Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Liberal Iowa Group Endorses John Edwards" (WaPo-The Trail)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-09-07 10:23 PM
Original message
"Liberal Iowa Group Endorses John Edwards" (WaPo-The Trail)
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/09/edwards.html

John Edwards today is touting the endorsement of Caucus for Priorities, the Iowa branch of a nationwide group, Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities (http://www.sensiblepriorities.org/), that was launched by Ben & Jerry's ice cream co-founder Ben Cohen and lobbies for slashing the Pentagon budget by 15 percent ($60 billion per year) to allow for more spending in areas like health care, education and renewable energy. Edwards hopes the nod will help convince liberal Iowa caucus voters that he, not Barack Obama, is their best alternative to Hillary Clinton. The group claims more than 10,000 members in Iowa -- more, it notes, than any union in the state other than the American Federation for State, County and Municipal Employees, which last month endorsed Hillary Clinton.

The group's Iowa director, Peggy Huppert, said in an interview today that it decided on Edwards over Obama because it believed that Edwards would be more aggressive about advancing the group's agenda. They "have the same views ... but how they're approaching it is different. Obama has the hope and reconciliation message of bringing people together, which is very legitimate because that is who he is and what he's comfortable with, it's reflection of his personality. Whereas Edwards is more combative," she said. "As push comes to shove and we move closer to the caucuses we're seeing that emerge more clearly, and we felt what we needed for our issue was the harder edge and combative nature of Sen. Edwards."

The endorsement is hardly a surprise. Obama has built his campaign partly on his early opposition to a war in Iraq that both Edwards and Clinton supported, and he talks about the need for elevating diplomatic solutions alongside military ones. But he has also made clear that he does not believe this is the time for major cuts in defense spending, saying that if anything, the manpower of the Army and Marines may need to be increased to better contend with its many obligations around the globe. At a town hall meeting in Iowa City last month, he reacted with mild annoyance when the first person he called on for a question, a young woman with a child on her lap, turned out to be a member of the Caucus for Priorities asking him about his willingness to adopt the group's agenda.

"You guys have been at every town hall meeting in every state I've been to, and I've answered this question about 50 times," said Obama. He went on to say that as president he would conduct a "thorough audit of all weapons systems" to eliminate programs that are leftovers from the Cold War. But while some of that savings could be geared toward social programs, he noted that there also needed to be increases in funding for the National Guard and veterans' care.

Huppert said today that while the group admired Obama's stance against the war, it decided that Edwards was the "best messenger" for its agenda. "He is willing to speak truth to power. He has the courage and conviction to carry our message forward," she said. Obama, she added, "is just exhibiting a degree of caution that is completely understandable ... about what he can commit to at this time. He is concerned about being held down the road to promises made during a primary campaign."

--Alec MacGillis


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Yael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-09-07 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. Keep racking 'em up, Senator
We are behind you. :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-09-07 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
2. Very happy to see this
What hurts is this: I've brought up John Edwards name to two people here in Ca on a casual basis, and their response was: "You mean that guy that talks to dead people? He's running for prisident?" No joke. I support him. And I have for years, but the lack of atention from the MSM scares me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-09-07 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. I have friends that must be related to your friends....
:silly: I'm always surprised how many people just don't pay attention to politics, or worse, get their information from Fox Noise :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rurallib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-09-07 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
3. Note to WaPo: Sensiblepriorities is not "A liberal group"
They are bipartisan and have approached candidates on both sides in both Iowa and New Hampshire. As the name implies they believe that our money can be better prioritized than just giving a blank check to the Pentagon every year. Some folks told me they felt that was a conservative approach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-09-07 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I think 'sensible' and 'liberal' works and like their message. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-09-07 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. But if it's not a "liberal" org, it doesn't work?
It's almost as if the WaPoster was misleading the message with the label?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-09-07 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Pretty Please Post that comment at the WaPo blog......
The use of "liberal" in the title was very misleading, like it was a bad endorsement :(

I'm registered there, I'll be happy to post it for you :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rurallib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. Please do - I am not registered there
I worked for these guys for a short while. They play it down the middle.
It was always fun to listen to the Repugs twist the question (move money from the Pentagon?).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
okamichan13 Donating Member (77 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-09-07 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
8. Besides the dumb Wa Po title
of the article, its pretty good. Shows clearly that Obama isn't ready to lead on change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-09-07 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Yes, great article, dumb title.
MSM only uses the Liberal title to titilate the haters. "OH, A LIBERAL GROUP...BAD GROUP" Sigh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-09-07 11:34 PM
Response to Original message
10. This is a special interest group with the sole purpose to cut Pentagon spending 15%.
I'm sure Edwards promised them the moon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inspired Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. They didn't ask for the moon....
just a sensible approach to spending. I was there and heard Ben Cohen and John Edwards both state that they DIDN'T agree on everything.

So, I guess you are wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
12. Good post. Thank you. Edwards' support has been steady in the
Edited on Sat Nov-10-07 08:05 AM by Old Crusoe
teens somewhere, which offers less voltage than HClinton's numbers or Obama's numbers, but nevertheless is a strong force in the nomination campaign race.

There is also the accumulative support he is gathering from groups like this, which is a group of activist liberals and independents. And these people have family and friends and co-members, so there's a ripple effect at work as well. Edwards' detailed positions on the issues have resonance for exactly this kind of constituency.

And that's a very potent variable in grassroots-based caucus organization. On a cold January 3rd evening in the Hawkeye State, these are the folks who won't be home watcing the Orange Bowl. They'll be our voting for the Carolinian.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laureloak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-10-07 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
14. Edwards has something the others don't - COURAGE!
Yes, it takes a heap of courage to take on Corporate America and the corruption behind American politics. Obama and Clinton just play along the same old way and should either of them get into office, they'll be owned and it'll be the same-old crap we've endured for my entire life. Only with Edwards will the office of the President be the property of the American people.

Go Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 12th 2024, 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC