John Edwards

Al, we hardly knew ye

On "Saturday Night Live," Gore finally seems human. Sunday on "60 Minutes" he proves it, and pulls out of the 2004 race.

The best gag during Al Gore’s stint as host for “Saturday Night Live” came when the former vice president of the United States sat naked from the waist up in a hot tub interviewing Joe Lieberman (played by Chris Parnell), recreating, a la “The Bachelor,” the selection process for his 2000 running mate.

The sketch, with its perfect caricatures of the “contestants” — a slavish John Edwards (Chris Kattan) and a boorish John Kerry (Seth Myers) — showcased a strange, new Al Gore. How best to describe it? He seemed less like an android than ever before.

It had the reckless feel of the best political appearances on “SNL,” from Jesse Jackson’s angry reading of “Green Eggs and Ham” to John McCain’s recent crack at a Streisand medley. Jackson and McCain, though, are self-styled mavericks who challenge convention, rather than strive to seem presidential. When McCain belted out an off-key “Evergreen,” he had already said that he never planned on another presidential run.

Gore, meanwhile, had seemed back on the campaign trail.. Watching him demurely tangle arms in a champagne toast with Parnell’s Lieberman while soaking in a sudsy bath, anyone who has ever watched five minutes of “Meet the Press” had to be thinking: This is hilarious, but does he think this makes us wish he was leading the war on terror? At the same time, my Salon colleague Jake Tapper was at a party thrown by an ex-Clinton official, and the crowd gathered around the TV. At the sight of the topless Gore, the wife of an Edwards adviser immediately pronounced: “That’s it. He’s not running.”

Sure enough, word would spread within the news cycle: Gore was out. On “60 Minutes,” he told an incredulous Leslie Stahl that “I want to contribute to ending the current administration,” but that “my best way of contributing to that result may not be as a candidate this time around.” He could have compared his favorability numbers with Bush’s (19 percent to 65 percent, according to a recent New York Times poll) and figured his best chance would be in 2008.

But it sounds like other Democratic Party members had taken a look at those numbers, the dismal sales of his book, or maybe the hostile reviews of his recent reemergence in the public eye by even liberal commentators, and concluded that the public that had given him the popular vote two years ago didn’t want him around much. He told Stahl that he thought “there are a lot of people within the Democratic Party who felt exhausted by [2000]. Who felt like, OK, I don’t wanna go through that again. And I’m frankly sensitive to that — to that feeling.”

So should that make you feel sad? If you like Al Gore mostly because he is not George W. Bush, whom you really really hate, well then go ahead, feel sad. (Minutes after the news broke, a spam e-mail to members of the media urged us to consider: “Was Gore Threatened?”) Supporters will also point out that in recent months Gore seemed the only Democratic leader willing to get his hands dirty, loudly questioning a possible war with Iraq, and going after Trent Lott when Tom Daschle and fellow Senate Democrats looked the other way.

But critics, including — maybe especially — those on the left, could just as eagerly claim it was all more posturing, that Gore could play the heartless, bloodless pol as well as anybody. He was the guy, after all, who used his keynote speech at the 1996 Democratic National Convention to melodramatically recount the tragic death of his sister Nancy to lung cancer — and advance his ticket’s popular attack on the tobacco industry. He was the guy who, having won the popular vote, took 18 months to come out swinging against Bush. Certainly Gore was unfairly savaged sometimes, but that never made him a saint. He tried to manipulate the media as much as anybody; he was just really bad at it.

Maybe that’s why he was so good on “SNL” — freed from the ugliness of campaigning, he could relax, be comfortable in his own skin. In the second-best sketch, played with “The West Wing” cast, Gore becomes unnaturally attached to the Oval Office set. Ultimately, Martin Sheen, Allison Janney and the rest of the cast fail to lure him away and leave him sitting at the fake presidential desk, until someone finally turns the lights off on him.

It seemed a little maudlin and overstated at the time, but now it suddenly seems poignant. And that doesn’t seem like a bad way to go out.

Kerry Lauerman

Kerry Lauerman is Salon's Editor in Chief. Follow him on Twitter: @kerrylauerman.

