Posts with the tag John Edwards

John Edwards, Ryan Gosling, M-1, Adrienne Maree Brown: what else could you ask for?

Thomas Coen — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:00:30 EDT

That's right. On July 8 in Washington DC over 1000 young people from across the U.S. will gather to organize, network, and learn from some of the country's top activists, artists, journalists, and policy makers.

Take it from me, if you only go to one conference, one event, this year, the Campus Progress National Conference is one to go to. Every year I'm more and more impressed with the energy and enthusiasm of the attendees, the breadth and depth of the discussions led by the speakers, and just by the fun atmosphere (and great food). But don't take it from me, hear what John Edwards has to say:

Don't wait, spots are filling up fast, so apply today!

Hillary Clinton Implies Sexual Orientation is a Choice: How Important are GLBT Issues in 2008?

Eli Corp — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:15:59 EDT

During last night's debate, Sen. Hillary Clinton was asked about whether she would read a book to 2nd Grade Children about same-sex couples. In her reply she said something which caught my attention, and when I re-watched the debate I heard exactly what she was saying.

Clinton said: "I think that obviously it is better to try to work with your children, to help your children with the many differences that are in the world, and to really respect other people and the choices that other people make, and that goes far beyond sexual orientation."

Was Hillary Clinton implying that sexual orientation is a choice, and therefore is something that can be changed? Perhaps she mispoke, but the comment was certainly not taken out of context, so what exactly did she mean when she said that we should "respect other people and the choices that other people make" in regard to sexual orientation?

An Emerging Progressive Majority? The Impending Progressive Revolution in America and the Massive Political Realignment Ahead

Eugene Resnick — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 12:32:55 EDT

At the Take Back America conference held in Washington DC this week, the top Presidential candidates spoke to the 3,000 progressive activists, policy wonks and politicians presiding to convince them that they are the true progressive candidate going into 2008. Yet, what a remarkable shift in political ideology from the past 4 cycles. It seems that a new progressive movement is afoot and it is gaining steam not just due to the massive dissatisfaction with the Bush era and conservative policies, but through the enthusiasm of Democrats in recent months for the chance to seize the moment and move the country farther to the left to a magnitude that hasn't come to fruition since the days of the civil rights era of the 1960s or maybe even the New Deal Roosevelt Era of the 1930s and 40s.

Candidate after candidate rolled on stage uttering words such as the need for a "progressive agenda in America." We all may recall how Democrats have strayed away from their progressive-liberal roots in recent cycles post-Reagan era stigmatization of liberalism in American culture. The byproduct of that was the Democratic Leadership Council and the Presidency of Bill Clinton, a moderate Democrat at best. Therefore it is very fulfilling to hear the Democratic Party of today use "progressive" in a new light, a re-energized way of signaling a new direction for the country. It has signaled the beginning of a new progressive movement and a movement that is actually winning at the polls.

The 2006 mid-term elections ushered in Democratic control of both Houses of Congress. The more important victory was the large number of progressives that got elected into the Senate that year. At the conference, some of these movers and shakers in the progressive movement were featured speakers on panels including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). Can we imagine for one second the magnitude of this massive political shift. The Senate, post 2006, actually has its first self-described Socialist. Sherrod Brown, a progressive populist, won in a state that has been solidly Republican for decades yet Ohio now has not only Sherrod Brown but a very progressive governor, Ted Strickland who recently signed into law gay rights legislation. The same goes for Colorado and its rising star governor Bill Ritter and their anti-discrimination bill. Ladies and gentleman, this is not just a temporary blip on the radar screen caused by deep dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. The former governor of Colorado was a conservative Republican, as was the state historically, yet they elected a majority Democratic legislature, a very progressive Governor, and a Hispanic Senator in 2004. The 2008 Senate seat in Colorado is open and the door for liberal Mark Udall representing liberal Boulder to win is wide open. In fact he is heavily favored to win. Can you imagine Colorado, a Western state bordering Wyoming, Utah, Kansas and Nebraska being a bastion of deep blue in the West by 2008? The answer to that is definitely yes and thats exactly whats happening in Colorado. One cannot parallel the blunders in Iraq for such a deep political realignment. It is indicative of a larger political realignment that is currently in the process of developing in this country.

