Prior to Edwards dropping out of the race political pundits and people from the Edwards campaign have referred his role in this election as either the spoiler or kingmaker. The media has portrayed the Democratic primary race as a two candidate race, with Obama and Clinton as the front runners. Edwards has battled with having less media attention as well as less funding during the campaign. As the odd man out, who was not a strong enough contender to actually win the nomination, it seemed that he was still motivated to stay in the race if he could play the role of kingmaker. If Edwards was able to gain 300-400 delegates throughout the primary, and neither Clinton or Obama had the majority by the end of the June, he would decide which candidate he could swing his delegates to, ultimately deciding who will take the nomination. Edwards would most likely give his delegates to the candidate who was most similar in their stances on issues, or would fight for some of Edwards ideals. Although, the goal was to win the nomination, playing the role of kingmaker motivated Edwards to continue his campaign with the hope of having his issues heard and supported by another Democratic candidate.
Unfortunately, Edwards not only had little hope to win the nomination but after a very poor showing in some of the early primaries, in New Hampshire, coming in third in his home state of South Carolina, and Nevada, he had only gained 26 delegates. After not doing as well as expected in some of the early primaries, it was becoming clear that he would not earn enough delegates to play the role of kingmaker and his continued presence may leave him with the role of a spoiler. Although Edwards campaign had planned on staying in the election through Super Tuesday on February 5th, he dropped out at the end of January. He spoke with both Clinton and Obama about continuing to fight income inequality and while he did not get to play the role of kingmaker, on the day he announced he was leaving the race both Obama and Clinton announced they would continue Edwards fight to combat poverty. Even without being the kingmaker, Edwards has had some important impacts on domestic policy for the entire Democratic party.
Courtney Bellmer
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Issues and Party Politics
John Edwards has spoken at length of the “two Americas”, one made up of the wealthy and well-connected and one made up of the common working man. It is the latter which he seeks to champion through his strong progressive stance on the issues and thus he has naturally pitted himself against the former, and hence the establishment in Washington. So although he was running under the canvas of the Democratic Party, Edwards had positioned himself to run against the system.
Edwards’ health care plan offered universal coverage and he made it clear from the start that the reason we didn’t have such coverage was due to the Insurance companies. He asserted that they have fostered a system in Washington of corporate power protecting corporate interests, which in turn would have to be stopped for such a goal to be reached. Obama’s plan doesn’t offer universal coverage, and while Clinton’s does and is in fact very similar to John Edwards’ it was released seven months later. Furthermore, Edwards called for a quicker and more complete pullout of United States troops and training forces from Iraq than either candidate.
Edwards has also talked adamantly about removing the corporate influence from politics through the public financing of political campaigns. He stated that “real change demanded that corporate power be put at the service of democracy and not the other way around.” Additionally, Edwards argues that “the interests of Wall Street are not the interests of Main Street”. He demanded that trade deals put workers and wages first and that fairness in the tax code be restored.
Edwards has an entirely confrontational approach to the environmental crisis as well. His plan to handle global warming involves capping greenhouse gasses and “ratcheting down the cap every year”. He has been open in warning that this will require sacrifice, both on the individual and on the corporate level- balancing profits with sound environmental policy.
However, as progressively left as his stances were, and as much as he was making a rally call for change in this country, he was marginalized due in part to the fact that he is lacking something which the other candidates have to the nines- visually representing a promise for change. The entire theme of the election has now become about “change” and the center has been all but abandoned for which Edwards can claim a small victory. This will be especially true if it ultimately translates to progressive policy in the White House, and the union of his two Americas.
-Stephanie Zimmerman
Edwards’ health care plan offered universal coverage and he made it clear from the start that the reason we didn’t have such coverage was due to the Insurance companies. He asserted that they have fostered a system in Washington of corporate power protecting corporate interests, which in turn would have to be stopped for such a goal to be reached. Obama’s plan doesn’t offer universal coverage, and while Clinton’s does and is in fact very similar to John Edwards’ it was released seven months later. Furthermore, Edwards called for a quicker and more complete pullout of United States troops and training forces from Iraq than either candidate.
Edwards has also talked adamantly about removing the corporate influence from politics through the public financing of political campaigns. He stated that “real change demanded that corporate power be put at the service of democracy and not the other way around.” Additionally, Edwards argues that “the interests of Wall Street are not the interests of Main Street”. He demanded that trade deals put workers and wages first and that fairness in the tax code be restored.
Edwards has an entirely confrontational approach to the environmental crisis as well. His plan to handle global warming involves capping greenhouse gasses and “ratcheting down the cap every year”. He has been open in warning that this will require sacrifice, both on the individual and on the corporate level- balancing profits with sound environmental policy.
