I think there may be some dispute between supporters of different candidates about who has the coolest celebrity endorsement, but for my money, the best one so far this campaign season is the endorsement of John Edwards today by Harry Belafonte.
Belafonte, who became famous in the 1950s by popularizing Calypso music from the Caribbean, has been a long time human rights activist. Among other things, he worked with the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. during the civil rights movement in the 1960s. He hasn’t stopped working for the betterment of humanity since.
The Life of Harry Belafonte
Belafonte with Sidney Poitier and Charlton Heston at the 1963 Civil Rights March on Washington
Like Robeson and other African-American entertainers, Belafonte’s success in the arts did not protect him from racial discrimination, particularly in the South of the United States. As a result, he refused to perform in the South of the U.S. from 1954 until 1961. In 1960, President John F. Kennedy named Belafonte as cultural advisor to the Peace Corps. Belafonte was an early supporter of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and one of Martin Luther King’s confidants. He provided for King’s family, since King made only $8,000 a year as a preacher. Like many civil rights activists, he was blacklisted during the McCarthy era. He bailed King out of the Birmingham City Jail and raised thousands of dollars to release other imprisoned civil rights protesters. He financed the Freedom Rides, supported voter registration drives, and helped to organize the March on Washington in 1963.
In 1968, Belafonte appeared on a Petula Clark primetime television special on NBC. In the middle of a song, Clark smiled and briefly touched Belafonte’s arm, which made the show’s sponsor, Plymouth Motors, nervous. Plymouth wanted to cut out the segment, but Clark, who had ownership of the special, told NBC that the performance would be shown intact or she would not allow the special to be aired at all. American newspapers published articles reporting the controversy and, when the special aired, it grabbed high viewing figures. Clark’s gesture marked the first time in which two people of different races made friendly bodily contact on U.S. television.
And there’s a lot more…
In 1987, he received an appointment to UNICEF as a goodwill ambassador. Following his appointment, Belafonte travelled to Dakar, Senegal, where he served as chairman of the International Symposium of Artists and Intellectuals for African Children. He also helped to raise funds, alongside more than 20 other artists, in the largest concert ever held in sub-Saharan Africa. In 1994 he went on a mission to Rwanda, and launched a media campaign to raise awareness of the needs of Rwandan children. In 2001 he went to South Africa to support the campaign against HIV/AIDS. In 2002, Africare awarded him the Bishop John T. Walker Distinguished Humanitarian Service Award for his efforts to assist Africa. In 2004 Belafonte went to Kenya to stress the importance of educating children in the region.
I’ve been a fan of Belafonte for many years, ever since my mother introduced me to his music when I was probably in junior high school. One year, my sisters and I asked her what she wanted for Christmas, and she told us she wanted a copy of Harry Belafonte’s hit record from the 1950s, “Calypso.” That was the first time I ever heard of him, and this great album quickly became one of my favorites. I got to see him in concert probably least about 20 years ago now, and it was a wonderful concert!
Since I am a fan of Harry Belafonte, I want to share with you a couple of entertaining videos of him that I found on YouTube. I hope you will enjoy these!
Harry Belafonte on the Smothers Brothers Show
Harry Belafonte on the Muppet Show
Harry Belafonte and Nat King Cole
Belafonte’s endorsement of John Edwards today
Here’s what Harry Belafonte had to say about John Edwards when he endorsed him today in South Carolina. (Article and Video here.)
Belafonte is a likable, friendly man: one genuinely concerned with people and the state of this country. He says John Edwards is the only candidate also concerned and compassionate enough to try and deal with it.
“I’ve looked at his platform on education, healthcare, poverty, what young people are going through and I have come to believe he’s the best candidate,” Belafonte said.
He says all the other candidates talk about the plight of the middle class, While only Edwards talks about the poor.
“I also happen to believe that had he not so forcefully and precisely put the issue of poverty into this campaign, I don’t think we’d be talking aobut it as much as we are,” Belafonte said.
Belafonte feels Edwards was sincere when he announced his candidacy in New Orleans, saying it showed a commitment to the people devastated by hurricane Katrina.
“I’ve talked with John Edwards. I’ve looked into heart and his soul,” Belafonte says.
He added that Edwards has the makings of a great president. Belafonte attended a rally with Edwards at the College of Charleston.
Thank you to this great humanitarian, Harry Belafonte, for recognizing and supporting the promise of another great humanitarian, John Edwards.
(Note: Updated below to fix a mistake about the location.)
As an example of Harry Belafonte’s respect in the activist community, this Sunday in San Francisco, he will be honored by the ACLU of Northern California with the Chief Justice Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award at the organization’s Bill of Rights Day Celebration. I wish I could be there.
turneresqon Clinton Blasting Obama for Character Problems
Whose Afraid of Barack Obama? byFrank Rich, a must read
Hillary Clinton is having a rough time, lately. Now she is attacking Obama for not only asking students for their votes, but to ask them to come back from out of state to vote for him. The thing is this, it is legal. The Secretary of State in Iowa said it is within the law. Now she is whining that Iowa is for Iowans. Ummmm. Disenfranchising students? What is next? psericks, runs it down here.
NPR on Polls, Iowa; DNC Fall Meeting, Speech by Obama(real player required); Michelle Obama in Indianola, IA (real player required); Brown & Black Recap; Video of Obama Supporters @ Black & Brown Forum
Office Opening in Tuscaloosa, AL; AFSCME Illinois Backs Obama; Des Moines Mayor Frank Cownie Backs Obama; Salt Lake Office Opens; Linda Nelson, President of Iowa State Eduacation Association, Endorses Obama; Obama Opens San Diego Office; Iowa State Representative Deborah Berry Endorses Obama
Dodd and Clinton, Stop Killing the Democratic Pary, byDemocraticLuntz
Need Obama information? Don’t know where to go? Well, here is the Obama Campaign one-stop-shop for information, right here. Everything you need to know pertaining to media is a click away. Also, the Obama Campaign has launched a fact check page which is part of their website. This is critically important since Senator Hillary Clinton has decided to go all out negative, due to the Des Moines Register Poll, released Sunday. Obama is about addressing the issues and having a civil, lively debate. But when the opposition decides to attack character, you need to protect yourself with fact.
Does Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement help Sen. Barack Obama? She doesn’t hurt.
The question seems to be on everyone’s lips. Obama’s campaign announced Monday that Winfrey will join the presidential hopeful next month in the important lead-off states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
I doubt that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, was thrilled to hear that news. The conventional wisdom holds that celebrity endorsements don’t mean much, if anything. But, hey, this is …Oprah!
We’re talking about the queen of all media taking on the diva of Democratic politics. Chicago Tribune
The first thing I ever heard about Barack Obama was that he had a white mother and a black father. I heard this over and over again, never in a snide or gossipy way, always matter-of-factly. Apparently this was the way we Americans had to introduce Obama to each other. For some reason, knowledge of his racial pedigree had to precede even the mention of his politics–as if the pedigree inevitably explained the politics.
Of course, I am rather sensitive to all this because I, too, was born to a white mother and a black father, though I did not fully absorb this fact, which would have been so obvious to the outside world, until I was old enough to notice the world’s fascination–if not obsession–with it. To this day it is all but impossible for me to actually stop and think of my parents as white and black or to think of myself, therefore, as half and half. This is the dumb mathematics of thinking by race–dumb because race is used here as a kind of bullying truth that pushes aside the actual human experience. Time
Our country is in serious trouble. The gap between the wealthy elite and the working majority grows ever larger, tens of millions of Americans lack health insurance and others risk bankruptcy when they get seriously ill, and many public schools do a poor job of educating the next generation. Due to the arrogant, inept foreign policy of the current administration, more people abroad mistrust and fear the United States than at any time since the height of the Vietnam War. Meanwhile, global warming speeds toward an unprecedented catastrophe. Many Republicans and overwhelming numbers of Independents and Democrats believe that, under George W. Bush, the nation has badly lost its way. The 2008 election thus comes at a critical time in the history of the United States and the world.
We endorse Barack Obama for president because we think he is the candidate best able to address and start to solve these profound problems. As historians, we understand that no single individual, even a president, leads alone or outside a thick web of context. As Abraham Lincoln wrote to a friend during the Civil War, “I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me.” more
icebergslim’s last word: terror of the polls. negative attacks. kindergarten essays.
Well, David Yepsen wrote an op-ed piece about getting hot. And the candidate who is hot since the JJ Dinner is Barack Obama.