FEC says Edwards should repay $2M in federal money

Election commission orders disgraced Democratic politician to reimburse government for ill-gotten campaign funds

FILE - In this March 22, 2007, file photo Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards listens to his wife Elizabeth, not shown, talk to media about her recurrence of cancer during a news conference in Chapel Hill, N.C. The legal case against two-time presidential candidate focuses on where to draw the line between the public and private in a politician's life. The central dispute over Edwards' indictment on felony charges is whether money, spent by two supporters to keep his mistress in hiding, were campaign contributions or private gifts from friends. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome, File)(Credit: AP)

The Federal Election Commission said Thursday that former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards’ 2008 presidential campaign should repay the U.S. Treasury more than $2 million.

The commission voted 6-0 to order the repayment after conducting an audit of the campaign.

A telephone call by AP to Edwards’ attorneys seeking comment was not immediately returned. Edwards’ attorneys have said the Democrat’s campaign doesn’t owe anything.

Federal auditors said the campaign understated its cash on hand and overstated its expenses, including money spent to wind down the campaign. Auditors also found that the campaign failed to itemize more than $4 million in loan repayments.

Such audits are required by law for federal campaigns that accept public financing, several of the commissioners noted.

“It is not at all unusual for a campaign to have a discrepancy,” said Ellen Weintraub, a commissioner. “It’s just a math problem and that’s how the math worked out.”

Federal auditors said about $2 million of the amount to be repayed was due to federal matching funds the Edwards campaign received but did not deserve. Auditors said the repayment also should include $141,808 in uncashed checks the campaign issued to donors that were never cashed, according to the audit.

The campaign got nearly $13 million in matching funds after it was approved by the Federal Election Commission in December 2007. Edwards dropped out of the race Jan. 30, 2008.

The Federal Election Commission’s ruling is the latest problem for Edwards, who was indicted last month on federal charges that he accepted illegal campaign contributions to hide an affair during his unsuccessful 2008 White House bid. Edwards, who was the 2004 vice presidential nominee, has pleaded not guilty to six felony charges that include allegations he filed false campaign reports to cover up the payments.

The Edwards campaign has continued to spend down its cash. It had about $2.6 million in cash on hand on June 30 after spending $183,000 during the previous three months.

Continue Reading Close

John Edwards asks judge for delay in sex tape case

Rielle Hunter claims a former Edwards aide took sensitive materials from her; hearing is scheduled for Thursday

FILE - In this March 22, 2007, file photo Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards listens to his wife Elizabeth, not shown, talk to media about her recurrence of cancer during a news conference in Chapel Hill, N.C. The legal case against two-time presidential candidate focuses on where to draw the line between the public and private in a politician's life. The central dispute over Edwards' indictment on felony charges is whether money, spent by two supporters to keep his mistress in hiding, were campaign contributions or private gifts from friends. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome, File)(Credit: AP)

A judge in North Carolina will hear arguments over whether former presidential candidate John Edwards should have to testify this month in a case involving a purported sex tape.

The hearing is scheduled to take place Thursday in Raleigh.

Edwards filed a motion last week asking that his scheduled June 20 deposition be postponed. He’s being called to testify in a lawsuit filed by his former mistress, Rielle Hunter. Hunter claims a former Edwards campaign aide took sensitive materials from her, including a reputed sex tape showing Edwards. She wants the items returned.

The former senator says his deposition should wait until the resolution of federal criminal charges against him. Earlier this month, Edwards was indicted on charges of violating campaign finance laws. He’s pleaded not guilty.

John Edwards’ creepy mug shot

The disgraced senator flashes an unnerving grin -- just like Tom DeLay

Edwards sports a cold, dead smile in his mugshot

If the pictures of Anthony Weiner and (allegedly) a sunbathing Newt Gingrich weren’t too much for you, here’s another unsettling image: CNN’s Ed Hornick has posted John Edwards’ mug shot. Edwards, who faces felony charges for allegedly using over $1 million of campaign cash to hide his extramarital affair and child, went for the unnerving smile with accompanying cold, dead eyes for his photo:

The image is reminiscent of Tom DeLay from the Republican former House majority leader’s mug shot. (DeLay was ultimately convicted on conspiracy and money-laundering charges.)