However, as progressively left as his stances were, and as much as he was making a rally call for change in this country, he was marginalized due in part to the fact that he is lacking something which the other candidates have to the nines- visually representing a promise for change. The entire theme of the election has now become about “change” and the center has been all but abandoned for which Edwards can claim a small victory. This will be especially true if it ultimately translates to progressive policy in the White House, and the union of his two Americas.
-Stephanie Zimmerman
Monday, February 25, 2008
Motivations for Public Service
John Edwards’s motivation to run for office stems from many factors. A son of a textile mill floor worker, Edwards was the first in his family to attend college. He attended law school at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill where he met his wife Elizabeth. They had their first of four children, Wade, in 1979. Tragically, Wade died in a car accident in 1996, prompting John and Elizabeth to establish the Wade Edwards Foundation- a nonprofit organization supporting young people “in the pursuit of excellence”. Wade’s death would later serve as impetus for the removal of Edwards from the private sector.
Following law school Edwards clerked for a Federal Judge and then joined various law firms where he began his impressive career as a trial advocacy lawyer. It was there that he seemed to find his calling for public service. He took on large corporations and insurance companies, winning cases many viewed as impossible from the outset. In 1997 Edwards won a particularly notable product liability lawsuit against Sta-Rite, the manufacturer of a defective pool drain cover. The case involved a three-year-old girl who was disemboweled by the suction power of the pool drain pump and despite 12 similar claims and prior lawsuits; Sta-Rite continued to manufacture and sell drain covers. During his closing arguments, Edwards spoke to the jury for an hour and a half, making reference to his son Wade who had died shortly before. Mark Dayton, editor of North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, refer to it as "the most impressive legal performance I have ever seen." The jury decided that the family of the young girl should receive $25 million, the largest personal injury award in the history of North Carolina. It was this case and others like it, coupled with the death of his son who Edwards originally planned would join him in private practice, which encouraged him to abandon his law career and seek public office.
Edwards was elected to the United States Senate in 1998, and was said to be one of those considered as Al Gore’s running mate in 2000. In 2004 he made a presidential bid of his own, though it has been noted that he began “campaigning” for presidency since his election into the Senate. Edwards has since spoke of two Americas, one of the wealthy and privileged and one of the common working man. In 2004, when it appeared that Kerry would win the nomination, Edwards dropped out of the race and was awarded with the opportunity to be Kerry’s running mate. They lost in 2004, and shortly afterward Edwards announced that his wife, Elizabeth, had been diagnosed with breast cancer.
John Edwards then threw himself into the championing of causes such as poverty and universal heath care. He spent the time prior to his current election bid of 2008 shoring up his stance on such issues and building support. His family history provides an insight into what drives him to public service and the intensity which he feels for the issues and the country are visible. Edwards ultimately was motivated to run in order to unite the “two Americas”, which he speaks so passionately about, on a more even playing field. Though his presidential bid was again unsuccessful, his detailed stance on policy have left many saying that he has directed the democratic platform and consequently encouraged his peers, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to come up with more specific proposals for such issues as universal heath care and the war in Iraq.
-Stephanie Zimmerman
Following law school Edwards clerked for a Federal Judge and then joined various law firms where he began his impressive career as a trial advocacy lawyer. It was there that he seemed to find his calling for public service. He took on large corporations and insurance companies, winning cases many viewed as impossible from the outset. In 1997 Edwards won a particularly notable product liability lawsuit against Sta-Rite, the manufacturer of a defective pool drain cover. The case involved a three-year-old girl who was disemboweled by the suction power of the pool drain pump and despite 12 similar claims and prior lawsuits; Sta-Rite continued to manufacture and sell drain covers. During his closing arguments, Edwards spoke to the jury for an hour and a half, making reference to his son Wade who had died shortly before. Mark Dayton, editor of North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, refer to it as "the most impressive legal performance I have ever seen." The jury decided that the family of the young girl should receive $25 million, the largest personal injury award in the history of North Carolina. It was this case and others like it, coupled with the death of his son who Edwards originally planned would join him in private practice, which encouraged him to abandon his law career and seek public office.
Edwards was elected to the United States Senate in 1998, and was said to be one of those considered as Al Gore’s running mate in 2000. In 2004 he made a presidential bid of his own, though it has been noted that he began “campaigning” for presidency since his election into the Senate. Edwards has since spoke of two Americas, one of the wealthy and privileged and one of the common working man. In 2004, when it appeared that Kerry would win the nomination, Edwards dropped out of the race and was awarded with the opportunity to be Kerry’s running mate. They lost in 2004, and shortly afterward Edwards announced that his wife, Elizabeth, had been diagnosed with breast cancer.
