Source at Fund-Raiser: Edwards Calls McCain 'Crazy' and Says Hillary Thinks There's More on Rezko
Before John Edwards let David Letterman mess up his hair on the Late Show last night, the former Senator was at a private fund-raiser in midtown Manhattan, also attended by Kevin Bacon, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins and Alex Forger—one of the co-executors of the Jackie Onassis estate.
A reader who attended the event—held in the Fifth Avenue home of Edwards contributor Joseph Bondi—emailed me last night with this report of Edwards' remarks:
He did mention that he thought McCain was the likely Republican nominee and that McCain was “crazy”—unfit to have his “finger on the button.”
He said that Hillary and Obama have true dislike for each other and that after the most recent debate Hillary mentioned to John in passing that there’s more about Obama and that “slum landlord” [Rezko] that has yet to be disclosed to the public.
Tim Robbins raised the possibility of a brokered convention and Edwards mentioned that it was remote but a possibility.
This is, obviously, an account from an unnamed source. But it's someone I've dealt with in the past and whom I trust. The source confirmed the email account to me more than once. And just to be totally clear on the most noteworthy element—Edwards' account of his conversation with Hillary about Rezko—the source said that Edwards gave no indication that Hillary suggested that it was her campaign that had the Rezko-dirt. (Common sense suggests that she wouldn't have said anything of the sort to anyone, let alone to one of her opponents.)
I talked to another attendee who declined to elaborate on Edwards' comments, but didn't deny them. And a colleague and I are trying to track down other people who we know were there.
I ran this account by the Edwards campaign earlier this morning and, after multiple communications back and forth, I'm still waiting for an official response.
If anyone else who was there has any more information, please email me.
UPDATE: Response just in from Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz:
"This is a bungled version of what Edwards said, like a bad game of telephone. As John Edwards has said many times, Democrats would be crazy to nominate the wrong person against John McCain. People will think about whose finger they want on the button and question whether Senator Obama's experience may or may not cut it. Edwards has told reporters he's not going to talk about conversations with other candidates, but based on Monday night's debate with Obama using Wal-Mart and Hillary using Rezko, anyone who thinks this is over missed Senator Clinton's statement that they're just getting warmed up."
UPDATE: Horowitz talked to another attendee. Again, the attendee wouldn’t comment on the specifics but didn’t deny anything.
UPDATE: Clinton campaign spokesman Jay Carson emailed to say Edwards’ remarks about Hillary Clinton's remarks, as conveyed by the attendee at the fund-raiser, are “not an accurate account of their conversation.”
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
This is the side of Edwards the public doesn't see. But it's refreshing.
A candidate with balls.
HE'S GOT MY VOTE!
It had to be SUSAN SARONDON.
She's like that.
She loves seeing her name in print!
Senator Edwards is absolutely right. McCain is a nutjob and shouldn't be president.
The sad part is that Edwards is the only Democrat who can beat him and he's trailing. If the rest of the country doesn't wake up to this reality soon, and Edwards is forced out, we're going to have another Republican president.
Look, Obama has a had a clear strategy of getting Republicans to come to open primaries and caucuses to support him. There is nothing wrong with that. He ran an ad in predominantly Republican Northern Nevada targeting Republicans and letting them know they could switch their registration for a day to participate. Again, I have no problem with that. The issue I have with Obama is the way he did it. In the Reno Editorial Board Meeting, he basically said that people were ready for Reagan because they grew tired of the excesses of the 60's and 70's and the overgrowth of government that was stifling the entreprenurial spirit. I think this is a poor choice of words because it basically appropriates Right-wing talking points.
While that might attract Republicans to vote you for a day, it does not attract Republicans to the Democratic Party over the long term. The correct way to attract Republicans would have been to talk about accountability and balanced budgets, and how there was no transparency or accountability with our foreign policy because both the Iraqi Government and the Musharraf Dictatorship had been given a blank check to restore Democracy and fight Al-Qaeda. There is ample evidence that establishes that our tax dollars have been wasted in both Iraq and Pakistan, which bothers all Americans, not just Republicans.
However, when you start talking about overgrowth of government, stifling entreprenurial spirit, and the excesses of the 60's and 70's, you are not making an effective progressive case for Republicans to vote for a Democrat. You are making a case for your own personal gain at expense of the party because you are appropriating right-wing talking points.
