Edwards Jumps the Shark (updated)

by Taylor Marsh

It's getting ugly. First we had Obama talking about Clinton as "Bush-Cheney lite." Today we have a new twist and it isn't into presidential territory.

Who said this?

"Wake up America. The White House is not for sale; the Lincoln bedroom is not for sale.''

Republican Bob Dole said it in 1996.

How about this:

"I believe they have had moved that sign the buck stops here from the Oval Office desk to the buck stops here on the Lincoln Bedroom. And that's not good for the country."

George W. Bush spewed this crap in 2000. As most everyone knows, the Lincoln Bedroom smear became a Republican standard against the Clintons.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush sanctimoniously accused Clinton of "virtually renting out the Lincoln bedroom to big campaign donors." He condemned the use of the "hallowed" chamber for political payoffs.

Selling Lincoln bedroom disrespectful, by Helen Thomas

In 1997, Ann Lewis had to go on "The News Hour" to address the attack that became a continual talking point from wingnuts: For two straight days President Clinton denied there was any improper use of the Lincoln Bedroom and other White House functions in raising campaign funds for his 1996 re-election campaign. Jim Lehrer leads a discussion with Ann Lewis, assistant to the President, and White House Deputy Director of Communications, and three regional commentators who disagree with the President's view.

Fast forward. Now how about this beauty. Who said it?

"The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate."

Rudy Giuliani, right?

Nah, Mitt Romney, that's got to be it!

Wrong.

It's John Edwards in a speech he gave today in New Hampshire.

This is how an email from NBC First Read characterized the speech:

The Re-Launch: So is Edwards trying to re-launch his campaign? It depends on how one interprets a speech he's giving today in New Hampshire, where he attempts to re-frame the race in a way that makes him the real change agent in the Democratic race. "The choice for our party could not be more clear," Edwards will say, according to advance excerpts. "We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other." He also will say, "The choice we must make is as important as it is clear. It is a choice between looking back and looking forward. A choice between the way we've always done it and the way we could do it if we dared. It is caution versus courage. Old versus new. Calculation versus principle. It is the establishment elites versus the American people." This, it seems, will be the argument that Edwards plans to use against Clinton for the rest of the campaign. At a minimum, consider this the new stump speech.

They just left out the Clinton money quote Edwards used today, which is straight out of the right-wing playbook. There are plenty of ways to come at Clinton on the issues, especially Iraq. But if this is the Edwards re-launch, I hope it makes a turn into better territory. Because between Obama's "Bush-Cheney lite" and Edwards talking about "The Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent," I've got to say that these guys sound positively desperate.

UPDATE: Edwards aides respond, via an email exchange I had with the campaign.

Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh

Comments

[nippersdad]

Well, there just isn't anything that I could add or any comments that merit arguing with. I'm starting to get a really good feeling about the upcoming elections! Hooray!

Ms. Marsh, I really like your columns, but I think that this one is off base. Sorry.

[EastCoastKid]

My sentiments exactly.

Taylor, normally I agree with your positions; but it's pretty clear, you are a Hillary fan.

Judging by the comments here, you are in the slightest minority.

All I can say is I hope everyone who has posted intends to vote. If this were a poll, Hillary would have her A double S handed to her. (Its like that at every site I visit.)

[oafishcad]

It's pretty depressing that Huffington Post keeps slamming Democratic Candidates for saying things that SHOULD be said. What? Does the blogger think the Lincoln bedroom SHOULD be up for rent? Just because some past conservative said something does not make it wrong. Goldwater also said Falwell needs his ass kicked for mixing religion and politics. Was that wrong because it was said by a conservative? I guess only Obama can do no wrong in the world of Huff. Does the fact that the veracity of the posts is lessened every time one of these smear jobs (including those that distort conservatives) not matter to the people who run this site? It's downright Rovian.

[Dap]

I hope you read the update in Ms. Marsh's post. Bu$h is no conservative, he is however a hypocrite and a fascist, no doubt about it.