John Edwards then threw himself into the championing of causes such as poverty and universal heath care. He spent the time prior to his current election bid of 2008 shoring up his stance on such issues and building support. His family history provides an insight into what drives him to public service and the intensity which he feels for the issues and the country are visible. Edwards ultimately was motivated to run in order to unite the “two Americas”, which he speaks so passionately about, on a more even playing field. Though his presidential bid was again unsuccessful, his detailed stance on policy have left many saying that he has directed the democratic platform and consequently encouraged his peers, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to come up with more specific proposals for such issues as universal heath care and the war in Iraq.
-Stephanie Zimmerman
Saturday, February 23, 2008
How Edwards Used Polling Data
Harrison Hickman, as mentioned in one of the other blogs, was the pollster in the Edwards Campaign. Hickman used the polls to help shape Edwards’ message and campaign strategy. Polls last October showed that Edwards was the only Democratic candidate with a significant lead over Giuiliani, the Republican front runner at the time. According to polls studied by Hickman, Edwards’ margin of victory was the same as Obama’s and Clinton’s against other republicans in hypothetical elections. Also, Hickman stated that Edwards does better in the important battle ground states of Iowa, Ohio, and Missouri. The Edwards campaign used this information from the polls to focus on Edwards’ electability. Obama also picked up on this theme and both he and Edwards claimed that they were the most electable, and that Hillary’s polarizing views would hurt Democrats’ chances of capturing the White House in 2008. Even though the Edwards Campaign was knowledgeable and used their polls to shape this strategy, he still ultimately could not make voters see that he was the most electable candidate. I think that if Edwards had had more money to get out his message of electability, then he might have been able to stay in the race longer.
--Kristin Herron
New York Times Link:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/10/edwards_focuses.html
--Kristin Herron
New York Times Link:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/10/edwards_focuses.html
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Joe Trippi "the man who re-invented campaigning"
Joe Trippi, senior advisor for the Edwards campaign, was born in California in 1956 and is a graduate of San Jose State University, where he was a member of the Sibma Nu Fraternity. His first major political campaign was in 1980, when he worked for Edward M. Kennedy’s bid for the presidency. Other presidential campaigns that he worked on include: Walter Mondale, Gary Hart, Richard Gephardt and Howard Dean.
As the National Campaign Manager for Howard Dean in 2004, Trippi pioneered the use of the internet for campaigns; using the internet to reach out to small donors in what would become the largest grass roots fund raising campaign in history, Tripi broke the all time record for Democratic fundraising. Because of Trippi’s internet fundraising activities, the Howard Dean for President Campaign raised “more money then any Democratic presidential campaign in history” (http://www.joetrippi.com/, 02/21/08). Changing the landscape of fundraising forever, Joe Trippi was able to reach this goal with donations that averaged only $100. A political magazine, The New Republic, featured his picture on the cover with the caption: "the man who re-invented campaigning".
Joe Trippi applied the same skills and know-how to the Edwards Campaign with mixed results. Through an internet Democratic fundraising company, ActBlue, Edwards received upwards of $921,000 in a ten day fundraising blitz during September (http://blog.wired.com/, 02/21/08). This was not enough to overcome a loss in Iowa, and Edwards was soon short on money.
In the past, Joe Trippi worked as a media consulting at a Democratic firm called Doak, Shrum and Associates. During his time there, he worked on the campaigns of Jerry Baililes for Governor of Virginia, and Bob Casey for Governor of Pennsylvania; both were successful. Trippi also worked on the re-election campaigns for U.S. Senator Alan Cranston of California and Mayor Tom Bradley of Los Angeles.
Jason Meyerson
As the National Campaign Manager for Howard Dean in 2004, Trippi pioneered the use of the internet for campaigns; using the internet to reach out to small donors in what would become the largest grass roots fund raising campaign in history, Tripi broke the all time record for Democratic fundraising. Because of Trippi’s internet fundraising activities, the Howard Dean for President Campaign raised “more money then any Democratic presidential campaign in history” (http://www.joetrippi.com/, 02/21/08). Changing the landscape of fundraising forever, Joe Trippi was able to reach this goal with donations that averaged only $100. A political magazine, The New Republic, featured his picture on the cover with the caption: "the man who re-invented campaigning".
Joe Trippi applied the same skills and know-how to the Edwards Campaign with mixed results. Through an internet Democratic fundraising company, ActBlue, Edwards received upwards of $921,000 in a ten day fundraising blitz during September (http://blog.wired.com/, 02/21/08). This was not enough to overcome a loss in Iowa, and Edwards was soon short on money.
