Edwards' anti-war, pro-labor candidacy swings through Chapel Hill

Edwards' anti-war, pro-labor candidacy swings through Chapel Hill
By Jordan Green
----
A clutch of white men wearing Teamsters jackets huddle around the outside of a crowd pen anchored by a stage that is bracketed with two giant unfurled American flags and that seats a more multihued group of supporters clad in the loud red T-shirts of the UNITE!/HERE union there on the main lawn of the shopping center.
(...)
Johnson, who worked on Jesse Jackson and Shirley Chisholm's presidential campaigns going back through the 1980s and 1970s and before that on efforts to unionized hospital and cafeteria workers at Duke University in the 1960s, is no less a party loyalist.
"All the progress we've made in civil rights has been under Southern Democratic presidents, starting with Harry Truman," he says.
(...)
Edwards lays out several themes and positions in clear, specific language, starting with the war in Iraq.
"I want to say to you unequivocally and with no question that I reject and reject categorically an escalation of this war," he says. "I reject the McCain doctrine of surging our troops. First of all, where are the troops going to come from? We need to show the Iraqis that we have the intention of leaving, and the best way to do that is to start withdrawing our troops."
Edwards suggests he would like to have the US military extricated from the Middle East to allow for humanitarian interventions to uphold human rights around the world - to, as he says, "restore moral leadership to the world."
"Tonight there is a genocide going on in Darfur," he says. "My country, our country, said after Rwanda we would never let this happen again. The exact phrase was, 'Not on our watch.' Where is America?"
Edwards says the United States should lead the world in combating global warming and reducing dependency on carbon-based fuels.
"It's time for leaders to ask Americans to be patriotic in more ways than just going to war," he says. "It is time for us to ask Americans to sacrifice and drive more fuel-efficient cars."
Edwards' signature issue is reducing poverty.
"We cannot stand by and watch thirty-seven million people wake up and worry about feeding their children," he says. "There are some simple things we can do. We can raise the minimum wage. We can make it easier to join and form a labor union. If you can join the Republican Party by signing your name on a card, you should be able to join a union by signing your name on a card."
(...)
After the rally, Saunders calls the sacrifice-the-South strategy "immoral," adding that "politics is about addition, not subtraction."
As to whether Edwards' classically progressive message will fall too far to the left to suit the Southern electorate, Saunders attempts to reformulate the equation
"It's been said that it's the rich versus the poor," he says. "John Edwards knows there's a lot more to being rich than economics. There's serenity and peace of mind. It's really the greedy against the rest of us. If you're greedy you best do everything you can to stop this man."
----
Read the rest here.

party infrastructures under a SOUTHERN political strategist named Bill Clinton who happened to control most of the direction of the DNC and its political maneuverings from 1993 through 2005.

It was the 2004 primary candidates who witnessed the weakened state of the party's infrastructure in too many states and most of them supported drastic changes to that strategy, and support the efforts of Chairman Dean and his 50 state strategy.

Chairman Dean is a northerner who knew Clinton-era DNC policy of ignoring the red state party infrastructures was BULLSHIT.

He competed in the south in both his elections. His message was aimed right at the southern working and middle class.

in those states AFTER Clinton's last campaign.

And we all have heard that Clinton was the political mind who directed those who he put in their positions. we LOST southern states during Clinton's terms at the exact point where the religious right was strengthening their hold on those states. It was up to the Dem party to maintain strong party infrastructures in those states so ANY candidate had a stong ORGANIZATION to tap into, no matter who the candidate is.

And the fact that the 50 state strategy had to be SOLD to Bill Clinton by Howard Dean in his first year of chairing the DNC? The 50 state strategy was born out of NECESSITY. Letting so many state structures collapse assured that there would be no organization in those states for a national candidate to tap into once that nominee is determined.

because the Clinton-appointed DNC had been running a TARGETTED state strategy since the mid90s?

No one on DU could possibly pretend that McAuliffe (Clinton's guy) had been running a 50 state strategy all along. Clinton, himself ran a full on strategy and then HIS PEOPLE changed course and implemented a targetted state strategy in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

What the heck do you THINK Dean has been working on the last two years? You think he was continuing McAuliffe's 50 state strategy?