Furthermore, In October 1980, opinion polls showed that voters had negative opinions of both Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. They didn't like Jimmy Carter because of what was going on in Iran and the poor economy, but they didn't exactly trust Ronald Reagan with his voodoo economics. John Anderson was a legitimate third party option that year who did quite well for some time, but saw his standing crater after some poor debate performances with Ronald Reagan. Polls going into the last week of the election showed the race was close with President Carter holding a slight lead. After months of dodging, President Carter finally agreed to debate Ronald Reagan when both sides agreed John Anderson would not participate. I believe it was the most watched debate in history, and Ronald Reagan ended the debate with a simple question: Are you better off today than you were four years ago? It was a devastating question to say the least, but Jimmy Carter added to his woes when he said during the debate that he spoke to his daughter when it came to nuclear issues. He was widely ridiculed by late night comedians and media pundits for that comment, and by election day, Jimmy Carter's slight lead became a Reagan landslide.
So I believe Obama is wrong because the country wasn't necessarily ready for Reagan and tired of the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s. If that was the case, Reagan would have led by wide margins throughout the campaign. It was President Carter's poor debate performance days before the election that led to the landslide.
In a colorblind society where merit should hold ultimate sway, OBAMA isn't even qualified to be assistant majority whip. He's missed a 1/3 of his votes during the 2005-2006 session, and he hasn't held a hearing as member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His policies are also awful for the nation. He believes in granting drivers licenses to illegals, he wants to ease burdens on employers when it comes to checking the status of workers, he wants to raise taxes on the middle class by trillions of dollars by eliminating the cap on social security contributions, he fails to protect our troops from the iranian revolutionary guard and then attacks his opponents for doing so EVEN WHEN HE MISSED THE VOTE, he was the only person to vote "present" instead of yes or no on bills banning adult shops near schools, and sealing court records of victims of sexual assault.
Obama is little substance, all hype. The key to his success: a freshness, a lack of record to run on, the constant repetition of simple feel-good platitudes that lull listeners into a sense of trust and induce in them a yearning to believe. No wonder Barack Obama is so popular among denizens of Hollywood like Oprah: they certainly have an eye for those who can create an image, can generate a buzz that compels others to suspend their disbelief, and who can induce a trance-like stargazing. But the fact is that Barack Obama does have a record to run on and its a record of vote dodging and triangulation. Barack Obama talks about the audacity of hope... but how about the audacity to show up and vote.. and not criticize others over resolutions you conveniently missed while campaigning
I was elected yesterday, Obama said. I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. Ive never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow Im immediately going to start running for higher office just doesnt make sense. So look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that Im the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois. He further elaborated: Look, Im a state senator who hasnt even been sworn in yet. My understanding is that I will be ranked 99th in seniority. Im going to be spending the first several months of my career in the U.S. Senate looking for the washroom and trying to figure out how the phones work.
So, in four years, Obama went from figuring out how to use the telephones and finding bathrooms, to becoming a foreign policy expert, while missing 1/3 of his votes and failing to hold a single hearing as the CHAIR of Senate Foreign Relations committee. Right?
John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton have all been much better senators than Barack Obama. They have been serious, substantive lawmakers who have worked effectively across party lines. Obama has some accomplishments under his belt, but many of his colleagues believe that he has not bothered to master the intricacies of legislation or the maze of Senate rules. He talks about independence, but he has never quite bucked liberal orthodoxy or party discipline. When you consider two candidates for one job, you compare their resumes and weigh their latest experiences most heavily. Whoever distinguishes themselves with their work ethic and garners respect amongst their colleagues is probably the best qualified for the job they seek. If Obama's colleagues feel he is an opportunist who is more about using his present job to build his resume rather than to actually work for substantive change, then he is just hype, and he is extremely underqualified for the Presidency.
John Edwards is the only safe bet to beat McCain....
McCain beats Obama, for sure. Hillary, it would be closer, but I think McCain beats her....
Besides, Edwards is the only candidate that is actually talking about, you know, policy and issues (besides for Kucinich).
Vague promises of change do not really cut it for me.
But what can you expect in this country when the deepest civic thought is:
"All our other presidents were white and male. If we vote for Obama, he must do better because, after all, his skin color is different. Or, maybe Hillary would be better because she has ovaries....Geeze, I can't make up my mind!!!!"
John is the only one who seemed to remember the debate was about America , not a private argument.Identity politics is a ruse that is going to ensure the elction goes the republicans . John Edwards will not only appeal to crossover and independents but will capture Democrats who for reason or another will not vote Hilary or Obama. Glad to see someone in Hollywood supporting him as he needs money - send some!
Thank you, brothers and sisters, for being the voices of reason!
There is hope.
However, as Dc noted in his comment, John needs financial support to survive. He was outspent 6 to 1 in Iowa. The other two spent some $15 MILLION in Nevada. The "frontrunners" are throwing their dollars around like there's no tomorrow.
