John Edwards

Sunset for the golden boy?

As John Edwards kicks off his presidential campaign, some wonder if it's over before it began.

  • more
    • All Share Services

Sunset for the golden boy?

Back when Howard Dean was the unknown ex-governor of a tiny New England state, North Carolina Sen. John Edwards was winning prestigious early media primaries, getting anointed one of a handful of Democrats with the political star power to beat George Bush in 2004. Time magazine named Edwards “The Democrats’ New Golden Boy” in 2001 and U.S. News & World Report put him on its cover last year as a man who could give Bush a scare. Throw in glowing portraits by curmudgeonly Christopher Hitchens in Vanity Fair and Nicholas Lemann in the New Yorker, and a year ago Edwards looked like someone who’d be in the top tier of Democrats as the race got underway for real this fall.

But instead, as Edwards officially kicked off his presidential campaign Tuesday with a speech outside the mill where his father used to work in Robbins, N.C., the question hovering over the race now is not “How far can he go?” but “Is his candidacy over before it officially began?” Even some supporters are asking how such a promising candidate wound up running such a mediocre campaign to date, and whether he can fix it. The news that Gen. Wesley Clark will declare his own candidacy on Wednesday was yet another blow on a day when Edwards hoped he’d have the news cycle to himself.

It’s a strange turn of events for Edwards, because his political admirers haven’t been limited to the media over the years. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., once declared that Edwards had the potential to be the best debater the chamber had seen in 25 years, and some Democratic strategists have called him the biggest talent since Clinton. Back when Edwards was supposed to run for reelection in North Carolina, Sen. Jon Corzine, of New Jersey, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, who’s charged with regaining the Democratic majority, called him among the three or four top politicians in the country. With the pending retirements of Sens. Fritz Hollings of South Carolina and Zell Miller of Georgia, Democrats who can win in Southern states are becoming a rare commodity in the chamber these days. And given that the party has not been able to get to the White House with a candidate from above the Mason-Dixon line since John F. Kennedy, Edwards was expected to be a front-runner.

And yet Edwards lags behind Dean, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt in most polls, both nationwide as well as in the crucial early primary states like Iowa and New Hampshire. Talking to Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show” Monday night, Edwards tried to make light of his low poll standing, noting that his campaign kickoff wasn’t really coming as late as it seemed, since “I don’t know if you’ve seen the polls, but I think it will be news to some people that I will be running for president.”

Many Democrats believe he made a crucial tactical mistake by devoting himself to raising money during the first half of the year and spending less time than some of the field’s leaders on the stump in Iowa and New Hampshire. Now Edwards is spending money on advertising and he’s vowed to hold at least 100 town hall meetings in New Hampshire before the January primary, but some say it’s too little, too late.

“He’s spending his money now and he’s not moving,” said one Democrat.

But campaign manager Ed Turlington, who used to practice law with Edwards, said the campaign is proceeding as expected. “I think we’re right on plan,” he said. “We’re moving past the exploring phase and into the heat of the battle.”

It’s hard not to notice that some of Edwards’ strengths are also weaknesses. People magazine put him on its list of most beautiful people in 2000 and Elle named him sexiest politician in 2001, but his foppish hair and youthful features make him “look 20 years younger than he is and he’s running in a year when experience actually matters,” said University of Virginia politics professor Larry Sabato.

Most daunting is his political youth. Edwards has yet to complete his first Senate term, and the best he can point to on his résum&eacaute; to demonstrate foreign policy acumen is a seat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. While critics note that Bush had just begun a second term as Texas governor when he ran for president, in post-9/11 America many political observers think even Bush might be passed over as too unseasoned to run the country during wartime if he were setting out this time around. “If Bush ran as the candidate he was in 2000 against an eight-year incumbent vice president, he would have a much more difficult time explaining away his lack of foreign policy experience compared to a vice president,” said Sabato. “It matters now.”

Edwards’ inexperience has shown through as his gold sheen flecked off in his long run-up to Tuesday’s announcement. He was blasted for his performance on “Meet the Press” in May last year — National Journal columnist William Powers said he “came off as ill-prepared and vague, incapable of producing an original thought on any subject.” And while his supporters have counted on his intelligence and his telegenic looks to capture voters’ attention and make up for his experience deficit, Edwards hasn’t shone in the debates to date. He’s had some bad breaks: He had the unlucky distinction of following Rev. Al Sharpton in the order of the debate sponsored earlier this week by the Congressional Black Caucus at Morgan State University in Baltimore. After Sharpton set the audience roaring by revealing his favorite song is “James Brown’s number on the Republican Party, ‘Talking Loud, Saying Nothing,’” Edwards complained, “I’ve got to follow that?” He told the crowd his favorite song was Small Town” by John Cougar Mellencamp, earning points for not pandering, but little else.

Even his wife, Elizabeth, admitted he didn’t shine that night. “It was pretty hard to cut through. He likes Al but you don’t try to compete on his turf. You got to let it cool down for a second so you can say your piece.”

But Edwards was also upstaged by Sharpton on what was arguably his own turf, when six of the candidates addressed NARAL Pro-Choice America earlier this year. That time Sharpton followed Edwards — and lighted up the crowd of white women, while Edwards’ speech was pronounced a dud by the New Republic.

