Busted! Edwards' Memo Details Plans To Go Negative

Edwards' memo details plans to criticize rivals
By John Mercurio
CNN Political Unit
Wednesday, January 21, 2004 Posted: 8:23 PM EST (0123 GMT)

Note: So much for the sanctimonious Edwards. But then having Shelton on his team was a warning signal for those who would listen.

Also Note, the information was signed by Edwards himself so don't buy the denial at the end. They wouldn't put his signature there without the candidate's permission. That is why it was labeled confidental and etc.




MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) -- Despite being credited with breathing life into his presidential bid by pushing positive themes, Sen. John Edwards' campaign circulated a confidential memo earlier this month that instructed supporters on how to attack his Democratic rivals during the Iowa caucuses.

The four-page document, obtained by CNN, instructs his campaign captains in Iowa precincts to describe former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean as an "elitist from Park Avenue in New York City." And it says Sen. John Kerry "can't claim to change America because he has been part of the failed Washington politics for too long."

It also offers a particularly detailed critique of Rep. Dick Gephardt, the former House minority leader who withdrew from the presidential race after his following a fourth-place finish in Iowa. Under his leadership, it says, House Democrats "lost control of Congress in 1994, and lost four more times since then. ... We can't afford another losing national campaign against George W. Bush and the Republicans." It adds, "Even if Gephardt somehow wins in Iowa, his campaign is eventually dead, just as it was in 1988."

Edwards campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri said the memo was written by his campaign in Iowa, and that Edwards himself did not know about the document until CNN contacted his campaign about it. - snip- Asked why Edwards' signature appears prominently at the top of the memo next to his type-written name, Edwards campaign communications director David Ginsberg said the documents are part of a 50-page training booklet, and that parts should not be taken out of context.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/21/elec04.prez.edwards/

Second link so we know CNN didn't make it up:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/US/edwards_positive_040121.html

snip

The Edwards campaign did spare Dennis Kucinich in the memo, instead heaping praise on the Ohio congressman. Before the caucuses, Edwards and Kucinich said they agreed to a deal whereby Kucinich supporters would instead back Edwards if they were unable to solidify a certain level of support, known as "viability," within each caucus meeting.

snip
In numerous interviews, Edwards has said his surprise second-place showing in Iowa was a direct result of a campaign he repeatedly described as "positive." "I think it's a response to the positive, optimistic message of hope, and talking about changing America in a fundamental way," Edwards said Tuesday on CNN's "American Morning." "It is a direct response to what people are hungry for, which is somebody who will give them a clear, positive vision for the country."

If I was the optimistic type I'd be shouting Edwards/Kucinich right now!

Unlike most of the others, nor has his staff been circulating BS memos or doing misleading phone campaigns. This was a talking points strategic memo, and was not leaked to the media.

One has to be prepared in a fight. Edwards is saving his fire for George Bush.

or just about as close to nothing as it can possibly be.

I think I heard that, and if he did, then in my eyes, he has issues dealing with integrity and character.

Shelton advises him on national security issues.

Moreover, how does seeking advice about national security from a military expert, in and of itself, raise issues of "integrity and character?" Has Edwards done or said anything arising out of his consultations with Shelton to cause anyone to question his character?

Was just about to post this! :hi:

Edwards and Kerry are being out manuevered BIG TIME.

If racking up 70% of the vote is being outmaneuvered, I'm sure they'll take it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

He's saying, "Oh, shit. If this is all anybody can come up with on this guy, we're screwed if he gets the nomination."

but I'm afraid that hedonistic joy in the trials of others is the only consistent characteristic of the New Dem party plank.

You'll get your go at it, if you should want it. Just be patient.

What does Edwards planning to do something that most of the other candidates have already done and is part of 99.9% of all campaigns have to do with anything?

The pretty boy image of Edwards has a trail of evidence leading to dealing from his dirty hands..... He is a bragart who boast he is keeping out of negative campaigning and playing it straight. Even Kucinich has a ring around the collar.

Well, until you do, you don't have an argument!

Anyone can think anything and plan anything but until they say it, they haven't gone negative!

I can think that you are a stupid, simple-minded, instigator who is making a mountain out of a pile of monkey crap, but if I don't say it, I haven't gone negative.

I can think, or write down anything that I want to, but if I don't use it, it doesn't matter.

ALL CAMPAIGNS HAVE RESEARCH TEAMS THAT DIG UP DIRT ON THE OTHER CANDIDATES JUST IN CASE, all of them!