Dean was still working to convince BILL CLINTON as late as March 2006 that the 50 state strategy was the way to go.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/03/bill_clintons_a.html

for their own decisions to wage campaigns that didn't appeal to all Americans.

I don't see how that blog post supports your argument. It says that Clinton agreed with Dean and it only says that there were rumors that he didn't before the meeting. There's no evidence that he didn't always agree.

And there's nothing about McAuliffe in that post.

Kerry's strategy - he and ANY Dem nominee was STUCK with an organization built or collapsed around that strategy and THAT was the structure they had to TAP INTO on a national level.

McAuliffe was doing what Clinton wanted, no matter if it is printed in an article or not. Everyone knows that McAuliffe was Clinton's guy.

to win? That is absurd.

I'm still waiting for any piece of evidence that supports your argument.

the 50 state strategy BECAUSE the targetted state strategy was in place for the last decade.


Why you are pretending that isn't true is the mystery. The article above clearly states and as we all know on this board, Dean had to go in and CHANGE the DNC organization and move them AWAY from the targetted state strategy they had in place. and as of last March he finally convinced Clinton to go along with it.

Revise history ALL YOU WANT, but most of us know darn well WHY Dean took the head DNC job and how much rebuilding he had to do because of the collapsed condition of the party infrastructure in too many LONGTIME NEGLECTED states.

He said it at Dartmouth the last week of January '04 and then repeated it at a debate. Do you need to see transcripts?

You have NOT made your case that Clinton is the reason candidates like Kerry and Gore ignored the south.

I'm not so interested in what the DNC does because they don't control the minds of Gore and Kerry (and, if they do, that's a problem for Gore and Kerry and nobody else).

Clinton ran a 50 state campaign twice. The article you said asserted as a fact that Clinton and Dean agreed on that when the met and alluded to a RUMOR -- unsubstatiated! -- that they didn't agree before the meeting.

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@P

:eyes:

no matter how much you want to deny the reality of today, and moving forward.

They belong together in the same sentence, because that's who he is. Perhaps 'warmonger' and 'murderer' - words certain people here use to describe him - don't belong in the same sentence with his name. Maybe those who think they know what went down in the IWR vote don't know the full story.

Here's a sentence for you: John Edwards is the best hope for anti-war forces in the coming election. Full stop.

(second best hope: Wes Clark; third best hope: Obama)

This is not rewarding him for his IWR vote. This is recognizing who he is, IN SPITE of that vote.

and knee jerk thinking does not work for moving forward.

stop the record for a moment, and look around, listen a bit.

ie - the military option is not off the table. but carrots and diplomacy should rule.

THERE IS NOBODY WHO SAYS OUT LOUD THAT THE MILITARY OPTION IS OFF THE TABLE. No Americans, no French, no anyone.

Now, do I agree with Olmert's West Bank plan? No, I do not. I disagree with Edwards on this. That's not exactly what we are talking about, here. Perhaps it should be, you might argue, because you can not separate issues in that part of the world, especially acquisitive Israeli behavior. That is another conversation, though.

I don't deny that he supported/cosponsored the IWR.

I'm talking about his evolution, where he is now, what kind of voice he can be moving forward. I fully realize he has the burden of overcoming that vote in order to win the trust of anti-war voters.

By my reckoning, for me, he has won that trust.

I don't want war, and believe he is singularly devoted to preventing war. I'm talking about the JE of the last year.

Also, while I prayed the IWR would not pass (not that kind of praying, but the wishing and hoping kind), I do know that he voted for it because he erroneously believed that the world faced a grave, nuclear danger. He was told this, flat out, unequivocally, by Tenet.

I, at the time, believed Scott Ritter..the true hero of the run-up to the war. Edwards believed Tenet. Which is simply to say that he though, he THOUGHT, he was saving lives, not sacrificing them. The fact that the process was aborted, and that there were no plans for peace, ie the misery of the war and it's aftermath, must be on w's hands, not any Democrats (except for jomentum)

not

But the Edwards groupies think if they say "anti-war" and his name together often enough we'll forget he sponsored the IWR and rallied for the war.