Going back to the Presidential election, the successes of 2006 were part of a larger process going into 2008. Howard Dean, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, in his closing speech for Take Back America 2007 stated that the 2006 election was the watershed beginning of a massive shift. The 2008 election will seal that shift for a generation. Again I strongly reiterate, it is much more than just the Iraq War. Conservatism in this country has grown and flourished since Reagan's ascension in 1980 and Carter's embarrassing defeat ala the Iran hostage crisis. Liberalism was dead at that point as we were perceived as weak, incompetent, and wrong for the country. Anti-gay activists and pro-Lifers gained power and momentum. That era continued into the 1990s, and gained even more influence in the 2000s as an atmosphere of fear plagued the post-9/11 world. Can you imagine Al Gore in 2000 using "progressive" to categorize the political ideology of his policy proposals? Never. That is why, I emphasize again, the magnitude of this moment. Every candidate on that stage that we can actually take seriously (excluding Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel) including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson basically sounded the same more or less on health care, education, the War in Iraq, national security, terrorism, the environment, global warming, the AIDS crisis, Darfur, spending, corruption, competence, and world leadership. Something remarkable was evident at that conference. Although we may all support varying candidates based on personality, style, experience, or approach, we were all part of the same emerging movement.

On that stage, the candidates spoke to the liberal base of the party. It was evident from the beginning that not only was Barack Obama well received, but it was a pre-conceived fact that that would occur with the multitude of Obama wearing attendees at the conference throughout the three days. Obama's speech was very positively received and I must say that for a guy who strongly prefers Hillary Clinton, I must give him a lot of credit. The crowd went wild for him, clapping at almost every line that he uttered. I will also express my deep sympathy for John Edwards, who has a great message, but was in the predicament of going right after Obama. This created an atmosphere where about 1/3 of the audience left right after Obama finished all the while people stampeding (and I will admit I stood on a char desperately aiming to get a closeup photo) to the front of the stage to get autographs and photos taken. It was just unimaginable that someone could top his speech. People were overwhelmed and emotionally drained creating a very awkward situation for Edwards where the crowd was enthusiastic but not nearly as much as for Obama. Unfortunately, I resorted to watching Bill Richardson's speech online and it seemed like a good speech, and well received but not a first tier breakout speech by any means.

I will devote an entire paragraph to Hillary Clinton because I feel her speech asks for such. First and foremost, her speech was very dull and what I would call "safe." She said nothing that got booed in the first 25 minutes nor much applause either. Now I say that because the progressive crowd at Take Back America isn't too cozy with Hillary because of her stance on the war and funding. People just weren't excited by her. I blame the early morning hour (8am) which was strategic timing so that she wouldn't go on the same day as Obama and Edwards. It was actually announced in the latter part of the first day of the conference that she would speak on Wednesday instead of Tuesday which I understood as a tactical campaign move. It was also strategic for her to talk about Iraq last which was a way for the negative atmosphere not to set the tone for her entire speech. She was indeed booed, as media reports have circulated, for a comment she made referring to the fact that the US military has done its job and that it is time for the Iraqi government to step up and do its job too. I, for one, agree with that. But people like "code Pink" attack people on the left and eat them alive. I actually was very angry at the Code Pink women for heckling her and Nancy Pelosi and I actually struck a conversation with one of the ladies from their organization. It was very discouraging to see that people don't understand the limitations of a certain number of votes in the Senate. I expressed my frustration with the ability within the Republican Party to unite under a mantra that is winnable and as the record has shown has won in the past with great success. Yet our side bickers for not going far enough and we just destroy each other and lose.

With the anger came optimism. There is a new emerging progressive era coming and this country is ready for change. People are sick of conservative government. People are sick of vetoes on stem cell research funding. People are sick of the lack of good health care. People are sick of an incompetent government that destroys our reputation around the world. People are done with the Conservative Era. Our generation is vastly different from any before us. We are much more likely to be pro-stem cell research, pro-gay rights and gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-living wage, and pro-universal health care. Our generation hates the hawkish foreign policy that has dominated this country since the Vietnam War. A new progressive majority is building with the help of the influx of Hispanics. People are ready for not just turning the chapter, but writing a new book. People are ready for a completely different kind of politics. There is something brewing, and I sensed it at Take Back America 2007. Again, its not just about Iraq. We, as progressives, must look at the broader picture.

A new progressive era is upon us as Americans are ready to embrace liberal values because liberal values ARE American values. This mantra was constantly reiterated at the conference. I knew at Take Back America 2007 that progressives have taken control of the Democratic Party and they aren't being alienated but embraced. Progressives are replacing the moderates. Progressivism is becoming mainstream. Universal health care is supported by all the Democratic candidates. Such a plan would have been heretical and Socialist only 10-20 years ago. Every candidate supports Civil Unions for gays and lesbians publicly and enthusiastically. Although I acknowledge that isn't enough, the country is moving in the right direction on the issue. I'm confident that privately many of these candidates support full marriage equality such as Hillary Clinton or Chris Dodd. 46% of Americans support full marriage equality, according to a newly released Gallup Poll. That's the highest in history. It is, after all, nearly a majority. A vast majority want us to do something about global warming. A vast majority are willing to do their part to help that happen. This country is based on liberal values. We cannot forget that nor shall we abandon that. A massive political realignment is on the horizon and it is developing right as I write. A new Progressive Era is upon us and we must embrace it and propose our plans to the American people. We must do it in a way that breeds consensus and fairness. I embrace the impending Progressive majority with open arms.

