Everytime I start to take John Edwards and his message seriously, his hypocracy rises up and eliminates him as a serious candidate.

Edwards'focus on not taking contributions from lobbyists or special interests is nearly fanatical and at times appear to be the single issue that he is running on. I want to hear Edwards define "lobbyist" and "special interest".

While it is true that both Clinton and Obama have outspent Edwards during the campaign for President (referring to the amount spent by each candidates' official campaign committee); it's also tru that both Edwards and Clinton have benefitted from outside groups spending more than 2 Million dollars toward their election and Senator Obama has not had any outside organizations spending on his behalf. Edwards only trails Clinton by a little over $500,000. in spending by outside organization.

More than three quarters of the money spent to elect John Edwards by outside organizations come from the 527 group, ALLIANCE FOR A NEW AMERICA.

Alliance for New America is an independent advocacy group, known as a 527, after the item in the IRS code under which it operates. Under Federal Election Commission rules, it can raise and spend virtually unlimited sums of money promoting political issues, as long as it does not advocate the election or defeat of specific candidates. By promoting the candidacy of John Edwards without specifically calling on Iowans to vote for him, the Alliance appears to be operating in the gray area of election law.

Whether or not you consider organized labor a "special interest," Nick Baldick constitutes a prime example of someone who flits with ease from the world of political campaigns to the world of lobbying and public relations. He ran New Hampshire for Gore back in 2000. He then joined a lobbying/political consultancy group called Dewey Square, who registered him as a federal lobbyist on behalf of Northwest Airlines between 2000 and 2002. Dewey Square later said that Baldick had been identified "incorrectly" as a lobbyist and was in fact a "public affairs adviser."

The Edwards hypocracy rises to the surface again with John Edwards joint attack (along with Hillary) on Senator Obama because the chairman of his New Hampshire campaign was once registered as a state lobbyist. It is important to note that the individual in question has never been registered as a federal lobbyist nor is he lobbying Senator Obama. But, Nick Baldick, who was Edward's 2004 campaign chairperson in 2004 and worked with the Edwards campaign as recently as June of 2007, was registered as a federal Lobbyist and has contributed to John Edwards in 2004 and 2008! More importantly, the organization that Badick organized and operates solely for the purpose of supporting Edwards for President, skirts campaign finance laws by avoiding individual contribution limits and spending limits. They go beyond that by supporting a specific candidate (Edwards) in violation of the regulations governing such 527 groups. Their TV ad clearly and blatantly supports "The Edwards Plan" by name! How is this not hypocracy, and how can John Edwards get away with attacking Obama whose campaign benefits far less than Edwards from outside groups that violate federal campaign finance laws?

Obama and Clinton are nice candidates, but how about Edwards? It's nice to see you post about him every once in a while because the mainstream media has all but ignored the second place finisher in Iowa. Had he been getting more coverage, rather than the press drooling over a Clinton-Obama one-on-one matchup, he may have had a realistic shot at the Democratic nomination.

As it is, he's finished second in Iowa and, as this new Marist poll shows, is surging toward second in New Hampshire. It's time someone stepped up and recognized that Edwards is a great candidate.

http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/NH/NHPZ080107.pdf

rpinnh,

Thanks for your insights. I've been befuddled as well by Hillary's ludicrous claim of "35 years experience". Even if you are fool enough to consider her 8 years as First Lady as experience, which I don't, how do you account for 1973-1992? No one questions this outlandish claim and Hillary supporters blindly parrot the claim in their posts which show the depth of their objectivity.

Since you were in a position to know better than most of us, perhaps you can answer a question for me stemming from the Saturday night debate. Hillary claimed, "I helped create the Children's Health Care Insurance Program". I don't like to take things at face value like some voters so I tried to research that. I have found that the program Clinton claims as her own was legislation that was part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997; but I find no mention of Hillary's name anywhere in connection with that legislation. Are you aware of any connection at all between Ms. Clinton and this program in 1997? What, if anything, was the extent of her "help" beyond handing Bill the pen when it went to his desk for signature?

You were very easy on Ms. Clinton by not mentioning the other scandals she found herself at the center of during her tenure as First Lady [Filegate, Whitewater, Rose Law Firm, Vince Foster, Ron Brown, etc.)

This is exactly what I have been saying concerning Edwards' candidacy. All he can do by staying in the race following a third place finish in Iowa is help keep Hillary Clinton in the race and give the political establishment the opportunity to steal the nomination away from the people.

You'd have to be a complete idiot to believe that if the order of finish in New Hampshire is 1) Obama; 2) Clinton; 3) Edwards; Hillary would drop out of the race. She would have far more delegates and a much larger war chest than Edwards. Her ambition and greed for personal power is at least every bit as strong as Edwards'. I'm no idiot, and I don't for one minute believe that Edwards is either. The fact that he is preaching that Hillary would drop out of the race if she doesn't win New Hampshire tells me that he must think a lot of the voters are idiots.

