Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Edwards Camp Responds to Clinton Calls


People arrive to vote in the US Democratic primary election at a polling place in Eastover, South Carolina January 26, 2008. (Reuters).

By Ed O'Keefe
A wave of robocalls from the Hillary Clinton campaign hit South Carolina voters today, according to Time magazine's The Page, which has transcribed the calls:

Voice: Hello, This is the Hillary Clinton for President Campaign.

Before you vote on Saturday, you should know that John Edwards voted for permanent trade relations with China. That's right, John Edwards voted for the bill that cost thousands of jobs. Like the ones in the textile mills he talks about so much down here.

You should also know that John Edwards made nearly a half a million dollars working for a Wall Street investment fund. A fund that's been profiting on foreclosing on the homes of families; including 100 homes right here in South Carolina. That's according to The State newspaper. Here in South Carolina, Edwards says he's one of us, but up on Wall Street he was just another one of them.

Can you trust John Edwards? This call is paid for by the Hillary Clinton for President Campaign.

Edwards campaign chair David Bonior called the charges made in the calls ''outrageous,'' adding that ''John has divested all of his stakes in any of the investments'' cited in the calls. The candidate has also set up a fund to help people affected by people facing foreclosures, Bonior said.

''We've been moving up and they obviously don't want to place second,'' Bonior said of the Clinton campaign.

As for areas of strength after South Carolina, Bonior cited Texas as a state where he thinks Edwards will do well, noting that the former senator earned 20 percent of the vote in the Lone Star State's 2004 Democratic primary two weeks after he dropped out of that race.

By Web Politics Editor  |  January 26, 2008; 4:55 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: S.C. Voters Pick a Candidate
Next: Obama Ready to Play Ball

Comments

If ever there were a pot as sleazy as the Clintons calling a kettle black. Whitewater, Hillary's position on the board of Wal-Mart, Hillary's massive lobbyist contributions, "Pardon-gate", ... For crying out loud, the list could never even fit in this damn textbox.

Posted by: katefranklin60 | January 27, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

Edwards is the only adult in this race--Clinton and Obama are engaged in spiteful, infantile attacks on one another, and both have resorted to distorting Edwards' record and misleading voters on their own. Obama's claims that his health care plan covers more people than Edwards' plan is patently false, and Clinton's robo-calls obscure her involvement with NAFTA and her vote on the Peru Free Trade Agreement.

In the end, Edwards is the only statesman in the race. He has led a life of public service, has stood up for the voiceless his whole life, and has refused to engate in dirty politics, unlike the other two.
He has been willing to take on the corruption in D.C. and in his own party--not the popular thing to do, but the right thing to do.

Obama and Clinton are corporate Democrats, each having taken millions from the corporate lobbyists and interests...Edwards is the only one who has never taken a dime from WA lobbyists or PACs.

Edwards has my vote.

Posted by: callan7 | January 27, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

FIRST OF ALL REGAURDING MRS CLINTON HAVE WE ALL FORGOT WHAT A SCANDEL HER HUSBAND MADE OF HIS TIME IN OFFICE I MEAN COME ON LETS GET REAL THE CLINTONS MADE A MESS OF IT THE LAST TIME THEY WERE IN THE WHITEHOUSE A STRICKED DISRESPECT OF OUR VALUES AND OUR HOME AS THE WHITEHOUSE DOSE BELONG TO THE PEOPLE AND HOW MR CLINTON SEEMS TO BE RUNNING AGAIN NOT HIS WIFE SHE HAS BEEN LAZY THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE RACE AND HE HAS DONE MOST OF HER TALKING FOR HER AS FOR MRS CLINTON AND MR OBAMA WE HAVE NEVER HAD A WOMAN OR BALCK MAN IN OFFICE TO ME IT SEEMS THAT THEY ARE JUST OUT TO BE THE FIRST BUT LET ME REMIND YOU THAT THIS RACE IS NOT ABOUT BEING THE FIRST BUT IT IS ABOUT BEING THE RIGHT PERSON FOR THE JOB THEREFORE I SAY JOHN EDWARDS IS THE BEST CHOICE GOD BLESS JOHN EDWARDS AND HIS FAMILY VOTE FOR TRUTH AND (GOOD CHANGE) NOT FOR MORE OF THE SAME OF WHAT WE HAVE HAD.VOTE FOR JOHN EDWARDS AS THE NEXT COMMANDER AND CHIEF.