It is apparent by the new Des Moines Register Iowa Poll. This poll shows that Barack Obama is up 3 points and that the race is fluid and within the margin of error. But the most telling of the information is the lost ground by Hillary Clinton to women. Women are moving towards Barack Obama and away from Clinton.
Why telling? Women are her firewall. They are. And this is scaring her to death. So, what happens? She is going negative and toward attacking Barack Obama’s character.
I say, bring it on. Why? Hillary Clinton does not own the trust nor honesty issue. She does not. Repeatedly in polling this has been her weakness. Now it has come to fruition. People are questioning her truthiness, unwilling to be candid, do they like her, and if they trust her.
All the above are valid. And we must thank her husband for his lapse of truth when he announced he opposed the War in Iraq, from the start, only to get blasted because he supported the War in Iraq. All this is a reminder of the Throwback Clinton Years that Democrats are finding out they don’t want again.
I am for a jousting, civil debate on the issues. I am. But, when you go negative to attack one’s character that is a stretch for me. If many recall wasn’t it Clinton crying about her contemporaries attacking her? And hasn’t it been Bill Richardson, lately when given a microphone, stating in nice subliminal terms, “Don’t attack each other?” Now, Hillary has thrown all of this out of the window because of one poll?
Damn. She must really live and breathe polls. If one poll does this, what will she do if she loses Iowa or New Hampshire? Perish the thought!!
And finally, Hillary, I thought you of all the candidates were the most thorough on oppo research. To have to read that you are citing Barack Obama’s kindergarten and very early school years for his ambition to be president is well, just desperate. For a child to aspire to be president is a good thing. What is wrong with that? Clinton does not get it. Now she has resorted to taking Obama’s kindergarten and early school essays of “I Want to be President”, as serious oppo research and is using this against him. This is truly profound and pathetic.
I would hope any child would aspire to be that president, astronaut, teacher, doctor, nurse, firefighter, policeman, etc. These are proud professions that aid the public, but to actually use his kindergarten aspirations as an attack weapon?
All I can write is, “Hillary have you lost your mind?”
Washington Post on February 5th Organizing bypsericks
::
If you appreciate the weekly Obama Roundup, then Tip My Obama Jar!! Minimum five dollars. This contribution goes directly to the Obama Campaign. We are in the last stretch of fundraising, Quarter 4, it ends December 31st. Remember to make your contribution.
::
As the Iowa Caucus is nearing, need to know what to do? Find everything at The Caucus Center.
as the cold is starting to set in and the holidays are upon us, remember we must stay focused and resolved. many of us are taking time off work, leaving family members at home, to push senator obama over the top in these early states. we are the obama advocates and supporters. whether you donate money, time, trips to these early states, always remember to focus on obama and not the drama. because the drama is being slung, rapidly.
“The only things Inevitable in Life, are Death and Taxes!”
These are both unpleasant subjects, and since political candidates can’t really do a lot about one, this diary will be exploring the other — Taxes.
John Edwards has based his campaign on hard hitting messages about the need for “Economic Parity” in our Country — this Diary will be taking a serious look at what Edwards will do about Taxes.
The Senator often says “I do not wanting to live in a Country made up of the Super-Rich and Everybody Else!”
That’s not the America we all grew up in. Each year achieving the American Dream becomes more and more difficult. What are working people to do, in this society of Haves and Have-Nots?
Is John’s tough Campaign Rhetoric just Talk, or does he actually have the Plans to Back it up?
Turn the page, to see where the “Rhetoric meet Reality” when it comes to that annual April Ritual, most hard-working American love to hate — spelled I.R.S.
Solutions like UHC and stopping Global Warming will take Money — where’s ALL that money going to come from?
First the Documents to be discussed:
The Policy Summary Document:
John Edwards: The Plan to Build One America [pdf1]
Here’s where regular Working Americans start getting some Respect again in our Economic System (as expressed in an incomprehensible Tax Code), which all too often favors only those Wealthy enough to “work the system”:
John Edwards’ Tax Reform to Reward Work [from pdf1]
The Goals:
“Our tax code has shifted most of the burden onto the backs of working Americans. There is simply no end to the special tax breaks available to big corporations and wealthy individuals who can afford lawyers and lobbyists.
“It’s time to end the President’s war on work. And it’s time to restore fairness to a tax code that has been driven badly out of whack.”
– Remarks on “Restoring Economic Fairness,” July 26, 2007
The Summary
John Edwards will rewrite our tax code to make it simpler and fairer and to help hard-working families succeed. Millions of working and middle-class families will keep more of their paychecks. Those at the very top will again pay their fair share.
The Edwards Tax Reform Plan — Policy Points
(1) New tax breaks to Strengthen the Middle Class
The Goals:
“It’s time for us to put our economy back in line with our values and strengthen three pillars of America’s middle class: savings, work and family.”
The Steps: to Strengthen the Middle Class
(A) Encourage Savings
(a) Establish a new Get Ahead tax credit to match up to $500 a year in retirement savings for families earning up to $75,000.
(b) Create new Work Bonds to offer extra savings incentives for low-income workers.
(B) Reward Work
(a) Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to reward low-wage workers by tripling the EITC for single adults and cutting the marriage penalty.
[ some key details from pdf-2: ]
– Edwards will expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit to pay up to 50 percent of childcare expenses up to $5,000 and make it partially refundable to benefit low-income working families. He will also allow stay-at-home parents to get the credit to help pay for child care for newborn infants.
– Triple the EITC for 4 Million Adults without Children: A single worker at the poverty line pays more than $800 in federal income and payroll taxes. Edwards will offer more than $1,200 to poor single workers, tripling the current EITC, and it will give 4 million low-income workers an average tax cut of $750.
– Edwards believes that we must cut the EITC marriage penalty. His proposal will cut taxes for 3 million couples by about $400 a year.
(C) Support Families
(a) More than double the Child and Dependent Care Credit to up to $2,500 per child.
(2) Reward work, not just wealth, and Repeal the Bush tax breaks for the Wealthy
The Goals:
“It’s time to stop promoting the wealth of the wealthy and start making sure that everyone has the chance to move up the economic ladder.”
The Steps: to Repeal the Bush tax breaks
(A) Restore Fair Taxation of Wealth
(a) Restore the investment income tax rate to 28 percent for Americans making more than $250,000 a year so that wealthy investors don’t pay a lower rate on investments than many regular Americans pay on wages.
[ some key details from pdf-2: ]
To ensure that the wealthiest Americans are paying their fair share of taxes and to reduce the economic distortions from tax shelters resulting from large capital gains preferences, Edwards will raise the top tax rate on long-term capital gains to 28 percent for the most fortunate taxpayers, the same rate signed into law by President Reagan. The 28 percent rate will ensure that high-income investors will pay taxes on their investment income at a similar rate to what regular families pay on their earned income.
(b) Repeal the Bush tax cuts for households earning more than $200,000 a year.
[ some key details from pdf-2: ]
More than half of the Bush tax cuts – $132 billion – will go to the top 1 percent of taxpayers in 2010. Edwards will repeal the Bush tax cuts for the highest-income households. He will also eliminate estate taxes for the middle class, small business owners and family farmers, while keeping these taxes on the few families with large estates above $4 million in value.
(c) Keep the tax on very largest inheritances while protecting family businesses and family farms.
(B) Simplify Taxes
(a) Simplify taxes for up to 50 million families by giving them the option of letting the IRS complete a first draft of their forms for “five-minute filing.”
(3) Shut down special Loopholes for insiders
The Goals:
[ some key details from pdf-2: ]
Declare War on Tax Havens: About $300 billion a year in taxes go unpaid, and about $1.5 trillion in personal assets of U.S. taxpayers are held offshore. These unpaid taxes increase the share of the tax burden shouldered by honest taxpayers. Edwards will end the abuse of foreign tax havens: low-tax countries that facilitate American corporations and wealthy individuals seeking to avoid U.S. taxes.
Close the Hedge Fund and Private Equity Loopholes: Some of the most highly paid people in America are the managers of hedge funds and private equity funds, some of whom make hundreds of millions of dollars or even billions a year. Although most of their income, like other earned income, is nothing more than payment for the work they do, they pay only the 15 percent capital gains rate rather than the ordinary income tax rate. Edwards will close this loophole and also ensure that publicly traded private equity and hedge funds pay corporate taxes.