But if the other two prevail, we, as Democrats, lose. Support John: http://www.johnedwards.com/
Azi Paybarah: Well, I for one smell a rat. Although you say your source is reliable, you didn't mention whether this attendee was a Edwards supporter. Since this entire article obviously does not help Edwards at all, I wonder why this attendee would be so eager to provide this information to you, if he was really in the Edwards camp.
Did the attendees at the fundraiser last night include a HRC mole?
Only Democrats would talk about McCain like he actually has a shot at the nomination. Your party knows him better than ours does, but that's why he's NOT a Republican. He is doing well in polls, because Huckabee has run off with the evangelicals.
When Huckabee drops out, Mitt Romney will surge upward. He has lost the social conservatives who stubbornly cling to Huck for lack of a better candidate. Their betrayal at the hands of the GOP make them bitter on this point, but they will endorse Mitt Romney in the end.
Republicans know McCain is crazy, too. He is just having his moment in the sun before being put out to pasture.
If I had to guess, I would pick Sarondon as the HRC mole.
She and her husband love the limelight. They thrive on this kind of nonsense.
It's all about INK.
But in the mean time, I think this is good for Edwards. He looks like a man, for once. Maybe, just maybe, he'll prove Ann Coulter wrong.
YOU ARE SOOOOOOOOOO RIGHT IN YOUR COMMENT. I SALUTE YOU
CATHE
The more I hear about and from Obama, the better Edwards sounds. I hope he stays in.
Betsy Ross: Given another article that came out today in the Observer: http://www.observer.com/2008/february-5-obama noting the paper's endorsement of Obama, I'm now wondering if there might have been an Obama mole instead. But the Edwards campaign mention that this was a bungled quote, with reference to a "bad game of telephone," sounds pretty convincing too. Third-hand quotes are notoriously unreliable.
I don't know that this is good for Edwards - he would be better off remaining entirely out of the fray.
Betsy Ross: Given another article that came out today in the Observer: http://www.observer.com/2008/february-5-obama noting the paper's endorsement of Obama, I'm now wondering if there might have been an Obama mole instead. But the Edwards campaign mention that this was a bungled quote, with reference to a "bad game of telephone," sounds pretty convincing too. Third-hand quotes are notoriously unreliable.
I don't know that this is good for Edwards - he would be far better off remaining entirely out of the fray and this article attempts to draw him into it.
Betsy Ross: Given another article that came out today in the Observer: http://www.observer.com/2008/february-5-obama noting the paper's endorsement of Obama, I'm now wondering if there might have been an Obama mole instead.
Speculation about moles aside, the Edwards campaign mention that this was a bungled quote, with reference to a "bad game of telephone," sounds pretty convincing. Third-hand quotes are notoriously unreliable.
Wordie: Then it's Kevin Bacon. He strikes me as the kind of guy who'd be six degrees from Obama.
Go, JOHN, go!
Disclaimer: I support Barack Obama, I supported John Edwards in 2004. I have very high regard for both. I do not hold either of the Clintons with anything other than abject disgust.
I would not be surprised if this came from a Clinton plant, to make Edwards and Obama look bad, telegraph Hillary's next move, distract with a denial.
The short answer: do not trust the Clintons. PERIOD.
Jade, the Clintons are masterful, but do not jump to conclusions. It could have been an Obama plant as well and it is more likely that was case. (After all, Clinton and Edwards come off bad here.)
Obama is not to be underestimated.
He stands for change. But his organization is borrowing from the Clinton rule-book. "Win at all costs."
Also, since this paper has bought the bull and endorsed Obama, how objective do you think these reports are?
Obama is not to be underestimated.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP! Cowards!
Trust me, if there was anything more, the mudslinger-in-chief would've put it out by now.
Anyone who takes Edwards seriously is driving while looking at the rear mirror. This is a guy who ran a positive campaign in 2004, won two primaries, became VP nominee, suggested that he and Kerry should not apologize for their war vote, then couldn't even help Kerry win his own home state.
Now, he's the opposite of what he was in 2004. He's no more sunshine, he's angry; he's no more polite, he's an attack dog spreading rumours. He hasn't won a single primary yet and ended up with 4% in Nevada. What are the chance in hell that he can win the nomination and win the presidency?
McCain's fingers are quite old. In fact, all of McCain's body parts are quite old.
McCain's fingers most likley have arthritis. Isn't it kind of a stretch to even imagine McCain's fingers on the button.
BTW, what kind of button are we speaking about here? A button in a nursing home to call for medical help. McCain is very, very, very qualified to push that button, but not the other button.
This guy IS too old to be president.