As the author put it, Obama and Edwards are fishing from the same pond. I'll be nice and PC about Clinton's supporters; they are "stubborn". It's obvious that they are going to stick by Hillary no matter what she does. Edwards can't beat Obama in a head to head race or with Hillary taking one third of the vote, and I believe Hillary is here to stay, unfortunately. I have respect for the platform that Edwards is trying to run on. He's a decent candidate for President, but he's not the best in his own party. If the voters didn't succeed in getting that message across to him four years ago, and he still hasn't figured it out, I don't know what it's going to take.

Edwards claims to be passionate about change and he insists that these issues effect him on a very personal level. If he finishes third in NH and his finances continue to lag, there is no hope that he will win the nomination. The best thing that John Edwards can do if he truly cares about change, and takes the issues he's been campaigning on as personally as he tells us, the best thing for him to do is step aside and let Senator Obama carry that banner for all of us who want change as much as Edwards does (or more). If John Edwards continues to hang around and help Hillary Clinton stay closer to Obama by virtue of Edwards splitting the change vote, he shows everyone why this campaign is so personal for him and that his greed and desire that only he be that change candidate trumps any sincere desire to do what is best for this country.

FirstMouse writes
"The Party's establishment had better become concerned also about Obama's party PRODUCTIVITY."

How many news cycles will it take for "Obama Republicans" to roll off the tongue like "Reagan Democrats"?

Despite some erosion of Edward's numbers in NH I think the pundits are too quick to write him off. I hope he does continue to the convention and picks up some delegates where they are not awarded on a winner take all basis. He may be an alternative for some voters. He also represents certain constituencies in that Obama and HRC do not overtly address. If HRC does go negative on Obama this could turn into a war of attrition, and having Edwards out there as an alternative is not necessarily a bad thing. Many Democratic parties have found all three first tier candidates acceptable choices.

"Clinton has the establishment of the party locked up.... New Hampshire is not Iowa. The party establishment remains powerful here...."

The Democratic establishment withholds its support from Obama to the peril of their Party and its future. They are rightly concerned about their candidate's electability. This requisite Obama has met in Iowa and seems upon the cusp of meeting again in New Hampshire.

The Party's establishment had better become concerned also about Obama's party PRODUCTIVITY. Independents, some Republicans, and especially countless fresh youthful citizens inclined to become Democrats will vote for Obama on Tuesday.

Where will they settle thereafter?

mlalliso

Very good post, I agree. It does seem that we have an unusually high number of new posters over the last few days and they seem to be disproportionately Clinton supporters.

Chris,

Re the Franco-American Centre - New Hampshire (as is all of New England) is full of people of French Canadian descent who are proud of their heritage. When I was growing up in Southeastern New England there were several Catholic churches with French services (for the part that wasn't in Latin in those far off days). You could always ask your colleague E. J. Dionne for verification - he is a native New Englander of French-Canadian descent (he and I worked together on a campaign over 35 years ago).

A little more on Edwards. CC mentions nearly 70% of Iowans voted against Clinton. He neglects to mention nearly 70% of Iowans also voted against Edwards.

OK folks, I have a problem with two groups of folks on all of CCs threads today:

1)...the ones who say Clinton obviously can't be elected because of her many and varied well-know shortcomings so Obama is the only choice for anyone who's not a brain-dead racist.

2)...the ones who say Obama obviously can't be elected because of his many and varied well-known shortcoming so Clinton is the only choice for anyone who isn't a brain-dead woman-hater.

I don't believe either of you. I've discussed the 2008 Presidential election with several hundred folks of all political leanings, all across the country, and only a limited obsessive few are willing to boldly state either Clinton or Obama have no chance. It's my best guess that you're either purposefully stating a position you don't actually believe (in the mis-guided notion that this will help your candidate); or you've fallen into the not uncommon trap of seeing only the evidence that tends to support your already decided position (a common failing of "Intelligent Design" advocates, and some of both the advocates and nay-sayers of Global warming, and posters to politics blogs).

The least trustworthy preachers are those who claim to have the one and only true message direct from God. In the same way The folks on this board who claim to know with certainty--and say so with an almost theological fervor--that the leading opponent of their favored candidate has no chance and will be slaughtered, are the least credible and least qualified to offer any kind of comment.

