Over at Progressive Blue, my colleagues have been running a fundraising week for our slate of endorsed Democratic candidates. We've also taken a position of NO on California prop. 8, because we believe in equality for all.
We received 59 donations on our ActBlue page so far, and that totals nearly $3,000.
Will you be our 60th donor?
Will you help us get to $3,000 raised for our candidates?
On Friday, I went to the DNC Fall Meeting with a friend of mine to see John Edwards. It was an adventurous, though not altogether pleasant, kind of day. Here's my story of a trip to a political event that was unexpectedly eventful. I'll also discuss John Edwards' and Barack Obama's very different approaches to change.
The event on Friday was supposed to be in Baltimore, which would have been convenient for me, but the workers at the original hotel location were on strike, so the DNC moved the location three weeks ago. I say kudos to the DNC for respecting the picket line, and I hope last minute planning helps explain some of the chaos at the event.
My friend Scott and I got up super early to drive to Tysons' Corner, VA, outside DC for the event. Neither of us are morning people. Such dedication!
When we arrived, there were already quite a few people waiting outside, but we were immediately greeted by friendly Edwards staffers. Unfortunately, we had to wait in line for hours; about half of that time was spent standing outside in the cold.
We were told the ballroom access would be first come first serve, and there was only room for maybe 150 supporters (in addition to the DNC members who had a guaranteed seat). There were a whole lot more than 150 guests of the various campaigns there. I kind of think each of the major campaigns had that many of their own supporters there, actually.
The event seemed disorganized. All the major campaigns had a lot of supporters there, including a lot of people from the mine workers union for Edwards. It seemed like the campaigns must have been told they could bring a lot more guests than would actually fit in the room. This could have been because of the change of venue, I guess.
I had heard that they were going to let in about 150 people, but unless they were getting them from somewhere else other than the line we knew about, I don't think they did. I think we would have been in there if they had. Most of the Edwards supporters that were there early, as well as certainly any that came at all late, like some other friends of mine did, were not let into the event. They pretty much cut off the number of people they were letting into the ballroom when they got to the mine workers for Edwards, who were standing a few feet in front of me and my friend.
They let the next couple hundred people into an overflow room, where there was a TV. Some of the Edwards supporters ahead of us, many of them mine workers, had been taken out of the line by one of the Edwards staffers to go and shake hands with John when he arrived. We didn't really know that was what was happening until later, or I would have tried to follow them. So they were no longer with us, and we ended up in a room with mostly Obama supporters and a few Edwards supporters.
There were a lot of Edwards supporters in total at the event, but a few were let into the ballroom, judging by what I saw later on C-Span, a big group got out of line to go shake hands with John (but they were told they could not get into the overflow room if they got out of line), and then another fairly big group were let into the overflow room, so we were all split up. Anyway, our numbers were a lot bigger than they looked on TV.
There was a big TV in the overflow room, so we were not happy that we had driven all that way and stood in line all that time to watch something on TV that we could have seen on C-SPAN.
Then it gets worse.
Howard Dean spoke at the beginning, briefly. Then someone came up to introduce Richardson, and then the sound for the video system cut out. Richardson was talking, but we weren't hearing a thing! There was nearly a riot in the overflow room. I am not kidding you. It was ugly. People were chanting "fix the sound! Fix the sound!" Any of the hotel staff that came in the room to try to do that were getting yelled at by some people. We missed all of Richardson's speech.
When John's speech started and the sound was still not fixed, what was already verging on a riot kicked into a higher gear. Keep in mind everyone had been made to wait for hours, much of it outside in the cold, for something we could have watched at home on C-Span already, and now we couldn't even hear it. Some people walked out, but we stayed, hoping they'd get the sound fixed.
I kept thinking that if John Edwards knew what was going on in there, he would definitely come in after his speech and say hello to people. I had no way of knowing if he knew that, though.
Eventually, one of the Obama supporters sitting near me stood up and told people that she had just asked one of the DNC people very nicely to please try to send the candidates in after their speeches, because a lot of people had come to see them and waited a long time. That was when it dawned on me that I knew some of the Edwards staffers and there was no harm in at least asking a favor.
I went out in search of a friend on the Edwards staff and found him by the Edwards table. (To clarify, I do not work for Edwards. I'm just an enthusiastic volunteer.) I took my friend's hand and said something like "there are a lot of people in the overflow room, some of whom came just to see John, and now we can't hear his speech, and everyone in there is pretty upset right now. Is there any way that John can come in and at least say hi to people after his speech?" My friend sent a text message to someone, and he and the other man at the table told me that if it could happen, it would. I thanked them and went back in the room.
By then, they had fixed the sound at least enough to hear what John was saying, though the quality wasn't great. We heard maybe about the second half of John's speech, which was excellent, although I had to wait until I got home to watch the whole thing, in the video below.
Here's just a short excerpt from his speech that gives a small taste of his passion for this fight for change:
This is bigger than politics. Bigger than any candidate or political party. Because the truth is that it's not just Republicans who built this wall. Democrats helped too. Too many politicians from both parties are choosing self-preservation over principle, compromise over convictions.
"You have a choice in this election. You have to decide what kind of person you want as your next president. Do you want someone who is going to pretend that wall around Washington isn't there, or defend the people who helped build it? Or do you want someone who is going to lead with conviction and tell you the truth, and have a little backbone? Do you want someone who is going to hope that the people who spent millions of dollars and decades building that wall, and have billions more invested in keeping it up, are going to be willing to compromise, to take it down voluntarily? Or do you want someone who is going to stand up to those people and fight for your interests, when the chips are down, when your backs are against the wall, every single day?
"We have a choice in this election. We can keep trying to shout over that wall. We can keep trying to knock out a chink here and there, to punch little holes in it and hope our voices get through. We can settle for baby steps, half-measures and incremental change, and try to inch our way over that wall and toward a better future. Or we can be bold and knock it down.
The speech was all about tearing down the wall around Washington, and it seemed like we were at that moment experiencing another facet of that metaphor, by being kept out in a separate room where we couldn't even hear what was going on at first. His speech was met with enthusiastic cheers by most everyone, including the Obama supporters.
We only had to wait for a very few minutes after John's speech, and sure enough, he came in and shook hands with as many people as he could reach. Everyone cheered a lot when he came in and while he was there. I think it helped make everything a bit better for all the people in the room. I got a beautiful big smile, a handshake, and a "hi darlin'," which was nice.
He stood up on the platform and waved and thanked people for coming. He didn't stay too long, but Obama's speech was starting soon and I suspect he didn't want to be rude and talk over it. I was having problems with my camera, so my photos all turned out bad, but here's one I downloaded from the Edwards Flickr site (from that day, but not the overflow room).
Then Obama spoke, and by then he had gotten the message that people in the overflow room were pretty frustrated, so he gave a shout out to the overflow room. That was very well received, especially since most of the people in the room were Obama supporters. I was ready to leave after seeing John, but the Obama supporters there had been very nice during John's speech and when he came in the room, so Scott and I felt an obligation to be nice to their candidate.
Obama gave a good speech, but digging below the surface of sweet rhetoric, I didn't like some of the things Obama said in his speech. Honestly, he is far too conciliatory for me. (I could not find a transcript of his speech, but I always think he talks far too much about "bringing the country together" and bipartisanship.)
After the past 7 years, I want someone who will take the Republicans and the corporate interests on and fight them. I don't want someone who will try to make nice with them. Negotiations are a necessary part of politics, but you have to start from a position of strength, not a position of compromise.
You can't settle for less before you even get started negotiating because you think you won't get what you really want. Obama's health care plan, which is not universal and would leave up to 15 million people uncovered, is a great example of how NOT to achieve change.
I think this is the essential difference between the approaches to change that John Edwards and Barack Obama are taking. John is a fighter who will take them on. Obama seeks compromise, negotiation, and reconciliation, as evidenced both by his speech yesterday and by the "Carry" ad he's been running in New Hampshire and Iowa, which touts his bipartisanship.