Here's why Edwards is a loser:
A few months ago, he and Obama differentiated themselves as candidates who do not take money from lobbyists. Hillary suggested that Edwards was no different because he has taken more money from trial lawyers than Hillary has taken from lobbyists.
Now, Edwards is using a different nuance to suggest that Obama is accepting money from lobbyists. Ordinary Americans who earn a living by working in lobbyist firms are not lobbyists. But the fact that Edwards is using this nuance to attack Obama means Hillary is right! Everybody takes money from special interests, depending on how your nuance it. So shut up, everybody!
Edwards is really a fool. On the single issue why I chose him over Hillary, he blew it. No wonder he only won a single primary in 2004 and is going to end this race with a zero win.
Don't be short-sighted Sarah Jane. This is about amassing delegates. And, if a candidate doesn't amass a majority, we have a brokered convention. (That is what that slime-bucket Robbins is planning ... That is what Hollywood is hoping for.)
You ain't heard the last of Senator Edwards yet.
And, Sarah Jane, if Hillary is our nominee, we lose the General to a Republican. (Look at Rasmussen and some of the other polls.)
The dislike of Hillary (on a national level -- forget the urban centers and Democratic strongholds) is palpable.
By the way, there's a big difference between taking money from individuals and from PACS.
That is what sets John apart from the other two.
What kind of influence can individuals garner for a few thousand dollars? It's the big-money PACS that are a problem and that's what Hillary and Obama can't explain away so readily.
Maybe the reason Edwards doesn't resonate is because he is spending too much time hanging out with Hillary, carrying her water during the debates against Mr. Obama -- in order to get recognition of his ideas? Maybe Hillary (and John) should spend more time focusing on releasing the Clinton Library RECORDS since she/Bill now say they were a "two-fer" Presidency. Then, WE can draw a line from the Lincoln Bedroom to the PARDONS, to the DONORS to build the Library...to Mr. Hsu. Hillary (and John) should no go down this path. There will be CONSEQUENCES. John should make his own case and stop triangulating or calling a bonafide war hero, CRAZY. Yes...I am a Democrat, but I can't see JOHN EDWARDS or BILL CLINTON every going to war for our Nation, let along sitting in a cell and being tortured for five years! Ha! They just SEND boys to war. They and guys like them NEVER go. This is NOT his year. It happens. He helped LOSE last time. Get over it!
Ahem....I know people who know the Clintons VERY well and in fact the Clintons have done significant favors for them while in power....and you can believe me or not..but this is true. They are for Obama. Part of the reason for this is Hillary's absolute disregard for anyone but herself and her own ambition. She thinks she has the right to whatever she wants - at the expense of anyone, even those who thought they were allies or at least deserving of some respect.
Obama is at least human and has an ability to inspire and could do a lot of good should he want to acknowledge his white heritage as well as the black. This is a man who had to get where he is on his own steam, the hard way. I know Republicans who like him and have pledged to support him.
I can't imagine why anyone thinks Edwards has a claim to anything other than being the best looking Democrat candidate. The way he lives his life appears to be a contradiction of everything he now says. An attitude of superiority to those whom you supposedly champion just doesn't pass the smell test. If he sells his soul to Hillary then that just confirms it.
Also, I doubt McCain will be the Republican candidate - he's too much of a Democrat what with his support of amnesty, voting against tax cuts, etc.
Anyone who (like John Edwards) has amassed a huge fortune, lives in a multi-million dollar estate, and travels everywhere by private jet has no business telling me I'm not doing enough to help the poor. He has no business telling me the Rich aren't paying their fair share in taxes. Edwards is fabulously rich. Is he saying he's not paying his fair share? If not, why not? Why is he avoiding paying his fair share? He utilizes tax shelters and itemized deductions. Not exactly doing as he urges others to do.
Typical two-faced liberal. Free and loose with everyone else's money.
You Edwards supporters crack me up. As if he could win a general election when he can't even persuade a majority of Democrats to vote for him with his two Americas, populist BS. The thought of John-Boy as Democratic kingmaker is delicious, though.
With a history like the Clintons, I'd be very good at rewriting it. And hoping others were in the slime too.
Perhaps we should fact check billary's resume.
NV Clinton campaign: "It's not illegal unless they tell you so"
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/23/164530/670/481/441908
McCain crazy? highly unlikely but a man that would cheat on his dying wife, knock the woman up, a man who would use her cancer to further his hopeless run for power is a man that is truely crazy. I hope he blows through all the money he robbed from doctors and hospitals and ends up homeless and pennyless he is totally a douche and as for Tim Robbins he has the IQ of a dickless gnat!