[gcswift2]

Um... Duh!!!
It's about time that the candidates start talking about the things that differentiate them. I've been saying for months now that Sen. Clinton has been bought and paid for by the groups she claims to want to restrain. Who endorses and donates to you says as much about you as the amount of money you collect. Its intellectually dishonest to think your donaters don't EXPECT something in return for their money. Say for example I give my $5 dollars to Sen. Obama; I expect him to work for people like me. The Corporations who give millions of dollars to Sen Clinton EXPECT her to work for THEM. I work for the guy who pays me. Simple isn't it..

As far as her endorsers.­.. Fortune Magazine is Cosmo for NeoCons for Gods sake. When Pat Buchannon says that you are the best candidate.­.. maybe your on the wrong side?! When the PROPAGANDA WING (Faux News) of the Opposition party refers to you as the defacto candidate?! When all (ALL) of the (wildly unpopular) opposition party want you to be the candidate either one of 2 things is likely:
1) They are gonna steal the Election (AGAIN!!!)
2) If (IF?!?!) they loose they don't mind loosing to you.

C'mon Liberals, Saudi Arabia is NOT our Ally and Senator Clinton is NOT our Candidate.

[Dap]

Dear Ms. Marsh,

Oh Boy! Because I am truly fond of you I will be forwarding a quart of sweet wild flower honey, it works great as a lubricant that is safe and effective for removal of a foot stuck in ones mouth.

Agape.

John Edwards 08

[Dap]

PS.

Please don't ask me how I know the sweet wild flower honey remedy works, but I will say I can get my shoe on now. :)

[FearlessFreep]

So are you saying that the American people DON'T deserve "to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate." Or just that no Democrat should say that they deserve it?

If that's a cheap shot, Hillary deserves it richly.

[OhPlease2007]

***(2ND ATTEMPT TO GET TAYLOR MARSH ON THE RECORD)***

Taylor Marsh: What Is YOUR Position On Renting Out The Lincoln Bedroom ???

Taylor, I could not help but notice that you failed to give us YOUR position on whether you think renting out the Lincoln bedroom in The White House is right or wrong. So, ... what exactly is YOUR position on the subject?

To think that Senator Edwards' message doesn't resonate with Idependent and undecided voters ... is, in my opinion, in itself, 'Jumping The Shark' & is not living in the real world. I can strongly & confidently speak for millions; renting out the Lincoln bedroom in The White House for political gain, is, flat-out, UNETHICAL ... 'no matter WHAT party you claim to belong to.'

And quite frankly, comparing Senator Edwards to the GOP ??? That's something we all feel Faux News would do.

This race is WIDE open; thanks for the post.

[Helzapoppin]

You want a "Jump The Shark" moment? How about when Hillary proudly announced she would continue to gobble up lobbyist money because they represented "real Americans"? But then, she wouldn't let them influence her decisions. . . Hmm. . . so Hillary won't let "real Americans" influence her decisions? Which is it, Hill? If this were a just world, that moment should have knocked the bottom right out of her campaign. The fact that it did not truly saddens me for the state of this country.

You would have to pry a vote for Hillary from my cold dead hands (oh, no! A right-wing talking point!)

I prefer Edwards. I would vote for Obama, although I don't have as much confidence in him. I would vote for Gore. Richardson, I would rather see as Sec of State. Hillary? Not a chance in hell. Those who want a return to the Clinton years don't know how much damage the Clintons did in those 8 years.

[redding888]

Hillary Clinton is irredeemably corrupt. It started with turning $1000 into $100,000 in a few weeks trading commodities and cattle futures in the late 70's. I used to sell investments. No newcomer could make that kind of money without insider knowledge. Her friends at Stephens Investments in Little Rock facilitated those transactions.

Stephens is connected to the rich Asian family, the Riadys, and other interests in Taiwan. The Lincoln Bedroom had to do with the TAiwan lobbying scandal of the mid 1990's.

The idea of rehashing all this in 2008 exhausts me. Please, please Dem primary voters in Iowas, NH, SC, and Nevada-- don't give the nomination to someone this lifelong Dem will have to vote for pinching my nose.