Cap Executive Pensions:Top executives at large corporations commonly receive deferred compensation packages that allow them to put off indefinitely the payment of taxes on much of their compensation. They have in effect unlimited IRAs or 401(k)s, without the limits that apply to other workers. Edwards will limit the amount of money that can be put into these funds to $1 million a year.
The Steps: to Shut down special Loopholes
(A) Declare War on Offshore Tax Havens
(a) Edwards will fight offshore tax havens by working with other nations to fight tax evasion, crack down on tax shelter promoters and eliminate special tax breaks for corporations’ offshore investments.
[ some key details from pdf-2: ]
– Extend the time the I.R.S. has to investigate offshore tax havens
– Crack down on peddlers of tax shelters by increasing penalties, prohibiting contingent fee arrangements for tax advisors, and eliminating the ability to patent tax shelters.
– Fight the tax gap by … auditing more large corporations and high-income individuals
(B) Close the Tax Gap
(a) Edwards will collect a greater share of the $300 billion in uncollected taxes every year through better IRS service, targeting audits at wealthy individuals and corporations likely to have committed evasion, and requiring more third-party reporting.
(C) Close Hedge Fund and Private Equity Loopholes
(a) Edwards will close the loophole that elite Wall Street traders use to pay only 15 percent in taxes on their huge incomes, while regular families often pay twice that amount.
Impressive goals and steps! How does the Plan stack up?
Edwards Tax Plan: Reward Work Not Wealth
The Reviews: [ from pdf1: ]
“Former North Carolina senator John Edwards has a tax plan that is… smarter, targeted at taxpayers who need the most help and at creating incentives for savings.”
– Washington Post editorial
“Edwards, at least, is willing to say which taxes he would raise to keep the deficit from going through the roof…. Edwards deserves points for honesty. …”
– E.J. Dionne, Washington Post columnist
“We need a president and a tax system that will grow the middle class, not the gap between the haves and have-nots. John Edwards has a fair tax plan that will help middle-class families and promote healthy economic growth.”
– Betty Yee, Chairwoman, California State Board of Equalization
Sound like these Reforms would indeed go a long ways to achieving Economic Fairness in the Country again — a tax system that will grow the middle class — now that really would be something!
If we stay with the “status quo” and continue with “Business as Usual” —
America could indeed become like the gated city on the hill,
made up of the “super rich” who “run everything” —
(the top 1%)
and “everybody else” —
who just get “run over”!
It’s time to take down that Wall of a Tax Code too!
It’s time to Reward Work — instead of just Wealth!
December 1, 2007 – Des Moines, IA, Brown & Black Forum
December 1, 2007 – Des Moines, IA, Heartland Presidential Forum
December 4, 2007 – Des Moines, IA, NPR News/Iowa Public Radio Debate
December 10, 2007 – Los Angeles, California, CBS
December 13, 2007 – Johnston, Iowa, Des Moines Register Democratic Debate
January 15, 2008 – Las Vegas, Nevada
January 31, 2008 – California
In the space of an hour this weekend, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, using some of their most pointed and forceful rhetoric of the campaign, framed the choice for Democrats deciding their party’s presidential nomination.
Clinton gave a strong speech at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner late Saturday. But Obama, criticized for occasional lackluster performances, delivered one of his most focused and powerful addresses.
In the view of many watching, he emerged as the oratorical winner at the biggest Democratic political event in Iowa before the state’s January caucuses.
His candidacy, Obama said, could produce a new Democratic majority capable of breaking the gridlock and polarization that have plagued Washington for a decade or more.
“The same old Washington textbook campaigns just won’t do it in this election,” he said. Seattle Times
November 19, 2007 – Meet the Candidate, Barack Obama, Clarion, IA
November 19, 2007 – Town Hall Meeting with Barack, Fort Dodge, IA
November 20, 2007 – Meet the Candidate, Barack Obama, Alton, NH
November 20, 2007 – Meet the Candidate, Barack Obama, Conway, NH
November 20, 2007 – Meet the Candidate, Barack Obama, Laconia, NH
November 20, 2007 – Michelle Obama, Orangeburg, SC
November 20, 2007 – Michelle Obama, Columbia, SC
November 30, 2007 – Barack Obama and Former Sec of Navy, Richard Danzig, Washington, D.C.
December 2, 2007 – Countdown to Change, Boston, MA
Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? Why It’s Barack Obama Obama Shows Off Organizational Strength at JJ Dinner Transcriptof Obama Apperance on Meet the Press
obama on meet the press with tim russert, november 11, 2007, des moines, ia
Democrat Barack Obama said Sunday that if elected he will push to increase the amount of income that is taxed to provide monthly Social Security benefits.
Obama and other Democratic presidential candidates previously have signaled support for this idea.
But during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Obama said subjecting more of a person’s income to the payroll tax is the option he would push for if elected president.
He objected to benefit cuts or a higher retirement age.
“I think the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and people who are in need are protected,” the Illinois senator said.
“That is the option that I will be pushing forward.”
Currently, only the first $97,500 of a person’s annual income is taxed. The amount is scheduled to rise to $102,000 next year. more
Democratic Caucus Goers Pick Obama, Edwards as JJ Winners
Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Scott Brennan called it “the most successful Jefferson Jackson Dinner in history,” but it was more successful for some candidates than for others.
After discussions with party insiders and people in attendance, the early consensus seemed to be that the candidates who have generally polled in the top three — Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Barack Obama — all did well, with Edwards and Obama excelling in particular. Among the other three candidates — Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson — the crowd seemed to be moved the most by Dodd and Biden, but not enough to significantly affect their chances in January, interviews Saturday night suggested. Candace Opstvedt of Story City was an undecided caucus-goer, but not any longer.
“I am definitely leaning toward Barack after tonight,” she said after the long night of speeches and Democratic fundraising, including an auction. Undecided caucus-goer Jordan Oster, a Drake University student and a Des Moines native, thought Obama and Edwards made a definite impression on the crowd.
“It is yet to be seen if tonight can be considered a moment of shakeup, but I think it really goes to show that Edwards and Obama cemented their importance in the race,” he said. “Neither made direct reference to Senator Clinton, but without mistake many references were aimed her way.”
Oster said he thought Biden, Dodd and Richardson did well, but didn’t stand out. Iowapolitics.com
Can Obama Rock the Nomination?
What kind of question is THIS??? One word, yes. He showed it last Saturday night, at the JJ Dinner. The debate performance is now past and will forever be plagued with innuendo. He is stronger than ever in Iowa. And if people are fed UP, with partisian politics, gridlock, the same old thing. Then you know for sure, what time it is. It is change time.
youtube interview
Will Obama Turn Out Young Voters inIowa All TiedUp in Iowa Obama PhotoBlogLebanon, NH Obamaon Net Neutrality
UAW Region 4, Endorses Obama
UAW Region 4 Delegates Throw Support to Obama’s Campaign for PresidentDUBUQUE – Delegates of United Auto Workers Region 4, which includes 30,000 members and retirees in Iowa, voted today to support Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. The group announced its overwhelming support at the close of a weeklong conference where seven of the major Democratic presidential candidates addressed the group earlier this week.
“There are many talented Democrats in the presidential field this year, but Barack Obama is the leader who will bring the kind of change to Washington that America’s working men and women can believe in,” said UAW Local 442 (Webster City, IA) President Paul Erickson. “For the last two decades, working families have been able to count on Barack Obama to stand up for us and our values. We are supporting him, because we know he’ll do the same thing in the White House.” Time, DemDog
kos, on Obama’s Plan for Open Government StollerLeaning Obama Chris Bowers, Ok, it is Still a Close Campaign Barack Obama and the Illinois Death Penaltyby AdamB
Clinton Camp, Sure Do Not Care About Nor Believe in the Youth Vote
Yep. The Clinton Campaign has to be one of the more out of touch campaigns running. For the Clinton Campaign to tout the inevitability meme, this campaign does not understand what drives the youth. And to totally dis’ them as unimportant is even more laughable. I am sure no dissin’ will be going on in an Iowa barn on January 3rd, if these Facebook Caucus Goers decide to show up. Respect the youth. Respect the ones who are disenfranchised. Respect the lost Democratic Voters who want in again. Just respect the voters. Ok?
shoutouts: food prices up, by bink; i am starting to detest hillary clinton, the british observer; read, dengre; why an edwards fan thinks obama took jefferson-jackson; dl’s take on democrats preferring dems on iran; update on marlboro marine; foreclosures record high
icebergslim’s last word: obama and his supporters advocates.
Barack came from the Iowa JJ Dinner, with a speech that people are still talking about.