2008 has all the signs of a Democratic cycle. The Ds have two very attractive candidates (albeit both with significant strength and weaknesses), either of whom will be strongly favored against any of the current leading Rs (prohibitively favored if the R is Huckabee). I'm a radical centrist, leaning slightly to the left, and am anticipating the thrill of being able to participate in history by having my vote be a part of electing either the first woman, or first black President of the United States.

p.s., to be on-topic for this thread, I don't favor Edwards and believe he's no longer a viable D candidate. Yes, I do have a favorite for whom I plan to vote, but it doesn't seem necessary to mention who in this post.

Breaking News:

Wow this has GOT to hurt. The new CNN /WMUR poll was just released and it has Obama just surging ahead, up 10% whereas they were tied yesterday: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2008/01/surveying-new-hampshire-polls-5-new.html
Daniel, NY (Sent Sunday, January 06, 2008 6:12 PM)

Memo to self:

"Where's the BOUNCE?!!!

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=5043

Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist, issued a memo headlined, "Where is the bounce?"

Here's what I found, Mr. Smartypants!:

Obama up by 13 points, McCain up by 4 in USAT/Gallup Poll in N.H.

Obama: 41%; up from 32% in the last USA TODAY/Gallup New Hampshire poll, taken in mid-December.

Clinton: 28%; down from 32%.

John Edwards: 19%; up from 18%.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/polls/index.html

I don't think Edwards is counting on Clinton finishing second as destroying her campaign (and agree with you that this would not be enough) - he's clearly going for a re-run of Iowa: ie a third place finish for Clinton.

And that's eminently possible if Edwards remains in the 20%s through Tuesday.

A third place would, I suggest, be fatal not so much in terms of her being unable to compete, but in destroying her chances in South Carolina and even Nevada. If Obama wins the first four (and who cares what happens in Michigan or Florida given they're disqualified) Clinton would have to sweep absolutely everything on Super Duper Tuesday. If she doesn't - and she won't - THEN she's finished.

I guess I didn't post that comment under the blog it came from. Sorry if anyone is offended.

Chris wrote: "Huckabee's main role in last night's debate seemed to be as McCain's henchman -- whacking Romney so that McCain didn't have to. That's a sound strategy for someone looking to be picked as vice president, but an odd one for a man who was just days removed from a convincing win in the Iowa caucuses."

Maybe Governor Huckabee is focused on disabling Governor Romney's campaign because he knows Senator McCain will be a relatively easy kill among conservatives, based on immigration, same-sex marriage and McCain-Feingold.

rpinNH,

Thanks for your great post.

One or two days ago a N.H resident that used to live in D.C. is active in the N.H. Democratic party and commented that a lot of N.H. Democrats do not like Hill at all and that support for her there is smaller than the media is reporting.

My feeling is that the Obama surge is of historic implications.

I have to disagree with one part here: Hillary's support is not solid - rather she is bleeding support. It really is remarkable.

The field is narrowing.

Edwards is getting some pick-up from those who now are thinking through all the candidates and have decided they don't want Hillary or Obama - Edwards has become the anti anti candidate.

What does all this mean?

I hope Edwards has his mind set to continue through SuperTuesday no matter what, pick up as many delegates as he can, and hope that the field will fall to him - he should not pull out too early.

Just thinking.

Hillary on the other hand, you have to wonder what impact three straight losses will have on her calculations. Her initial strategy and her Plan B are both out the window. These losses are a rejection of her outright. There is no other way to interpret these results.

In a way, a majority has decided to vote against her and that decision has been made.

It is not a question of building a coalition like most candidacies.

An early pullout for Hillary would probably benefit Edwards the most - she could play kingmaker that way.

We were out door knocking on the Seacoast yesterday for Obama. What is interesting is that with the folks we were targeting (Undecided Dems and Independent), a large percentage of folks seemed to be trying to decide between Barack Obama or John McCain. We encountered a household of 2 Edwards supporters, two houses of Clinton supporters, and the rest of the folks we talked with (probably 10-15) were either Obama or McCain.

Not sure what it all means, and I recognize that we talked with only a very small number of folks, but it seems like in my little town, folks are intrigued with Obama.

My town was a traditional Republican stronghold, but it seems like that is changing due to the large number of professionals moving to NH. I think alot of these folks will vote in the Dem primary and vote for Obama. Most of us don't know the NH Democratic Establishment, and probably don't care if we ever meet them.

I think reporters will get two stories. If they talk to the regular NH person (at least in southern New Hampshire where I live), they will find folks ready for new leadership. If they talk to the old guard, particularly with ties to the CLinton machine of 15 years ago, reporters will hear the old guard express frustrations with all these new folks who have moved into NH. And, despite what they tell you, we aren't all from Taxachusetts!

This has been my first NH Primary and it has been an incredible experience. Democracy truly lives and it makes candidates work hard for the vote. The Granite State and Iowa may not be "representative of America" (whatever that means, usually in the eye of the beholder), but because of the process of grassroots, town meetings, retail politics, and the small media markets (gotta love WMUR Channel 9!), we have got to see candidates up close and personal, something that would be extremely rare in states like NY, IL, MI, Florida, etc.