Posted by: LVS233 | January 27, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

I have to echo "fwashpost" above. The more I pay attention to this campaign the more turned off of Hillary Clinton I become, and I am a regular voter for democrats.

After pissing off so many in her own base, do we really think she is going to have a good shot in the general election against a unified GOP? The GOP doesn't need convincing to despise her, they already do. Now she is working on getting people in her own party to do the same.

Scorch the fields Hillary!!!

Maybe you'll win the nomination that way, but then all the support will be withered and burned. Perhaps then, like Napolean's army, you can retreat, starving, & dying (back to your senate seat) to lick your wounds....alone.

(Deep down McCAin and Co. really love you.)

Posted by: kgoolsby | January 27, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton wasn't nicknamed "Slick Willie" by the Republicans for nothing, and when you look at the list of conspiracy issues that are unresolved regarding the Clinton White House, what do you expect from his attorney wife Hillary? We know that Bill lied under oath and was Impeached (whether it was the Lewinsky affair or not doesn't matter, The President Lied Under Oath, so he deserved to be Impeached, and for breaking his oath of office). So now his wife is running for President after becoming a senator from the state she could win in, after leaving the White House with Bill.

WAKE UP PEOPLE, can't you see the Republicans salivating over this situation?

1. They've got a treasure trove of issues to use against Hillary in a post convention campaign for the oval office to make her loose.

2. They've got the experience thing to use against Obama and unfortunately the race card will be a factor to some people in this country.

3. Edwards is now the target becasue they want to knock the only real competitor to the republicans out of the race (and don't you think the Clinton's are in bed with the establishment that hold power).

Let's face it people...

If you're an independent, or support the Iraq situation, or are biased enough not to have a woman or a black man as President, or live in the media induced fear society and feel you need to be "protected" by the government...

Who would you vote for here:

McCain over Hillary
McCain over Obama

(Rudy, Mit and the other Arkansas "Whitewater", Huck the Hick, won't beat McCain now)

But Edwards CAN beat McCain and does in the Nationwide Polls.

Here's the 2004 South Carolina Presidential Election Results to compare the last general election to:

Statewide Registered Voters: 2,315,182
Number that actually voted: 1,631,148
Democrat Primary Voters: 184,288
Republican Primary Voters: 357,831

(We cant calculate 2008 yet, but we know that a lot more people voted in this years primary for both parties)

So here's the big middle ground of 1,089,029 voters that didn't vote in the party primary, so they're not hardcore members of a party. Now things are different this year because more people are voting, but there's is still a big middle ground that could go either way.

Edwards is the only one who could take a majority of that middle ground ACROSS THE NATION and the Republicans know it.

So if the Dems really want to win the White House, then WAKE UP or it's McCain; and Billary will still make money either way plus she's still got her senate seat.

Common Sense Here PLEASE !!!

Posted by: shamrock7771 | January 27, 2008 3:05 AM | Report abuse

I think the Clinton campaign has run a very divisive race but as an Edwards supporter I'm not quite ready to jump on the bandwagon that says it was Hillary. The fact that the script says it's from her doesn't necessarily mean that her campaign paid for the calls. I think the Washington Post owes it to their readers to check this out. We need to know the facts. Who actually did this to the Edwards campaign? Saying it was Hillary merely because it had her name on it fails to take into consideration that someone else did it and seeks to take out both Hillary & Edwards.

Posted by: pmorlan1 | January 26, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Anyone is better than Bush and company.
Ill take anyone of these Dems over any one of the Repugs this year.

Posted by: hhkeller | January 26, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

Another nice piece by the Washington Post, I thought I was reading the times for a second. Send a candidate to blogs unless it is bad news. Integrity.

Posted by: bucklaw | January 26, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

"Between this and the Obama smearing it appears the Clinton machine will do anything and is not to be trusted. The more I pay attention to what's going in this election, the less I can stomach the Clintons. I voted for Bill twice and have never voted for a Republican President. After 8 years of Bush and his corruption, it's sad to see the Democratic side this far in the gutter. I'll be happy to vote for any other Democratic candidate."

Can I just say "amen to that?"

I am so flipping sick of Hillary Clinton, the thugs that people her campaign, and their cutthroat politics, I could just barf. Her campaign feels like Karl Rove is at the helm!