Contrast that with this Edwards ad from Iowa:
Obama spoke in his speech about attracting Republicans and independents. I want to draw a distinction here between a candidate who entices Republicans and independents because he seeks compromise with them (Obama) and a candidate who appeals to Republicans and independents because he takes a strong stand and offers a bold vision and leadership on problems that affect them too (Edwards). After the recent Republican debate, one of the undecided Republicans in CNN's focus group said she would support Edwards (the most progressive major Democratic candidate) because at least Edwards has ideas.
I know which one I want in the oval office and which one I think will work, and that is John Edwards's more confrontational approach. It's called backbone, and we Democrats have been looking for it for a long time.
I think Obama may very well be a nice guy with good intentions. That isn't the point. What we need now is a fighter. We need someone who has taken on corporate interests and won consistently, and that's John Edwards.
The Obama supporters in the room, however, were really enthused by the end of his speech. One woman, obviously thinking I was far more impressed than I actually was, because of my polite cheering, I guess, asked me if I was thinking about switching. I told her absolutely not.
Obama made his supporters wait quite a long time, but when he did come in, he got mobbed. Scott managed to reach over a lot of people and shake Obama's hand, but I was keeping a bit of distance between myself and the thick of the crowd. I have been in one or two intense crowd situations and crowds can freak me out a bit if I feel it will become difficult to move.
Obama gave a short pep talk and then left, and I think most of his supporters followed him, because the room cleared out quickly.
Scott and I stayed and chatted for a long time with a very nice woman next to him, who I had assumed was an Obama supporter, but it turned out she was undecided. She was concerned about electability, so I talked to her about the fact that John seems to be the most electable Democrat based on head to head matchup polls, and also about some of the reasons why I like Edwards more than Obama.
Since all the Obama supporters had followed their candidate, I didn't have anyone trying to argue with me while I pointed out the flaws in Obama's health care plan (the major one is it's not universal) and pointed out why John would be so much more aggressive in pursuing a progressive agenda (because, as I said above, you can't start from a position of compromise). I also told her about his 80 page booklet on policy and where she could download it. She was definitely listening, so that was a good score! I don't know for sure that she will end up supporting him, but she was very receptive.
After we were ushered out of the room by hotel staff trying to clean during the break between sessions, we saw Kate Michelman near the Edwards table, and I blurted out "Kate Michelman! Hi!" She looked like she recognized me, which she probably did since I've been in a small group where she spoke before, and she greeted me like she knew me, but it occurred to me later that she probably had no real idea who I was. Anyway, she was very nice.
After that, Scott and I were both just about weak with hunger, so we found the nearest tolerable restaurant, which turned out to be Panera Bread. Guess who we ran into there? My friend from the campaign staff! He came right up to me and gave me a hug, and we chatted for a little bit. Really nice guy. He was really very appreciative of the fact that he always sees me at Edwards events.
Anyway, so then we drove home through a lot of traffic, only finding out about the Hillary campaign hostage situation when we got to Scott's house. Like I said, strange day.
It was nice of Edwards and Obama to both come in and greet the people in the overflow room, though, so that made up for the other weirdness of the day quite a bit. Both men seem like nice people. I just prefer John's strong confrontational approach. We need someone to stand up for us. We need someone to help us tear down the wall. We need a fighter.
John Edwards wins Republican debate - without even showing up!
Last night in a surprise upset, Democrat John Edwards won the Republican debate without even showing up! Check out this reaction among CNN's panel of undecided Republican voters.
She's not alone. I've had several Republicans tell me that if John Edwards wins the Democratic nomination, they would vote for him. Electability, for sure!
Folks, this year we have an amazing, unusual opportunity where the most progressive of the major candidates is also the most electable candidate in the Democratic field. I think it couldn't come at a more important time.
Let's face it. The Republicans have made a horrible mess during the past 13 years, ever since Bill Clinton lost the Democratic Congress in the midterm election of 1994.
The past 13 years of bad luck have been a time of doom, gloom, and despair for the entire country. As a result of bad trade policies like NAFTA, huge numbers of American jobs have gone overseas, including so many manufacturing jobs that you almost cannot buy anything made in the United States anymore. We've seen our Constitution shredded and our civil liberties taken away. We've seen an increasingly corrupt Congress selling legislation to the highest corporate bidder, while more and more Americans go without healthcare, housing, and even food. Meanwhile, nothing has been done about impending disasters like global warming. Make no mistake about it. This is one of the darkest of times in American history.
What we really need now is a leader. We need someone who will take bold and correct stands on the issues, lead the country in the direction it needs to go, and be willing to fight the special interests in Washington to get there. We are not going to get where we need to go or get ourselves out of this mess if we elect someone who is so enthralled with the idea of political negotiation and compromise that they're willing to give up a lot of what we need before negotiations even begin. In short, we are not going to get there with a political insider.
Enter John Edwards. John Edwards has spent his life fighting against big corporate interests. He made a living doing so as one of the most successful trial attorneys in the entire country. In fact, he was so successful at it that he joined a club comprised of the 100 most successful trial attorneys in the country at the age of 37 and was the youngest member to join. In case after case, he represented average people who had been hurt by the neglect of big corporations and, as he is fond of saying, he beat them, and he beat them, and he beat them again.
In both his legal career and his time in the Senate, Edwards has a reputation for standing up for the little guy against powerful corporate interests. It's exactly what we need, and it couldn't come at a better time.
Edwards has shown his leadership in the presidential race by laying out a progressive agenda based on carefully thought through, detailed policy proposals the scope of which lays out a bold vision for the future the likes of which I have never seen from a presidential candidate. This is the stuff American dreams are made of.
Best of all, head to head matchup polls done by various polling organizations throughout the year have shown Edwards as the most electable candidate against the likely Republican contenders. Not only would he beat the Republicans by wider margins nationally than Clinton, but he also would bring into play red states that neither Clinton nor Obama could hope to compete in. By winning some additional states and their electoral votes, Edwards increases the margin of victory and gives us some insurance against losing another election to Republican shenanigans.
I may as well say it: Edwards is my dream candidate. Edwards is exactly the kind of guy that I've always wished would run as the Democratic nominee, the kind of candidate we deserve, but never quite seem to get. This time around, we have an historic opportunity to elect a truly great president.
So I'm really excited about Edwards as a candidate, but time is running short. As of November 27, we have only 37 days until the Iowa caucus. The race is currently a dead heat in Iowa, according to polls. There are only 42 days until the New Hampshire primary, the first primary in the nation.
Last week, I was up in New Hampshire volunteering on the ground. A lot of voters in New Hampshire are still undecided, which means there is a big opportunity there.
I think it's likely that in all of the early states, there are a lot of undecided voters and that anyone could win in any of those states, but those states will determine the outcome of the presidential race. If you live in any of the early states, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, or South Carolina, or if you can travel to them or even make calls into them, now is the time to volunteer for Edwards.
Get in touch with the campaign in your early state of choice and volunteer. Give money if you can afford it.
We can have the president we really deserve. John Edwards -- a president who will really inspire us. But now is the time to make sure we make that happen.
Throughout the past 11 months, I've been blogging about John Edwards and his incredible platform for transformational change, and in the course of that time, I've met some fellow Edwards supporters who are real American heroes. Some of the Edwards ads talk about heroes of One America, well, my friends and fellow Edwards supporters are my heroes.
I want to talk about some of them today, because these heroes of One America are truly inspiring to me.
NCDem Amy, OneCarolinaGirl, sgary, ashlarah, and marratha are citizen journalists and video uploaders who regularly bring us news and video content about the campaign, much of it original.
Regular commenters on Edwards diaries and on the Edwards blog bring us updates from their efforts on the ground, including some people living and volunteering in the early states, such as RunawayRose, Im4JRE, desmoinesdem, and Smucci. Some regulars have been volunteering for John Edwards for years, like nannyboz, Persiflage, bettync, and suswa.
I know I have left some people out and I apologize for that. I couldn’t possibly list all of you who make a difference in your efforts to create One America that works for all of us. I didn't list some people by name because they may not have a blog that I can link to, or in some cases, I may just have forgotten. I know there are One Corps members all over the country and right in my own back yard in Maryland who are working hard to elect JRE. Thank you for all of your work. Each and every one of you is a hero to me. May your efforts come to fruition.
