ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Obama slams Edwards over 527s

Posted: Saturday, December 22, 2007 2:50 PM by Chuck Todd



From NBC/NJ's Aswini Anburajan
OSCALOOSA, Iowa -- Hillary Clinton is not the only candidate Barack Obama is ready to get into the ring with as the Iowa caucuses draw near.

Obama slammed John Edwards at a town hall today, saying he "talks the talk" but doesn't "walk the walk" when it comes to the influence of special interest groups. 

"Both of us agree that we have to take on the special interests and lobbyists. Both of us agree that they have too much influence in Washington. But I'd like to think in decisions when we actually had the chance to do something about it, I did something and John didn't. I don't just talk the talk, I walk the walk."

Obama criticized Edwards for saying that he doesn't approve of 527s, while at the same time not disavowing a group, Alliance for a New America, run by long-time Edwards advisor and 2004 campaign manager, Nick Baldick.   In the current presidential cycle, Baldick served as a consultant to Edwards through the second quarter of 2007.

"You've got these outside groups that are helping out candidates and it's a way of getting around the  campaign finance laws. So he said he's opposed to them - we found out today that there is an outside group spending $750,000-  – just bought three quarters of a million dollars worth of television time – and the individual who's running the group used to be John Edwards's campaign manager. So you can't say yesterday you don't believe in 'em, and today you have three quarters of a million dollars being spent for you. You can't just talk the talk. The easiest thing in the world is to talk about change during election time."  

On Friday, according to the Associated Press, John Edwards said of 527s: "The way the law exists today is you have no control you're not allowed by law to have contact or to coordinate with 527s. So can you discourage it? Yes, and I do."  

Alliance for a New America will buy $769,610 in advertising across Iowa on Tuesday, with 1,400 gross ratings points in Des Moines, 1300 in Cedar Rapids and 1900 in Sioux City   - an Edwards stronghold. The group is backed by local branches of the Service Employees International Union, of which Edwards has the most endorsements.

Combine this ad buy with the actual Edwards ad buy and pro-Edwards groups are out-spending both Clinton and Obama.  Both Edwards and Clinton are benefitting from the help of outside groups; no major outside special interest is helping Obama.

The Washington Post reported that the group has raised $850,000 and already spent $590,000 in radio ads. The group is also considering a direct mail program. Edwards has one other 527 advertising on his behalf, "Working for Working Families," a group backed by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters also launched pro-Edwards television advertising in Iowa in mid-December.   

At a retail stop in Oscaloosa later in the day, Obama criticized Edwards but wouldn't go as far as to say that 527s should be disbanded or didn't have a role to play.

"I just think it's important to have consistency…  Yesterday you said you're opposed to it and the next day your campaign manager and political director is running one. One of the things that's really important to the people of Iowa is that there's gotta be follow through. We are delivering on that change not just talking about it," he said while ordering tea and pumpkin pie at a local coffee shop.

He went on to say the he was a strong backer of labor groups and that they had a right to advertise, but the process required more transparency.

"The concern is that there's no disclosure and we don't know where its coming from," he said.

*** UPDATE *** Edwards responds: “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.”

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

He's finally realized that it's Edwards, not Hillary, that's his competition.
Edwards says he's been fighting the special interest all his life and he'll take them on in Washington and win.  Now he says he has no control of the special interest group that's advertising for him.  Sounds to me as long as the interest is working for him... no problem.  But if they benefit someone else he wants to take them on.  It's stuff like these why I don't trust Edwards.
Obama, the effete, doesn't slam anyone, he whines.

His internal polling must show he's down , obama is back at personal attacks.
John Edwards is a phony. He failed to win in his own State.
John Edwards cannot lead the democratic ticket.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADwjvAs9J-0

John Edwards and Hillary Clinton did not read the NIE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLJFujflVmY
Edwards is such a phony!  He can't fight the special interest working for him, but he's calling on Obama and Clinton to end the special interest in Washington.

