Edwards Spox Asks Obama To Stop "Lying"

IOWA -- CBS News' Maria Gavrilovic**, traveling with the Obama campaign in Jefferson, IA, recorded this answer of Barack Obama's to a questioner who wanted to know why he should chose the senator from Illinois over the former senator from North Carolina:

"If you are then choosing between Edwards and myself, then I would say this. He is a fine person, with a beautiful family who's run a very good campaign. But I would say that if you look at the track records of who has really brought about change when then were in a position to do it, then I can make a claim that you can trust, that you can count on. When I was in the senate I fought and got the power of lobbyists reduced, that’s not something that John has invested in, even though he’s talking about it now."

"When I talk about getting troops out of Iraq, I was opposed to the war at the start when it was unpopular to be against the war.

"John was for it. When I talk about trade, and that we should have environmental agreements in out trade agreements, I didn’t support NAFTA, didn’t vote for permanent trade relations for China, John did."

"When I talk about the hardships of working families and some of them for no fault of their own because they got sick become bankrupt and there were laws passed pushed by the credit card companies that made it harder to get out of bankruptcy and John voted for that provision. I had rejected similar provisions."

"I am saying this only because you have to look at where somebody has been to know where they are going. He says now that those were mistakes and I have no reason to doubt that he believes that but I guess the point I am making is in my gut, there is a consistency of who I am fighting for, what I believe in, choices I have made in my life that can give you some assurance of when I get into the White House. I am going to be fighting for you and I am not going to be different as time goes on."

Read these remarks by CBS's Aaron Lewis, John Edwards's spokesman, Mark Kornblau, said:

""Barack Obama should stop lying to Iowans about John Edwards's record. Really."

** = Disclosure: I put CBS's reporters output on this blog because (a) I'm now a consultant to their news division and (b) they tend to have the best stuff, the fastest. But if you're cynical, you can just go with (a).

Comments

Usually when you accuse someone of lying, you point out why the person is lying by providing the truth.

Unless the person isn't lying and you're just desperate to beat back the charge.

Posted by Mike | December 31, 2007 3:33 PM

Hmmm. I'm not saying Obama hasn't spun some of this, but he did lay out some specific differences in their records, and if the Edwards campaign wants to call it as "lying" they need to articulate which part, which vote...

If there are lies in the mix, those should be easy to point out. Just replying "really" isn't cutting it.

On a broader point, does anyone know of any voter who has ever had their political mind changed by reading a blog? Just curious. Its a thought I've had for a while, ever since hearing how seven Clinton staffers were kicked off Blue Hampshire. Everyone throws the line around about paid staffers on these blogs, but I always assumed the actual campaign staffs had more important things to do. And even though Clinton was the only one caught, I suppose we can assume her staffers writing on these message boards means others are probably doing it. So... why?

Posted by Paul | December 31, 2007 3:37 PM

It is interesting to read the charges laid by Obama on Edwards. It will be full hardy to elect Edwards after all those apologies-Iraq, NAFTA, Lobbyist, Mellon, 527s.

Posted by undecided decided | December 31, 2007 3:43 PM

An InsiderAdvantage Poll Predicts a decisive Edwards victory, and a possible Howard Dean style meltdown of Obama.

http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_1231_103.aspx

First round:
Clinton 30
Edwards 29
Obama 22
Other candidates 14

After reallocating second-choices, the results are even shocking:
Edwards 41
Clinton 34
Obama 25

Regardless of geographic areas of support, the Edwards ‘second choice’ percentage has remained well over 50% since we first released a second-choice survey in early December,” he said. As a follow-up to that earlier survey, InsiderAdvantage has polled the race every night since Dec. 26.
“The overall trend lines have changed very little over the last several days,” Towery said. “Generally, every night shows Clinton with a slight lead, Obama losing steam, and Edwards hanging in close to Clinton. Moreover, the trends show that Edwards consistently is the second choice of those whose first choice candidate is below 15%.

“Probably the race will tighten. I would expect that the reallocated numbers will tighten among the top candidates as well.
“The most that can be said now is that Clinton likely will appear to be the leader in many caucus locations on the first round, but not by a big margin. If Edwards’ second preference position holds, he may very well be the upset winner on Jan. 3.

Posted by obamadean | December 31, 2007 3:54 PM

Edwards really, really wants to be president but he has no record to stand on.

