Pro-Edwards 527 ad

Posted: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:40 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: Ads

From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro and Lauren Appelbaum
Here’s the much-talked-about pro-Edwards ad paid for by a 527 being advised by the candidate’s former campaign manager.

The ad begins by laying out stark problems: “The price of dependence on foreign oil. Health care in crisis. Government run by corporate lobbyists. Isn't it time someone had a plan to take them on?”

It then breaks down what is described as Edwards’ plan to combat these issues.

The group, Alliance for a New America, is funded mostly by local SEIUs, a group which has endorsed Edwards. Mundy Ketowitz Media got the bulk of the money ($750,000) with music and postproduction outsourced, according to FEC documents. In who's given to the group, it's mostly SEIU and one contribution from UNITE HERE. Here’s how the money breaks down: Ohio SEIU ($122,000), California SEIU ($400,000), local SEIU in Los Angeles ($100,000), local SEIU in Oregon ($60,000), local SEIU in St. Paul ($18,000) and Minneapolis ($36,000), Chicago UNITE HERE board ($100,000), NAGE COPE ($50,000), which is the political education arm of the National Association of Government Employees, which is also SEIU. COPE stands for Committee on Public Education.

The group is based in Arlington, Va., and it appears the individual who filled out the paperwork for the pro-Edwards group, Katherine Buchanan, has actually given money to Obama this cycle. A Katherine Buchanan of Arlington, Va., gave $250 to Obama in June.

Here’s the script of the ad:
“The price of dependence on foreign oil. Health care in crisis. Government run by corporate lobbyists. Isn't it time someone had a plan to take them on? The Edwards plan: Ban campaign cash from lobbyists. End tax breaks for big oil. Stop job killing trade deals. Stand up to insurance companies for real health reform.
Ask all the candidates what their plan is to level the playing field.

“Paid for by the Alliance for a New America which is responsible for its content. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.”

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Will someone please list what experience and in what areas does Hillary has all this experience in. I can't see anything that she has done beside being married to one of the biggest ho's in america.

terry, pearl, ms (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:12 PM)

I hope Edwards takes one or two of the early states. He'll pull in more independents and disaffected republicans than any other dem candidate. Edwards/Biden '08!

Doug, San Diego (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:26 PM)

Edwards has done this before: arranged for a high-level member of his campaign to leave and start a 527 on his behalf. Then he says that these 527s have to be stopped, and he just wishes that he could stop them... but his hands are tied.

Edwards is a standard-issue slimy politician who will say and do whatever he needs to do, regardless of ethics. His populist message doesn't match up with his record of achievements, most of which he has subsequently apologized for.

Hobo, Hoboken, NJ (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:30 PM)

Doug, are you serious ? Edwards is a polarizing candidate too just like Clinton. His tough stance in general makes him unlikeable. Not to mention the not walking the talk with this 527 ad.

John Daver (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:35 PM)

Actually, the most important question in the country right now is this:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is Tom Coughlin going to play all his starters Saturday night against the New England Patriots?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I say no, he should not. It is critical for the Giants to win the following week against TB, but not this week. He should rest them all. The heck with everyone calling them wimps. It's not Coughlin's fault no one could beat the Patriots.

His first concern should be The New York Giants and their playoff run.

Okay, back to politics.

Pat, Boston, MA (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:39 PM)

Edwards is a used car salesman.

Edwards Hater (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:42 PM)

Edwards, it appears, intends to take the "I am the decider" mantle from GW Bush if he's elected.

Does Edwards think he's just gonna waltz in and take down a billion dollar industry? It's totally naive of him to believe he's going to get anything accomplished without cooperating with anyone. The president doesn't have THAT much power!

The antagonistic, isolating, partisan rhetoric of the past just hasn't been working. It's time to turn the page and try to act like grown ups, guys. Edwards refuses to work with the other side, and the other side won't work with Hillary.

Can we please elect someone who is capable of bringing people together and getting things done?

Obama has a record of getting changes, AND Obama is the most electable Dem in the general.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/12/zogby-obama-is.html

http://www.gallup.com/poll/103396/Hillary-Clinton-Electable.aspx

julie, slc, utah (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:43 PM)

How much of that can get through Congress. I know that many presidents are given fast track which means they can get a trade deal and give the Senate an up or down vote. It is the loop holes that I worry about.

