwards-im-more-similar-to-obama-than-clinton/

[polichick]

65. I've heard Edwards say that Obama is not taking lobbyist money...

...in this campaign, but has in the past.

[ClarkUSA]

66. Um, Edwards has taken "lobbyist money"... see Politicfacts.com link:

From Politifact.com:

Summary: The campaign of Sen. John Edwards boasts that he has never taken money from Washington lobbyists, but lobbyists
in other venues are welcome to contribute.

The word "never" begs reporters to find an exception to prove the statement false... there are exceptions to this ironclad claim. The Center for
Responsive Politics, a non-partisan research group that tracks money in politics, found that Edwards accepted $14,900 from employees at
lobbying firms through June. In 2004, records show that Edwards received $30,630 from lobbying employees, and in 2002, he took in $4,700
from that group...The spokesman for the center, Massie Ritsch, said those figures include lobbyist donors to Edwards that actually are registered
to lobby at the state or local level.

Colleen Murray, an Edwards campaign spokeswoman, said the claim is 100 percent true because most of the names flagged by the center were
state lobbyists, not federal... When his campaign says Edwards accepts no lobbyist money, they mean only federal lobbyists, not lobbyists
registered elsewhere.

"The people who are federal lobbyists are paid to influence federal lawmakers," said Colleen Murray, an Edwards spokeswoman. "You get into
the area where somebody’s offering their support to get something down the road."

State lobbyists don't count, Murray said, "because we're not running for state government."

<snip>

It's not perfect. For instance, the campaign returned $3,700 in July after the Associated Press found that lobbyists had contributed. The AP later
reported that of 25,000 individual donations recorded in finance reports, 8,400 didn’t name their occupation. The Charlotte Observer found
four contributors in September that were Washington lobbyists who hadn’t received refunds... The AP reported in 2004 that Edwards
accepted thousands from individuals or groups registered to lobby in Washington, or their spouses or children.. Edwards leads all candidates
through June in contributions from lawyers, receiving $6.6-million. Aren’t lawyers, including the Association of Trial Lawyers of America,
lobbyists?

"Sure they're lobbyists," Ritsch said. "Just because you're not a federally registered lobbyist doesn't mean you don’t want something in return.
If candidates for office returned every dollar from people who wanted something from them, they wouldn't have any money left."

But the Edwards campaign is sticking to its claim.

As Trippi told Chris Matthews: "Trial lawyers, teachers, they may hire lobbyists. But they don't lobby. The lobbyists are the people who have
to register as lobbyists."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2007/oct/16/never-say-never/

For more information on the slimeball behind the Edwards 527 ad, see reply #55 by WesDem.

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. What Edwards said in his response is patently false and what he's doing is totally
hypocritical. I've liked Edwards' non-negativity and special interest policy stances -- until now.

If you have proof that Obama has or is accepting Washington lobbyist money, please provide it.

[polichick]

69. "Um" Edwards didn't make the ad...

I hate that dopey expression "um" - don't you?

[ClarkUSA]

70. Yeah, and Hillary's campaign didn't make the AFSME flier but Edwards still protested, right?

Edwards also lied in his response to Obama's objections when he said he was the "only candidate" who has never taken Washington lobbyist money.
All he has to do is ask the 527 (and his former campaign manager) publicly to stop just like Kerry did in 2004 to Move On. But in his response,
he doesn;t even bother. What I hate is a liar and hypocrite posing as a fighter for the truth against special interests. Don't defend this crap anymore.
It's not your fault, I know. I'm just very disappointed in Edwards. I was hoping he'd denounce the ad in his response. Silly me!

[polichick]

71. I'm not defending anybody...

Just commenting that I don't see what the big fuss is about ~ Obama is capable of setting the record straight if the ad people got it wrong. I would have to know a whole lot more about the situation before saying what I think Edwards should've said.

imo this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to these ads ~ the DLC hasn't weighed in yet. Maybe that's why Edwards is being cautious in his statement, I don't know.

[surfermaw]

83. Someone is taking republican money

[polichick]

87. What are you referring to?? nt

[creeksneakers2]

88. The great thing about the Internet

You can find out how Obama voted in minutes.

[ClarkUSA]

94. Really?

Then do it. Show me how.

[comradebillyboy]

75. the problem is that Edwards is not

saying enough nice things about his opponents, especially Obama (of the very thin skin). Oddly enough he looks like he might want to win. How shocking that candidates criticize each other. The ad was hardly over the top. And, for the record, I am not an Edwards supporter.

[balantz]

47. I sense more than a little fear here about Iowa.

[ClarkUSA]

53. I sense there's more than a little hypocrisy here about Edwards.

And now he's lying about being the only candidate who's never taken Washington lobbyist money. Funny how he used to say that Obama
and he were the only candidiates who were not taking PAC and Washington lobbyists money.

This is from Nov. 9, 2007:

Edwards: I'm more similar to Obama than Clinton

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) – Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Friday that he differs from Sen. Hillary Clinton significantly
more than his other rival for his party’s nomination, Sen. Barack Obama.

"The differences between Sen. Clinton and myself are much more dramatic than the differences between Sen. Obama and myself,” the former
North Carolina senator said at a news conference.

Edwards cited the issues of Iraq, Iran, and corruption in Washington as the key areas in which there are "really big differences" between
Clinton and himself.

"Sen. Obama … is not taking lobbyist money in this campaign," Edwards continued. "I think also on some of the substantive issues we're closer
than I am with Sen. Clinton."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/09/edwards-im-more-similar-to-obama-than-clinton/

[Madam Mossfern]

72. How will people know that it came from the Edwards camp?

The ad doesn't mention him. I bet most will think it came from people who support Hillary. I'm going to watch it again, maybe I missed something.

[cali]

73. because it's being widely reported in Iowa that

it's from an Edwards surrogate. Everyone in Iowa will know.

[Dawgs]

85. Why should Obama be afraid?

Edwards is a hypocrite and liar, and Obama is rising faster in Iowa than Edwards.

[balantz]

79. Edwards responds:

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."

Earlier in the day Edwards said:

"I'm proud of the fact that, unlike Senator Obama, I have never taken any money from a Washington lobbyist or PAC. From my perspective that is not an academic or philosophical question. This is about who has the toughness and fight to take on corporate greed and win. And I have been doing it my entire life. And what we have is an epic fight in front of us to stop this corporate greed and to protect the middle class and jobs in this country. And that's a fight I'm ready for.

[Tom Rinaldo]

80. Since he kind of knows the guys who started this 527

maybe Edwards could have made a public statement against their obvious intentions when it's formation was announced some months ago, and thus helped head off this series of cloaked money attacks. If he did I missed it, and apologize. I know I was upset at the time it was announced - it was obvious what it would lead to.

[balantz]

81. It's all good.

The battle is intense and our nation is at stake. We defend who we think best fit to wage the battle for us citizens against the corporate controllers. May the best of the two candidates win.

[creeksneakers2]

90. The best solution

is for all the followers of the top three candidates call a truce and support Chris Dodd, who is actually fighting the power structure, not just talking about it.

[ClarkUSA]

95. Dodd and Obama are very good friends.

I'll bet he's disgusted with this Edwards 527 ad. As an aside, I am puzzled as to why he hasn't caught on in Iowa more than he has.