All of his big votes in his one (1) term as a elected official are now points of flip-flopping.

What is the world is Iowa thinking giving us another Kerry?

Posted by Adam | December 31, 2007 4:00 PM

Who does Kornblau think he is, Bob Dole?

I don't doubt that Edwards' changes in position are genuine, but everything Obama says above is true.

Posted by Mike H | December 31, 2007 4:02 PM

It's a really interesting argument for Obama to make, considering that the entire trend of his public career has been to become more and more conservative. On Iraq, on the death penalty, on health care, Obama has consistently moved to the right during his public career. A trend, I predict, will continue, whether he gets the nomination or not.

Posted by AJ | December 31, 2007 4:05 PM

Obama's changes have been very minor. He's changed in terms of the tactics or plans he supports in order to reach a certain goal (withdrawal from Iraq, gun control, death penalty reform, or universal health care), but he's always maintatined the same goals.

The same is not true of Edwards. He's completely changed his position on many major issues. He consponsored the Iraq War Resolution (and against ammendments that would have limited Bush), voted for the 2001 bankruptcy bill (and against the Wellstone ammendments), voted for nuclear dumping in Yucca, and voted for China trade. He was quiet on NAFTA, but now blasts it. In 2004, he defended his war vote and was against civil unions.

That's his record and now he takes positions directly in contradiction to that record. Just like Romney, it's impossible to take him seriously.

Posted by Mike | December 31, 2007 4:17 PM

Obama must really be feeling desperate to stoop
this low! Obama has ignored the plight of minority Americans to pander to a white electorate. He does not represent the poor, he is an elitist: (Audacity of Hope, page 86-87) Obama writes "The founders recognized that there were seeds of anarchy in the idea of individual
freedom, an intoxicating danger in the idea of equality, for if everybody is truly free, without constraints of birth or rank and an inherited social order...how can we ever hope to form a society that coheres?" Where in that social order do you think Obama places himself? Not with the little people in poor neighborhoods. If he did, he wouldn't have
Goldman/Sachs endorsing him, he wouldn't have
accepted contributions from 17 lobbyist groups and HMO money second only to Hillary Clinton. And yes, he would be pointing fingers at 527 groups that have not attacked anyone, merely come out in a positive manner for John Edwards, when he has a 527 group himself..."VOTE HOPE!" Obama has taken parts from Edwards's platform and presented them as his own and now he whines about a 527 group as if he were the only one who should have such a group speaking out for him. The truth is people are waking up to who is the real candidate of change...John Edwards!

Posted by Sandra Griffin | December 31, 2007 4:42 PM

When you have to resort to attacking your opponent in the closing days of an election you've already lost in my book.

Posted by pmorlan | December 31, 2007 4:43 PM

It's about time the Edwardses called out Obama for his DESPERATE LYING.

Why doesn't Obama explain why he voted for Dick Cheney's energy bill and to give Bush every DIME that he wanted for Iraq from January 2005 to Spring 2007? Better yet, why doesn't Obama explain why he voted to allow credit card companies to charge consumers as high as 30% interest.

All candidates have bad votes. Obama's lies by not pointing out his own, unlike John Edwards, who has said that the Iraq War Resolution was a mistake, and who probably only voted for the 2002 bankruptcy bill WHICH DIDN'T really BECOME LAW because of the minimum wage increase that was attached to the bill.

Posted by framecop | December 31, 2007 4:46 PM

Hey Marc,
you (and CBS News) left off the most interesting part of the story.

ABC News got it:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/obama-one-mans.html
After the event, Blanshan told reporters he asked Edwards the exact same question last August on the steps of the county courthouse. But Blanshan said he liked Obama's answer better.

"What matters to me is change," Blanshan said.

"I'm still for Biden," he said. "But my second choice now is Obama."

That may explain why the Edwards response was so angry. They know how much this hurts them.

Posted by Mike | December 31, 2007 4:47 PM

Marc, maybe you can change the headline on the post to reflect the fact that everything Obama said was true? I mean, I know you're a member of the mainstream media and all, but that doesn't mean you can't make judgments when one party makes a factual claim and the other calls it a lie.

Posted by Alex F | December 31, 2007 4:56 PM

Edwards claims to be able to fight special interests, but he somehow can't manage to get even his former campaign manager and supposed friend to stop spending money in a 527 organization blanketing Iowan and NH in junk mail supporting Edwards.