With regards to oil tax breaks, that is all well and good. There is something missing; what will take the place of oil (and the refined products from oil)? I wish it had mentioned that there was a new plan for generating fuels for vehicles from different types of ethanol as well as plans for major incentivies for the latest generation of fission power plants; new monies for putting up solar panels and their research into better ones; advances in wind power to make it possible to generate more power on slower winds as well as making them less likely to kill bats and birds passing by them.

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:47 PM)

It is scary how Edwards has been able to take the lead on the populist message. He is obviously a politician that will say whatever the polls dictate will be benificial. Hillary should apologise for Iraq vote, I am the most electable, Obama to gentle to wage fight that he will. I expect that Iowa voters will be to smart and informed for his tricks two elections in a row.

Allen Manuel Chicago IL (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 3:01 PM)

John Daver / His tough stance in general makes him unlikeable.

at least edwards has a stance, and the only people that don't like his tough stance are the corporate interests that currently run this country, and john no candidate anywhere is as polorizing as the hillary, edwards can win the general election, obama nor hillary can, ignore the media and use your brain

MK,MO (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 3:20 PM)

If either Obama or Clinton is the nominee, the Democrats can write off the entire south and at least one battleground state, Ohio, where 55% of people say they would never vote for Hillary under any circumstances. She is the candidate with the highest negatives (followed by Giuliani and then Obama) and she would galvanize evangelicals and other Repubs who might otherwise stay home. In contrast, the "polarizing" Edwards would win North Carolina in the general, picking up 15 in the electoral college, and play extremely well in economically hard-hit states like Ohio, West Virginia, and Iowa, all of which went for Bush last time.

Forget national polls; they are meaningless before the Iowa caucuses (Edwards is polling ahead of where Kerry was at this point in 2004) and, more impotantly, they ignore the fact of the electoral college. Democrats need to think about which candidate can capture the battlegrounds. It's Edwards.

OhioMom (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 3:21 PM)

Is that crybaby Bambi Obama still whining about Edward's 527 support?

If Obama wasn't such a fraud maybe he would have racked up some union support like Clinton and Edwards.

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 3:23 PM)

Terry writes: "Will someone please list what experience and in what areas does Hillary has all this experience in".

Hey Terry, questioning a presidential candidate’s resume is certainly fair game. It is true that Hillary does bring experience from being first lady in her husbands presidency. Does she exaggerate that experience? The answer is probably. But remember all candidates pad their resume just as all job applicants everywhere do the same. But keep in mind that Hillary is also on her 2nd term as U.S. senator from New York. This means that, on her own, she has been elected twice by the voters of NY to represent them. Compare that to Obama who is on his first term as a U.S. senator from Illinois just elected in 2004. Obama also served one term as an Illinois state senator prior to his current 1st term as a U.S. senator. Meanwhile, Edwards served just one term as a U.S. Senator from North Carolina (he never sought re-election). In terms of legislative experience, Clinton, Edwards, and obama, are not that different.And none of them have executive experience. Although, I would argue that Clinton gets some extra credit for completing a full term as a U.S. Senator and getting re-elected before running for president. It has always turned me off that Edwards runs after just one senate term. And I do not feel that Obama should run until he at least completes one U.S. senate term. BTW, all three are lawyers. And all three have notable service to promoting their social agendas and causes. The point is this: For those who say that Hillary is not qualified at all to be president, the truth is that she is just as qualified by resume standards as the other candidates. For those who say that Obama is not experienced enough, the truth is that of the top three front runners his experience is a bit shallow but not enough to make it an issue. I for one do count Hillary's experience as First Lady but it is understandable why others don't. Hope that this helps to answer your question.

Rob, Phoenix, AZ (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 3:23 PM)

John Edwards is a phony.

The Many Apologies of John Edwards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pOZML6P0Vg

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

Obama SmackDown Series: Smacks down Edwards on Iraq.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4x_KnWEDjs

John Edwards Feeling Pretty.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q

Banko (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 3:23 PM)

Is their any other candidate who has staked his lot with organized labor more than John Edwards has? He has not only talked the talk, but more importantly, he's walked the picket line time and again for unions. He's also worked his butt off getting minimum wage increases passed in multiple states.

Most significantly, he's used his position to highlight issues that no other candidate is willing to even address. Poverty, the dwindling middle class, the role of lobbyists in government, and the importance of organized labor in keeping the middle class in tact and thriving.

Why should Edwards not welcome 527's representing unions? They are merely going with the guy they believe is best for their cause. All of this nonsense about denouncing all 527's is not only counter-productive, it's downright laughable.