[TRYKER]

"They sound positively desperate?" hmm
He sounds like hes right on the money, change, courage a new way...no lobbyists running the govt.
What is so negative about this approach?
Or is it that you just don't want Edwards in the WH?

[jwielhouwer]

He just got my and my house's vote.

[StrategicThinker]

Read the speech. I don't know if Taylor Marsh read it all, because there is no way you can read that speech and not agree with every word in it, or come to the conclusion that it's some kind of hit-job on Clinton and Obama.

It was a punch in DC's nose.

[Jimmyboyo]

actualy the blogspere is eating it up and is basicaly crowning Edwards the one and ture populist progressive.

Hillary supporters 3 days late and 1 step away from being bush jr.

[Ani]

Taylor, you're wrong here. Mr. Edwards has NOT jumped the shark, nor has he even come close to putting on the waterskis. I favor an Edwards/Obama ticket and will vote accordingly. I live in a Red state, but I'd bet Edwards can win here. Hillary doesn't have a chance. And, stop with the haircut thing, and the hedgefund thing, and all the other nasties to discredit Mr. Edwards and his family. If we choose Hillary as the Dem candidate, we'll certainly lose the white house as well as Congress. Please, no more republicans. I don't think this country can weather even four more years of neo-con, right wing rule.

[eplebneesta]

Since capitalism allows the royals to have an unfair advantage in the voting process, it destroys the one citizen/one vote ideal of the Constitution. I'm (mostly) OK w/capitalism, it just has NO part in the electoral process. (Capitalism sucks, e.g., when it puts poisonous lead paint on my kids' toys or kills miners for extra profits.)

(I'm gonna keep typing this till I'm blue in the fingers)
Large contributions effectively give the contributor more than the one vote guaranteed by the Constitution. These campaign contributions are speciously legal due to an abuse of the first amendment that considers contributi­ons/bribes to be free speech. Fine. But nothing says that anyone MUST LISTEN to anyone's free speech. I can exercise my right to free speech: "Mr President, allow your staff to testify under oath." And aWol is free to reject my suggestion. And that is legal, as it should be. So when a royal exercises its right to free speech, "Here's a bunch of money for your campaign (wink, wink). Sotto voce: "Who will rid me of these troublesome laws?", a politician is free to say no thanks. So REJECTING a contribution in no way abridges anyone's 1st amendment rights. And so, to prevent undue influence and to allow equal access to all candidates on a level playing field, we must bar campaign contributions of any kind and provide a tax funded campaigning service to all candidates. This will ensure that everyone's vote has the same value.

We *must* vote out any politician who does not support campaign finance reform.

E Pleb Neesta
GODISNOWHERE
Blessed are the cheese makers.
If HPV vaccination leads to promiscuity, then confession leads to sin.

[eplebneesta]

Regardless of who says it or how it is said, the ownership of our government by rich/corporate (call 'em royalty) interests is the root cause of almost every major problem of the government.

The royals' huge and wildly disproportionate influence on elections and government policy has effectively split the electorate into two parts: the royals and the people. If we consider effective votes to be the stock of America, then the royals own shares of "preferred" or voting stock and we all own simple common stock. We all own one share, but they are of very different value. A royal's influence is far greater because its wealth and power allows it to buy far more page space, web space and air time to promote its candidates and swift-boat its rivals. And to finance all of the other expenses of a campaign.

If a royal can bring its candidate's message to 1000x more people than I can, then that royal has more effect on an election than I do. But the Constitution guarantees equality and one vote per citizen in the political process. This is different, IMO, than a dedicated person out spreading the word, engaging people on the issues, carrying signs, etc. It's different because in one case it is the person doing it and in the other it is its money doing it. "Of, by and for the people." People, not $.

In matters of business, e.g., 1000x more advertising is perfectly fair, IMO. But the election of our government IS NOT (or should not be) a capitalistic endeavor. Democracy is our lawful political system. Capitalism is simply the currently *chosen* economic system and cannot be allowed to control the Democratic process. Capitalism is not ordained in any way in the Constitution.