Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Edwards Hits Iowa Airwaves

Following a week's worth of ads in Washington, D.C., former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) is set to launch ads in Iowa today (view one of the ads on our new video blog, Channel '08).

The ads are a near carbon copy to those that Edwards went up with last week in Washington -- seeking to draw a direct contrast with his rivals, especially Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), over the war in Iraq.

The ad buy is on both broadcast and cable but, according to buy information, is at extremely low levels. It will air in all Iowa TV markets, and the Omaha, Neb. market, which covers nearby Council Bluffs, Iowa.

In a conference call with reporters this afternoon, Edwards said "regular Iowans" from across the state will appear in the ads. He also invited supporters to submit online videos through his Web site to be added to future online-only versions of the ads.

Edwards also made it clear he disagrees with any talk of a compromise between the White House and Congressional leaders on legislation funding the Iraq war. "Compromise is concession on this question. The American people have made very clear that they want this war to end. It was a mandate in the election of November of 2006. And it's very important that Congress stand its ground."

Edwards' initial ads have created controversy as several Senators including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.), another presidential candidate, have implied that it is easy for Edwards to lob rhetorical bombs at his former colleagues since he knows he won't have to cast a vote on any war proposal.

But Edwards' campaign clearly sees value in drawing a bright line between himself and his rivals in the Senate. And he's likely to find fertile ground in Iowa where likely Democratic caucus-goers tend to be strongly opposed to the war and where polling already shows Edwards running strong.

For his part, Edwards said criticism of his statements from current members of Congress, "is all process. What matters is: are we doing everything in our power to bring this war to an end?"

Edwards' campaign knows that in order for him to have a realistic chance at the Democratic nomination he must win in Iowa. He placed second in the state's 2004 caucuses and by all accounts was surging at the end and couild have upended Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) if the campaign had been extended.

He has lavished time on the state since that defeat and has already made 14 campaign visits to the Hawkeye State so far in 2007, according to washingtonpost.com's new Campaign Tracker. (Bookmark it if you haven't already.)

If Edwards wins in Iowa, the race officially becomes a three-way horserace all the way until the new Super Tuesday on February 5.

With reporting by washingtonpost.com's Ed O'Keefe.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 8, 2007; 4:55 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Rudy Inks Top Fundraiser
Next: New Romney Ad Says "Now Is the Time"

Comments

hmjlwmutci http://www.214346.com/837248.html yk66b35dee2hd9e54

Posted by: yzidsdee8k | May 28, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

hmjlwmutci [URL=http://www.206299.com/468672.html] h367qgj8vwt3 [/URL] yk66b35dee2hd9e54

Posted by: yzidsdee8k | May 28, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

hmjlwmutci rj2n5vrh0k [URL=http://www.206299.com/468672.html] h367qgj8vwt3 [/URL] yk66b35dee2hd9e54

Posted by: yzidsdee8k | May 28, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

9rtprp90ah h7c69wp3s7ri 7absx7gs5e6gwz4

Posted by: zii6mrittz | May 20, 2007 9:20 PM | Report abuse

9rtprp90ah http://www.536044.com/228997.html 7absx7gs5e6gwz4

Posted by: zii6mrittz | May 20, 2007 9:20 PM | Report abuse

9rtprp90ah [URL=http://www.635377.com/862156.html] m9ymjxotih8gox [/URL] 7absx7gs5e6gwz4

Posted by: zii6mrittz | May 20, 2007 9:20 PM | Report abuse

9rtprp90ah epaq0a430w6 [URL=http://www.635377.com/862156.html] m9ymjxotih8gox [/URL] 7absx7gs5e6gwz4

Posted by: zii6mrittz | May 20, 2007 9:19 PM | Report abuse

Blarg: I don't think Kerry, Kennedy or Pelosi are phoneys. They don't pretent do be country boy populists and then get 400 haircuts.

If you want to be a limosine liberal, be one for real. Edwards is a phoney.

Posted by: Razorback | May 9, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse

So, basically, you don't believe that it's possible for rich people to advocate for the poor. Anyone who does so is a phony. And since only the rich can participate in politics, that effectively means that no politicians will do things that help the poor.