I also want to give a shout out to all the Edwards campaign staffers I’ve met, either online or in person. You all work very hard and I’m thrilled to have such a dedicated group watching the back of our future president day in and day out. One thing is for sure, Edwards supporters, volunteers, and staffers are an incredibly wonderful group of individuals. It makes me proud to volunteer for this campaign.
Ever since Tuesday night's debate, the Clinton campaign has been complaining that the other candidates ganged up on her. This is part of a fundraising email I got from the Clinton campaign:
On that stage in Philadelphia, we saw six against one. Candidates who had pledged the politics of hope practiced the politics of pile on instead. Her opponents tried a whole host of attacks on Hillary.
She is one strong woman. She came through it well. But Hillary's going to need your help.
Note to Clinton: the issues are fair game. If you are running for president, the other candidates have a right to point out where they think you are wrong on the issues.
All the distractions in the world won't undo the fact that on Tuesday night millions of Americans saw John Edwards speak honestly and directly, while Senator Clinton once again took multiple positions on multiple issues. We understand that the Clinton campaign isn't happy about that, but instead of smoke and mirrors, how about some truth-telling? Forty-eight hours after the debate, we have lots of excuses, but we still don't have a yes or no answer to a yes or no question.
"That's not the 'politics of piling on,' it's the politics of parsing.
"After seven years of George Bush, the American people deserve better — they deserve the truth."
In Salon's War Room, Tim Grieve points out that it does a disservice to the Democratic Party to stifle dissent.
The last thing the Democratic Party needs now is somebody else -- let alone one of its own -- suggesting that open debate is somehow wrong. Clinton seemed to understand that point perfectly well when she announced her candidacy back in January. "Let's talk, let's chat," she said then. "Let's start a dialogue about your ideas and mine, because the conversation in Washington has been just a little one-sided lately, don't you think?"
Yes, as a matter of fact, we do. But a one-sided conversation is a one-sided conversation, no matter who's doing the talking. Elections are necessarily choices among competing candidates and competing visions. If Clinton can run her campaign without ever mentioning why she thinks she's better than her opponents, more power to her. But mere mortals can't do that, and they shouldn't have to. If Clinton was serious about having a "dialogue" -- if part of her own hope for America is that we'll have a more open society than the one in which we've lived for the past six years -- then it's high time for her campaign to stop trying to shame its opponents into silence. Engage with the criticisms or ignore them; just don't argue that it's wrong to raise them in the first place.
Taylor Marsh, in a piece titled "Russert Leads the Boys in All Out Clinton Assault" very nearly accused the other candidates and Tim Russert of attacking Clinton because she is a woman.
Russert's goal was to provide the headlines the media was salivating to see. He intended to diminish and discredit Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, using her former president husband Bill Clinton to help do the job, which included a document waving drama that was all for show. I'd say Russert has a problem with a woman being president, but that can't be the case. Nah, he was just doing his job.
Clinton, at Wellesley, says, "This all-women's college prepared me to compete in the all-boy's club of presidential politics."
Let me get this straight. The other candidates (and Tim Russert) are not allowed to criticize Hillary Clinton on issues because she is female? Is that truly what Taylor Marsh is saying? As a feminist, I agree with RJ Eskow over at Huffington Post.
When is a feminist not a feminist? Apparently, when the goal is defending Hillary Clinton. In the Senator's defense, she has never said that it's unfair or bullying for men to take aggressive stances against her. I suspect she has too much self-respect for that.* But if her defenders continue to play the gender card like Taylor Marsh does in this piece, they could set the feminist cause back by decades.
It really damages the cause of feminism if the first "viable" (according to the media) female candidate for president is going to complain that she's being unfairly attacked every time someone disagrees with her on an issue. Hillary is not being attacked by the other Democrats in an unfair way. She's being questioned because she is wrong or inconsistent on issues (in their view, anyway). There is a big difference, and if she wants to be taken seriously as a leader, she had better start acting like a leader and be willing to stand up for what she believes in (whatever that may be).
In fact, I will go so far as to say that as a woman who has sometimes faced real gender discrimination, I am very angered by the Clinton campaign's response that seeks to marginalize the real issue concerns of her opponents by complaining that she's being singled out and unfairly attacked. American voters deserve to know her positions on these issues. It is not fair to us, or to women in particular, if the response to questions on the issues is dismissive of dissent, and it's worse if the response even comes close to seeming to be "you're just mean boys beating up on a girl." If she is truly prepared to compete in what she calls the "boys club," then she had better be prepared for substantive debate on the issues.
As Joan Walsh at Salon points out, Hillary Clinton can take it, or at least, she certainly SHOULD be able to. Furthermore, if she can't take reasonable critiques on the issues from Democratic candidates, how is she going to be able to confront Republican attacks?
If Clinton continues to take multiple positions on an issue and try to silence dissent from her opponents, it won't be long before her candidacy becomes little more than a joke, as in this Jon Stewart clip:
Senator Clinton, with all due respect, please get serious about the issues. As Joe Trippi points out:
You don't need money to tell the truth, or to not double-talk.
It's pretty clear that corporate lobbyists have too much influence in Washington, DC, and that the corruption caused by big money interests giving legalized bribes to politicians is out of control.
John Edwards has never taken a dime from a Washington lobbyist, not only in this campaign, but in any political campaign he has ever run, since his first race for the Senate. In this, he is different from the other candidates, and way ahead of them, in my opinion, although Obama has, to his credit, also rejected lobbyist money for his first time in this presidential race.
At Yearly Kos, John Edwards challenged Hillary Clinton to stop taking campaign contributions from lobbyists, and she refused.
MODERATOR: Senator Edwards has a very straightforward question here, which is will you continue to take money from lobbyists?
CLINTON: Yes, I will. I will. Because you know, a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They actually do.
Later, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Clinton asserted that the solution to the corruption in Washington is public campaign financing. We already have a public campaign financing system in place for presidential elections. John Edwards then committed to take public campaign financing for the primary, and challenged the other candidates to do the same. Once again, Clinton has refused (as has Obama).
In an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Clinton said the following when asked about her connection to disgraced donor Norman Hsu:
CLINTON: I think that we've done all that we can do at this point, including returning the money, but I believe that the only answer to this entire set of circumstances is public financing, something that I strongly support, that I'm going to try to do when I'm president, because there is no doubt that the cost of campaigns, particularly trying to get on television with our advertising, and all the things that people have to do in a modern campaign, are just out of control. It's not good for the country, and it's not good for the system.
Perhaps Hillary Clinton is actually in favor of some ideal form of public campaign financing that we don't have yet, however, we do already have a public campaign financing system in place for presidential elections. The existing public campaign financing system for presidential elections does not require mandatory participation, however, because the Supreme Court has ruled that mandatory participation in that system would be unconstitutional.
Many people, including John Edwards, have said that they would support an improved system of public campaign financing. Hillary Clinton appears to support that, too, although it's not clear what her proposal is.
A true commitment to public financing would involve both being willing to work within the existing public financing system and proposing serious reforms that would strengthen our existing public financing system, and obviously it would be easiest to actually accomplish this if it can be done in a way that could be upheld as constitutional. Although I'm no constitutional expert, it seems that John Edwards has done both.
Here's a little bit of history on our current public financing system for presidential campaigns, from Wikipedia:
All of these efforts were largely ineffective, easily circumvented and rarely enforced. In 1971, however, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act, requiring broad disclosure of campaign finance. In 1974, fueled by public reaction to the Watergate Scandal, Congress passed amendments to the Act establishing a comprehensive system of regulation and enforcement, including public financing of presidential campaigns and creation of a central enforcement agency, the Federal Election Commission. Other provisions included strict limits on contributions to campaigns and expenditures by campaigns, individuals, and other political groups.