Then the debate.
Well, it was a sham. My opinion, as I do not speak or write for Obama Supporters Advocates. But, it was. Then we got the blistering report from an Obama supporter advocate who called them all out in her diary, no stone unturned, not off the beaten path, but blunt and precise. LV Pol Girl’s diary of the events surrounding the debate was simply titled, Las Vegas Disgrace. Was it Pulitzer Prize writing? No. Rhetorical Rhetoric? No. It was four simple paragraphs with an ending sentence that summed it all up what happened in Las Vegas, Nevada, at the CNN Debate. So, simple, that everyone has read this diary, passed it on, shaking their heads. And those that did not want it out had to sit, squirm, and take it.
Then Bob Johnson, comes on the scene. You really don’t know what to expect with him, but he ripped Steny Hoyer a new one with this diary, Hey, Steny… Butt out. I don’t know who Bob supports, but he was absolutely correct in this assessment of Hoyer going after Obama:
Oh, no. Steny thought it best to single out a candidate who he felt was bashing the current frontrunner:
“I’ve been disappointed,” Hoyer, 68, said in an interview on Bloomberg television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” scheduled to air tonight. “I think it will hurt the party.”
He took particular exception to Illinois Senator Barack Obama’s assertion in a Las Vegas debate yesterday that Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton hadn’t given “straight answers” on “a host of issues.” Hoyer said that comment is “likely to get used by Republicans” in the general election.
What is this you ask? It is what politicians refer to as, “calling your chits in.” The old, “I helped you, raised money for you, now you need to help me.” In other words, the Clinton Camp needs to dirty up Barack Obama. The Clinton Camp need to reinforce that Obama is inexperienced, not ready. Obama should not challenge, nor question anything on Hillary Clinton. The GOP could use this against her. As if “girlfriend” has already been anointed and appointed.
Then your keepin it real voice of icebergslim, rolls into a Saturday with an aw, hell naw diary on our best friends at CNN. I don’t like to write on the weekends because I am usually compiling ‘This Week’, but when you get articles from NYT and L.A. Times sent to you about the debate, but more importantly how it is all connected up? What are you to do? I had to do what I do best. Clinton News Network = CNN.
Of course, Obama Supporters Advocates then had to read insinuations of a whisper campaign, against our candidate. Remember, it is all about making him dirty. But, we took solace to what Barack said in his statement.
“The item did not identify these ‘agents,’ nor did it reveal the nature of the charge. It was devoid of facts, but heavy on innuendo and insinuation of the sort to which we’ve become all too accustomed in our politics these past two decades. If the purpose of this shameless item was to daunt or discourage me or supporters of our campaign from challenging and changing the politics of Washington, it will fail. In fact, it will only serve to steel our resolve.
That paragraph, for me, said it all about Barack Obama.
It will only serve to steel our resolve.
That is what the other campaigns don’t get. But they will, starting in Iowa.
Yes, we are supporters of Barack Obama, but you are correct in your assessment, we are his ADVOCATES, first.
If you appreciate the weekly Obama Roundup, then Tip My Obama Jar!! Minimum five dollars. This contribution goes directly to the Obama Campaign. We are in the last stretch of fundraising, Quarter 4, it ends December 31st. Remember to make your contribution.
::
Lastly, a magnificent diary by femlaw titled, “Obama’s Field of Dreams (California & Iowa Edition)” This is a must read for all. If you don’t understand strategy and Obama’s passion for building from ground up, peep this. After the read, you will get it.
well, barack was in austin, texas telling them to get ready for change. and i am here to ask you, are you ready for it? always, remember to focus on obama, and not the drama….
Bill Richardson is goal-oriented, assertive and confident. He has served as a Congressman, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy and is in his second term as Governor of New Mexico after a landslide re-election victory in November 2006.
Here are five of many reasons why I believe Richardson possesses the experience, vision and leadership skills to be a great President:
1. A Bright Vision for America
2. An Ironclad Promise to Promptly End the U.S. Occupation of Iraq
3. A Bold Agenda To Address The Pressing Challenges Facing Our Nation and Planet
4. The White House and A Landslide Victory for Democrats Nationwide in 2008
5. Comprehensive Immigration Reform In Accordance With the Values Upon Which Our Country Was Founded
This was originally posted on MyDD as part of its candidate series. I am not part of the Richardson campaign.
1. A Bright Vision for America
Richardson believes in using government to improve the lives of people and affect change in a positive way. He takes a practical approach to governing, focusing on solutions to problems rather than ideology. His vision for America is to be “a nation of opportunity and prosperity for all and guaranteeing real security for all our people.”
Earlier this year, in a speech to the Arab American Institute in April 2007, Richardson stated:
Here at home, we must adhere and protect the words, spirit and life of our Constitution for America is not just a country, it is a belief. A belief in a right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. A belief that every man and woman has the right to elect their government and a belief in freedom, justice and equality. America is the land of opportunity, but we have much to do to ensure that America is the land of equality of opportunity.
To get an insight into Richardson the person, I suggest you watch the following videos. The first features the person who knows him best, Barbara Richardson, his wife of thirty-five years:
The second is a profile of Richardson by Charles Gibson of ABC News:
2. An Ironclad Promise to Promptly End the U.S. Occupation of Iraq
Rocky Anderson, human rights activist and the mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, has endorsed Richardson. In an essay in the Nation, Anderson states:
If ending the tragic, self-destructive occupation of Iraq is indeed a line-in-the-sand issue, only Bill Richardson stands out among the leading candidates as the choice for President.
While Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards refuse to pledge an end to the occupation, even by 2013, Bill Richardson commits clearly to pulling out all US troops. He recognizes that the occupation is widely despised, aiding in the recruitment of terrorists beyond Osama bin Laden’s wildest dreams.
Richardson’s consistent message on the necessity for a prompt and complete withdrawal from Iraq is resonating with Iowa voters. This week STAR*PAC (Stop the Arms Race Political Action Committee of Iowa) endorsed Richardson. Harold Wells, Chair of STAR*PAC, explained why:
Governor Richardson has consistently promised to get all the troops out of Iraq within one year and probably as soon as six months. He promises he will leave no residual troops behind. And his message is the same wherever he speaks — to a military audience in Georgetown, a New Hampshire town meeting, in a rural Iowa community or at STAR*PAC’s candidate forum with the Governor in August. Three generals — General Volney Warner, General William Odom and Lt. General Robert Gard — support Richardson’s plans to get the troops out of Iraq.
Richardson observes that a complete withdrawal gives us the leverage we now lack to get the warring factions to compromise, while our presence fuels the insurgency. In an Op Ed published in the Washington Post entitled “Why We Should Exit Iraq Now,” Richardson wrote:
So long as American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the necessary steps to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.
The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al-Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq’s oil and repressing Muslims. The day we leave, this myth collapses, and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country.
To hear Richardson explain his plan for Iraq, the imperative for all of our troops to leave Iraq as well as discussing the approach the U.S. should take on Iran through seeking common ground, listen to the following interview on News Hour with Jim Lehrer:
3. A Bold Agenda To Address The Pressing Challenges Facing Our Nation and Planet
Being the sole Democratic candidate for President with executive branch experience, voters can evaluate Richardson from the unique stand point of an actual record of implementing policy on key issues, not merely the speeches he has given. Each year, the Conservation Voters of New Mexico releases a Legislative Scorecard breaking down the votes on key bills impacting the environment. The CVNM also rates the Governor. This year, the CVNM gave Richardson an “A”.
Richardson recognizes that the threats to our environment extend beyond our borders:
A hungry world will also hunger for scapegoats. A thirsty world will thirst for revenge. A world in crisis will be a world of anger and violence and terrorism.
He has set forth a global agenda to address the welfare of the human race, linking climate change, poverty, international disease and war.
On the critical issue of climate change, Richardson has offered the most aggressive plan of any candidate, proposing to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2050. In a book published this week, entitled In LEADING BY EXAMPLE: How We Can Inspire an Energy and Security Revolution, Richardson argues that the U.S. should start a ten-year program immediately to eliminate its dependence on overseas oil and address global warming.
Can you believe this? Bill Richardson has written a truly exciting book. This is the book we’ve been waiting for – the one that takes us from the stage of awareness that Al Gore produced two years ago to the society that takes control of destiny and begins to live in global wealth, health and security.