Posted by: sherirogers | January 26, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

I find it amazing that the Clinton campaign throws mud and lies all of the time. I guess because it became politically unpopular to bash Obama anymore and probably because Edwards wouldn't support Clinton, they are attacking Edwards.

Of course, there are no human beings making these calls only machines. If they were people the accusations might be challenged. So chicken and dirty.

Posted by: jenai | January 26, 2008 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Mitt Romney publicly professes that he is concerned about Bill Clinton being back in the White House with a lot of free time on his hands.

He shouldn't worry, and it just goes to show you Mitt Romney's lack of imagination.

There are lots of public/private initiatives that come to mind, just off the top of one's head, some of which the ex-president could conduct from the comfort of the Lincoln bedroom.

Consider these:

1) Special envoy to Fidel's Gulag to end U.S. embargo on Cuban cigars.

2) Commissioner of National Women's Softball League.

3) National spokesperson for adolescent campaign for sexual abstinence.

4) Head of the Motion Picture Association (with lots of unpublicized trips to Hollywood, and foreign film colonies--nothing like private diplomacy, I always say).

5) Head of the U.S. Office of Public Integrity.

6) Chief, White House intern program.

7) Special advisor, Congressional intern program.

8) Co-Chair, with Clarence Thomas and Larry Craig, of blue-ribbon National Commission for the Rights of High-Minded but Misunderstood Public Servants.

9) Washington-based Rove-ing correspondent, Hustler magazine.

10) "Green" Czar, with special portfolio to promote sowing of wild oats ...

If the Republicans choose Romney, claiming that his vast experience in the private sector makes him tailor made to right the economy, we Democrats have a better argument with a Clinton co-presidency. ...

Bill Clinton has been getting down to business for years!

Seriously, he likes to say that in politics, you have to do what you have to do.

So do a grand coaltion that includes Democrats of conscience, parents and grandparents, and defenders of the meaning of that tiniest of words--"is".

Clean slate !!!
Barack Obama,
'08 !!!

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | January 26, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

What about the $20 million that Bill just made ... ... 40x what is claimed of Edwards. Dirty business, politics ...

Posted by: mqdean | January 26, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

I am sick to death of the Clintons. They are proven liars and hypocrites. It makes me ill to realize that they will be our "choice" in the Primary. It will make me seriously consider McCain. If he moves to the center after the primary, I will be very tempted.

Posted by: johnsonc2 | January 26, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

If you've followed the campaign strategies from the beginning, and read everything coming out in the paper, on the news, etc., it ALL suggests the Clintons playing ALL American voters for fools...alienate the blacks to get the white vote, then run around trying to collect as many black votes as you can...and I guess she thinks this is ok? She did the same with the Hispanics....playing race against race for one end only...to get the nomination. I, for one, will not vote for ANY ticket with a Clinton on it...their time has passed. They just don't get it.

Posted by: ndolan622 | January 26, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

RoboCalls, especially negative ones, should be illegal as they give the candidate being smeared no real chance to respond.

Edwards quit the hedge fund when he found out that some of the investment vehicles involved subprime mortgage lending. He gave the money to a charity helping people rebuild in New Orleans, I believe.

And yes, he voted to normalize relations with China; this is not the same thing as NAFTA (for which the Clintons sacrificed universal healthcare in the 1990's, knowing they could only get one deal passed). The China deal carried regulations and protections that the Bush Administration HAS NOT ENFORCED. Edwards, as president, would enforce the law and go a step further by renegotiating better terms for U.S. workers and consumers.

The bankruptcy bill someone mentioned isn't the famously awful one passed by the Republican Congress a couple of years ago, but a "friendlier" version that was okayed by a number of democratic senators. Edwards earned a 96% AFL-CIO Working Families rating, for heaven's sake. He's hardly a corporate shill(ary?).

Posted by: LisaOhio | January 26, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Oh whine whine the Clintons play hard ball politics. Oh Boo Hoo Boo Hoo Hoo ir ia ao unDair . Make them stop talking about Obma oh it so unfair whineeeeeeeee.

Posted by: jg86 | January 26, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

"Hey YOU, Pretty Boy! How about a Vince Foster moment? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!"

Posted by: sawargos | January 26, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

All I know is that John's been working with and talking about middle class issues. Everyone else jumped on the bandwagon later, and I'm getting pretty bored with the "politics as usual" namecalling. By the time we have a nominee, Hillary and Barak will have given the Republicans enough ammuniion to drive the Dems back into the ground again in November. John Edwards is not buying into that whole mess, so for now, he's my guy. Though I will support any Democrat come November.