Coincidentally, policies that help the poor violate your worldview. (Because they involve taxation, government regulation, and some degree of wealth redistribution.) So attacking those who want to help the poor is all part of your evangelism of the free market. How convenient for you.

Posted by: Blarg | May 9, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Confused,

Edwards cared about poverty in 2004. The Iraq war in 2007 is different than in 2004. It has escalated and turned into a civil war rather than brought about a stable government in Iraq. It has come to light that we were manipulated by misinformation into attacking Iraq. So, yes, people who supported it years ago are now saying it is time to leave. Personally I was against the war from the start because I believed it would only bring about more violence, terrorism and hatred of the USA. Once Bush started the war, I was hoping that I was wrong but unfortunately I wasn't.

Posted by: dali | May 9, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Blarg says:

Razorback, why are you criticizing John Edwards? He's rich. Shouldn't you be worshipping at his feet and doing whatever he says? That's what the free market is all about!

I think that its great that Edwards is rich. I agree that he earned it. I think its just fine if he wants to live in a 29,000 square foot house and get $400 tax cuts while getting rich off of a hedge fund that sets up tax dodges in the Caymans.

My problem with Edwards is that he is a phoney. He is a pretend populist. He says he thinks inequality is immoral, but he has no problem with he own unequal status.

Posted by: Razorback | May 9, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Edwards record:

While in the Senate, votes to give President Bush the authorization. Sat on the Intel Committee. Was a centrist dem in '04 from NC.

Now: Not in Senate yet railing against sitting Senators to do something about the war he helped create. All of a sudden cares about poverty. Does his announcement from New Orleans.

To me, everything he does seems to be judged by what the poll says at the time. He is the ultimate of ultimate panderers and frankly his lack of judgment on the major issues to me disqualifies him.

Hillary at least hasn't apologized and has stuck to her guns and Barack Obama has been right on this issue from the start. Being against the war in 2002 was pretty unpopular. I like the leaders who stick to their guns or stand up for what they believe in no matter what the public opinion is on the subject.

Posted by: Confused | May 9, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

sorry about the incomplete anonymous post - did not mean to hit submit and thought I had stopped it in time.

Posted by: JimD in FL | May 9, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Andy said "...any republican that wins will be a huge win for christians in this country"

Sally termed conservatives as "phonies and vile and vicious and truly evil. Understand who your enemies and who would destroy this country for their own selfish reasons."

For those of us in the middle of the ideological spectrum, these statements represent a great deal of what we despise about the current state of politics in this country. Too many on the right see liberals as enemies of God and too many on the left see conservatives as evildoers out to oppress the poor and middle class. This is ridiculous.

We are now in the stage of the presidential campaign where both parties' candidates are pandering to the ideological base of their parties. I find it very depressing. They need to remember that the right wing is only about 33% of the country and the left amounts to about 22% based on polling data I have seen over the years (these numbers might not be precisely correct but they are roughly accurate). Neither side can win an election without capturing a lot of us independent moderates. No one is honestly addressing a host of real problems that need concrete solutions not ideological slogans.

Posted by: JimD in FL | May 9, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Andy said "...any republican that wins will be a huge win for christians in this country"

Sally termed conservatives as "phonies and vile and vicious and truly evil. Understand who your enemies and who would destroy this country for their own selfish reasons."

For those of us in the middle of the ideological spectrum, these statements represent a great deal of what we despise about the current state of politics in this country. Too many on the right see liberals as enemies of God and too many on the left see conservatives as evil. This is ridiculous. We are now in the stage of the presidential campaign where both parties' candidates are pandering to the ideological base of their parties. I find it very depressing. They need to remember that the right wing is only about 33% of the country and the left amounts to about 22% based on polling data I have seen over the years (these numbers might not be precisely correct but they are roughly accurate). Neither side can win an election without capturing a lot of us independent moderates.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 11:11 AM | Report abuse

I think Edwards scares the hell out of the front-running Dems and the Republicans alike.

Sure he's rich. Which of the candidates isn't at least well above average in wealth?

But I give him credit for focusing attention on the inequality issue and especially on universal healthcare. Both will give him traction in the campaign.

That's opposed to Obama's plan to help automakers fund their pension liabilities as a lever to get them to improve mileage in their cars. Great for Detroit and Michigan, but the rest of us only benefit IF and WHEN the mileage improvements are commercially available. Frankly, I don't want to see taxpayers subsidize General Motors' and Ford's poor past management practices. That's wrongheaded.