No big deal, even though people who don't know the definition of hypocrite will try to make it one...

He doesn't take money from lobbyists, right?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=160082

I think it's a response to the positive, optimistic message of hope, and talking about changing America in a fundamental way," Edwards said Tuesday on CNN's "American Morning." "It is a direct response to what people are hungry for, which is somebody who will give them a clear, positive vision for the country."


Who has been bashing Edwards on the Campaign Trail???

Come on CS, don't give in to the dark side. Stay on the Clark side.

:-)

DTH

Just keeping them honest.

Dean's people need to get over it!

Dean is a pathetic candidate.

When have you heard Edwards go negative on any candidate?

Until you do, what argument do you have.

Everyone can think and plan for "just in case," but the fact of the matter is the POSITIVE MESSAGE caught on and he is sticking to it.

What message does Dean have?

Oh, I forgot.

He was against the war. There, the country is better.

Wake up...

If this gets more press, I think it will hurt him.

I railed on Dean when his conference call got outed by the reporters who were foolishly invited to participate by mistake. So I guess I have to criticize Edwards for it, too.

Edwards, this was a bad move, and you shouldn't have done it.

There, I'm done.

:-)

DTH

nt

Keep smiling, keep shining.

I see how it works for you.

Running a personal injury lawyer against BushCo was always a bad idea anyway.

But did you know he is the son of a mill worker?

No Shit?!!! No he's not! Get out!

Yes, this is worthy of criticism. But it's not worthy of THAT much criticism.

DTH

so this will suffice for now.

And considering Edwards is banking on his squeaky clean "postive message" ACT this is only fair.

do you just like to bash people????

pretending to be above the fray, all the while he was being as low down and dirty as those he pretended to be different from.

he would end this war!

1%? 2%? Yeah, he'd end the war alright. Heh.

and that puts him head and shoulders over most of the Democratic field.

do to prepare their supporters?

From watching CSPAN caucus coverage, I'll guess they had one strategy in their manual: bribe and/or lie to Kucinich supporters -- tell them they "PROMISE" (no fingers crossed) you'll elect them as county-level delegate where they can vote for Kucinich if they want to. RIIIGGGHHHTTT.

They've got part of Edwards'.

I will chill on Edwards. He's one of my least favorite candidates and his "son of a mill worker" schtick grates on my nerves. It's right up there with Dean's...."YOU HAVE THE POWER!" I will try my best not to be cynical. ;)

I think he was one at one point or another.

:D

(Really, I love Edwards, but it's fun to make fun of his stump speech.)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Clark responded to a dig by Bob Dole - if you are siding with Bob Dole, then perhaps you are in the wrong place.

Bob's dig and Clark's response related to John Kerry. Tonight on C-Span, Clark praised Kerry - a good man, a friend, a patriot.

Today, Kerry praised Clark.

Enuf said - story over.

Including making up stories. So, it's begun. No surprise.

C'mon.

I guess that's why they were Howard Dean's largest campaign contributor in 2003 with almost $63,000, right?

Of course it is, but oooooooh, the media is bashing Dean right?

Nooooooooooooo, they were "cashing" Dean!

Big Freaking Deal!

the other campaigns considered other options as well.

this IS what they do for a living and they wouldn't be here if they were not successful at getting elected. you never go into anything without options. they didn't need that option, plan A worked.

Well except for Sharpton and Clark.

research on each other so the don't get caught with toilet paper on thier shoe if someone suddenly starts swinging at them.

If too much of this shows up it will hurt his squeaky image though.

As for me I need a little more than an internal memo to get too upset.

he's too smart not to.

I know the Dean folks are upset. This is predictable and meaningless.

seems like one of the contigencies was already used

and it makes me doubt Kucinich's lame explanation for the deal.

At this rate, I may end up supporting Lieberman. At least I know where Joe stands on the issues!

I haven't been this disillusioned since I realized we were the Evil Empire.

Keep reaching. You are going to pull a muscle in a minute.

Hopefully someone will ask him about it on television.

He needs all of the press that he can get, lol...

Even cute dimples and a great head of hair aren't getting John Boy out of this one.

ABCNews has Edwards response. He said he wasn't aware, but he takes responsibility.

This part of the packet was a "Talking Points" on how to negate attacks at the caucuses.

I don't think its as bad as some of the other negatives, but I am dissapointed that this happened.