How are we supposed to believe he can deliver results against powerful vested interests if he can't even control his friends and associates?

Posted by Roy | December 31, 2007 5:18 PM

Sandra Griffin,
You must be kidding me.Edwards is a fake and everyone knows that, except for some folks in Iowa where he's been camping out for 4 years.The guy takes money to give speeches on poverty for cryng out loud. He's a hedge fund pirate with a 28000 square foot house.He charged exorbitant fees to extort money from the same corporations he's now railing against.He's suddenly metamorphosed into a raging populist. When was the last time a fake populist won the white house? Get back to me on that one.Edwards reeks of desperation and is using tons of interest groups in Iowa to win the nomination.I guess those interest groups are ok when they help him out.The guy is a loser, proven in 2004.He got his clock cleaned by Dick and contributed zilch to the ticket by losing in his own state.Obama is stating facts, not lies.Lies are very easy to pinpoint. All he has to do is rebut them with facts.I don't think he can because he knows Obama is telling the truth.Edwards voted for the war when it was politically safe to do so; then changed his mind when it became politically safe to do so.HRC played the same game. They're now all anti-war, anti-poverty after lining their big pockets with money in the Caiman island on the backs of poor people.Edwards is a phony.So is Hillary.

Posted by joseph pierre | December 31, 2007 5:19 PM

BROOKLYN, IOWA — The longtime Republican mayor of this tiny heartland town will stun his neighbors — and send shockwaves that will reach his countrymen in the real Brooklyn — when he breaks ranks with the GOP to vote for Sen. Barack Obama at the Iowa caucuses this Thursday. But he did think many eyes would be following Rickard as he entered the Democratic, rather than Republican, caucus.
“He is very well respected here, so people will certainly talk about it,” he said.

http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/30/51/31_01iowamayor.html

I hear there are a lot of these people all over Iowa...wonder if the polls are catching them? This may be the real surprise come caucus night

Posted by Lyn | December 31, 2007 5:43 PM

Sandra, what was so low about it? I mean, here he is bringing up specific votes that were more than mere procedural tactics and showing to show a) differences between his record and Edwards' and b) a very important disconnect between Edwards' rhetoric on the stump and his votes in DC. This is what primaries should be about: showing true differences between candidates and giving us a venue to evaluate a candidate's record in relation to his or her campaign rhetoric.

When Edwards and Clinton challenged Obama's health care they were engaging in the same type of productive discourse, and Obama's campaign gave a rebuttal to those specific criticisms. That does a great service to voters.

If Obama was to talk about how owning a 28,000 sq. ft. house shows you're out of touch with the middle class, it would have been low and not useful. If he was to go on about all the questionable campaign contributions Edwards received in 2004, that might be valid but not too useful. If he was to take an excerpt of Edwards' writing explaining the utility of a representative democracy and claim that as an endorsement of elitism, that would not only have been low and useful, but also kind of moronic.

Posted by Sam | December 31, 2007 5:48 PM

I don't think Edwards was in the Senate for the bankruptcy bill.

Posted by willie | December 31, 2007 6:19 PM

I think the point of Kornblau's statement was that the reporters were supposed to point out the truth. Edwards did not vote for NAFTA and opposed it at the time and ever since. Edwards has never taken lobbyist donations or PAC donations in any of his senate or presidential campaigns; in 1998, he campaigned in NC against special interests and insurance companies; he is not new to this issue.

Obama took plenty of such money during and afer his Senate campaign and right up until he decided he was going to run for President.

Posted by Gus | December 31, 2007 6:25 PM

Willie -- he was in the Senate for the 2001 bankruptcy bill, not the 2005 one.

Here's a link to a Dodd press release on the subject, hosted on some random anti-Edwards site which Google turned up:

http://jre-whatsnottolike.com/category/senate/banking-committee/bankruptcy-bill/

Posted by Alex F | December 31, 2007 6:43 PM

Edwards opposed NAFTA when he ran for the Senate in 98--the first time he took a stand on it. So Obama is lying about that.

Posted by David Mizner | December 31, 2007 6:55 PM

Obama is desperate!
Better to talk about what he would do if elected.
Change? What is Obama going to change?
He spends too much time talking about Edwards.
Obama, who are you? Where are you on the plight of the victims of Katrina?
Poverty? Minorities? You are a minority Obama!
Who did you defeat to become US Senator from Illinois? Alan Keyes? Can you run on that achievement?