Posted by: pacman | May 9, 2007 10:59 AM | Report abuse

I see Edwards' add, urging the Congress not to back down and give Pres. Bush a blank check to continue fighting in Iraq, as providing a mouthpiece for the people. A clear majority of the American people want us to start moving out of Iraq. I, persoally worked hard to get out the vote in the November 2006 elections and I have felt frustrated that Congress won't take the reigns in stopping this war. I have given gave Edwards money to help finance these adds and I am proud of him for having the courage to step out of the box and stand up for us, to represent my voice. This is a matter of life and death, not just politics. As a person of faith who has faced the most intense life and death matters in his own nuclear family, I believe that John Edwards is truly fighting for what he believes is the right thing to do. He is courageous enough to take on the bashing that has followed, and that he knew would follow. All the other candidates want to play it too safe.

Posted by: dali | May 9, 2007 10:53 AM | Report abuse

It seems that Edwards is sincere about helping the poor, but this new add (which this post is about, people) is a cheap shot below the belt.

This is the reason Edwards is a hypocrit. Trying to skew people's opinion of the Senators without having to put his money where his mouth is.

Kudos to Chris Dodd for fighting back.

Posted by: William | May 9, 2007 10:00 AM | Report abuse

I'm fairly sure we can't all agree on that.

Posted by: Blarg | May 9, 2007 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Can we all agree on that if the Republicans win the election then there should never be a chance for a liberal to ever win again. The reason for this is the amount of hatred and biased media that the libs are putting out there everyday, the hatred for Bush, Cheney and Rove ...any republican that wins will be a huge win for christians in this country and show what Americans really want. The libs own 90% of the media...how can they not win.

Posted by: Andy | May 9, 2007 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Edwards worked at a hedge fund company called Fortress. While he was there, Fortress went public, allowing greater scrutiny of their records and methods. They were the first hedge fund to do so.

Razorback, why are you criticizing John Edwards? He's rich. Shouldn't you be worshipping at his feet and doing whatever he says? That's what the free market is all about!

Posted by: Blarg | May 9, 2007 9:22 AM | Report abuse

true blue says:

"Put together with that is that in general, the conservatives on this blog do not justify their postions logically". True blue then complains about "sneering".

Then Sally joins in. Keep up the good work, she says and then SNEERS "you see through the so-called 'conservatives' for what they are -- phonies and vile and vicious and truly evil. Understand who your enemies and who would destroy this country for their own selfish reasons."

How logical is that, true blue? Does Sally's entirely unsupported statement about people "destroying the country" who are "vicious and truly evil" qualify as illogical sneering?

And try this logic:

Edwards says there are "2 americas" that are unequal. The $400 haircut and 29,000 square foot house logically indicate which of these 2 Americas that Edwards is in. Edwards obviously does not think that he own unequal status is immoral, yet says that inequality is a moral issue. Edwards answer to this logical dilemma was given by his wife when challenged about the huge house. He "earned it".

So, inequality is ok, provided someone earns it. That is Edwards real position, and guess what Dick Cheney would say if asked about his unequal status? I earned it. Cheney and Edwards position on the morality of inequality are the same. Its ok if I earned it.

How is that for logic?

Now, lets try some illogic.

Edwards worked for a hedge fund and got rich. Sally said at least back in the guilded age some started colleges and hospitals as part of he protest about people hitting Edwards.

How many hospitals has Edwards started? Edwards kept the money for Edwards. What is so noble about that? Then Edwards gave the completely illogical statement that he was doing it to learn about poverty, even though in the last election, Edwards said he already knew about poverty from growing up poor. What can someone who grows up poor learn about poverty by working at a hedge fund that sets up tax dodges in the Caymans?

The illogical sneerers should be more careful about who they call illogical sneerers.

Posted by: Razorback | May 9, 2007 8:55 AM | Report abuse

'According to the White House, President Bush sent Cheney on the trip to discuss "key issues of mutual interests" and closely follows Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's participation in a two-day international conference on Iraq in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.