Even good news seems to be followed by bad for Edwards. He appeared to score a coup last week at a Washington meeting of 1,500 politically active members of the Service Employees International Union, when SEIU president Andrew Stern said Edwards “moved from having almost no support to being one of the top three candidates that the members leaving this conference are interested in.” But Edwards’ supporters seemed to overreach by distributing a newspaper report that Edwards had surged with SEIU officials while Kerry had fallen out of contention for an endorsement, and an SEIU official had to deny that assertion, saying only that Edwards had made a good impression with the group.

Meanwhile, Edwards’ plan to use his war chest — he raised $11.9 million since Jan. 1, making him second among the Democratic contenders — to buy television ads in Iowa and New Hampshire hasn’t paid off in a huge surge yet.

After nearly a month of advertising in New Hampshire, Edwards has crawled from 2 percent support in the middle of August to 6 percent in a Boston Globe-commissioned poll after Labor Day. But his ranking in the polls, 5th place, didn’t budge. In Iowa, after he ran ads for two weeks, he remained at 6 percent in the polls but dropped from 4th to 5th place after Lieberman garnered 12 percent in a Research 2000 survey.

So how does Edwards hope to prevail? His neighboring state of South Carolina, which will host the most important primary immediately following the Iowa and New Hampshire contests, provides a ray of hope. Edwards began airing ads there on Aug. 15 and according to two polls conducted by Zogby International, he jumped from 5 percent and 4th place (one slot behind Sharpton) to 10 percent and a one-point lead over Dean for first place. While statistically that’s not a real lead, psychologically it’s a boost for the campaign.

Edwards’ campaign chairman, Ed Turlington, admits South Carolina is a “must win” state for his candidate, just as Iowa is said to be a must win for Gephardt of neighboring Missouri. Don Fowler, a former DNC chairman who now chairs the party in Richland County, S.C., predicted that only two or three of the top five Democrats will survive Iowa and New Hampshire to make it down to his state’s primary, pointing to the year 2000, when there were seven GOP candidates running, but only two survived to South Carolina: Bush and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

“If Edwards survives Iowa and New Hampshire and is considered viable he would be in a good position to carry [the state],” said Fowler.

But survival for Edwards means moving up in the polls in both states. Political analyst Charlie Cook says if Edwards fails to finish third in Iowa or New Hampshire it would be almost impossible to win South Carolina.

Even some of Edwards’ backers admit he may have planned wrong by focusing on raising money early rather than hitting the stump.

“I would have run a different sort of campaign,” says Michael Bauer, a Chicago-based lawyer, businessman and political activist who is on Edwards’ national finance committee and steering committee. Bauer agreed that Edwards should have put a little less emphasis on raising money and more on campaigning. John Edwards clearly had a visibility problem from the start. “I can’t tell you how many people ask me who I’m supporting and then ask ‘Who’s that?’ It affects your ability to do national fundraising,” said Bauer.

But the fundraiser says Edwards’ decision not to run again for Senate gave his campaign a real boost. “There were starting to be a great many doubts about whether he’s really in it and not hedging his bets,” said Bauer. “He’s taking a ‘burning the ship at the shore’ strategy that’s a good message to supporters that he’s really in this.”

It should also be said that thanks to Edwards’ early fundraising prowess, he’s assured of surviving until the third round of primary battles.

“We have enough money to carry us through the Feb. 3 date and to run a media campaign in every one of those states … and compete at the level we need to,” said Eileen Kotecki, the co-chair of Edwards’ national finance campaign.

Edwards’ staff is hoping that with his Southern roots and his place as a moderate who’s arguably more centrist than Dean, Kerry and Gephardt, Edwards could thrive in states such as Arizona, Delaware, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota and Oklahoma, which are scheduled to host primaries on Feb. 3.

If he doesn’t do well enough in those moderate states to earn the nomination — or at least the No. 2 spot on the ticket — it’s questionable whether Edwards, once the golden boy and a great hope of the Democratic Party, will be able to fulfill the political future many expected for him.

But Elizabeth Edwards, at least, says she isn’t worried about her husband. “There has never been in our married life, and we’ve been married for 26 years, a time when we faced a problem he didn’t think he couldn’t solve. He always thought if he just worked hard enough at it and put all the resources he had to it he could solve people’s problem.”

Asked after last week’s debate how he would maintain his public profile after leaving the Senate should he fail to capture the nomination, Edwards struck a resolute pose.

“I absolutely refuse to accept that proposition,” he said. “I intend to be the nominee and that’s exactly what’s going to happen.”

His Hollywood good looks combined with his steely determination in the face of adversity would have made the moment perfect for a movie about the making of a president. Too bad all the television cameras were crowded around Howard Dean standing a few yards away. George Clooney, who was filming the first episode of HBO’s new inside-the-Beltway series “K Street,” stood nearby as well, but he was signing an autograph.

Alexander Bolton writes for "The Hill" in Washington, D.C.

FEC says Edwards should repay $2M in federal money

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

  • more
    • All Share Services

FEC says Edwards should repay $2M in federal moneyFILE - 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

  • more
    • All Share Services

John Edwards asks judge for delay in sex tape caseFILE - 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

  • more
    • All Share Services

John Edwards' creepy mug shotEdwards 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

  • more
    • All Share Services

How John Edwards nearly ruined everythingDemocratic 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

  • more
    • All Share Services

Edwards indictment: New details of the coverupRielle 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