Richardson begins by describing the existing current lag in leadership. America needs to reposition its image in the spirit that it has long held. Sacrifice and inspiration are essential to that image. With the image and presence of a compassionate America, nations will succeed in lifting themselves from tyranny, depression, illness and tragedy. We cannot afford to confuse our image as a people – that image that produces inspiration through compassion – with one that will overrun other nations to satisfy an addiction for oil.
4. The White House and A Landslide Victory for Democrats Nationwide in 2008
I written previously that Richardson will be Karl Rove’s worst nightmare. With Richardson at the head of the Democratic ticket, no longer would the fate of the Democratic candidate rise or fall on the outcome of one state.
We would start with the same states carried by Senator Kerry in 2004. Add in Richardson’s Latino heritage and Western values as well as economic policies and stance on 2nd Amendment issues, Richardson becomes the ideal Democratic candidate to convert Red states to Blue.
University of Virginia political science professor Larry Sabato recently made the same argument in an interview:
He is unbeatable. It is amazing the Democrats haven’t recognized that. Republicans will tell you privately that if the Democrats nominate Bill Richardson the election is over. They know they will lose to Bill Richardson. He is perfectly positioned.
Now contrast Richardson’s appeal with the current front runner and most well known Democratic politician in America. Even though opinion polls show most Americans believe our country is headed in the wrong direction and prefer a Democrat to succeed Bush, when Clinton is matched up against Giuliani the race is a dead heat. Why? More people rate Clinton negative on the quality of honesty than positive. The Democrats will win in a landslide in 2008, if Richardson is at the top of the ticket.
5. Comprehensive Immigration Reform In Accordance With the Values Upon Which Our Country Was Founded
Before the campaign commenced, Richardson called for comprehensive immigration reform that strengthens our borders while also providing a path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.
Last year, Biden, Clinton, Dodd and Obama caved into the anti-immigrant pressure groups in voting for a massive, 700-mile wall along the U.S.-Mexican border. Richardson has repeatedly called the fence ineffective and a terrible symbol for America. In his view, it also creates a disincentive for Mexico to cooperate with the U.S. – which is essential for stopping illegal immigration.
On the current hot issue of the day – drivers’ licenses for illegal immigrants – Dodd and Edwards are now talking like Republicans. Edwards flip on this issue is especially revealing. Here is a candidate that time and time again has proclaimed, “We are past the time for cautious, poll-driven politics.” Yet, Edwards has seen the polls and changed his position to that which serves his short term political advantage.
Richardson doesn’t play the anti-immigrant card. He signed legislation in New Mexico that gave licenses to all persons without proof of citizenship. When this topic was raised in a recent interview, Richardson commented:
MATTHEWS: Governor, what would you have said to that same question? Were you on base with regard to whether we should give, at the state level, driver’s licenses to the people in the country illegally?
RICHARDSON: I would have said yes. You know, four years ago, my legislature sent me a bill to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. I signed it, because my law enforcement people asked me to do it. They said it was a matter of public safety, that we want safe drivers on the roads. Insurance-uninsured drivers has gone down in New Mexico, from 33 percent to 11 percent, since I signed that bill. It’s a matter of being safe on the highways and also knowing where they are. I think Senator Clinton should have just said yes. It sounded like she agreed with the governor. She did fumble that.
To hear Richardson discuss his plan on immigration, listen to the above video clip, the interview on News Hour with Jim Lehrer.
————
Finally, I’d like to comment on the issue of the day – the confirmation vote on Michael Mukasey. The vote on Mukasey was a vote the Dems in the Senate could have won if they showed a spine. Mukasey needed 51 votes to be confirmed. Biden, Dodd, Clinton and Obama were all missing in action.
Richardson spoke out first against Mukasey. On October 19th, prior to any statements by the other Presidential candidates, Richardson stepped forward and criticized Mukasey for refusing to say whether waterboarding is torture:
“Waterboarding is torture, and anyone who is unwilling to identify it as such is not qualified to be the chief legal officer of the United States of America. If I were in the U.S. Senate, I would vote against Mukasey unless he denounces such specific forms of torture.
“Torture does not work. Mistreatment backfires and destroys our international leadership, as we saw with Abu Ghraib. Torture also endangers our own troops. The standards we adopt may well be what our own troops are subjected to.
“Anytime one makes a person think he or she is being executed, the very nature of waterboarding, it obviously is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, international law, and basic human decency. . .
“If another nation engaged in waterboarding against American citizens, we would denounce that country and call the practice barbaric, and rightly so.
“We must stand against torture without equivocation, without compromise, and without exception. Torture is a violation of everything we stand for as Americans and as human beings.”
Shame on the Democrats that voted for Mukasey and those that didn’t show up at all. This was not a vote on one person. It was a vote on whether the U.S. government or agents acting for our government may commit torture in the name of national security.
Persons without a moral compass should not hold political power. And no surprise here – people under torture say what they believe their interrogators want them to say. The result is we get false and misleading information when we practice torture.
The results can be devastating. We went to war with Iraq in part because of intelligence based on the torture. I suggest everyone read Tim Weiner’s Legacy of Ashes. It is a fascinating history of the CIA. At page 487, he states:
[CIA Director George] Tenet provided his own grim warnings in a secret hearing before the Senate intelligence committee on September 17: ‘Iraq provided al Qaeda with various kinds of training – combat, bomb-making, and chemical, biological, radiological and nucler.’ He based that statement on the confessions of a single source – Ibn al-Shakh al-Libi, a fringe player who had been beaten stuffed in a two-foot-square box for seventeen hours, and threatened with prolonged torture. The prisoner had recanted after the threat of torture receded. Tenet did not correct the record.
Hillary Clinton's plan for ending the war is weak and imprecise. She refuses to commit to bring all of our troops home by the end of her first term in office. Clinton's military and diplomatic advisers believe our invasion of Iraq was justified and a military solution exits for resolving the war. Clinton is not demonstrating the qualities of leadership we need in our next President to end the war in Iraq.
Hillary Clinton is the clear frontrunner in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Yet, it is her own equivocation on critical issues that, more than anything else, may stop her from securing the nomination. As noted by Dick Morris, the former pollster for Bill Clinton:
With linguistic obfuscation reminiscent of Bill's more famous remarks — “I didn't inhale” and “It depends on what the definition of is, is” — Senator Clinton is determined not to tell us where she stands on anything. Instead, she has come to believe, probably correctly, that if we knew what she really wants to do as president, we would never vote for her. So on Social Security (where she plans to raise taxes), Iran (where she will take military action if need be), Iraq (where she will keep the troops), the Alternative Minimum Tax (which she will only repeal if it can be used to hide massive tax increases) and drivers licenses (which she will give to illegals as soon as she can), Hillary resists telling the truth.
I would like to focus on Morris' claim that Clinton will keep our troops stationed in Iraq. On the surface, Clinton has from the beginning of the campaign offered an entirely different message. At the February 2007 meeting of the Democratic National Convention, Clinton claimed:
I want to be very clear about this. If I had been president in October of 2002, I would not have started this war. I would not and if in Congress, if we in Congress, working as hard as we can to get the 60 votes you need to do anything in the Senate — believe me, I understand the frustration and the outrage, you have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding, to do anything. If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will!
It's become obvious that Congress will not end the war by January 2009. It's also become obvious that Clinton's pledge to end the war in Iraq rests on a foundation of quicksand. Clinton has never called for a prompt and complete withdrawal of our forces from Iraq. When questioned on whether she will commit to specific date for the end of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, as noted by Helen Thomas, Clinton reverts to “her usual cautious equivocation.” She she leaves open the possibility our troops will remain until 2013. David Broder commented that Clinton plays “dodgeball” on the question of leaving Iraq:
During the debate, she rarely came out of a defensive crouch, as if determined to protect her favored position. Answering the first question, she said her goal would be to withdraw all American troops from Iraq by 2013, but “it is very difficult to know what we are going to be inheriting” from the Bush administration, so she cannot make any pledge — as Richardson and others feel free to do. Troops might be needed for counterterrorism work for many years.
What circumstances must exist in Iraq in 2009 to permit a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq? Clinton is silent on this critical point. What is Clinton's actual plan for leaving Iraq? In the time honored tradition of politicians that recognize an issue must be addressed but lack any understanding to how to do so, Clinton calls for a study. As explained on her campaign website:
As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration.
Clinton doesn't say the U.S. will begin withdrawing from Iraq in 60 days. She simply asks the military and other advisers to give her a plan within two months.
This begs the question: what if Clinton's advisers repeat the mantra of the D.C. political and military establishment that Iraq is too unstable and a withdrawal of our forces will threaten U.S. interests in the region?