The new law was immediately challenged on First Amendment grounds in Federal Court, resulting in a landmark Supreme Court decision, Buckley v. Valeo. The Buckley decision recognized that regulation burdened the rights of free speech and assembly, but held that the compelling government interest in preventing corruption or its appearance justified some restrictions on free speech. The resulting decision upheld contribution limits, so long as they were not so low as to prevent campaigns from amassing the resources necessary to communicate effectively with the public, disclosure requirements, and voluntary public financing. It found limits on expenditures to be unconstitutional infringements on free speech. It also restricted the reach of the law to speech by candidates and parties, that is, groups established for the purpose of electing candidates, and to communications that expressly advocated the election or defeat of a candidate, using phrases such as "vote for," "vote against," "support," or "defeat."
I understand this quote to be saying that the Supreme Court has said campaign finance law can limit the maximum amount of donations, in order to prevent corruption or even the appearance of corruption, but cannot require candidates to participate in a public financing system, and cannot limit their spending. On Friday, John Edwards proposed a new public financing system that would go much further toward preventing corruption, but would fall into these guidelines.
Reforming Campaign Finance to Strengthen Small Donors: John Edwards believes elections should be about ideas rather than money. Few Americans can afford to make $4,600 contributions to gain access to presidential candidates, and the integrity of our campaign financing system depends upon smaller donors continuing to play an important role in the political process. Edwards' campaign is built upon the support of small donors – in fact, 93 percent of the campaign's donations come from donors contributing less than $100. As president, Edwards will create a new Grassroots Presidential Financing System to match small donations under $100 by eight to one, making two $100 donations as valuable to a campaign as a single $1,000 donation. He will also reduce the maximum contribution from $2,300 to $1,000 per person, to better reflect the incomes of most Americans. Edwards will create a system of full public financing for Congressional candidates and require corporations to disclose their political activity and spending.
Eight to one matches for small donations would sure go a long way toward maximizing the power of small contributors, while a lower maximum donation of $1000 would limit the influence of wealthy people and corporations. Edwards would also prevent lobbyists from giving campaign contributions, again, to prevent corruption.
Ending the Unique Power of Lobbyists: Edwards will prohibit all candidates and federal office holders from accepting contributions from lobbyists and will prohibit federal lobbyists from acting as fundraisers or bundlers for federal candidates. He will limit the ability of lobbyists to secure lucrative earmarks by enacting a Constitutional version of the line-item veto, where the president can require an up or down vote on special-interest spending. Edwards will close the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street by reinstating the five-year ban on lobbying by former top government officials and by banning former lobbyists from taking executive branch positions related to their former clients. Finally, he will curb lobbyists' influence by increasing disclosure requirements for lobbyist activity and by prohibiting government executives from accepting gifts and travel from lobbyists and their employers.
Strengthening the Voice of Ordinary Citizens: To ensure everyone's vote is counted, Edwards will require that all voting machines, including electronic ones, use paper ballots that can be verified by voters. He will also give D.C. residents voting representation in Congress, allow Election Day Registration in federal elections, fight voter suppression and intimidation and end the disenfranchisement of former prisoners who have served their time. In order to increase citizen engagement, Edwards will ask one million citizens to participate in biennial Citizen Congresses – national town hall meetings where regular Americans tackle national issues together, without the filters of interest groups and the media. Similar projects have given citizens a voice in community solutions across the country, including in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards unveiled a "One Democracy" initiative last week to enlarge the role of ordinary Americans in politics. The "Citizen Congress" is the most original part of this policy. If elected, he would convene millions of Americans in town halls throughout the country every other year to deliberate and advise public leaders on difficult issues such as healthcare, poverty, and foreign affairs.
The idea that government should talk directly to citizens about political issues, and that citizens should talk to each other, has the potential to reinvigorate American democracy. Citizen participation through influential assemblies such as Citizen Congresses would address three critical failings of the political system.
Here's a citizen journalist video report of John Edwards proposing his One Democracy Initiative, recorded by YouTube user dteubner. These are parts 2 and 3 of the speech, which gets into the meat of his proposals. Part 1 can be found here.
If you're interested in hearing more from that day in Keene, NH, you can download an MP3 here that includes the speech, as well as a question and answer session that followed it. Also, here is part of a Q&A session with CSpan viewers that aired before the speech (I didn't tune in early enough to catch it all).
Edwards has been talking up public financing and government reform and deriding the corrupting influence of lobbyists for quite some time now. Here he discusses these issues on a recent edition of Meet the Press:
John Edwards doesn't trust Bush. Hillary Clinton does.
I hope you saw the debate last night on MSNBC. Last night proved that John Edwards would end the war in Iraq, and would not get us into a new war with Iran, unlike Hillary Clinton the hawk.
The end of the quarter is coming fast! Please give to help put an anti-war president in the White House!
John learned something from his mistake in voting for the Iraq war. Among other things, he learned that George Bush cannot be trusted.
Hillary Clinton did not learn the same lesson. On September 26th, 2007, she voted for the Lieberman – Kyl amendment, which is a first step toward war with Iran. According to ThinkProgress:
By a vote 76-22, the Senate passed the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, which threatens to “combat, contain and [stop]” Iran via “military instruments.” Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) called the amendment “Cheney’s fondest pipe dream” and said it could “read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action.”
Hillary Clinton voted for this!
John Edwards called her out for it in the Democratic debate on the night of September 26, 2007:
But I want to come back to a discussion that took place a few minutes ago to make everyone understands what Senator Gravel is talking and Senator Clinton was talking about. Because there was a very important vote cast in the United States Senate today. And it was, basically, in a resolution calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
I voted for this war in Iraq, and I was wrong to vote for this war. And I accept responsibility for that. Senator Clinton also voted for this war.
We learned a very different lesson from that. I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran.
And I think that vote today, which Senator Biden and Senator Dodd voted against, and they were correct to vote against it, is a clear indication of the approach that all of us would take with the situation in Iran because what I learned in my vote on Iraq was you cannot give this president the authority and you can’t even give him the first step in that authority because he cannot be trusted.
Watch the video:
Barack Obama DID NOT VOTE AT ALL on Lieberman-Kyl, because he was at a campaign event in New Hampshire. This is after all his rhetoric about how he would have voted against the Iraq war!
Please support the only major Democratic candidate who will keep us out of another war. Please support John Edwards!
It is almost the end of the fundraising quarter. Can you give to help put an anti-war president in the White House?
"Tell Congress you know the truth," Edwards says. "They have the power to end this war and you expect them to use it. When the president asks for more money and more time, Congress needs to tell him he only gets one choice — a firm timeline for withdrawal."
John Edwards made a magic, moving speech today to kick off his bus tour in New Hampshire. I'm going to have to just post it in its entirety, because I can't bear to cut it and I really have nothing to add. He says this so well. (Emphasis mine.)
This election is unlike any we have faced before. The stakes are higher. And the challenges we face as a nation are greater than at any time in memory.
We as a nation must choose whether to do what America has always done in times like these -- change direction and move boldly into the future for the sake of our children, if not for ourselves, or wander in the same stale direction we have traveled in our recent past.
The choice we must make is as important as it is clear.
It is a choice between looking back and looking forward.
A choice between the way we've always done it and the way we could do it if we dared.
A choice between corporate power and the power of democracy.
Between a corrupt and corroded system and a government that works for us again.
It is caution versus courage. Old versus new. Calculation versus principle.
It is the establishment elites versus the American people.
It is a choice between the failed compromises of the past and the bright possibilities of our future. Between resigning ourselves to Two Americas or fighting for the One America we all believe in.
As always, at these moments, the choice we make is not for us, but for our children and our great country. And this time, like no other time, the consequences for our children are truly profound.
Will we halt global warming, protect our environment and humanity from the cataclysmic consequences of inaction and leave our children a livable world rich in the resources that were left to us?
Will we prevail against terrorism by stopping those who would harm us and winning over the minds of those who have yet to take sides so that instead of an ever more dangerous and war-torn world, our children live in a nation that is safe, strong and once again viewed throughout the world as a truly moral leader?
Will corporate greed be all we value as we move further into the global economy, or will we put workers and families first, so that all jobs pay fair wages, every American has health care and corporate profits work for democracy and not the other way around?
Will we face our future as individuals, each of us asking, "What's in it for me?" Or will we return to the central value that makes our nation great? That we are all in this together and each of has a responsibility to the common good.
The choices we make will determine not just the quality of life our children will inherit, but the fate of the world we leave behind.