I agree with Obama on this one. John Edwards accomplished nothing as a Senator and will accomplish nothing as President. He is better than Hillary though.

Obama 08
Obama is such a con!
Corporate lobbyists and Washington lobbyists have FUNDED HIS POLITICAL CAREER - even while he was plotting his prez run.
If Obama had really wanted to "change Washington" he could have stopped accepting lobbyists bribe money when he came to Washington. But he didn't!

John Edwards has NEVER accepted a dime from Washington lobbyists. NEVER!  not even when he ran for the Senate in 1998.
Go Edwards!
But this is a very weak argument from Barack: The main 527s that are helping Hillary and Edwards are not shady organizations (like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were) -- they are some of the most important unions and core constituencies of the Democratic Party. Hillary and Edwards receiving so much help because they were endorsed by big unions like the AFSCME, AFT, and SEIU. You bet that Obama would have loved to receive any of their endorsement and the 527 help that would have gone with it.Obama failed to clinch endorsements from big Iowa players, and he is thus left out of the independent expenditure ground game. (Full analysis of this dynamic: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/12/527s-get-involved-in-iowas-democratic.html )
John Edwards also said, according to the NY Times:

"During a press conference on Friday, Mr. Edwards said he had “no control” over what outside groups did on behalf of his candidacy.

“'You can’t tell them what to do or what not to do. They get to make decisions about that,' Mr. Edwards told reporters in Des Moines. “It’s one of the problems with the law, but it is the law, and we’re required by law to stay out of it.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/obama-faults-edwards-on-independent-ads/#comment-462772

-----

Obama must be fearing John Edwards right about now.  For Obama to act like John Edwards "CONTROLS" 527s is just laughable.

527s, the Supreme Court has ruled, are allowed to do whatever they want to do, in favor of or against candidates.

It's no different than the Supreme Court saying that money equals speech, which allows corporations and Wall Street to funnel money to Clinton and Obama in record numbers, hoping that either one is able to BUY THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION...even though both Clinton and Obama claim to be in favor of campaign finance reform, and publicly-funded campaigns.

Edwards is against 527 influence, but they can do what they want to do on his behalf, and he has no say in whether they do or don't.

Obama claims to be in favor of public financing, yet he chose to stay out of the public financing system so that he could try to BUY THE NOMINATION.  He CHOSE.  He has influence over his hypocrisy.  

John Edwards doesn't control these 527s.

Obama loses.
Obama quit lying to the public.  You are not honest.
You have done nothing for Illinois.  You either don't vote and say that you did vote on an issue.   Where is your record.  Why don't  you encourage Illinois to follow the lead of Arizona and enforce the laws of the country regarding illegal immigration and businesses in Illinois.   The truth will prevail.
its about time I guess. Obama's and Edward's voters overlap and hence HRC is happy to have divide and win. If Obama has to win, he has to gain those voters who are on fence thinking about supporting him or Edwards. Obama, you should have started this long time back.
Looks like Obama is getting a bit jittery as we get closer to the election.

Earlier in the week as more and more Iowa voters were asking him how he'd deal with corporate influence in Washington he was telling them his standard line about giving them a seat at the table and negotiating with them. But evidently this issue is resonating with Iowa voters because by the end of the week Obama had changed and was practically giving Edwards stump speech about this issue. And now we hear he is lashing out at Edwards about ads he's never seen that some third party group may run.

So after all Obama's fiery rhetoric denouncing Edwards and these 527s does he call for an end to 527's? No, he doesn't, but John Edwards does. So tell me again whose really willing to talk the talk and walk the walk?

If Obama keeps this kind of behavior up he's going to inadvertently send a signal to Iowa voters that when under pressure he reverts to a different candidate. A candidate who seems willing to say anything to get their vote.

I may be wrong but I don't think this recent behavior by Obama is exactly what voters have in mind when they say they want change.
In reality this is MUCH ADO.

But if Edwards has this hollier-than-thou attitude on special interests shouldn't his campaign be held to a higher standard?
The Des Moines Register reports that Edwards called on the 527s running ads for him to stop.