What is clear is that Clinton lacks confidence in her own judgment. Instead, Clinton relies upon the architects of the Iraq morass and those that have deemed the surge successful to advise her of the course of action to take in Iraq. We can expect her advisers plan for Iraq will be a hawkish plan.
How can I make this charge? Look at whom is advising Clinton today on Iraq and military affairs. Among her military advisers, as reported in the Washington Post, are Gen. John (“Jack”) Keane, a former Army vice chief of staff; Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy, former deputy chief of staff for intelligence; retired Lt. Gen. Donald Kerrick, who served as President Clinton's deputy national security adviser; retired Col. Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; and Michael O'Hanlon, Brookings senior fellow. These are the persons that will form her inner circle of advisers should she become President.
Let's examine each of these persons.
Jack Keane was “vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army during Iraq war planning” and at one time an outspoken in supporter of Rumsfeld. In July 2003, Keane praised Tommy Franks' war plan for the Iraq campaign was “bold and brilliant.” There never was a comprehensive plan in place to secure and rebuild the country. Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded our forces in Iraq, recently stated that our war plan was “catastrophically flawed [and] unrealistically optimistic.” In July 2004, Keane admitted in testimony that:
We did not see it (the insurgency) coming. And we were not properly prepared and organized to deal with it . . . . Many of us got seduced by the Iraqi exiles in terms of what the outcome would be.
If we had planned for an insurgency, we probably would have deployed the First Cavalry Division and it would have assisted greatly with the initial occupation. This was not just an intelligence community failure, but also our failure as senior military leaders.
Fast forward to December 2006, whom is meeting with President Bush and advocating an escalation of the war in what became known as the “surge”? Yes, the answer is Keane. He along with Frederick Kagan developed the strategy of the surge. I encourage everyone to read the interview of Keane by Frontline earlier this year. Recently Bill Sammon, a Washington Examiner correspondent and author of a new book titled “The Evangelical President,” reported that President Bush has been sending messages to Clinton to urge her to “maintain some political wiggle room in your campaign rhetoric about Iraq.” One wonders if Keane is the person serving as Bush's liaison to Clinton on Iraq.
Claudia Kennedy, another supporter of the war, was “absolutely” certain Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. In April 2003, when asked why no WMD had been discovered, she responded:
If absolutely nothing was found after months of thorough searching, my question would be — where was it shipped? If such weapons are not in the country, they must have been shipped out because we absolutely know they were there.
Kennedy believes that it is not our invasion of Iraq that has caused so much difficulty for the U.S. Rather, the war has been botched by President Bush. Kennedy recently made national headlines when she stated:
I don't oppose the war. I think it's being very badly led by the civilian leadership. I have not ever heard (Clinton) say, 'I oppose the war.'”
Donald Kerrick wrote an essay last year entitled “Iraq Not Lost Yet“. While calling for a review of our strategy in Iraq, Kerrick opposed those he labeled as advocating the U.S. cut and run. Such a course would lose Iraq to the extremists.
Andrew Krepinevich believes a sustained U.S. presence is crucial to the future of Iraq. The U.S. has no choice in Iraq because if we leave Iraq will descend into civil war. In October 2005, Krepinevich published an essay criticizing the U.S. intervention in Iraq as lacking a coherent strategy which resulted in the failure of U.S. forces to defeat the insurgency or improve security.
Krepinevich believed a winning strategy for Iraq could still be developed, one that focused on providing security to Iraqis rather than hunting down insurgents. However, “victory” in Iraq will come at a steep price according to Krepinevich:
Even if successful, this strategy will require at least a decade of commitment and hundreds of billions of dollars and will result in longer U.S. casualty rolls. But this is the price that the United States must pay if it is to achieve its worthy goals in Iraq.
This year, Krepinevich sees the surge, if successful, resulting in American forces staying “in Iraq for decades — much as we have in Korea, for example, to ensure the security of that part of the world, we will have to have 30,000, 40,000 soldiers in Iraq, I think indefinitely.”
Michael O'Hanlon is another supporter of President Bush's surge. In an Op Ed entitled “A War We Just Might Win” published in the New York Times in July 2007, O'Hanlon argued, “We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.”
After the latest Presidential debate in which Clinton, Edwards and Obama all refused to commit to withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq by 2013, O'Hanlon praised them for their “flexibility” on Iraq. “I think the Democratic position allows all three of the top people to move in the Republican direction if things move around in the next twelve months,” O'Hanlon stated.
Finally, Mark Penn, Clinton's top political strategist, may play a role in shaping Clinton's policy on Iraq should she become President. As noted by Bill Boyarsky:
Penn, is worldwide president and CEO of Burson-Marsteller, which helped prepare the chief of Blackwater USA for his congressional testimony defending the way that the company employees killed 17 and wounded 24 while fulfilling its contract to provide security for the State Department. It's all very clubby.
In conclusion, Clinton's plan for ending the war is weak and imprecise. She refuses to commit to bring all of our troops home by the end of her first term in office. Clinton's military and diplomatic advisers believe our invasion of Iraq was justified and a military solution exits for resolving the war.
Clinton is not demonstrating the qualities of leadership we need in our next President to end the war in Iraq. If Clinton becomes President, the opportunity to end our open-ended military intervention in Iraq may very well be lost.
What is the alternative? There is a Democratic candidate for President that says as long as U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq the hard work of reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. He has called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq now, pledges to bring all U.S. troops (both combat and non-combat) home promptly upon taking office and has offered a plan to achieve this.
This candidate is being advised by military and diplomatic experts that have been highly critical of the U.S. intervention in the Iraq and strongly advocate an immediate exit from Iraq.
K Street and Corporate lobbyists are turning up the heat on Congressional leaders to pass the Peru Free Trade Agreement, yet another trade policy that benefits only the bottom line of big corporations, at the expense of American workers.
Some Corporate Republicans and Corporate Democrats are sucumbing to the pressure of supporting the Peru Free Trade Agreement before the ink is even dry on the checks.
Barack Obama announced his support for President Bush’s bid to expand the North American Free Trade Agreement to Peru.
Yup – Obama is once again helping pass one of President Bush’s top priorities – even as Bush blocks the entire Democratic agenda and daily rains rhetorical abuse down on Democratic heads. Is this how Obama is going to negotiate in the White House?
I don’t know for sure if Obama honestly felt that the Peru Free Trade Agreement was, on balance, the right thing to do, or whether he just wanted to curry favor with the major corporations whose financial support is fueling his campaign. It’s probably a little of both.
Hillary Clinton is Silent on the Peru Free Trade Agreement
Hillary Clinton, who continues to accept federal lobbyist donations from multi-national corporations made a somewhat ambigous statement with regard to trade policies in early October: “It is time that we assess trade agreements every five years to make sure they are meeting their goals or make adjustments if they are not, and we should start with doing that with Nafta.” Yet, Hillary thus far, has failed to issue a formal statement on whether or not she will oppose the Peru Free Trade Agreement.
Hillary’s silence on the Peru Free Trade Agreement coupled with her partnerships with big corporations and ambigious statements, has left many wondering if her words are merely “coded language.”
However, Clinton doesn’t want her position to be fully understood by the majority of her American audience. Yet you may trust that leaders of the anti- social dumping movement in the European Union and organizers for globalized unions had no problem decoding her message.
Environmental Groups and Labor Unions Oppose the Peru FTA
Meanwhile, no labor unions have endorsed the Peru FTA. In fact, a number of environmental groups and key Unions oppose the Peru FTA. The AFL-CIO notes that in addition to the several issues of concern to working families, particularly with respect to investment, procurement and services, The Peru FTA “will likely impose economic hardship on some of the sizeable rural and poor population of Peru.” (AFL-CIO Legislative Alert:PDF)
Change To Win, which includes the Service Employees International Union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and represents over 6 million workers, issued a statement urging Democratic leaders to “Vote No on Peru Free Trade Agreement NAFTA Expansion.
John Edwards Opposes Peru Free Trade Agreement
John Edwards, who holds the largest bloc of union member endorsements, opposes the expansion of the NAFTA model with the Peru trade deal. Edwards, who does not accept federal lobbyist donations, has called for measures that will benefit American workers and not just big corporations.