Also Wednesday, at least 12 people were killed and 50 were wounded when a truck bomb exploded near an office of the Ministry of the Interior in Irbil in northern Iraq, according to a Kurdish Coalition spokesman.'

Cheney goes to iraq to beg the government not to take the entire summer off -- wow, they've learned a lot from bushieboy, haven't they? Their 'government is almost as lazy and incompetent and corrupt as his.

And the violence spreads into Kurdistan. Just keeps getting better, doesn't it, deadenders?

And I see the ignorant cowards/chickenhawks razor and queen of kooks have already been on here. Really, what could be more cowardly than a chickenhawk? It's really the definition of cowardice. To urge others to fight a war for you --that you refuse to fight yourself. To wet yourself in fear, yet still cheerlead more war! more war!

Makes you vomit, doesn't it? How utterly repulsive.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Keep up your standards, true blue -- you see through the so-called 'conservatives' for what they are -- phonies and vile and vicious and truly evil. Understand who your enemies and who would destroy this country for their own selfish reasons.

Tell your mom to wake up and live.

Posted by: Sally | May 9, 2007 8:04 AM | Report abuse

It is in the most honorable tradition in this country, and others, for those who have advantages to stand up for those who don't. In the gilded age, at least some of those who made a fortune gave something back to society... started colleges, hospitals, institutions of culture.

Now we just have mostly selfisish, empty headed morons like Trump and Hilton. I say thank god for anything Edwards does to help the disadvantaged -- they have truly suffered under this monstrously selfish republican regime.

Posted by: Sally | May 9, 2007 8:02 AM | Report abuse

Hey, I'm a student from Iowa, and I've been following your discussions for several weeks. One thing I would like to add - I know that this is a political blog focused on campaigns, but I really hope we don't lose sight of the issues.
To me, on the issues, the Democratic platform is more sensible and forward-looking than the GOP's, and so I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is.
Put together with that is that in general, the conservatives on this blog do not justify their postions logically, but rather sneer at liberals or question their patriotism / intelligence / bravery, and my position becomes a no-brainer.
Probably I'm still naive, and I will not be surprised by this next time around, but for now, I have higher standards.

btw - my father is republican, my brother and uncles are conservative democrats, and my mom doesn't vote.

Posted by: true blue | May 9, 2007 8:02 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Most Americans disagree with President Bush's decision last week to veto the war funding bill that contained a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

What do they think Congress should do now?

Former Sen. John Edwards said Congress shouldn't back down. "If we don't have the votes to override the veto, the Congress should send him another bill with the funding authority for the troops, with a timetable for withdrawal," the Democratic presidential candidate said.

The public agrees. In the new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Tuesday, 59 percent want Congress to pass another bill with funding and timetables.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 9, 2007 7:55 AM | Report abuse

As a supporter of John Edwards for president, I have to ask his naysayers if the rich don't stand up for the poor, who will? I'm tired of pundits and idealogues criticizing Edwards for being rich and still supporting welfare actions to help the poor. Who cares if he's rich? For God's sake, George Bush owned a baseball team! Who cares?!!?

The point is that this country really needs somebody to shrink the widening gap between the rich and the poor. Yeah Edwards is rich, but he earned it and can't be scorned for his successes. I give him credit for developing policies that are aimed at helping those still stuck in poverty so that one day they will have the same advantages that he has earned for himself.

Posted by: Sak | May 9, 2007 6:19 AM | Report abuse

Note how Edwards' opponents in the comments section have totally avoided Edwards' position on the Iraq war and have moved to discuss haircuts and hedge funds.
They know that Edwards is the most decisive, anti-war candidate for the Democrats, and if Americans become aware of that, nobody will stop Edwards.

Posted by: Andres Perez | May 9, 2007 12:18 AM | Report abuse

Wanted: A New Truman, Newsweek Says

Newsweek examines the presidential courage, or lack thereof, among the 2008 candidates, including a new poll that indicates the contender most often credited with courage by voters is Republican Rudy Giuliani, cited by 48 percent (42 percent named GOP candidate John McCain, 43 percent cited Democrat Hillary Clinton).

http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/wanted-new-truman-newsweek-says.html

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Hey, let's dress up like cops and soldiers and shoot the Democrats next door with my dad's gun!

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 8, 2007 10:15 PM | Report abuse

I really don't believe in democracy.