Who are your contributors?
Your supporters should look it up; The info is available on the Internet.

Posted by inessa | December 31, 2007 7:12 PM

Maybe you should read Obama's statement again. He never said that Edwards voted for NAFTA. Obama simply said that he didn't support NAFTA. The crux of his statement was that Edwards supported permanent trade relations with China:

"John was for it. When I talk about trade, and that we should have environmental agreements in out trade agreements, I didn’t support NAFTA, didn’t vote for permanent trade relations for China, John did."

Also, apparently, Edwards wasn't always so vociferously opposed to NAFTA:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE3DF143CF937A15751C0A9629C8B63

Judge however you wish. But, Edwards hasn't been consistent on many issues -- to argue otherwise is counterproductive and naive. His inconsistencies may come back to haunt him (and the Democratic Party) as he moves ahead.

Posted by TruthSeeker | December 31, 2007 7:26 PM

Here's another one on Edwards and trade (NAFTA & China):

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/edwards/articles/2004/02/20/trade_issue_close_to_home_for_edwards/

Edwards is surging at a good time for his campaign. He won't have to answer many charges of inconsistency before the vote in Iowa.

But, what's good for his campaign may be terrible for Democrats.

Posted by TruthSeeker | December 31, 2007 7:32 PM

Obama's remarks came in a response to a specific question from a voter who wanted to know why he/she should vote for Obama instead of Edwards. Obama's answer was appropriate,and was factual. Edwards supporters should take the time to check the facts and some bloggers have provided links to allow you all to do that. If he is lying, let Edwards point out the lies. Candidates have to stand on their records, not empty promises. Edwards has said that Obama is "too nice" "too academic" to be President. These are not facts, but only his opinions. Voters must make informed decisions based on the facts. That is how democracy functions. Obama simply presented the facts, after complimenting him for his strengths. Look up his votes. Do your homework on your candidate. Obama supporters certainly have.

Posted by anita preer | December 31, 2007 7:38 PM

We all dont have perfect records, but you make an excellent point. Great research.

Quote"

It's about time the Edwardses called out Obama for his DESPERATE LYING.

Why doesn't Obama explain why he voted for Dick Cheney's energy bill and to give Bush every DIME that he wanted for Iraq from January 2005 to Spring 2007? Better yet, why doesn't Obama explain why he voted to allow credit card companies to charge consumers as high as 30% interest.

All candidates have bad votes. Obama's lies by not pointing out his own, unlike John Edwards, who has said that the Iraq War Resolution was a mistake, and who probably only voted for the 2002 bankruptcy bill WHICH DIDN'T really BECOME LAW because of the minimum wage increase that was attached to the bill. "

Posted by Mark | December 31, 2007 8:44 PM

Composition 101: You make a statement or hypothesis and follow with information to support it.

If there is a writer at The Atlantic, please come forward, we need you.

Posted by TishiJo | January 1, 2008 1:05 AM

We're in the homestretch now & with no time to waste on dissecting Obama's empty rhetoric. GO JOHN, GO!

Posted by CAReal | January 1, 2008 1:49 AM

If John says that Obama should stop lying, he certainly must have a basis for saying so.
All data have a context. And when they are simply stated without the correct context, they can be used falsely.

Edwards has said that his vote for Iraq was wrong. He was forthright about it unlike Hillary. Who has not made a wrong vote? One's opinion about complex and difficult issues evolve over time, as perspectives change and horizons widen. If Obama does not see this, and even uses this evolution of position as a point of criticism against Edwards, he is a shallow thinker.

A great leader must be a man/woman of profound thought, one who sees the depth and complexity of human issues and problems--And one who has the courage to accept that he/she had made a mistake.

By the way, I was shocked to know that Obama spent more than 8 million for ads, beyond Hillary's and Romney's 6 million. Edwards only spent some 2 million, even lesser than Richardson's 3 million? He relied on public funding.

If Obama can spend this enormous amount, is he the genuine agent of change? He plays the same old game of politics, governed by money.

Stop Obama's platitudes! Eloquent, yes, but untested.