Bloomberg: The Answer To Our Prayers, Or The Next Ralph Nader?

Eli Corp — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:35:09 EDT

With only six months before the first Caucus in Iowa, the race for the Democratic and Republican nomination is in full swing, but there could be one more name added to the list of potential candidates, a third party candidate. Could a third party Independent candidate really sweep in and bring an end to the two-party domination of politics as we know it?

Exemplary America?

Dana Goldstein — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:55:47 EDT

I too was at Take Back America yesterday, wowed and moved by both Obama and Edwards' speeches. But I find it strange that Matt and Ezra found Edwards so "persuasive," "direct," and "plausible" on foreign policy. Edwards laid out a wildly optimistic vision in which:

1. American energy independence (hence, no more oil cash) forces Middle Eastern nations to invest in education, economic development, and good government.

2.The United States starts to rely on homegrown energy sources (ethanol).

3. Europe doesn't have enough empty space to compete, so it invests heavily in African agriculture and energy.

4. African poverty lifts.

These would all be excellent accomplishments. But the causality here is far from assured. I agree with Brian Beutler that this seems "incredibly difficult to pull off." And more disturbingly, the notion that we can "remake the Middle East" politically just by decreasing our dependence on their oil -- as Edwards suggested today -- is, I fear, as ignorant of entrenched ethnic and religious tensions as the neo-conservatism of George W. Bush. Both theories over-reach and rely upon a grandiose rhetoric in which the United States is not a helpmate to the world's disenfranchised but a direct architect of ideal societies. (To be fair, Edwards' words on aid to alleviate global poverty had an entirely different tone.)

The exceptionalist (and exemplarist) impulse in American history is well-covered, and has of course led to both triumphs and tragedies. Call me a realist, but I'm hoping for a newer, humbler tone to a progressive foreign policy.

- cross-posted at TAPPED

Prayers/Best Wishes for the Edwards Family

jr — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:09:24 EDT

Let's hope this just sounds ominous, and that there is no real health crisis facing Elizabeth or the Edwards family:

BREAKING NEWS- JOHN EDWARDS AND HIS WIFE, ELIZABETH, TO HOLD PRESS CONFERENCE THURSDAY AT NOON ET -- DEVELOPING

This comes on the heels of Senator Edwards cancelling a campaign appearance to accompany his wife to a doctor's appointment.

Hoping for good news, preparing for the worst. My best wishes to the Edwards family.

Take That, Grover Norquist

Dana Goldstein — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 12:32:18 EST

Good news from a New York Times/CBS News poll this morning. Sixty percent of Americans -- including 62 percent of independents -- would be willing to pay more taxes to guarantee universal health coverage. But according to the poll, only 36 percent of Americans have confidence in Hillary Clinton’s ability to deliver health care reform this time around, and about half are unsure about John Edwards’ idea to require employers to either pay for health insurance or pay into a general fund to provide government coverage. And get this: A full 80 percent think health care is a more important priority than continuing the Bush tax cuts!

Edwards’ statement that he would repeal the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $200,000 a year to pay for universal health coverage was greeted as apostasy, but now here’s some hard evidence that the era of “tax” as a dirty word might be drawing to a close. Sure, Americans like to imagine that they’ll be rich enough someday to benefit from these regressive tax policies. But after six years of Bush, the country has a clear and weary-eyed view of what the de-funding of government looks like. And they don’t like what they see.

Cross-posted at TAPPED.

Jefferson-Jackson Dinner Overview

Eugene Resnick — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:59:15 EST

The annual Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Richmond, Virginia took place yesterday February 17, 2007 in the Greater Richmond Convention Center amid what was declared as the largest JJ Dinner in Virginia history with over 3,000 guests. Last year's JJ dinner was also a milestone but it only featured 1,400 guests, an indication that the Democratic Party of Virginia is on a roll in 2007, 2008 and beyond. The insider pundits in VA have never been more energized as Virginia Democrats have salivated over the recent domination of the governorship from Mark Warner (2001-2005) and current Governor Tim Kaine (2005-2009). Unfortunately Tim Kaine is constitutionally barred from running for a second term but Democratic party activists in the state are already preparing for the 2009 race with talks of defeated Attorney General candidate from the 5th district Creigh Deeds running as his replacement.