HOUSE... OF... BUSH!
HOUSE... OF... BUSH!
HOUSE... OF... BUSH!
HOUSE... OF... BUSH!
HOUSE... OF... BUSH!

Hey, let's sneak into the girls' locker room!

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 8, 2007 9:53 PM | Report abuse

The Pagan:

At least we agree that haircuts are important. News flash for you, Bush isn't running. Up until I was about 7, when I got in trouble I would say "my sister did it too". It never worked. When I got to 8, I gave up on that argument. How old are you the Pagan?

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 8:23 PM | Report abuse

The Loyal Bushies have cost taxpayers four million dollars in haircuts. And did you see George Junior himself? First he gets grey hair when he realizes he lost the war to a bunch of homeless people with HBIEDs - Homemade Bombs, and CBs - Car Bombs, and then he goes and gets one of those expensive womanly hair dies to cover up his gray hair! Why does the Washington Post not report on the cost to taxpayers of Junior's womanly hair die? A mighty aircraft carrier had to be rerouted to the Womans hair salon! And then as soon as he got it, his hair turned gray again as soon as he heard about the new kind of car bomb that can pierce the scrap metal the troops had to scrounge from garbage dumps to glue onto their Unarmored Humvees - the Unarmored Humvee Firecracker - UHF - also known as the CBHB, or as Bush advisor Pastor Ted Haggard calls it, The BAP - The Born-Again Penetrator.

Posted by: The Christ | May 8, 2007 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps Edwards is now realizing that he is slipping with Dems and needs Iowa as the only vote where he has a shot at a win. His campaign has been wobbling for some time now.
http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: mpp | May 8, 2007 8:18 PM | Report abuse

The comments remind me of the song "Ain't that a shame". by Pat Boone and Fats Domino, in that Pat Boone was on the far right, of the Nashville crowd and Fats was a man of the common folk. Check record sales and you will see what I mean.

Posted by: lylepink | May 8, 2007 8:13 PM | Report abuse

I was in Washington DC last month and heard all of the candidates (except Rudy) speak at a convention. Edwards was by far the most impressive-- Democratic or Republican.

Posted by: Marie | May 8, 2007 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin:

You are right about the distinction between "equality" and "equal opportunity". Many liberals believe this, but few say it. I imagine Edwards told his hedge fund colleagues that he means "equal opportunity", but when he goes to New Orleans, its just "equality".

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 7:16 PM | Report abuse

Razorback was well within the service of equality of OPPORTUNITY when he posted that "...inequality is ok as long as someone "earns it".

However, I suspect that even most American liberals agree - I could be wrong. I did know a sister-at-the-bar who actually believed that a level playing field meant repeatedly giving handouts to those who refused to help themselves and who believed in "open borders" so we "could share our wealth". That sort of vestigial hippiedom is not what I usually see represented here, on this blog - and I have never heard Edwards argue for it, although I do not profess intimacy with his speeches.

I think that "equality of opportunity" was part of the vision behind Franklin's notion of "public schools" and Lincoln's fostering of the Morrill Land Grant Act. And, I could buy both the community college systems and Head Start as following in those traditions.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | May 8, 2007 7:01 PM | Report abuse

Edwards has been in Iowa for a number of years and it is only natural that the folk there know him better on a personal basis than the other dems. The really good thing for Hillary is that any good showing that even comes close to Edwards, is in her favor, Mercy !!, Mercy, if she should win, what can the lefties or righties say? I am sure there will be a spin.

Posted by: lylepink | May 8, 2007 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Spartan,
It's hard to look at Edwards as anything other than a hypocrit. He is rich and he lives rich. Being a legitimate populist does not only require that at one point you were "one of the people", it requires that you live your life in a way that demonstrates you remember where you came from. Actions, not words, are what's required. My parents were poor children of coalminers. They have done quite well (wealthy/comfortable) but would not think in an million years to get a $400 haircut. If Edwards did not run as a populist man of the people, the $400 haircut would not have been an issue. It was soley because it shows him being a hypocrit.