Posted by christina astorga | January 1, 2008 2:23 AM

Roy,

For the love of God READ THE LAW about 527s: it is illegal for Edwards to coordinate with any of them (i.e. if he tells them to stop and they do, it's against the law). Besides, those are independent groups, which Obama benefits from as well and has encouraged their use in the general election.

Posted by Peters | January 1, 2008 3:47 AM

Also with regards to hypocrisy:

Obama was famously against the Iraq war and yet his voting record is the same as that remarkable change agent...Clinton. He has voted repeatedly to fund this war unconditionally. Check out his record.

And with regards to Edwards vote on Iraq: George McGovern himself, a fierce anti-war critic, approved of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which authorized Johnson to go into Vietnam. Good people make mistakes. Great people do something about it. Obama, in spite of knowing what a disaster Iraq is, has voted to give Bush nothing but blank checks. Judgment? Please.

Posted by Peters | January 1, 2008 3:51 AM

Obama admitted that he might have voted for the war if he had been in the Senate in 2002.

In 2004 Obama said his position on the Iraq war was essentially the same as that of George W. Bush.

In 2004 Obama also took down his 2002 anti-war speech from his website and only put it back up when it became clear that it might be an asset in his 2007-8 presidential campaign.

Obama supported -both- the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, and the leveraging of U.S. forces in Iraq as a deterrent to Iran, before he skipped the KLA vote and then pretended to be against these things (because Clinton voted in favor).

Obama had paid lobbyists active on his campaign staff.

Even though Obama has supposedly cut out lobbyist contributions he has recieved hundreds of thousands of dollars (perhaps millions in all) through corporate bundlers associated with Wall Street (Goldman/Sachs, Morgan Stanley, ADM, etc).

Obama has a more pro-GOP Senate voting record than Senator Clinton according to ProgressivePunch.org - in fact he's only a few rungs away from Lieberman on their (completely statistical, non-subjective) scale.

Obama has not gained the endorsement of a -single- national labor union while Clinton has 9 and Edwards has 4.

Obama has adopted right-wing talking points on Social Security, labor unions as "special interests", and character assassination of his Democratic rivals who should in the long run be his allies if he is truly a Democrat.

In brief: Obama is a hypocrite and a liar, and Edwards' spokesman is right.

Posted by Chris Corbell | January 1, 2008 6:56 AM

Mike Bloomberg for president.

Posted by Carlton Colquitt | January 1, 2008 9:00 AM

John Edwards was not in the Senate when that awful bankruptcy vote was passed. Unless I misread, basically Obama is saying he voted for it.

Posted by Jackie Mac | January 1, 2008 9:51 PM

"OBAMA PORTRAIT MUSIC VIDEO" on Youtube - Don't Miss It!

For those of you who still have not heard:

There is a WONDERFUL and INSPIRING music video on Youtube.com entitled "Obama Portrait Music Video by Bjarne O."
You can use the free downloaded high-quality stereo version from the composer's website in DVD form to show at house parties. Even people who knew nothing at all about Obama have been moved.
The music soundtrack, which incorporates excerpts from the famous 2004 speech, can also be downloaded separately in high-quality.

It is an uplifting and informative campaign tool - so please, SPREAD THE WORD!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mCPwbozpIzM

Together for Obama,
Anne

Posted by anne villa | January 2, 2008 10:58 AM

Sandra Griffin failed to quote the entire paragraph from Obama's book so thought you might find the rest of it interesting:

"We also understand that a declaration is not a government; a creed is not enough. The Founders recognized that there were seeds of anarchy in the idea of individual freedom, an intoxicating danger in the idea of equality, for if everyone is truly free, without the constraints of birth or rank or an inherited social order - if my notion of faith is no better or worse than yours, and my notions of truth and goodness and beauty are as true and good and beautiful as yours - then how can we ever hope to form a society that coheres? Enlightenment thinkers like Hobbes and Locke suggested that free men would form governments as a bargain to ensure that one man's freedom did not become another man's tyranny; that they would sacrifice individual license to better preserve their liberty. And building on this concept, political theorists writing before the American Revolution concluded that only a democracy could fulfill the need for both freedom and order - a form of government in which those who are governed grant their consent, and the laws constraining liberty are uniform, predictable, and transparent, applying equally to the rulers and the ruled." (pages 86-87)

Posted by Oilwellian | January 5, 2008 3:09 AM