To succeed for our children where we have too often failed for ourselves, we must choose a new course. Those wedded to the policies of the 70s, 80s, or 90s are wedded to the past -- ideas and policies that are tired, shop worn and obsolete. We will find no answers there.
But small thinking and outdated answers aren't the only problems with a vision for the future that is rooted in nostalgia. The trouble with nostalgia is that you tend to remember what you liked and forget what you didn't. It's not just that the answers of the past aren't up to the job today, it's that the system that produced them was corrupt -- and still is. It's controlled by big corporations, the lobbyists they hire to protect their bottom line and the politicians who curry their favor and carry their water. And it's perpetuated by a media that too often fawns over the establishment, but fails to seriously cover the challenges we face or the solutions being proposed. This is the game of American politics and in this game, the interests of regular Americans don't stand a chance.
Real change starts with being honest -- the system in Washington is rigged and our government is broken. It's rigged by greedy corporate powers to protect corporate profits. It's rigged by the very wealthy to ensure they become even wealthier. At the end of the day, it's rigged by all those who benefit from the established order of things. For them, more of the same means more money and more power. They'll do anything they can to keep things just the way they are -- not for the country, but for themselves.
Politicians who care more about their careers than their constituents go along to get elected. They make easy promises to voters instead of challenging them to take responsibility for our country. And then they compromise even those promises to keep the lobbyists happy and the contributions coming.
Instead of serving the people and the nation, too many play the parlor game of Washington -- trading favors and campaign money, influencing votes and compromising legislation. It's a game that never ends, but every American knows -- it's time to end the game.
And it's time for the Democratic Party -- the party of the people -- to end it.
The choice for our party could not be more clear. We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other.
The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate.
It's time to end the game. It's time to tell the big corporations and the lobbyists who have been running things for too long that their time is over. It's time to challenge politicians to put the American people's interests ahead of their own calculated political interests, to look the lobbyists in the eye and just say no.
And it's time for the American people to take responsibility for our government -- for in our democracy it is truly ours. If we have come to mistrust and question it, it is because we were not vigilant against the forces that have taken it from us. That their game has played on for so long is the fault of each of us -- ending the game and returning government of the people to the people is the responsibility of all of us.
But cleaning up Washington isn't enough. If we are going to meet the challenges we face and prevail over them, two principles must guide us -- yes, we must end the Washington game, but we must also think as big as the challenges we face. Our ideas must be bold enough to succeed and our government must be free to enact them without compromising principle or sacrificing results.
One without the other isn't good enough. All the big ideas in the world won't make a difference if they have to go through this broken system that remains controlled by big business and their lobbyists. And if we fix the system, but aren't honest with the American people about the scope of our challenges and what's required of each of us to meet them, then we'll be left with the baby steps and incremental measures that are Washington's poor excuse for progress.
As Bobby Kennedy said, "If we fail to dare, if we do not try, the next generation will harvest the fruit of our indifference; a world we did not want, a world we did not choose, but a world we could have made better by caring more for the results of our labors."
But if we do both -- if we have the courage to offer real change and the determination to change Washington -- then we will be build the One America we dream of, where every man, woman and child is blessed with the same, great opportunity and held to the same, just rules.
For more than 20 years, Democrats have talked about universal health care. And for more than 20 years, we've gotten nowhere, because lobbyists for the big insurance companies, drug companies and HMOs spent millions to block real reform. Instead, they've grudgingly allowed incremental measures that do nothing but tinker around the edges -- or worse, they've hijacked reform to improve their own bottom line. So today, more Americans go without health care than ever before. Instead of prescription drug reform that brought down the cost of drugs, the lobbyists for the big drug companies got us a prescription drug bill that boosts drug company profits but doesn't cut patient costs.
I have a bold plan to finally guarantee true universal health care for every single American and cut health care costs for everyone. My plan will require everyone -- business, government and individuals -- to contribute something to reach universal coverage. And I am honest about the cost: $90 to $120 billion a year, and I'll pay for it by repealing the Bush tax cuts for families above $200,000. If we end the game in Washington, we can finally have a health care system that treats the health of all our people with equal worth.
Dependence on foreign oil is smothering our economy and choking our environment. Everybody knows it -- politicians from both parties have been calling for energy independence for 30 years. So what did the oilmen in the White House do? They handed the keys to the corridors of government over to the lobbyists for the big oil companies and let them literally write the energy bill. Now, gas prices are through the roof, carbon emissions are unchecked, and global warming is likely getting worse.
When I am president, we will cap greenhouse gas pollution and ratchet it down every year. We will avoid mistakes like nuclear power and liquid coal. We will invest in clean renewable energies generated in America and create a new era in efficient cars, made by union members here at home.
And look at our economic policies -- from top to bottom, they're a twisted reflection of American values. Instead of expanding opportunity for all and preventing special privileges for any, they hoard opportunity and protect special privileges for the very few at the very top.
Trade policy is all about corporate profits for big multinationals and not at all about lifting workers' wages or creating American jobs. The tax code provides breaks for hedge fund managers -- amazingly, even Democrats backed down from asking them to pay their fair share when Wall Street lobbyists put the pressure on. By the time a decade of corporate opposition to a minimal increase in the minimum wage is overcome, even its own supporters admit that the increase isn't enough -- so another decade of corporate opposition begins anew, and workers lose again.
It's time we put our economy back in line with our values. Let's restore fairness to our tax code by insisting on a simple principle -- nobody in the middle class should pay higher taxes on the money they make from hard work than the wealthiest pay on the money they make from their investments. Let's restore opportunity and responsibility to our trade policy by requiring that every new trade deal puts workers and wages first. Let's reward work by strengthening unions, raising the minimum wage, cutting taxes on working families and with a national commitment to end poverty within a generation.
And let's support our troops and end this war in Iraq. We should immediately withdraw 40-50,000 combat troops immediately and have the rest out in about a year. And when President Bush refuses to act, Congress should use its funding power to force him to act.
None of this will be easy, but all of it is possible.
I know. I've been doing it my entire life.
I am the son of Wallace and Bobbie Edwards. My father had to borrow $50 to bring me and my mother home from the hospital. I am here today because, like all the people my father worked with in the mill, my parents got up every day believing in the promise of America, and they worked hard -- no matter what obstacles were thrown against them -- to give me the chance for a better life.
That's the promise at the heart of the American Dream. What matters to our generation is of little consequence -- in America what has always mattered most is the consequences for our children and their children after them. And no amount of power or money gives anyone the right to break that promise with our future.
I have stood with ordinary Americans at the most difficult times in their lives, when all the power of corporate America was arrayed against them. I have walked into courtrooms alone to face an army of corporate lawyers with all the money in the world. I have walked off the Senate elevator and been besieged by an army of corporate lobbyists. And I have beaten them over and over again.
But let me tell you one thing I have learned from my experience -- you cannot deal with them on their terms. You cannot play by their rules, sit at their table, or give them a seat at yours. They will not give up their power -- you have to take it from them.
We cannot triangulate our way to real change. We cannot compromise our way to real change. But we can lead to real change. And we can start today.
Nearly ten years ago, I made the decision that I would never take a dime from a Washington lobbyist -- I wasn't going to work for them, and I didn't want their money.
Because in the courtroom, when you present your case to the jury, you can offer facts and evidence, you can argue your heart out -- and I have -- but the one thing you can't do, is pay the jury. We call that a bribe. But in Washington when an oil lobbyist gives money to office holders to influence our energy policy, they call it politics. That's exactly what's wrong with this system.
Money flies like lightning between corporations, lobbyists, and politicians. We need full public financing to reform the system once and for all. But we don't need to wait to reform our party. Two weeks ago, I called on all Democrats to reject contributions from federal lobbyists. To tell them -- we know that you give money to influence politicians on behalf of your corporate clients. Well, we're not going to take it anymore. Your money's no good here.
I repeat that challenge today. Let's show America exactly whose side we're on. We can reform our party and truly be the party of the people. And we can expose for all time who the Republicans in Washington are really working for.
There are 60 lobbyists in Washington for every member of Congress. The big corporations don't need another president that looks out for them -- they've got all the power they need. I want to be the people's president.