I read an AP article the other day that reported about all those crazy questions that campaigns get asked..You know like your favorite food, favorite hobby, etc. In one of the questions Obama said he was a pretty good poker player.

Well, Looks like on this 527 story Edwards just called Obama's bluff.
Typical of Obama !!
He played dirty with HRC when she is ahead too! Now it's Edwards. Hey Obama supporters, wake up! This guy is an empty suit with no substances!

Does anyone else feel that Obama supporters are very cultish? Danger!!!!
Cultish?  No.  I get much more of a cult feeling with Clinton supporters, because they're often not able to point to any specific accomplishment or battle which she has waged, meaning their support frequently has no rational basis.  I also get that feeling, to a somewhat less degree, with Kucinich and Biden supporters, though they're more articulate usually on the reasons for their support.
Lets watch Sierra and Bee fight it out. Both Edwards and Obama have double standards!

Those who dream politicians are 100% clean are fools. What matters is who is going to do more good than bad. Who will bring a sense of directioin, prosperity, stability and set of goals to achieve. All this requires tough action.

That's why I favor Hillary!
Lets watch Sierra and Bee fight it out. Both Edwards and Obama have double standards!

Those who dream politicians are 100% clean are fools. What matters is who is going to do more good than bad. Who will bring a sense of directioin, prosperity, stability and set of goals to achieve. All this requires tough action.

That's why I favor Hillary!
This is so typical of John Edwards. Does anyone really believe he doesn't control this 527 money that is handled by his campaign advisors?
This is so consistent with everything else he does.
 Making his fortune as an ambulance chasing lawyer that drove up insurance rates,$400 haircuts paid for by his contributers, building an energy-wasting 28,000 SF mansion, delivering a speech at UC Davis on poverty for a $50,000 fee, sitting on the board of Fortress Fund-a leader in ripoff subprime loans to working people-all are typical of Edwards. And just in case you think this guy is for real, just go to You Tube and bring up John Edwards- Feeling Pretty. Be prepared to watch this amazing display of vanity that over 1 million other viewers have already watched. Hillary, Obama, Biden or anyone, but please not Edwards. This guy is pathetic, and if he wins the nomination (which he won't even if he wins Iowa because he has no meaningful organization in any other states) he has no chance of winning the general election.
Barack Obama for President.

It's time for America to Rise and Shine again.
John Edwards used his own money to fund his senate bid. He railed against something one day, then opts into public financing because he did not raise enough cash from small donors during the past 3 quarters. Between JRE's voting record and this negative smears from his former campaign staffer, he is in trouble. In 2 debates(VP with Cheney in 2004 and the CNN debate with HRC's), JRE backed down and clammed up when they tried to discuss his voting record. Last I checked, Barack Obama has proposed and passed ethics reform legislation twice(Illinois and US senate). JRE talks a good game though. Barack Obama gets things done.

You know why Edwards has "never taken a dime" from pacs or lobbyists? Cause he's freakin'  RICH AS HELL, and like Romney, could buy his way into office.

Obama hasn't taken any money from pacs or lobbyists since he was in the Illinios senate, and has still raised WAY more than Edwards, and as much as Hillary has (when you (rightfully) don't count the 10 mil she gave to herself).

All that said, Edwards is still my 2nd choice.
:)
Why is it that Edwards is allowed to say (for weeks) that Obama wouldn't be tough enough to be president and would be too "conciliatory" with the insurance companies, but Edwards' supporters are going NUTS that Obama calls him on something?

Some of those 527 ads from Edwards' supporters are attacking Obama. They're not all "friendly" ads. Give me a break. Did you really think Obama was going to stay silent on it? Please.
Mr $400 haircut has nothing to show for his one-term in any kind of elected office.

NOTHING!

Watches the polls and changes his position.

Look at the lamo here in 2002 getting folks to support the war:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY6BZgkI0kI


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=531377

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google