Today, the Edwards for President Campaign issued a Press Release detailing Senator Edwards’ opposition to the Peru Free Trade Agreement:
REJECTING THE PERU DEAL
George Bush is trying to expand the NAFTA approach to Peru, Panama, South Korea and Colombia. NAFTA was written by corporate interests and insiders in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, but workers have lost out, both American and Mexican. Under NAFTA, the U.S. has lost more than 1 million jobs, while average wages for Mexican manufacturing workers have fallen by 12 percent.
– Despite progress on labor and environmental standards, worker rights are no stronger than George Bush’s willingness to enforce them. He has proven his indifference to workers through seven years of inaction.
– Congress should not pass further trade deals without first taking steps to address the stagnant wages and insecurity caused by globalization. Congress needs to adopt universal health care, reform the tax code, strengthen unions, and expand and renew trade adjustment assistance.
– The four trade deals which have been proposed establish expansive investor rights that actually create incentives to further relocate U.S. jobs overseas, by compensating corporations if our environmental, health or even local zoning laws allegedly undermine their expected profits. They also unfairly allow foreign corporations to challenge many of our laws.
– The proposed deals even limit how we can spend our own tax dollars by banning many Buy America policies.
Edwards on Trade Policy
Time to End the Game
As Edwards has stated, “5 million jobs lost due to trade and 15 more may move off shore in upcoming years.” While wages of Americans workers have dropped, “corporate profits have doubled.” The system is rigged. It’s rigged against the American workers and the middle class.
It’s time to put the power of Washington back into the hands of the people.
Edwards is calling for an end to the corrupt Washington system and the influence large corporations bear on our legislation. He has stated, that the standard for trade policies should not be whether they will benefit the big corporate profits but “whether or not they benefit American workers and families. ”
CALLING FOR SMART TRADE POLICIES
John Edwards believes we need smarter trade policies that lift up American workers. He has proposed four principles to ensure that globalization works for everyone:
– Our trade deals and preferences must benefit American workers and communities, not just corporate bottom lines. This means that they must include strong labor and environmental standards and clearly prohibit illegal subsidies and currency manipulation.
– Our trade policies must lift up workers around the world. Making sure that all workers share in the gains from trade is the right thing to do economically, and it will make America safer and more secure.
– We must understand that “one size does not fit all” in trade agreements. Instead, we need to address differences in form of government, rule of law, state of economic development, and the day-to-day trade and business practices of our trading partners.
– Our trade deals must be fully and fairly enforced. Edwards will make top prosecutors at the Department of Justice responsible for enforcing trade agreements
Water-boarding is term that describes strapping an individual to a board, with a towel pulled tightly across his face, and pouring water on him or her to cut off air and simulate drowning.
When asked directly last week whether he thought waterboarding is constitutional, Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey was evasive. As noted by NPR, Mukasey “danced around the issue of whether waterboarding actually is torture and stopped short of saying that it is.” “If it amounts to torture,” Mukasey said carefully, “then it is not constitutional.”
Waterboarding is torture, and anyone who is unwilling to identify it as such is not qualified to be the chief legal officer of the United States of America. If I were in the U.S. Senate, I would vote against Mukasey unless he denounces such specific forms of torture.
What about the Democrats in the U.S. Senate and other Democratic Presidential candidates? Will they oppose Mukasey unless he denounces the use of torture by our government?
John Hutson, former judge advocate general of the Navy said last week after Judge Mukasey’s confirmation hearing , “Waterboarding was devised in the Spanish Inquisition. Next to the rack and thumbscrews, it’s the most iconic example of torture.”
The Bush Administration seems to believe that when anyone else does it, it’s torture, but when the U.S. does it, waterboarding is acceptable. Rudy Giuliani holds the same view.
During his confirmation hearings, when asked about waterboarding, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote:
Michael Mukasey suddenly seemed to morph into his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales — beginning with a series of openly evasive answers that ultimately led to what appeared to be a lie. At first, he repeatedly stated that he does not support torture, which violates the U.S. Constitution. This is precisely the answer given so often by President Bush like a mantra. The problem is that Bush defines torture to exclude things like water-boarding. It is like saying you do not rob banks, but then defining bank robbery in such a way that it does not include walking in with a gun and demanding money from the cashier.
The senators pushed Mukasey to go beyond the Bush administration mantra. He refused and then said something that made many of us who were listening gasp: “I don’t know what is involved in the technique,” he said.
In an editorial published this week, the Los Angeles Times states:
Michael B. Mukasey, who once seemed headed to confirmation as attorney general by acclamation, may now be facing a narrower and more contentious vote. That’s the price the retired federal judge from New York will have to pay unless he reconsiders some evasive testimony about torture.
. . .As the 10 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee noted in a letter to the nominee, water-boarding “has been the subject of much public discussion.” What isn’t clear is whether the CIA reserves the right to resort to that appalling practice to elicit information, reliable or otherwise, from suspected terrorists.
. . .Mukasey owes the Senate, and the country, an unambiguous commitment to upholding the Geneva Convention’s ban on “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.” The question to him is whether Americans — in any service, for any reason — should be allowed to engage in water-boarding. The only acceptable answer is no.
As noted by Professor Turley, there are only two explanations for Mukasey’s evasion: either Mukasey is the most ill-informed nominee in the history of this republic or, the more likely explanation: Mukasey is lying.
Where do our Senate Democrats and Presidential candidates stand on torture? That is what the vote on Mukasey has become.
The candidate I’m supporting for President, Bill Richardson, stated on October 19th:
“Waterboarding is torture, and anyone who is unwilling to identify it as such is not qualified to be the chief legal officer of the United States of America. If I were in the U.S. Senate, I would vote against Mukasey unless he denounces such specific forms of torture.
“Torture does not work. Mistreatment backfires and destroys our international leadership, as we saw with Abu Ghraib. Torture also endangers our own troops. The standards we adopt may well be what our own troops are subjected to.
“Anytime one makes a person think he or she is being executed, the very nature of waterboarding, it obviously is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, international law, and basic human decency.
“ABC News has described waterboarding as follows: ‘The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face, and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in, and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.’
“If another nation engaged in waterboarding against American citizens, we would denounce that country and call the practice barbaric, and rightly so.
“We must stand against torture without equivocation, without compromise, and without exception. Torture is a violation of everything we stand for as Americans and as human beings.”
Supporters of Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Biden and other the candidates – where does your candidate stand on the confirmation of Mukasey?
Let’s rally together and call on all Democrats in the Senate to vote “no” on torture and Mukasey.
President Bush plans to play the part of the hero by visiting California, now ravaged by fire. But on this issue he’s the villain — it’s two years after Hurricane Katrina and the only progress he’s made is actually acknowledging that global warming exists. If we’re going to avoid tragedies like this in the future, we must take the long-term view. On this point, the science is clear: global warming has already led to increased wildfire activity in the U.S., and if we don’t dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the near future, the problem is going to get much worse.
More than ever, we need a president committed to making real and deep change in how we treat the planet.
“After 7 years of George Bush – the worst, most destructive environmental president in modern history – it is definitely time for change, and that change starts by electing John Edwards as President.”
Come around after the fold with me for Part II of my interview with Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth and Friends of the Earth Action.
This week, I interviewed Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth and FOE Action, via email about the FoE Action endorsement of John Edwards.
FOE Action provides political muscle on legislative battles in the U.S. for its sister organization, Friends of the Earth, which is part of a network of affiliates in over 70 nations around the world. On October 14, FOE Action became the first major environmental organization to endorse a candidate for president, and they endorsed John Edwards:
“Friends of the Earth Action enthusiastically endorses John Edwards for President,” said Brent Blackwelder, president of FOE Action.
FoE Action well understands that you cannot sit down at the table with the corporate polluters and their lobbyists, and then expect them to treat the planet right. As John Edwards has said, if you sit down at the table with them, they’ll eat your lunch. You’ve got to beat them:
Q: You have been President of Friends of the Earth and Friends of the Earth Action since 1994. In that time, you have witnessed the buying of the American government by corporate power and their lobbyists. How important is John Edwards’ willingness to take on these entrenched interests to you in making your endorsement?
A: This played a big part in our decision. John Edwards has taken a stand against the lobbyists and special interests that have so driven environmental policies in the Bush Administration. Only when candidates refuse to take money from the lobbyists for big oil and big coal can they pursue the kind of environmental polices that protect health and safety of our families. Of all the leading candidates running, we believe John Edwards has the greatest potential to stand up to corporate special interests in the White House.
We also talked about John Edwards’ plan to address global warming:
Q: At present, part of the costs of global warming are externalized on all of us. Does Edwards favor measures to auction polluter permits to, at least in part, ensure that part of the cost of global warming goes back to where it belongs – on the actual product?