A few weeks, ago I met a man named James Lowe in Wise, Virginia. James spent the first fifty years of his life without a voice -- literally without a voice -- because he didn't have health care. All he needed was a simple operation to fix a cleft palate. That a man in the richest country in the world could go unable to speak for 50 years because he couldn't pay for a $3,000 operation is something that should outrage every American. We are better than that. America is better that that.
It's a stark reminder of our broken political system that leaves millions of Americans without a voice in their government -- a government that is supposed to work for them.
But it doesn't have to be that way. And we can change it together.
We must think big and end the game.
It's not about being ready to grab the reigns of establishment Washington and stand on the side of corporate elites. If it is, there are plenty who will do a better job than me at protecting the status quo, and preserving the policies and politics of the past.
It's about being ready to lift our country up, reform our party, and remake our government in line with the values of our people. It's about real change and a new vision that meets the challenges of the future and inspires the American people to work together for the common good.
We're all angry at what George Bush has done to our country. But with courage and conviction, with an unblinking eye on the future we believe in and an unbending knee on the road to get there, not only can we undo the damage, we can transform the world. No matter what life has thrown at us, Elizabeth and I have always chosen to be optimistic about the future -- and determined to make a difference as we strive toward it everyday.
I carry the promise of America in my heart, where my parents placed it. Because of them, I believe in people, hard work and the American Dream. I believe the future belongs to us if we only dare to seize it. And I believe to seize it, we must blaze a new path, firmly grounded in the values that first made America great. We must cast aside the established ways of Washington and replace them with the timeless values of the American people. We must end the game controlled by a privileged few and restore the promise that America owes to us all.
On that new path lies One America, where possibility is unbound and opportunity is the birthright of every American. Where the voices of the people are heard again in the halls of government, and government heeds their call. One America, where every individual takes responsibility for our common good, and the chance to reach one's God-given potential is every individual's common right.
It can easily be argued that John Edwards gave the strongest performance in the Democratic debate last night. Especially in moments when he took on Washington special interests and the sad state of health care in America, he showed himself to be the kind of fighter who will not rest until he does his best for the American people, which would be a big change from any president I can remember. (This is not to say that the two Democratic presidents I remember, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, weren't somewhat helpful, because they were. But, I don't remember Carter very well, and I know that Clinton made a lot of compromises he should not have made, such as NAFTA.)
In the debate last night, there were moments when Edwards was breathing fire. Most politicians sold us out long ago, and we the people need someone who will put up a good fight on our behalf. Edwards is that guy, and I hope at last that is becoming clear to everyone.
Before I get into the high points of the debate, I should take a moment to mention the new Edwards campaign video that everybody's talking about. The campaign obviously has had enough of a vapid mainstream media that can't seem to talk about the issues, because they are so obsessed with John Edwards's hair. In a powerful juxtaposition of comedy and tragedy, the Hair video asks us what is really important. The choice of music from the anti-Vietnam musical Hair is brilliant. It reminds us that then, as now, America fought a pointless war with obscure goals that our leaders seemed incapable of ending.
It would be nice to think that the reporters who have been perpetuating the hair story in the media are smart enough to know that they've just been roundly and justly insulted and decent enough to feel some shame over it. Time will tell.
During the debate itself, Edwards answered directly every question he was asked. His answers were blunt and to the point. Here are some highlights:
But I think the question is -- the question is: What is going to be done to stop this war?
The other people have raised the question earlier. And in fact, Senator Obama spoke just a minute ago about the White House agreeing that the parliament, the Iraqi parliament could take a month-long vacation because it was too hot, while our men and women are putting their lives on the line every day.
Here's my question. While the Iraqi parliament is on vacation, is George Bush going to be on vacation in Crawford, Texas?
What we need to do is turn up the heat on George Bush and hold him responsible and make this president change course.
(APPLAUSE)
It is the only way he will change course. He will never change course unless he's made to do it.
If you listen to these questions, they all have exactly the same thing, which is how do we bring about big change?
And I think that's a fundamental threshold question. And the question is: Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't.
I think the people who are powerful in Washington -- big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies -- they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power. The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them.
(APPLAUSE)
And I have been standing up to these people my entire life. I have been fighting them my entire life in court rooms -- and beating them.
If you want real change, you need somebody who's taking these people on and beating them over and over and over.
And just this past week -- in fact, you were with me on the third day -- I went on a three-day poverty tour in America.
The last day, I was with a man in western Virginia, in the Appalachian mountains -- 51 years old, three years younger than me.
He'd been born with a severe cleft palate, and he was proud of the fact that someone had finally volunteered to correct it. He had not been able to talk -- I want to finish this. He had not been able to talk until it was fixed.
Here was the problem. It was fixed when he was 50 years old. For five decades, James Lowe lived in the richest nation on the planet not able to talk because he couldn't afford the procedure that would've allowed him to talk. When are we going to stand up and do something about this?
We have talked about it too long. We have got to stand up to the insurance companies and the drug companies that Barack just spoke about. It is the only way we're ever going to bring about real change. We should be outraged by these stories.
Asked by one of the YouTube members who submitted a video question whether the candidates would be willing to work for minimum wage while in the White House, Edwards answered with a direct and simple "Yes." Now, I recognize that John Edwards has money and so this would not be the same as a low income family surviving on minimum wage, but it is still an important symbolic gesture if, as president, he would accept the same wage that's earned by some of our nation's poorest workers.
Asked by another YouTube member whether he would protect the rights of atheists and nonbelievers, this was his answer:
As president of the United States, we will embrace and lift up all Americans, whatever their faith beliefs or whether they have no faith beliefs, as Stephen just spoke about. That's what America is.
Now, my faith is enormously important to me personally. It's gotten me through some hard times, as I'm sure that's true of a lot of the candidates who are on this stage.
But it is crucial that the American people know that as president it will not be my job -- and I believe it would be wrong -- for me to impose my personal faith beliefs on the American people or to decide any kind of decision, policy decision, that will affect America on the basis of my personal faith beliefs.
I thought John Edwards had by far the strongest answers in the debate, but you don't have to take my word for it. Here are some samples of what others had to say...
“FIRST PLACE: John Edwards. Analysis: John Edwards has found a theme: He is angry and he is on your side. He is bold and he will use his boldness for you. Here was his key response, his voice rising as he went along: ‘Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't. I think the people who are powerful in Washington -- big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies -- they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power! The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them!’”
...Edwards pressed his populist case as passionately as he has at any previous debate, presenting himself as the only one who would take the fight to banks, mortgage companies, insurance companies and other special interests. His genuine outrage was readily apparent which was a far more effective way of showing his passion than when he merely speaks about how passionately he cares about things.
“The biggest spike of the night went to John Edwards. He may be trailing Clinton and Obama but on health care, one of his key issues, the meter movers thought he was tops.” The moment was when Edwards said, “We have got to stand up to the insurance companies and the drug companies that Barack just spoke about. It is the only way we are ever going to bring about real change. We should be outraged by these stories.” Said Kaye, “Take a look at that, did you see that? The meter hit 90, all the way up to 90. That was the most favorable reading of the night.” CNN’s group of viewers was comprised of undecided Democrats and non-partisan independents in New Hampshire.
A plurality of our group (four of 12) thought Sen. Edwards won the debate. And we heard a word used to describe him afterwards that any campaign would want to be associated with their candidate: “genuine”. When asked, most of this group thought he was, indeed, “genuine.”
The questions in the debate, submitted by YouTube viewers, were often more pointed and more insightful than those offered in previous debates by reporters. Nevertheless, it seemed Edwards just couldn't get enough of answering questions. In a live webcast after the debate, Edwards answered additional questions, including the top 2 questions voted on by users at CommunityCounts.us.
It's kind of nice to see a presidential candidate who actually listens and responds.
This is the second in my series of diaries about traveling along with the Road to One America Tour. The series started with yesterday's diary about John Edwards visiting a neighborhood struggling with home foreclosures in Cleveland.