We wonder whether the smiles here are meant to convey confidence or an image of innocence. If so, neither man succeeded.

Natasha Lennard covers the Occupy movement for Salon. A British-born, Brooklyn-based journalist, she has been covering Occupy Wall Street since before the first sleeping bag was unrolled in Zuccotti Park. One of the first journalists arrested at an Occupy action, she has managed to enrage Andrew Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. You can follow her on Twitter (@natashalennard), and email her any Occupy updates/videos/ideas to natasha.lennard@gmail.com

How John Edwards nearly ruined everything

There were actually two moments when the 2008 Democratic nomination seemed within reach for him

Democratic presidential hopefuls Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., listen to a question during a Democratic presidential debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., Monday, Jan. 21, 2008. (AP Photo/Mary Ann Chastain)(Credit: Mary Ann Chastain)

History will record that John Edwards — who was finally indicted Friday after a protracted investigation into his use of campaign money to hide a mistress — didn’t win a single state in his 2008 presidential campaign and earned just 26 pledged delegates before dropping out of the Democratic race after finishing third in the South Carolina primary. But things could have easily gone far, far better for him — and far, far worse for his party.

It’s easy to forget now, but in the early stages of the ’08 race, things were setting up remarkably well for Edwards. After making a favorable impression in the 2004 primaries and performing adequately (if not quite as well as many had expected) as John Kerry’s running mate that fall, Edwards sought to reinvent himself as a truth-telling populist, angling to inherit the army that Howard Dean had briefly assembled in the ’04 race. He began by apologizing for his own vote as a senator in 2002 for the Iraq invasion and took to railing against Democratic leaders in Washington for their supposed spinelessness in standing up to George W. Bush and congressional Republicans. It helped that he was now a former senator, free to travel the country spouting absolutist rhetoric in casual clothing.

There was a very specific purpose to this. Hillary Clinton would be the overwhelming front-runner for the 2008 nomination, everyone knew, the favorite of many of the big donors and pragmatic establishment types that Edwards had cultivated in ’04. The only room would be to Hillary’s left, where grass-roots Democratic voters and activists remained infuriated by the role their party’s national leaders had played in authorizing the war. This was the turf Edwards would seek out.

And for a while, it worked. Through 2005 and the first half of 2006, Edwards’ support in national Democratic polls slowly ticked up, until he was running second to Hillary among likely ’08 candidates. Meanwhile, Kerry, who very much wanted to run again, also tried reinventing himself as more blunt, unrestrained ideologue, but to little effect; his support steadily dropped into the single digits. And Dean took on the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee, effectively removing himself from the ’08 mix. The chief threat to Edwards’ strategy, it seemed, was Al Gore, whose grass-roots popularity was soaring with the acclaimed release of “An Inconvenient Truth.” But Gore was an unlikely and reluctant prospect. As the summer of 2006 wore on, a very real path to victory emerged for Edwards: Defeat Clinton in Iowa’s activist-dominated caucuses, survive New Hampshire, then win again in Nevada with union support, and finish Clinton off in South Carolina, Edwards’ native state.

Who knows what would have happened if at this same moment Barack Obama, then less than two years removed from the Illinois state Legislature, hadn’t set out to help a few of his party’s candidates in the ’06 midterms and been overwhelmed by the size of the crowds that greeted him? During his first year in the Senate, Obama hadn’t seriously considered a presidential run; in fact, he’d ruled it out over and over. And the press and political observers had no reason to doubt him: He hadn’t done anything yet, barely had any experience on the national stage, and was famous only because of one speech. Obviously, he would wait until 2016 or some future date to run for president.

By December, it was clear Obama was running, and that was basically it for Edwards, whose dreams of cornering the grass-roots, anti-Hillary market were ruined. Now it was a Hillary-Obama race, with Edwards relegated to a supporting role. But he still had enough support to press on, even after the March 2007 news that his wife’s cancer had returned and was now terminal. He’d need one of the front-runners to stumble — and he finally saw his chance in the first week of January 2008.