With the victory of Senator Jim Webb last November, Democrats in Virginia have officially designated Virginia as a "purple state" and rightfully so. Northern Virginia, outside the suburbs of greater Washington, DC is exploding with economic and population growth. This region is also a hotbed of growing progressive political leanings. At the JJ Dinner featuring speakers Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Congressman Bobby Scott and Senator Jim Webb, all were in attendance to endorse the candidacy of Senator and Presidential Candidate Barack Obama. This was Obama's first campaign visit to Virginia and the first endorsement from a sitting governor. As Virginia becomes a critical battleground state in 2008, this endorsement is significant.

Senator Obama's speech was poignant and well received by the audience. He frequently referred to education, his life story, and his message and motif of the "audacity of hope" which reverberated well with the crowd. Although it was interesting to see the various Edwards and Hillary supporters in the crowd who came just to see the show, over 25 University of Virginia Democrats came to volunteer at the event to show their support for the rising young star in the Democratic Party. It is worth noting also that there was much speculation at the event that if Obama were to win the Democratic primaries, former governor Mark Warner would be an unbeatable choice for Vice President forming a ticket that would crush any Republican ticket. Warner's enthusiasm, charm, and Bill Clinton-esque personality and political leanings would serve Obama well in Virginia which has a more moderate Democratic Party than say Hillary Clinton's New York base.

All in all, the dinner was a huge success for Barack Obama. His rising popularity among Democratic primary voters seems only to grow as the field of the Hillary, Edwards, and Obama triumvirate travel the country trying to prove to Democrats and all Americans alike that they are the best candidate to move the country forward, end the war in Iraq, enact universal health care by 2012, and promote economic fairness. It seems from my observations at the College Democrats of America National Leadership Summit, the Democratic National Committee's Winter Meeting, and the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner that the 2008 Democratic candidates are the strongest and most diverse group of candidates that the Democrats have ever seen in American history. This is a testament to not only the changing face of the party but also of society as the possibility of a female or black president becomes ever-more on the horizon of reality.

Published: February 18, 2007

Obama, Hillary, and Edwards, Here in DC

Dana Goldstein — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 15:55:23 EST

Students were out in force this morning at the Democratic National Committee's winter conference here in DC. All the major 2008 primary candidates spoke--we saw Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Dodd, Clark, and Kucinich.

Obama's entrance was electric, and like a rock star, the quieter moments of his performance were interrupted by crazed audience members screaming, "I love you!" and "You're the next president!" But his speech was tall on rhetoric and short on policy. He spoke primarily about "hope," and in what seemed like a dig at Hillary, said, "We don't want another election where voters are holding their noses and feel like they're simply choosing the lesser of two evils." And he reminded us that, unlike Clinton and Edwards, "I was opposed to this invasion--publicly and frequently--before it began."

Speaking of the war, when Clinton took the podium, she was heckled by antiwar folks who demanded that she "bring the troops home now" instead of simply capping the number of them that could be deployed to Iraq. Clinton swore to end the war if elected president, but repeated her talking point about finding the "right end" to the war in Iraq, as opposed to just any end. Despite the drama (or perhaps adding to it), Clinton's level of support in the room was huge: tons of posters and diverse supporters rushing to their feet to cheer her appearance.

Of the three major candidates, Edwards had the least ecstatic welcome, but he enjoyed the most enthusiastic standing ovations as he used anecdotes to illustrate the plight of the poor around the world--from a 5-year old boy in a refugee camp caring for his 2-year old sister, to an 8-year old American girl going to bed hungry, to a father who must take his sick child to the emergency room for basic medical care because the family is uninsured. His call was, "Will you stand up?" And the crowd certainly did, especially when he demanded, "Will you stand with organized labor?"

None of the candidates talked about a woman's right to choose, though Wes Clark did mention that women still make only 77 cents on the dollar, which was unexpected and exciting. Too bad he didn't mention that men can help solve the problem by picking up their share of domestic labor.

Dodd delivered a surprisingly energetic call for a return to American greatness in foreign policy. I'm not sure if Dodd's statement on bipartisanship made very much sense--"Bipartisanship for me means getting Republicans to agree with Democratic principles"--but the crowd gobbled it up. Each candidate was allowed up to 100 posters in the ballroom. Fascinatingly, when Dodd finished speaking, a few of his young supporters traded in their "Dodd" signs for "Hillary 08" posters, which, by the way, were being distributed throughout the hall by some attractive young women.