Obama needs to swallow his bruised pride (for not getting any major union endorsements) and wake up. He needs to realize that these same groups supporting Edwards in the primaries are going to be sorely needed in the general if he's the nominee. He's really thinking way too short term. Is that a Progressive attitude?

I've lost a lot of respect for Obama lately. Now is not a good time for that to be happening, either!

Ohiocrat (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 3:35 PM)

Hobo is obviously very under educated, Edwards grew up in a middle class home and has spent his entire adult life fighting corporate America, pharmaceutical giants and corrupt businesses on behalf of the little guy. And more than any other candidate Edwards has owned up to his mistakes as an honorable man should. The only reason Obama is whining and crying foul about the 527s is he and his supporters realize Edwards is about to kick he and Hillary's butt in Iowa

Ellis B. Kingman, Az. (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 3:52 PM)

Ohiocrat,

So your point is that Obama should just turn a blind eye to groups that he sympathizes with running 527 ads and then rail against the ones from groups he doesn't agree with?

Umm, I think that kind of thinking is why we have so much politics and so few solutions.

It is not anti-union to be anti 527 group. Nice try though.

Nashville_fan (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 4:55 PM)

To Nashville_fan:

My point is Obama is being a total hipocrite. He's got 527's working for him. He also refused to say that he wouldn't accept 527's veiled support in the general. How is that "railing against" them?

As bad as they currently are, campaign finance laws are what they are. Why should one candidate agree to tie his or her hands when their competitors won't? The system will be changed, but not in time for 2008.

When Obama labeled nurses, teachers, government employees, and labor unions as part of "special interests" trying to influence the Iowa vote, he oversteped--by a lot! Those groups are the backbone of the Democratic party and they are the ones that put boots on the groud. Why would he do that?

Believe me, I get the fact that Obama saw an opening against Edwards "accepting" the support of 527's. But how can a guy that's raised more money than any candidate in history really complain about a $700,000 ad buy? How much has Obama spent in Iowa already?

My advice would be to stay positive for the next 8 days. After all, he and John Edwards may have to endorse each other in the near future. It's not smart to badmouth someone whose support you will need to beat Hillary.

Ohiocrat (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 5:35 PM)

Is there anything more un-American than telling a group who to support? What a joke.

Kristian O (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 8:06 PM)

Ohiocrat,
I'm sorry to hear you've lost some of your respect for Barack Obama. I have not. I think he's running an excellent campaign. Would welcome the opportunity to dialogue with you about it further.
Biggest reason for my concern with politics these days is the "say one thing do another". Obama has said clearly that when attacked he'll respond directly and assertively by telling the truth. He's done so.

Edwards said he's for the poor and working class. He's worked hard on that image, showing up after Katrina (not as an ambulance chaser, but as a truly concerned politician who wants to be president), writing books, and talking to people in unions and rural communities in Iowa and around the nation.

Edwards has recently run into some financial problems ... which can happen if you're identifying yourself with the poor. Courageously, he's still running hard in Iowa. Unfortunately, he's now using money from 527s - special interest groups - even though he said he wouldn't.

My biggest concern in this whole matter is the wasteful spending of union leaders - attacking Senator Obama who is as friendly to labor groups as anyone out there, including Edwards. The only reason unions don't like Obama is the fact that he won't take sides in the eternal labor-management disputes. Because he knows it takes both to make things work in this country.

Ben, Nashville, TN (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:07 PM)

To those of you who support Obama's criticisms of 527s, go to Google and type in "Vote Hope". You will find there is a 527 in California that is advertising on Obama's behalf and getting his supporters to vote early in their primary to make it seem as if he has an early lead in that state. Under these circumstances, his criticisms of the 527 ads in Iowa are a bit perplexing, or should I say, hypocritical.

Prof Woman, Indiana (Sent Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:42 PM)

Nothing wrong with John using the 527 ad brought forth by special interest grups such as teachers, nurses and government workers. wow what a terrible group that is. Where would we be without them Just think about that for a moment Sir.

marylou (Sent Thursday, December 27, 2007 7:46 AM)

Isn't it a shame when democrats like Edwards have a backbone and, unlike Obama and CLinton, are actually saying something substantial, and something the majority of Americans experience, even when it isn't popular with corporate media elites?

JC (Sent Sunday, December 30, 2007 5:19 PM)

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):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

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=533813