Just weeks earlier, the first report of Edwards’ affair with Rielle Hunter (and the child they had conceived) had emerged, but in the National Enquirer only; no mainstream outlet would touch them. Even if Edwards’ story seemed a little fishy, everyone gave him the benefit of the doubt over a trashy tabloid, and the campaign proceeded as if nothing had happened. Thus, when the Iowa caucuses were held on Jan. 3, Edwards was able to finish a surprising second — eight points behind Obama but slightly ahead of Clinton. Suddenly, Hillary the Inevitable was on the ropes. Her poll numbers nationally and in New Hampshire, which would vote five days later, crashed overnight, while Obama’s surged. Edwards saw his opening: If Hillary suffered a bad loss in New Hampshire, she might be forced out (or at least marginalized). Then it would be an Obama-Edwards race, and the battleground would shift to the South. He could win a one-on-one race with Obama there, or so he and his team figured.

For the five days between Iowa and New Hampshire, Edwards did everything he could to bury Clinton, attacking her as a protector of the status quo, without laying a glove on Obama. It seemed to be working. Hillary’s numbers kept falling. There was talk that Edwards, whose message and personality had never been a good fit for the Granite State, might edge her out for second place. Then came the debate, the Saturday night before the primary. To any fair-minded viewer, it looked like exactly what it was: Edwards and Obama — the two men in the race — ganging up on Hillary. The reviews were harsh. It was just too much. No one can be sure exactly why Hillary was able to reverse her polling slide and prevail in New Hampshire three days later, but it’s hardly unreasonable to suggest that voters — particularly female voters — felt she was being treated too harshly by her opponents and the media and rallied around her, not wanting to see her campaign end so soon.

Whatever the explanation, Clinton’s surprise triumph slammed the door on Edwards’ nomination chances. It was still a Hillary-Obama race and Edwards was still an afterthought. By the end of the month, he was out of the race, and Democrats were safe. Obama went on to win the nomination and the presidency, but there’s little doubt that Hillary would have been just as successful against John McCain. 

But Edwards, as we all found out a few months later, would have been a complete and total disaster. And things didn’t have to work out quite so neatly for Democrats. If Obama, truly a once-in-a-generation political phenomenon, hadn’t emerged, Edwards probably would have gotten his one-on-one race with Hillary — a race he could have won. And if Hillary hadn’t engineered that miraculous New Hampshire victory — a result that still baffles political observers — he still might have found a way to win the nomination. For Democrats, he could easily have ruined everything.

Continue Reading Close
Steve Kornacki

Steve Kornacki writes about politics for Salon. Reach him by email at SKornacki@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @SteveKornacki

Edwards indictment: New details of the coverup

The former Democratic star allegedly took $900,000 in illegal donations to pay for his mistress' living expenses

Rielle Hunter and John Edwards

John Edwards was indicted today, charged with violating campaign finance law and making false statements in connection with the cover-up of his affair with videographer Rielle Hunter.

The basic allegations are well known: that Edwards accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal campaign contributions in order to pay for living expenses and medical bills for Hunter, Hunter and Edwards’ child, and Edwards aide Andrew Young, who had falsely claimed paternity of the child and was on the run from the media. The money — amounting to $900,000 — allegedly came from the wealthy heiress Bunny Mellon, along with Edwards fundraiser Fred Baron.

But the indictment is the first time we’ve seen a coherent narrative from the government in the case, and it includes some fascinating details. It alleges, for example, that Mellon wrote a series of checks for as much as $200,000 to be funneled to pay Hunter’s expenses. But in the memo section of the checks Mellon wrote “chairs” or “antique Charleston table” or “book case.”

The indictment also alleges that Baron paid for luxury accommodations for Hunter and Young, including a $25,283 bill for the Four Seasons Hotel in Santa Barbara, Calif., in January 2008. Baron also allegedly gave Young an envelope with $10,000 cash and a note reading, “Old Chinese saying: use cash, not credit cards!”

Here are statements (.pdf) from Edwards’ legal team rejecting the charges.

And here’s the indictment:

Edwards Indictment

Continue Reading Close
Justin Elliott

Justin Elliott is a reporter for ProPublica. You can follow him on Twitter @ElliottJustin

Page 1 of 51 in John Edwards