A: Yes, polluter permits are an important component of Edwards’ plan. He would require polluters to pay for their global warming pollution, a portion of which will raise $10 billion a year for a New Energy Economy Fund to jumpstart clean, renewable, and efficient energy technologies and create 1 million jobs.
Q: What is Edwards’ position on the annual taxpayer funded subsidies that currently exist for oil companies?
A: Edwards calls for eliminating $3 billion in annual government subsidies to oil companies. He even says he is “very open to the possibility of an excess profits tax” on oil companies. We feel this is a crucial first step in getting our country back on the right track with its energy policy.
I don’t know about you, but I agree with Brent Blackwelder and John Edwards about building new nuclear power plants: don’t do it! This is a clear distinction between John Edwards and the other two major candidates: Clinton and Obama:
Q. Senators Clinton and Obama have joined one of the top Republicans in the race, Senator McCain of Arizona, to sponsor the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007. The measure includes more than $3.6 billion in funding and loan guarantees for the planning and construction of nuclear plants using new reactor designs. Does FOE Action oppose the use of taxpayer money to subsidize the nuclear power industry? What is your position on this bill?
A. Friends of the Earth wholeheartedly opposes the construction and development of nuclear power in the United States. Edwards is on the same page, here. He believes nuclear power is too costly, too dangerous, and too vulnerable to attack by our nation’s enemies. New Hampshire, where FOE Action announced its endorsement of Edwards, has the unfortunate distinction of being home to the last-constructed nuclear power plant in the country, Seabrook Station nuclear power plant. The plant places great environmental and health risks on the areas around it, and if constructing a nuclear power was a bad idea 30 years ago, it’s an even worse idea now, particularly given the new realities we face in terms of national security. Nuclear power simply isn’t worth it’s risks, when accidents can have environmental implications that last for generations. And John Edwards is the only candidate to unambiguously say no to nuclear power.
And what about Coal to Liquid? I’m with Edwards and FoE Action on this.
Q: What is your position on Coal to Liquid technology? One Democratic presidential candidate cosponsored a bill to provide taxpayer subsidies for this technology. Edwards opposes CtL. What does using, let alone subsidizing, CtL really mean for our environment?
A: Liquid coal is a bad idea for our country and planet. It contributes twice the amount of carbon emissions to our atmosphere that petroleum does, consuming an inordinate amount of water per unit of fuel, and requiring the expansion of ecologically and socially disastrous mining practices. Unlike Clinton and Obama, Edwards is the only leading candidate to oppose coal-to-liquid technology.
That’s right: “Liquid coal is a bad idea for our country and planet.”
We need a green president now, if we are to survive:
Q: Wouldn’t it be nice to have a President that actually enforced the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and other environmental laws?
A: After 7 years of George Bush – the worst, most destructive environmental president in modern history – it is definitely time for change, and that change starts by electing John Edwards as President.
A final word from FoE Action President, Brent Blackwelder regarding what they and we can do to help elect a green president:
We plan to be especially active in New Hampshire, establishing an independent campaign and organization to carry the message about John Edwards’ global warming plan and his vision for a healthy environment. There is a powerful, untapped environmental constituency out there that is up for grabs in this country and we are here to lend our voice to push that constituency toward Edwards. We believe he has the right vision and record to tap that constituency.
In New Hampshire, there are a lot of Democratic primary voters who care deeply about the quality of their environment and cite it as a top concern when choosing a nominee for president. In particular, voters in the Granite State are looking for real action to combat global warming. We plan to spend the next 3 months letting these voters know that John Edwards is the candidate best qualified and most committed to help achieve this big and bold goal.
Please visit the FoE Action website to find out how you can get involved in our campaign to elect John Edwards as president: FoE Action (www.foeaction.org)
Help FoE Action to elect our first green president: John Edwards.
Friends of the Earth Action endorse John Edwards’ candidacy for President on October 14, 2007, in New Hampshire:
Welcome to your Saturday Night EENR! Tonight’s theme is a big blue map.
Tonight’s stories below the fold:
Bill Maher Stalked by Big Blue Map
Carpenters Building a Big Blue Map in Nevada
True Blue Majority
YouTubes You May Have Missed
JRE Diary Roundup
Bill Maher Stalked by Big Blue Map
Suddenly, big blue maps are showing up everywhere! Talk show host Bill Maher is even being stalked by one. Check it out sneaking up behind him in this next clip! Oh yeah, and John Edwards is in the clip too.
I will be carefully checking Open Secrets after next quarter’s fund raising reports come out. I expect Bill Maher to put his money where his mouth is, otherwise you never know what that big blue map may be capable of. Mwahahahahahahahahaha!
Carpenters Building a Big Blue Map in Nevada
In Nevada today, John Edwards spoke to the Carpenters Union, which has endorsed him, and laid out his plan to train low-income workers and connect them to good paying union jobs.
“Right now, our public jobs programs send job seekers into low-wage jobs and do nothing to help build the middle class. I have a plan called Training Works to connect hard-working Americans to smart training for good-paying, union jobs that actually exist,” Edwards said at the Carpenters International Training Center.
Along with his Training Works plan, which includes Career Ladders to train low-wage workers on the job for higher-wage, higher-skilled jobs in their same field, Edwards talked about his Green Collar Jobs program to create over 1 million new jobs in the ‘new energy economy.’
Carpenters Union International General President Doug McCarron spoke about why the Union has chosen to endorse Edwards.
“The Carpenters Union chose Edwards as the candidate with the best chance of winning the White House and the person who will best represent hard-working families,” Carpenters Union International General President Doug McCarron said.
The Carpenters Union is one of the largest and most politically active unions in Nevada. The union, which represents over 12,000 members in the state, endorsed Edwards last month. Edwards has also received support from the United Steelworkers of America and the Transport Workers of America, giving him the largest bloc of labor support for any presidential candidate in Nevada.
McCarron continued, “John Edwards has committed to campaign in all 50 states when he wins the nomination. He believes that all Americans, whether they see themselves as Democrats, Republicans or Independents, want real change and bold leadership, and he is confidant that his message of telling the American people the truth and fighting for real change will win these voters and states.”
And this segues nicely into our next story…
True Blue Majority
Yesterday, John Edwards was in California to receive the official endorsement of the California SEIU, 656,000 members strong. During his speech, Edwards described his True Blue Majority initiative, a strategy to campaign in all 50 states and build a super majority for the Democrats in Congress.
“The press and the pundits think the most electable candidate is the one with the most money and the most ties to Washington,” said Edwards. “The problem is the press and the pundits have confused the candidate who would win an election inside the Beltway with the candidate who can win an election in the rest of America. I believe any candidate who takes money from lobbyists and special interests is not electable, and I believe any candidate who defends the broken system in Washington will not win.
Edwards continued: “The most electable candidate is the one with the best ideas who is committed to bringing change to every corner of America. The people who want change don’t just live in blue states or big cities. They don’t just live in swing states – they live in every state in this country, and on every street in America. I believe that if we offer real change, if we reject the broken system, say no to the corporate interests and stand once and for all with the people, nothing can stop us. We’ll not only win the White House, we’ll elect super-majorities in the House and the Senate as well.”
Just how likely is it that Edwards could win over red and purple states and help candidates for the Senate, the House, and on down the ballot in those states? Plenty likely, according to a Global Strategy Group polling memo released earlier this week.
The memo by Edwards campaign pollster Harrison Hickman examines polls from many different polling organizations to come to its conclusions.
Nationwide general election polling shows John Edwards is the Democrat with the best chance of defeating the Republican candidate in the 2008 general election for President. Edwards is the only Democrat with a significant lead in a head-to-head match-up against Republican frontrunner Giuliani. Against the other three major Republican candidates, Edwards’ average margin of victory is identical to or better than that of Barack Obama, and significantly higher than Hillary Clinton’s average margin.
Edwards also outperforms the other Democratic candidates in match-ups with Republican candidates in key battleground states including Iowa, Missouri, and Ohio. Further, unlike other Democrats who must “run the table” in states where Democrats have been competitive in recent elections, Edwards brings new states into play. This provides alternate scenarios – and a margin for error – when it comes to amassing 270 electoral votes.
There’s the big blue map again! It’s following me!
YouTubes You May Have Missed
Here are two YouTube videos from the Edwards campaign that came out two days ago, but they don’t have very many views. I didn’t see them, and I suspect you may have missed them too.