And it's brought the Edwards haters out of the woodwork. We have to get used to this: the media whores will do ANYTHING to stop Edwards, and this is just the first shot. If he says he was unaware, he was unaware. Especially since it didn't happen.

I guess nobody really caught that. This is politics. People have to explain their position and there has to be a certain amount of "negativity" in order to differentiate. That's different than a campaign that depends on negativity and little more to be effective.

and we did not fire on Edwards thinking that he was squeaky clean. It turns out that Edwards was being untruthful and deceitful all along.

obviously, the lesson he would and did learn from Iowa is that positive campaigning pays off. Since this was just a memo circulated by his staff, I doubt Edwards will go negative on the stump.

I guess this could get more publicity, but he'll be drowned out by the Dean speech thing.

To think I was being so mean to Kerry thinking that he was the true villain, it now appears that there were other players.

Asked why Edwards' signature appears prominently at the top of the memo next to his type-written name, Edwards campaign communications director David Ginsberg said the documents are part of a 50-page training booklet

If Kerry had used such a lame excuse, we would all be jumping on him for being Rovian. Edwards won't get a pass on this, and he shouldn't.

yaaaaaaargh!

This is all of a sudden classified as "attacks" lol, pretty mild compared to the other stuff being thrown between the candidates.

Edwards has been attacked, do you expect him to just sit back and take it? He has to fight back eventually.

Shame on you for alleging it was Trippi. There is a who basket full of options.

A candidate saying that he's better than the other candidates! Why I've never heard of such a thing!

Miss Maggy, please fetch me my smelling salts! I feel an attack of the vapors coming on!

There's going to be some negativity, no one is a purist. As long as it's not the main thrust of his campaigning which it doesn't seem to be, I think some of this is to be expected.

By the way, Kerry supporter here.

How many times have you seen Edwards criticize another candidate in an ad or at a debate or on the stump?

if you haven't then he is running a clean campaign.

Listen, I am an Edwards supporter, and we light into other candidates all of the time, especially when someone like John Kerry goes on television last night and starts using "TWO AMERICAS" like it's his.

But the bottom line is, Edwards didn't gather us around the table and tell us to lash out on other candidates.

Besides, do you think he sat down and SIGNED ALL OF THOSE BOOKS OR EVEN READ ALL OF IT?

I doubt it.

He probably didn't even know that most of the stuff that was in it was in it. Other people in the campaign worry about stuff like that, which is why they are getting paid.

Do you all know how a campaign works? Do you all know about the research team? Every campaign has certain volunteers assigned to different candidates and they dig up dirt on those candidates.

Go to Dean's headquarters and then come back and tell me the name of the group of volunteers that are assigned to John Edwards, because there are some.

Big deal!

You all got a dose of reality the other night when Dean got trounced like we told you that he would, and now you are getting another lesson.

All campaigns dig up dirt on the other candidates! They have people in the campaigns who are there just to do that! All campaigns have people who work for them! Just like Dean has said a thousand times that HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THAT when something comes up in his campaign, there are things that Edwards doesn't know about as well, and until ATTACK WORDS COME OUT OF HIS MOUTH DIRECTED AT OTHER CANDIDATES, he hasn't attacked anyone!

But it is gracious of him to take the blame for it because his name is on it...

But I will try. It was a shocking Iowa caucus. Every candidate had to
use the best strategy they could muster. Edwards and Kucinich obviously
saw a great deal of compatibility in message and style.

But that did not stop either of them from being politicians, for goddess sake. I did not labor under the delusion that Dennis was not a
political strategist, or Edwards either. Thor's breath, do you think I would vote for a naif to run against Rove?

A great deal of what I respect about both, beyond their platforms
is the fact that they know as well as anyone how to dive into the mud and bite the ** pinky off an opponent, and chose not to.




** - or any other appendage of approximate size.

"We don't want nobody coming down here telling us what to do" was a dead give away to the phony for me. Is the Southern drawl real/fake? My how he slithered in Iowa he and Kerry both rode into town on a white horse in Iowa on the trail blazed by Dean and then claimed the high ground. Again no surprise here. I think I've give my many relatives a call who live in several cities in NC and see how he is viewed there.

Back and forth elbowing.

Man his image will be tarnished. He said he was on a positive message...I'm just plain stupefied.

Don't you know that you're either with Dean or against all that is Right and Good and True? At least that seems to be a regrettably common attitude.

So far this year, Edwards has run a remarkably civil campaign. That could change, and probably will when things tighten up, but so far he has had little to say about the other candidates, something that is definitely not true of several of the others, who have been negative from the start.