On Tuesday, I was following the Edwards campaign as John Edwards visited the women of Beatitude House, a shelter for homeless women seeking to reclaim their lives, in Youngstown, Ohio. To quote the Beatitude House website:
Beatitude House, sponsored by the Ursuline Sisters, is committed to disadvantaged women and children in the Mahoning Valley. In an atmosphere of care and compassion, the programs focus on counseling to promote self development and education to obtain needed skills.
Through this holistic approach, both women and children are empowered with the work habits and motivation to realize their full potential.
At Beatitude House, Edwards sat down at a picnic table with two women who are currently residents of Beatitude House, two women who are graduates of the program, and a woman who works there. He didn't give a speech. He didn't pontificate about anything, in fact. He just sat down with these women and asked them detailed, caring questions about how they came to be at Beatitude House and how Beatitude House had helped them.
Two things impressed me about this visit. First, the strength of these women who had been faced with challenges that many of us can't even imagine and who had somehow come out even stronger. Second, John Edwards's compassion.
I don't think this was an unusual visit for Edwards, except for the fact that media was there. I remember once hearing a high-level person in the Edwards campaign talk about how, before he was running for president, Edwards would go around to shelters like this one and go into a room with the residents, with no media present, and just ask them about their problems so that he could learn.
I know that as I watched his interaction with the women at Beatitude House, I saw in his face and heard in his voice a gentleness of spirit, a deep pride in what these women had accomplished, and a tough determination to fight for people like them.
I think that's all that I need to say. The videos speak for themselves.
Former Senator John Edwards won MoveOn.org Political Action’s poll on the climate crisis which asked, “Which candidate’s position on dealing with the climate crisis do you prefer?” Of the field of eight Democratic hopefuls, Edwards received 33% of the total votes cast–more than twice the support of the next two candidates, Rep. Kucinich and Senator Clinton, who each garnered 15.7%.
MoveOn will run print ads in newspapers in early primary states Iowa and New Hampshire next week, announcing the results of the straw poll on the climate crisis. Fundraising for the ads begins today.
“The enormous response we got from our members on this issue emphasizes how important it will be for our next president to make solving the climate crisis a top priority in 2008,” said Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MoveOn.org Political Action.
“MoveOn members want leaders who will take on the oil and coal industry and create a clean energy economy. That’s probably why Sen. Edwards’ support of cap and auction systems – which force polluters to pay citizens—and his call for more green collar jobs received such strong backing,” added Ilyse Hogue, Campaign Director of MoveOn.org Political Action.
Like many Democrats, I'm a strong believer in separation of church and state. I'm not personally religious in an organized way, and too much mixing of religion and politics makes me very nervous. At the same time, I recognize that it is absolutely proper for people to act out of their own sense of values. What else are they supposed to do? I went to the Sojourners presidential forum on faith, values, and poverty, on Monday, with some trepidation and a little fascination.
I suppose if I were a different person, perhaps a less skeptical person, I might be a member of Sojourners. I certainly share at least some of their political values.
The leader of Sojourners, the Reverend Jim Wallis, and its members, are showing leadership on the issue of poverty. They are currently running a campaign called Vote out Poverty, and Monday's presidential forum, to which they invited presidential candidates John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, was just one example of their positive activism on this issue.
Wary as I am of organized religion, I nevertheless have great respect for Sojourners. I get their e-mails, and I attended their presidential forum. In the interest of full disclosure, because of John Edwards's leadership on poverty, as well as his leadership on other issues, I am a dedicated Edwards supporter, so I went into this experience with a clear bias.
If I were to interpret my life the way I think many religious people do, if I were to believe, for instance, that "The hand of God today is in every step of what happens with me and every human being that exists on this planet," as John Edwards said at the presidential forum, I think I would have to say that God took very good care of me that day.
Everything that I needed that day was somehow provided. That includes everything from very minor things, like lunch, to finding the right people to give me an overflow ticket and get me into the forum, when I arrived a few minutes late and the doors were already locked. It even included a very nice seat neighbor whose conversation helped put me at ease in a crowd where I didn't feel totally at home.
This man sitting next to me, a Republican, boasted to me about his pride in his son, who would soon be attending George Washington University and was working with the Young Democrats there. He told me "Faith is interdenominational. So is politics." He also told me he was "sick and tired of a president who thinks God is talking to him, but answers to no one."
He pointed his son out to me. The son was sitting in the front row, in the center. We watched as Elizabeth Edwards, entering the room to an enthusiastic round of applause, paused to pose for a picture with his son.
On further reflection, it's not that I disagree with the Edwards quote about the hand of God, it's just that I'm wary of becoming too cozy in a belief system. I can't help but ask, if God gets involved in human affairs, what exactly is He or She thinking? The only answer I can come up with for that, for myself, at least the only one that allows me to have any faith at all, is that God must think it's time for us to grow up and handle our own affairs. So I figure it's my responsibility to take action to fight the wrongs I see in the world.
Soon, the forum began and Reverend Jim Wallis was introduced. He said that the theme of the evening was faith, values, and with a special focus on poverty. He said there would be no endorsements, and that "the people of God should never be in the pocket of any party or candidate." Sojourners will have a Republican forum in the fall.
My response to Reverend Wallis's quote about the people of God is that I don't think I know anymore if I'm a person of God, I'm confused on that subject, but in any case, a moral leader like John Edwards can certainly borrow me at a time in our history when our country and the world is in this much trouble, and he is the only one running for president who is ready to lead.
Getting on with the forum, Wallis introduced their campaign to "vote out poverty," the goal of which is to make sure "the least of these," who are always forgotten in politics, are not forgotten this time. Good. I like that approach. I know my candidate likes that approach. We are all on the same page on this issue.
I'm not going to talk about the questions each candidate was asked point for point. If you want to read the transcript, you can find it here.
Since I've already revealed my bias, I'm not going to pretend to be objective, either. I am going to tell you exactly what I think.
Keep in mind that these are my personal opinions, and also that I'm coming from a very different perspective than probably most of the people who attended the forum. Personally, I don't care if a candidate is religious. I don't equate religion with morality.
If they are religious, however, I care about their statements on faith. I want to avoid ever again having the president of the United States be a delusional paranoid with a messiah complex. Fortunately, I think all of the Democratic candidates pass that test. None of their comments on faith gave me reason to think that any of them are out of their minds. That's a relief.
While we are on the subject of the candidates answers on faith, let's talk about that some more. I'm also going to talk about my perceptions on the question of any possible pandering to a religious audience that is looking for a religious candidate.
Edwards didn't pander. If he were pandering, he might have said he believed in creationism, but he said he believed in evolution.
JOHN EDWARDS (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I believe in evolution.
O'BRIEN: What do you say to all the people -- and there are millions of people who go to church every Sunday and who are told very clearly by their pastors that, in fact, the Earth was created in six days, that it's about creationism? Are those people wrong? Are their pastors wrong?
EDWARDS: No. First of all, I grew up in the church and I grew up as a Southern Baptist, was baptized in the Baptist Church when I was very young, a teenager at the time. And I was taught many of the same things. And I think it's perfectly possible to make our faith, my faith belief system consistent with a recognition that there is real science out there and scientific evidence of evolution. I don't think those things are inconsistent. I think a belief in God and a belief in Christ, in my case, is not in any way inconsistent with that.
If he were pandering, he might have said he didn't believe in separation of church and state.
But I think there's a difference between my belief system and what the responsibilities of the president of the United States are. It is the reason we have separation of church and state.
If he were pandering, he might have said that the United States is a Christian nation.
O'BRIEN: Do you think this is a Christian nation?
EDWARDS: No, I think this is a nation -- I mean I'm a Christian; there are lots of Christians in United States of America. I mean, I have a deep and abiding love for my Lord, Jesus Christ, but that doesn't mean that those who come from the Jewish faith, those who come from the Muslim faith, those who come from -- those who don't believe in the existence of God at all, that they don't -- that they're not entitled to have their beliefs respected. They're absolutely entitled to have their beliefs respected. It is one of the basis for which our democracy was founded.
I believe that Edwards said exactly what he thinks, and what he would say to anyone when asked the same questions. I am absolutely comfortable with his answers on his religious beliefs.