Posted by: hhaines | January 26, 2008 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps I am naive regarding the ethics of politics, especially when the stakes are as high as occupying the highest office in our nation, which is that of president of the United States. However, I am appalled at the purported dirty political tactics executed by the Clinton machine in an effort to win against Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama. I hope that the Clintons realize their political quest to become the next president of the United States by any means necessary. One's behavior on the political stump provides the country with a glimpse into one's behavior, ethics and modus operandi once one wins the White House. As a female voter, how very disappointing! Shame on you, Ms. Clinton!

Posted by: mrosegunn | January 26, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Pretty much what you would expect from Hillary. The suggestion that Edwards is responsible for foreclosures shows how underhanded Hillary is willing to play.

Posted by: KC11 | January 26, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

notice how it's only "negative" when the clinton campaign does it. obama and edwards can criticize all they want, and it's just that - criticism. why is it not the same for the clintons?

Posted by: matthewmaverick | January 26, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

I've always voted for a democratic president. I'm stumped this time as to who to vote for. Hillary and Clinton have a dirty bag of tricks to gang up against the other candidates. I don't trust Obama and I don't know if Edwards can be a leader. HELP! I love my country and I don't know where to go here.

Stuck at the crossroads in California

Posted by: adbokser | January 26, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Hillary and Bill Clinton are cannibalizing the base of the Democratic Party. It's one thing to be despised by conservatives, but quite another to disenfranchise liberal voters. Get used to John McCain; he'll be our next president.

Posted by: ivoryjay | January 26, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Between this and the Obama smearing it appears the Clinton machine will do anything and is not to be trusted. The more I pay attention to what's going in this election, the less I can stomach the Clintons. I voted for Bill twice and have never voted for a Republican President. After 8 years of Bush and his corruption, it's sad to see the Democratic side this far in the gutter. I'll be happy to vote for any other Democratic candidate.

Posted by: fwashpost | January 26, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

As the dynamic duo, the Clinton's, continue to centerstage themselves, they are reminding MORE of us just how much we do NOT WANT THEM BACK IN THE WH , of WHY we became so WEASRY as well as now, LEERY of them !!! They are indeed hard fighters, tuff in the political realm, but more of us DO NOT WANT THE SAME-O'ing to continue , we can do much better, we deserve better and time for Bill and Hillary to realize it really is NOT all about "them", it IS however about the betterment and greater common good of US, and the nation !! NO MORE OF THE SAME, we want fresh, new talent and this time around, we do have a chance at achieving that goal...no small matter, we DO comprehend how the system is rather rigged, but utltimately, we are going to take back our citizen empowerment and demand and achieve OUR say, OUR choice...THe Clintons are losing more than they are gaining, it will be proved so in the end of this game !!!

Posted by: Bozly54 | January 26, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Yes, AFTER HE MADE HALF A MILLION DOLLARS John Edwards divested of the hedge fund. Gee whiz, he got out before the market slumped. I wonder whether that's why he got out? Not because he chose an unethical investment instrument, but because his brokers were telling him the market was going to tank.

* Notice that he didn't think -- at the time -- it was unethical when he bought in.

* Just like he didn't think -- at the time -- it was a bad idea to normalize trade relations with China.

* And like he didn't think -- at the time -- it was a bad idea to vote for the Iraq war.

* And like he didn't think -- at the time -- it was a bad idea to support a clearly hideous bankruptcy "reform" bill that was a huge giveaway to the financiers ...

... who would later run his hedge fund.

Hmmm.

Maybe John Edwards just doesn't think.

Posted by: Antistrophos | January 26, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

if i were undecided vote to receive such call i would cast my vote afterward either for edwards or for obama. my reaction on hillary's dirt is the same as reactions of the majority; if hillary cusses one, it means this one is good.

Posted by: aepelbaum | January 26, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Typical Clinton Inc. Sleeze, slime and crime.

If Edwards does lose, and withdraws, he should attack Hillary's racial attacks against Obama, and dirty tricks against Edwards.

Posted by: JaxMax | January 26, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Whether Edwards divested all of his stakes or not, does Bonior dispute the FACT that Edwards made nearly a half a million dollars working for said Wall Street investment fund? How much of that $500,000 was put into the "fund" to help people facing foreclosures, and have any such people received money from the "fund"?

Posted by: JakeD | January 26, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company