Candidates courted us for our votes, not our money. That is a huge difference and it is good for our electoral process!

rpinNH,

The reason the debates are a sham is because there is an unspoken rule that says nobody draws blood on anybody. If somebody gets a bloody nose the others will stifle the unseemly violence and preempt the lunge to the jugular.

They are designed to be a draw and everyone gets lots and lots of free TV airtime.

Chris
I am still confused when Hillary and her supporters talk about her 35 years of experience. Barack Obama has held elective office longer than she has and John Edwards is basically tied with her.

I don't understand why folks didn't challenge her last night on her dismissiveness of John Edwards' experience (and also a dig at Obama).

I worked on Capitol Hill during the 90s and don't remember seeing any elected Member named Hillary Clinton. I just remember "Travelgate", HillaryCare, and some very early missteps with her buddies the Thomases, and other miscues that seemed to have the White House staff "hide" Hillary for a few years.

She seemed to have a tin ear for politics, unlike her husband.I don't know why that doesn't come out.

I do acknowledge that she has done a very good job as a Senator from New York. But I have a problem when she acts like she has been calling shots and representing folks for 35 years.

As a former Chief of Staff to a Congressman, I know there is a significant difference from being an elected official and being an advisor and not having to face voters with the decisions that are made.

(Seems some editor wasn't having all that good of day - the aforementioned headline was leftover from an old Fix. Nooo problem.)

The media continues to highlight the appearances of the candidates instead of their ideas. John Edwards is the candidate with plan to restore America. I respect Hillary and Obama, but unfortunately, they are using their minority status to garner votes.

http://www.serveoutloud.blogspot.com

His message is tempting and he certainly is speaking about more "change" than Obama is. (Of course, Obama himself is a change...) But Edwards is connected to the past as much as Hillary is. Anyone remember 2004?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Edwards is doing a job spinning the Iowa results into a "change vs. status quo" argument. However, there's more to it than just to change or not. Part II is in defining what kind of change and how to achieve change. Obama's message isn't just about change for the sake of change - or the superficial change of the White House occupant's gender or skin color. He's talking about changing the tone of politics in America. He's talking about TR's bully pulpit, used effectively by the likes of TR, FDR, HT, JFK & RR. From my perspective, it appears that neither HRC nor JRE 'get it'. They are focusing instead on the fight - the fight of 'us' vs 'them' or the fight of 'Dems' vs 'the Republican Attack Machine'. Americans are tired of wedge politics. Americans are tired of the politics of 50% +1. It looks like Obama is the person to deliver such change. If he gets knocked out, that mantle could be picked up by McCain, if the bizarre GOP race continues to be so.

"The spread can be seen at www.realclearpolitics.com, a nonpartisan Web site that shows the spread of polls among candidates. Clinton is slightly ahead in South Carolina and as much as 17 points ahead in New Hampshire, the Web site shows."

This was written four days ago, Jan 2, 08 at the Des Moines Register political blog.

Today, see the gnarly green line spike north, the purple line dip south.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_primary-194.html

I support much of what Cilizza said about the Clinton campaign's viability. Hers is well-organized. It is also well-funded because she has a track record of experience which has translated idealism into public policy that has benefited real people.

The public needs to be skeptical of candidates with slim records of demonstrating their ability to turn words into public policy. The problems our society faces are not likely to be addressed by the other two front-runners because they lack the skills to navigate the shoals of the policy-making process.

A good example of an idealistic candidate whose mesmerizing words got him elected is Jimmie Carter. Despite his best efforts to bring change, his agenda was stymied, and he was denied a second term.

Clinton has brought change for people by performing the difficult negotiations needed in order to get results. She is, by far, the most capable candidate to brng changes needed for our society in the top three.

"A Good Night for Obama and McCain" - Flown here by that home page headline with its opposite possible meanings, I thank goodness it's meant literally. Whew.

If, and it's a big if, most polls are correct then Edwards will finish a distant third well behind Obama and Clinton. He did have the best night last night and his "smackdown" of Hillary really hit and hit hard, but, like it or not, the money will stop flowing after Tuesday. He will remain in, but after South Carolina, short of a miracle, he's gone and his political career probably ends as well.

I like and respect him even though I thought his campaign smacked of "us versus them" class warfare. That's always a dangerous move in American politics. He's been nominated for V-P once and was no help in carrying states which may say more about John Kerry than it does about Edwards.

With Clinton's aura of invevitability gone and Obama ahead as much as 12 points in some NH polls, wrong as they may be, voters may switch over to Obama to back a winner. It's too bad, but I can't see any other scenario for him.