That is the only question I am interested in finding the answer. If the story is a smear, which appears that it is not since the Edwards campaign referred to it as "training material," then the next question would be who got this story to the press.

Now, if anyone has information that shows this story to be false, and that reveals a concerted effort by the press to pick and destroy the Democratic candidates one by one, then by all means step forward and speak out!

Senator Edwards was not aware of this document," Edwards' Communication Director David Ginsberg told ABCNEWS, adding. "Once he found out about it, he takes full responsibility for it. He thinks it was wrong and has instructed the staff not to do anything like that again.


There is a difference between an internal communication on how to deflect negative attacks at the caucuses, and negatively attacking others through TV ads, media mailings, and stump speeches. I will repeat that I am disappointed, but I don't think this was really negative campaigning.

He didn't blame the press. He didn't blame the other campaigns. He didn't claim the voters "just don't understand."

He took responsibility for something his campaign did. How refreshing.

via campaign literature given to campaign captains ISN'T "really negative campaigning?"

huh. legal technicality?

I may be weird, but I much prefer a politicians going openly negative to one going positive on TV and having supporters go negative behind closed doors. The one thing that makes this look better to me is that Edwards semi-accepted responsibility.

SWAT scribes.

Date: November 11, 2003
Clark Communications Director questions John Edwards retaining Hugh Shelton.
http://clark04.com/press/release/071/
Honorable John Edwards
Edwards for President
PO Box 300034
Raleigh, NC 27622

Dear Senator Edwards:

I'm simply astounded that you have retained General Hugh Shelton as an adviser to your presidential campaign. This choice undermines the spirit of civility that you have urged your fellow candidates to uphold. Just this September, you said: "We need to be really careful that our anger is not directed at each other." Maybe you should share that advice with your own campaign team.

General Shelton has engaged in precisely the type of politics as usual mud-slinging that you profess to abhor: he initiated what has become a smear campaign that the Republicans have gleefully taken up. And his character assassination was the worst type: General Shelton leveled charges about "integrity" and "character," and then refused to back up his charge with an ounce of evidence or a shred of substantiation. Attacks like these have no place in campaigns, or in any public discourse. You should insist that General Shelton either repudiate his attacks or come forward and provide proof for what he said.

Your association with General Shelton is also curious given your position of support for the war in Kosovo. As you know, by waging war against Slobodan Milosevic in Kosovo, we saved 1.5 million Albanians from ethnic cleansing, all without losing a single American life. Have you changed your mind about this operation? Do you now think we should have refused to stop the genocide and given Milosevic free reign in the region, as your adviser apparently believes?

By associating with General Shelton on this campaign, you seem to have given in to the negative politics that you say you have risen above. I hope that throughout the campaign you will maintain the high level of dialogue that you have insisted on for others and that you will address this matter promptly.

Sincerely,

Matt Bennett
Communications Director
Clark for President

The response I remember was: "Shelton is my good longtime friend, advises me on international affairs".
He is also the guy who slammed O'Neal after the disclosure and cheered the war. Good company, non?

Shelton has engaged in McCarthyism by alluding to Clark's "unfitness" for President on some "integrity" issue and getting people like Storming Norman to parrot the same party line.

Shelton has yet to produce one iota of evidence against Clark. Shelton has been behaving like Joe McCarthy and his secret list of communists in the State Department.

Sad!

here you are. An obsure story from Newsweek in 2000 saved a Chezch site. They would have reason to remember this.


http://mujweb.atlas.cz/www/kutija/nw000515.htm

The point is that Clark wanted to fly lower so that the pilots could see the targets (and avoid civilian casualties), and he also wanted to use the Apaches against Serbian armor. It was Clinton and the Pentagon that did not want Clark to do that because they feared casualties.

Clark was right, Clinton and the Pentagon (including Shelton) were wrong.

altitudes and choice of assets is not the point.

I was flipping stations and I think it was CNN, but can't be sure.

There was video of Edwards working the NH crowds. A voter asked him if he knew how much it cost in NH. Edwards said he didn't know what it cost in NH as he was from NC. The voter then asked, how much does it cost in NC then? Edwards didn't know.

$5 bucks says aides are in the grocery stores as week speak pricing out average american family grocery bills.

not throwing this bit out for any apparent reason. just saw the title busted and thought of this moment. not really worthy of its own thread.

anybody have the actual details?

Yep it's a bust but no big deal. All campaigns have their arsenal of stuff...it's a shitty business.