Did the others pander? Perhaps. I can't tell that for sure. Maybe what they said was their honest beliefs, but I will tell you my reaction to their comments.
When asked whether God take sides in a war, Obama opened by quoting the exact same Lincoln quote that Edwards quoted in 2004. It's a good quote, and I can't technically say he stole it, since it was Lincoln's quote, not Edwards's, but I thought considering that one of his chief rivals had effectively used it in the last campaign, it showed at the very least a lack of originality.
I thought Obama's comments on faith were mostly fine, and I'm not questioning his sincerity, but I did think he perhaps avoided saying anything that might have been risky in front of that audience, and there were times when I thought he was using nice religious platitudes to avoid getting specific about the issues.
Clinton seemed to spend about half her allotted 15 minutes trying to convince people that she has a faith. She went on and on about how much she relies on her faith and how often she prays. For someone who admitted that she doesn't like to wear her faith on her sleeve, it seemed a sudden transformation, and I thought it was over the top.
I also didn't like her answer on the abortion question she was asked, because I feel certain that she wouldn't give the same answer in front of a pro-choice feminist audience.
REVEREND JOEL C. HUNTER, NORTHLAND, A CHURCH DISTRIBUTED: Hi, Senator Clinton.
Abortion continues to be one of the most hurtful and divisive facts of our nation. I come from the part of the faith community that is very strongly pro-life. I know you're pro-choice, but you have indicated that you would like to reduce the number of abortions.
Could you see yourself, with millions of voters in a pro-life camp, creating a common ground, with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortion to zero?
CLINTON: Yes. Yes.
And that is what I have tried to both talk about and reach out about over the last many years, going back, really, at least 15 years, in talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare. And, by rare, I mean rare.
I can agree with the goal of abortion being safe, legal, and relatively rare. I think it's unrealistic, however, to have a goal of zero decisions for abortion, at least until a lot of other problems are solved. I'm talking about problems like imperfect birth-control, imperfect self-control, lack of care for unwanted or parentless children, rape, serious medical complications in pregnancy, and overpopulation. I think until all of those problems are solved, there will be some decisions for abortion, and I'm glad that women have the option to make that choice.
If Clinton thinks that zero decisions for abortion should be the "ultimate" goal, after all those questions are solved, that's one thing. My problem with her answer then becomes that it would've been courageous of her to say so more clearly, but she didn't. I just don't believe that she would say in front of a pro-choice feminist audience that she has a goal of zero decisions for abortion. In this case, I personally think she was pandering.
Let's move on to the special topic of the presidential forum, poverty.
Here are excerpts from all three candidates statements on poverty that were posted by Sojourners on YouTube:
Personally, it came as no surprise to me that Edwards was the only candidate who sounded like he knew what he was talking about on the issue of poverty. He's the only one who has been consistently talking about this issue, and he talks about it everywhere he goes. He has laid out a detailed plan for eliminating poverty in the United States in the next thirty years. He has done serious research and work on the issue. As he said in the forum:
EDWARDS: Well, let me first say thank you to you, Jim, and to Sojourners for its great leadership on this, what I think is a great moral issue facing this country today and I would add to that, this the is the cause of my life. It is the reason after the last election that I went back to the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, started a poverty center. It is the reason I've traveled around the world doing humanitarian work.
It is the reason I helped lead minimum wage campaigns in six states. It's the reason I've helped organize thousands of workers into unions. And before we ever got into politics, it's the reason that I was involved with urban ministries, faith-based groups, doing work to help the poor and one of the reasons that Elizabeth and I did a lot of other things, starting after school centers for kids who need playgrounds, libraries, et cetera.
So I think there's a very long and consistent pattern of this being the cause of my life. And I might add everything I can do, everything in my power that I'm able to do, I will do to drive the issue of poverty in this presidential campaign so that everyone is required to talk about it. Because I think it is the great moral issue of our time. I've committed, actually, to an agenda of eliminating poverty over the next 30 years.
I think it's a completely achievable agenda. There are lots of components to that agenda. Making work pay, having a living wage, making sure that workers can organize themselves into unions, having decent housing for families that don't have it, having true universal health care, helping kids be able to go to college, which is why I started a college for everyone program for kids in a very poor section of eastern North Carolina. And I believe this is an agenda that should be the agenda -- one of the agendas -- part of the agenda of the president of the United States, so there's not much doubt about where I am on this issue.
I have respect for my colleagues who are running for the presidency, but I will say this is not an issue -- and I say this to everyone in the audience. This is not an issue that I just talk about when I come to you. This is an issue I talk about all over America in front of all kinds of audiences because it's part of who I am. It's who I am as a human being. And I will say this. This is such a part of my life that whatever happens in this presidential campaign, as long as I am alive and breathing, I will be out there fighting with everything I have to help the poor in this country. I can promise you that.
When Obama's turn to talk about poverty came up, Jim Wallis asked him the following question:
If you were the president, what kind of moral and political imagination would you bring to finding some real solutions? And try and give us some specifics.
Obama spent what seemed to be at least half of his 15 minutes on this question. For most of that time, he wove sweet rhetoric based on religious ideals, with no policy specifics at all. Toward the very end, he did mention a few semi-specific ideas on education, raising the minimum wage, and giving ex-offenders a second chance. I was glad he had at least a few ideas, but it was hardly impressive.
The last question he was asked, which he almost didn't have time to answer, because he had spent so much time on what seemed to me to be platitudes, was about outrageous executive salaries. Here is the question and answer in its entirety:
O'BRIEN: I know. I get it. But you have one minute left to answer this question. It's an online question from Sojourners, and we actually are obligated to ask this. They invited online support, and the question came from Reverend T. Randall Smith. He's a senior pastor at Deer Park United Methodist in Deer Park, Texas. He asked this: "Executive salaries are increasing by 300 percent in recent years. Ordinary workers' salaries remain stagnant."
Specific policies -- and you have one minute. How do you address that, haves and have-nots?"
OBAMA: Well, we've got a bill in right now that says at minimum, shareholders should take a look at these executive pay scales, and they should be able to vote on whether these are appropriate or not. That I think would provide some constraint.
I also would like to see executives recognize that when they're getting as much in one day as their average worker is getting in an entire year, that there is a moral element to that. That that's problematic.
(APPLAUSE)
OBAMA: But look, America is a land of success, and that's terrific. We just want to make sure that people are sharing in the burdens and benefits of this global economy.
Unbelievable. His answer on the problem of obscene executive salaries is that shareholders should vote on them, and that executives should just not be greedy. Yeah. That sounds like a viable solution. Since executives are often the largest shareholders, is voting on executive pay really going to be effective? And asking corporate executives just to decide not to be greedy is not a solution at all.
Clinton was not asked any direct question about poverty, so perhaps it's not fair to complain that she didn't talk about it. Knowing that it was of primary concern in that forum, however, she should have found a better way to work something in. In fact, the only poverty related issue that she spoke on was health care. This is the extent of her comments on that issue:
Take health care. I think we could get almost unanimous agreement that having more than 45 million uninsured people, nine million of whom are children, is a moral wrong in America. And I think...
O'BRIEN: One minute, Senator.
(APPLAUSE)
O'BRIEN: One minute, Senator.
CLINTON: I think we could reach that agreement, and then we would have to start doing the hard work of deciding what we were going to do to make sure that they were not uninsured, because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact.
So, what do we do? We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people giving up a little bit of their own turf, in order to create this common ground.
Perhaps if Senator Clinton had not spent so long trying to prove that she was a good Christian, she might have found time to talk about poverty.
I can't tell how the Sojourners audience reacted to all of this, because I'm not sure I know. I know that they applauded very enthusiastically for all the candidates. They were an extremely appreciative audience. I hope that their questions about the candidates were answered.
I enjoyed the forum very much. The questions were different than the ones that are usually asked. The responses were interesting. I didn't expect it to change my mind, and it didn't. It was not surprising to me in any way that in a forum that was at least partially about poverty, John Edwards shone.
The nice man sitting next to me, the Republican, told me after the forum was over that he had seen a physical transformation in John Edwards over the past three to four months. He said that now John is looking much more presidential.