Not gonna happen.

I don't think we've met?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1149572637421&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
As for attending anti-war demonstrations, weren't you the one with the big "Catchawave" name tag on you? :shrug:

period. full stop.


read a bit. try comprehension. this is absurd.


until you speak the truth, who cares what you think?

stop with the muckraking and get back to the real world.

not me. Right?

I think he's not taking out of context. I think he's flat out making stuff up, and he knows it.

my apologies for any miscommunication.

for some reason I misconstrue the dotted line connections between posts. I'm a bit dense.

Even though he said that he'd have invaded Iraq even if there were no WMD's.

Even though most people at DU somehow figured out immediately what it took this paragon of leadership three years to figure out.

The man has changed his opinion on Iraq frequently. If there's a set of principles and core philosophy at play, I sure haven't seen it.

:boring:

.... he was merely for it before he was against it.

He'll have a great time running on his current opinion with the GOP shoving his old pronouncements out in every campaign ad.

I distinctly remember Edwards at the 2003 California Democratic Convention almost being booed off the stage for coming out in SUPPORT of the war -- offering up the obligatory right wing talking points -- "fight them there so we don't fight them here" yada yada.

And to the eye-roller above, I might suggest you get some REAL tough skin if you're going to continue to offer up candidate posts during the primary season.

n/t

Got some face time, commentators noted his presence and took shots of him cheering. It looked like he had the little kids with him (someine kept sticking a stuffed animal toward him).

He's a big Tarheel fan - not Duke (with it's MAJOR rethug whining Coach K).

I know he's gotta be exhausted from the tour, whew, huh?

n/t

Right now he is my favorite in 08

He can lead the way for change, and restoring America to what it could be. I am so looking forward the the Edwards family in the Whitehouse.

:hi:

:toast:

Do not believe a word Edwards says. He is a career lawyer, which means he will say anything he needs to get the jury to give him money. And he is a Wall Street shill -- again, do whatever it takes to keep earning the big bucks.

But if you want to believe in him, feel free. Just know he doesn't mean a word of it.

you clearly know very little about his law practice, and less about his Wall Street experience.

read up, read his book, take a deeper measure of the tone of his life, and get back to us, and we'll see if you are so adamant as to say that nobody should believe him.

This guy's a true populist. He's the only major politician on the campaign trail to attack predatory lending and he's been doing it for years. His whole thrust in the last election cycle (misrepresented by the media though it was) was one of economic fairness and fighting the shift of the tax burden from investors and the privileged to those who work for a living.

A contention like this is beyond ridiculous. As an attorney, he represented the little guys AGAINST big business. This was consistent and deliberate.

From what twisted distortion has this claim arisen? Dislike him, dislike lawyers, do whatever, but to spout something so completely skew to reality is either shameless slander or grandiose showboating. Either way, it demeans and dismisses someone who truly cares, while tarring him with the evil of what he's specifically fought against for all his adult life.

Such a claim is the height of either ignorance, deceit or recklessness.

It's RW talking point, one not based in fact ala Rush Limbaugh style.

Congrats on that. :crazy:

Given that he's the only Dem strongly backing poverty issues, he's the one I'll support.

Or, maybe it's because I love "career lawyers".

:rofl:

is a horrible disaster and very unpopular with Democratic primary voters.

John Edwards: Opposing disastrous, unpopular wars after they get launched.

At least he wasn't a "waffler" :eyes:

he didn't regret his vote for the IWR.

so is your objection to Edwards now articulates an opposition to the US using force and the threat of force to achieve the Bush administration's economic goals?

in co-sponsoring the IWR and I'm not convinced he's learned anything.

Rather, I think he's telling progressives and liberals what they want to hear.

Stop making shit up.

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2006/12/30/155853/33

There were 5000 people there who were pumped to see their own John Edwards, presidential candidate.

I had to cut a huge amount of applause out of the video...the crowd went crazy when Edwards first stepped onto the stage.

He's our best hope to swing our state and we are in play. ;)

Minimum wage, unions, poverty, bring the troops home, no draft-keeping all volunteer military, college for those who want it, Universal health care, and predatory lending.

All items important to the working americans.