And the fact of the matter is that Edwards STILL DIDN'T GO NEGATIVE!

And because he didn't, the media is trying to make shove it down his throat, hit him in the stomach, and make him go negative because they want him to.

This is typical...

and that is the point. I hope this healthy dose of scrutiny is applied equally to all. I guess the positive part of the notes were left around to be seen and golly gee the negative notes found their way into the wrong hands. Maybe a backstabber you know John who is posing as a phony too.

In GWB's & Cheney's direction....BABY!! Edwards is smooth. I dig him! The dimples don't hurt either.

Clark/Edwards is unbeatable IMO...they couldn't beat it.

:puke: The guy has no experience at anything dealing with running our country anyway!

they only need to take a look at the plethora of Edwards bashing threads that have arisen in the past day (mostly, it seems, generated by Dean supporters) to confirm he's become a threat.

Second link so we know CNN didn't make it up:

No, the press only makes things up when they report negative things about Howard Dean. :-)

i still am a big fan of edwards, even with the criticism on my candidate. i have learned that kerry doesn't take things personally,and i will try not to either.

And if this surprises anyone, you should go work in a well organized phone bank. They ALL have summaries like this to help people make up their minds.

I would question the Edwards campaign's intelligence if they DIDN'T do this.

So, I'm shocked, SHOCKED! to see a well-prepared campaign helping supporters articulating ways to compare candidates.

And, notice, Edwards didn't have to hire any candidates to attack other candidates in the debates.

I still don't like it, though. :-) I just am not going to let myself get worked up about it.

DTH

is it has made clear to me which posters are so irrational and nasty, that there is no use in responding or presenting data to them.

and didn't try to blame anyone else for it or claim that he is being unfairly maligned.

There's more to running a positive campaign than just not attacking your opponents. Edwards is showing us how candidates should behave.

Go Edwards!

It shows Edwards knows how to play the game. The talking points aren't very negative, but they are effective. I am not that worried about this.

Come on - I suspect every campaign has papers and themes and research. The idea that just because there was a memo Edwards is bad.

I think it is good for Edwards that he had a memo - but didn't use anything in it!

Dean did it himself.

Every campaign has documents that accentuate the differnences between their candidate and the others. Edwards, Kerry, Dean, Clark, Gephardt. If you don't believe that, you need to go down to the corner store and buy yourself a clue. The difference between Edwards and the other candidates is that he has not used it, and neither have his surrogates. The others have, at one point or another (except Clark, and I commend him for that - he's my #2, but trust me, I'm sure he has the documents prepared).

I think many of you would be shocked by the stuff that you can't find on the internet. Edwards has not attacked another candidate himself, through his staff, on TV, in print, or anywhere else for that matter. That's why he's known as the "positive" candidate, no matter what the media or other candidates' supporters say.

But it may get lost:

In his own words:

"I take full responsibility for anything that happened in my campaign. I did not know this, it's wrong and I have given instructions for this not to ever happen again," said in Portsmouth, N.H. "I condemn it."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109095,00.html

I'm not even a committed Edwards guy, but this is nothing. If that's all his staff was saying about the others, those are only minor slams. It's not like they said Dean had an illegitimate black love child like the Bush folks said about McCain in South Carolina four years ago. Bah.

:-)

Isn't this the nature of a campaign to differentiate yourself? Every candidate is going to be outed with these revelations. I'll go with my gut and believe that Edwards is as honorable as anyone running for President in our Party.

I thought it was Dean, Clark and Kerry who were sanctimonious.
By the way, Dean IS an elitist from Park Ave in NYC.
And I didn't need to read a Edwards campaign memo to learn that, I've been saying it for a year to anyone who would listen because its true.

"Edwards campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri said the briefing book was written by his campaign in Iowa and that Edwards did not know about it until CNN contacted his campaign."

I would worry about John Edwards if he didn't have this kind of information on his opponents. This is appropriately part of a political campaign. It's the reason campaigns have people like Lehane, you know.

Just in case.

She meant that he didn't know it was in a book distributed. He obviously knows all the negative stuff about all the other candidates. Everybody does. The question is "Has John Edwards made any attacks, or been negative?" The answer to me is still a resounding no.

and the storm will pass, heck we don't even know if this is going to be a storm

but there are some desperate Dems on the decline right now who are going to hit Edwards with all they got.

this is getting unweildy because of length. Please continue here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=160726&mesg_id=160726

Thanks