In the past, Joe Trippi worked as a media consulting at a Democratic firm called Doak, Shrum and Associates. During his time there, he worked on the campaigns of Jerry Baililes for Governor of Virginia, and Bob Casey for Governor of Pennsylvania; both were successful. Trippi also worked on the re-election campaigns for U.S. Senator Alan Cranston of California and Mayor Tom Bradley of Los Angeles.
Jason Meyerson
Sunday, February 17, 2008
The Edwards Campaign and Advertising
Since the beginning of his run, Edwards used the internet as a main source of advertising for his campaign. He used YouTube and various on-line social networking sites as a way to connect with voters. Edwards’ senior campaign advisor, Joe Trippi, said “that you need to use the Internet, blogs, technology, YouTube, to reach out to people”(NYT). The Edwards campaign uses a new way to track its success besides how much money they are raising and how well they are doing in the polls, his campaign uses a 9- day calendar that tracks how many hits his camping site is receiving. Perhaps Edwards focused on internet advertisement to reach out to the young voters, who are frequent internet users. Mrs. Edwards stated that "the Internet is the principal way we are communicating with voters right now” (NYT). I suspect that another reason that his campaign used the internet as their main way to reach voters is the fact that the traditional media has been focused on Clinton and Obama far more than Edwards. In a campaign coverage index from January 6th through the 11th, Edwards only received 7% of the media coverage, which was less than a fifth of what Hillary earned (The Horses Mouth). The unbalanced coverage that Edwards received has forced him to look beyond the traditional methods to get his message across in a battle against two “celebrity candidates”, who clearly have captured the media’s attention.
--Kristin Herron
The Horses Mouth Link:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/01/study_john_edwa.php
The New York Times Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/us/politics/01edwards.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&adxnnlx=1203355850-3Vgmp8T%208PCZC8%20vQxeAyw
--Kristin Herron
The Horses Mouth Link:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2008/01/study_john_edwa.php
The New York Times Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/us/politics/01edwards.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&adxnnlx=1203355850-3Vgmp8T%208PCZC8%20vQxeAyw
John Edwards Campaign Finance
Edwards obviously faced a number of campaign finance troubles during his run for the upcoming Presidential nomination. I think that his eventual withdrawal from the race, as far as money was concerned, can be narrowed down to three major factors.
First, there was no possible way that he would be able to keep pace with the record-setting numbers that the Clinton and Obama campaigns were raising. At the end of 2007, Edwards had raised only about half of what the Obama and Clinton campaigns had brought in, totaling almost $44 million, and from what it looks like, there is no end in sight. Although we won’t know the January numbers until February 20th, another blogger is reporting that the Obama campaign is raising nearly one million dollars a day right now—a number that Edwards wouldn’t ever have been able to compete with based on the information that I’ve read.
Secondly, in reviewing the source data of Edwards campaign finance, it’s clear that the most money from any single source came from the legal community (Edwards himself is a highly successful trial lawyer), nearly $9,000,000—almost ¼ of the total Edwards raised. In fact, the next highest category was individual democrats and liberals, totaling just over two million dollars—a significant difference. (www.opensecrets.org & Center for Responsive Politics). It seems to me that if Edwards was going to be successful in his bid for the White House, he would desperately need to diversify his fundraising to include a much broader range of money-sources, especially considering how much Clinton and Obama were raising in comparison.
The third major factor that likely contributed to Edwards decision to withdraw from the race was that his track record regarding campaign finance—as well as finance in general—was shaky at best. Had he somehow garnered the Democratic Nomination, it’s likely that the scrutiny of his past financial activities—which had already been brought into question—would have been even more visible to the American public. Unless you’re a close follower of politics, you might not have even noticed the discrepancies in Edwards campaign finance activities throughout this race, or his political career. There are discrepancies however, and they are difficult to refute. Edwards publicly disapproves of 527’s—special interest tax-exempt organizations used to influence elections but, by law, can’t be directly associated with the politician or cause. Regardless of his outspokenness on this issue, Edwards has a dangerously close association with a 527 named “Alliance for a New America,” which overseen by Edwards 2004 campaign manager, Nick Baldick (NBC/NJ’s Aswini Anburajan). Although I couldn’t find any direct association between the 2008 Edwards campaign and Alliance for a New America, you don’t have to stretch too far to consider that they likely do talk to each other, regardless of the law. However, at the point that Edwards withdrew, that likely didn’t have enough “juice” for the media to dig deeper, something that they probably would have done had Edwards received the DNC nomination. Additionally, Edwards seems to waffle some on this issue throughout his career, sometimes accepting special interest money and sometimes not. He certainly hasn’t sent a clear and distinct message of disapproval of special interest money, regardless of his most recent public statements to the contrary.