Posted by: Dave! | May 8, 2007 6:43 PM | Report abuse

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | May 8, 2007 6:11 PM | Report abuse

The other problem with Edwards is that he is a phoney spinner. Why didn't he just say he is free to earn whatever the market will pay? Instead he has to wiggle and spin and say something almost as stupid as "I didn't inhale". Wasn't it in 2004 that he used to say he learned about poverty first hand growing up poor in the rural South? What more is there for him to learn about poverty?

Edwards is a paid mouthpeice. He used to pander to juries for dollars, now he panders for votes. He just says what he thinks someone wants to hear. He is pretend populist, and if you think that is a non-issue, read what DeeDee Myers said about pretent populists after Clinton's famouse haircut:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/anecdotes/2.html

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Spartan:

Edwards response to his mansion and his hedge fund job is that its just fine, because "he earned it".

So lets talk about the poverty issue, but don't forget Spartan, inequality is ok as long as someone "earns it". If Edwards earned his spot in the rich side of the two Americas, it is also ok to say that someone who drops out of school and chooses to do dope such that they have no job skills earned there place in life?

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 6:02 PM | Report abuse

so in other words "no" just like i thought. probably cant defend the indefensible.

oh well the day is still nice and im going outside for some lawn work that needs doing.

Posted by: spartan | May 8, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

this topic was Edwards but fire away. don't expect much if ignorant coward and his cronies sign on.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 8, 2007 5:51 PM | Report abuse

"His issues don't warrant discussion because soaking the rich is not a policy, it is a crutch."

ok fine, lets discuss repubican policies and how they affect everyone, or are there any posters on here mature enough to do that?
>

anyone? buller?buller?

Posted by: spartan | May 8, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

"worked for a hedge fund to learn more about financial markets and their relationship to poverty"


SSSShhhhh, he is a super secret spy for the poor. Ignore the big house, the haircuts, the suits, it is just a cover. how many poor people are associated with hedge funds? this clown is becoming too much to believe. Wait till Leno gets hold of this.

spartan, the issue is that this guy is a total fake, a suit with expensive hair. His issues don't warrant discussion because soaking the rich is not a policy, it is a crutch.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 8, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Tuesday that he worked for a hedge fund to learn more about financial markets and their relationship to poverty in the United States.
Edwards won't disclose how much he got paid as a consultant to Fortress Investment Group, but said he did keep the money.

um ok razor,what your saying is that he should have worked for free? seriously do you even think before you type? this is a nonstory, even the $400 haircut was stupid to bring up? hey here's a thought, lets talk about issues instead of laughing about someone's job

Posted by: spartan | May 8, 2007 5:30 PM | Report abuse

Edwards will flop like a rag doll of one of his opponents has the stones to hit him on this from today's wire:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Tuesday that he worked for a hedge fund to learn more about financial markets and their relationship to poverty in the United States.
Edwards won't disclose how much he got paid as a consultant to Fortress Investment Group, but said he did keep the money.

"It was primarily to learn, but making money was a good thing, too," the 2004 vice presidential nominee said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Edwards said it's legitimate to ask questions about whether there is a contradiction between campaigning against poverty while working for a hedge fund that is designed to make rich people richer.

HA HA HA. Isn't that a laffer? He went to work for a hedge fund that is a Cayman Islands tax dodge to study poverty.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 5:25 PM | Report abuse

"If Edwards wins in Iowa, the race officially becomes a three-way horserace all the way until the new Super Tuesday on February 5."

Can't any of the announced canidates wait to like, i dunno, NOVEMBER?!? im more concerned about who's gonna win the stanley cup or the nba finals right now.

the game plan for these folks should be lay low, raise money and stay out of sight. just because america is interested in 2008 this early doesnt mean they can overexpose themselves right now.

Posted by: spartan | May 8, 2007 5:12 PM | Report abuse

The Des Moines Register has Edwards in front among likely Dem caucus-goers and McCain in front among Reps. Both have widened their leads recently.

On the Dem side, Biden and Richardson each gained 4% after the "debate", mainly at the expense of Sen. Obama and somewhat at the expense of Sen. Clinton.

On the Rep side, McCain gained substantially after the Rep "debate" which the columnist for the Register thought McCain "won".

I think the IA caucus is a measure of the party "base" support in each tent. The idea that one must be President of Alabama AND Massachusetts just has nothing to do with the IA caucuses.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | May 8, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company