There is a terrific article published by Nathaniel Bach of The Huffington Post titled John Edwards Money Problems that really begins to dig deeper into Edwards and his money—or perhaps more appropriately—his “money problems.” In his article, Bach reveals quite a bit about Edward’s tainted history with finance, both political and personal, as well as highlighting the former Senator’s mixed messages about campaign finance reform. However, regardless of Edward’s unclear position on these issues, Bach makes a very strong argument on how to deal with this issue best by writing:
First, there was no possible way that he would be able to keep pace with the record-setting numbers that the Clinton and Obama campaigns were raising. At the end of 2007, Edwards had raised only about half of what the Obama and Clinton campaigns had brought in, totaling almost $44 million, and from what it looks like, there is no end in sight. Although we won’t know the January numbers until February 20th, another blogger is reporting that the Obama campaign is raising nearly one million dollars a day right now—a number that Edwards wouldn’t ever have been able to compete with based on the information that I’ve read.
Secondly, in reviewing the source data of Edwards campaign finance, it’s clear that the most money from any single source came from the legal community (Edwards himself is a highly successful trial lawyer), nearly $9,000,000—almost ¼ of the total Edwards raised. In fact, the next highest category was individual democrats and liberals, totaling just over two million dollars—a significant difference. (www.opensecrets.org & Center for Responsive Politics). It seems to me that if Edwards was going to be successful in his bid for the White House, he would desperately need to diversify his fundraising to include a much broader range of money-sources, especially considering how much Clinton and Obama were raising in comparison.
The third major factor that likely contributed to Edwards decision to withdraw from the race was that his track record regarding campaign finance—as well as finance in general—was shaky at best. Had he somehow garnered the Democratic Nomination, it’s likely that the scrutiny of his past financial activities—which had already been brought into question—would have been even more visible to the American public. Unless you’re a close follower of politics, you might not have even noticed the discrepancies in Edwards campaign finance activities throughout this race, or his political career. There are discrepancies however, and they are difficult to refute. Edwards publicly disapproves of 527’s—special interest tax-exempt organizations used to influence elections but, by law, can’t be directly associated with the politician or cause. Regardless of his outspokenness on this issue, Edwards has a dangerously close association with a 527 named “Alliance for a New America,” which overseen by Edwards 2004 campaign manager, Nick Baldick (NBC/NJ’s Aswini Anburajan). Although I couldn’t find any direct association between the 2008 Edwards campaign and Alliance for a New America, you don’t have to stretch too far to consider that they likely do talk to each other, regardless of the law. However, at the point that Edwards withdrew, that likely didn’t have enough “juice” for the media to dig deeper, something that they probably would have done had Edwards received the DNC nomination. Additionally, Edwards seems to waffle some on this issue throughout his career, sometimes accepting special interest money and sometimes not. He certainly hasn’t sent a clear and distinct message of disapproval of special interest money, regardless of his most recent public statements to the contrary.
There is a terrific article published by Nathaniel Bach of The Huffington Post titled John Edwards Money Problems that really begins to dig deeper into Edwards and his money—or perhaps more appropriately—his “money problems.” In his article, Bach reveals quite a bit about Edward’s tainted history with finance, both political and personal, as well as highlighting the former Senator’s mixed messages about campaign finance reform. However, regardless of Edward’s unclear position on these issues, Bach makes a very strong argument on how to deal with this issue best by writing:
Frankly, I don't much care whether Edwards (or any of the other Democratic candidates) "accepts" soft money. Outside groups will continue to spend throughout the presidential race, and for a candidate continually to condemn spending beneficial to their campaign is going to begin to sound disingenuous. The simple fact is that 527s and soft money are not going away before next November, and since Republicans will have every opportunity to exploit the 527 loophole, why shouldn't the Dems, too? And while there may be a few political points to be scored with independent voters from openly lamenting the role of money in presidential politics, the issue doesn't even poll when Americans are asked about the most pressing issues facing the country.
You can talk all you want about taking a stand against the influence of money in politics, but there's a time and a place. That time is not during the primaries, and not during the general election, but after a Democrat takes the oath of office. And that place is not on the campaign trail in Iowa, but behind the desk in the Oval Office with your Sterling silver bill-signing pen in hand. Until then, however, let's not lose sight of the immediate goal: a Democratic president. And for that to happen, I'll grant our candidates a temporary moral reprieve on the money issue.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathaniel-bach/john-edwards-money-probl_b_78588.html)
--Mark Miller
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
