GRANNY D has endorsed John Edwards

If a free rock concert wasn't enough to bring people to Democrat John Edwards' side, there was a surprise waiting for those who turned out in the dark and cold for the campaign's late Tuesday afternoon event: Granny D.

At the age of 89, Granny D — the nickname for Doris Haddock of Dublin, N.H. — walked 3,200 miles from California to Washington, D.C., to plead for campaign finance reform. Now 97, she said Tuesday that same quest now leads her to support Edwards in the Democratic presidential race.

Introducing her, singer Bonnie Raitt, who is touring with fellow singer Jackson Browne on behalf of Edwards for two days across New Hampshire, called Haddock, "one of my heroes."

The elphin figure in a straw hat, who first became a cause celebre for Democrats during her walk and briefly ran for the Senate in 2004, gasped deeply throughout her short remarks. But she closed rousingly: "Join me in voting for John Edwards, who we can and will and must elect as our next president of the United States."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_po/on_the2008_trail_1

“Doris Haddock is a true patriot, and our nation has been blessed by her remarkable life. Her story will entertain, inform, and inspire people of all ages for generations to come.” —Jimmy Carter

“I believe she represents all that is good in America. She has taken up this struggle to clean up American politics. . . . Granny D, you exceed any small, modest contributions those of us who have labored in the vineyards of reform have made to this earth. We are grateful for you.” —Senator John McCain

:thumbsup:

have anything to do with Granny D on DU?!

:toast:

But threads on Granny D were ban for awhile a year or so ago and I don't know why.

We should all be so lucky as to be able to walk the nation at 89.

Finally, an endorsement I care about. I'm not an Edwards supporter, but damn, good for him.

one of the few voices i care about.

She is an amazing woman!!!

Go Granny!!

R&K

give him a pass on his war vote), that Edwards reminds me of Bobby Kennedy, who supported the Vietnam War and seemed to, opportunistically, turn against the war, after the antiwar movement had gathered great steam, and after Eugene McCarthy has knocked LBJ out of the race in New Hampshire. THEN Bobby started his campaign for president on an antiwar platform. Bobby hadn't just voted for the Vietnam War and supported it, he had been a "Cold Warrior" and had even worked on Joe McCarthy's anti-communist crusade committee in the 1950s. So it was tempting to write him off as a sort of Christopher Dodd (pro-war, helped engineer nationwide e-voting controlled by Bushite secret code, now spouting leftist positions).

But Bobby WASN'T a Christopher Dodd (who, in my opinion, oozes hypocrisy and insincerity--a real snake in the grass). He just wasn't. His change of heart about the war was genuine, and his support for civil rights, compassion for the poor, charisma and many other characteristics were...impressive, real, you could feel it in his supporters, you could see it in his face--Bobby had CHANGED. Perhaps his brother's shocking death changed him, and/or, I tend to think, great leftist leaders like Martin Luther King changed him.

MLK came out publicly against the war a year before Bobby ran for president, and was assassinated in March 1968, three months before the Calif primary that Bobby won, on the night Bobby himself was assassinated.

I think that one characteristic of progressives is that you believe that people CAN change. But it is a difficult judgment to make of politicians--especially now, in this rightwing-controlled corporate news monopoly atmosphere.

The story I was telling in that thread was that I didn't vote for Bobby in the Calif primary. I voted for Eugene McCarthy--the earliest politician to turn against the war, and the one that I fervently believed would stop the war. McCarthy, however, was not a great campaigner, and may not have wanted to be president. It was clear that Bobby was going to win and was going to become president. I voted for McCarthy to "send Bobby a message"--to encourage him to fulfill the hopes of the voters that he would end the war. As I recall, too, he hadn't quite said, 'I will end it.'

I had been through the 1964 campaign, and had cast my first vote for president in that election--for LBJ. And my issue was war. LBJ advertised himself as the candidate for peace (opposing Goldwater). And what I got for THAT vote was 2 million people slaughtered in Southeast Asia, before it was over, including more than 55,000 U.S. soldiers, most of them draftees.

So I was wary. Was Bobby genuine? I was about 90% convinced that he was, when I voted for McCarthy. We have now to make a similar judgment of Edwards, and I see strong similarities. I think Edwards went through a state of shock over the theft of the 2004 election--an election that was thrown to Bush/Cheney by the 'powers that be' in the Democratic Party (--who backed "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY vote 'counting' by rightwing Bushite corporations). It's notable that Edwards has finally made a strong statement about these election theft machines. But he really has nothing to lose, at this point. He has BECOME an anti-establishment candidate.

I think Edwards' vote for the war was driven by ambition, and I think the same of Bobby Kennedy and his vote for the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (escalation of the Vietnam War--1964). I think they both made a pragmatic decision, in scary circumstances, that the war profiteers would have their war. Nothing could stop them. And they would PREVENT anyone who opposed them at that point, from ever gaining power.

Bobby's brother John has been assassinated a year before. Bobby voted for the war partly to stay alive, and partly to let momentum build, so that he could safely lead an antiwar campaign later on. The atmosphere in Washington DC in 2003 was, if anything, even scarier and darker, with the Bush Junta in control of a vast spying apparatus--and blackmail no doubt rampant, and various threats (including the Anthrax letters) adding to the fear. It was a place where the U.S. anti-torture policy had been overturned, by fiat. And the Bush Junta was hellbent on a war for oil. Possibly Edwards was promised a place on the '04 ticket. We don't know. In any case, voting against the war was "political suicide," as they say. The Democratic Party leadership itself would have stopped Edwards upward mobility right there. And the Bush Junta are utterly ruthless and conscienceless, and would do literally ANYTHING, to keep the war booty coming, and to stay in power, in service to their global corporate predator pals. And just for emphasis, in the climate of fear that the Bushites created, there was Paul Wellstone's mysterious plane crash, a month after his vote against the IWR, amidst his vow to lead the anti-war campaign in the Senate (to prevent the IWR from being implemented). THAT was an exemplar of what happens to any serious opposers of the new war.

It is naive to take a purist position on this matter, in this degraded and corrupt republic. And, as adamantly as I feel about this horrible war, I don't take a purist position. I don't live in that acid bath of corruption that Washington DC has become. I can't say for sure what I would do in that atmosphere. And it's very, very difficult to judge a politician who now says he was wrong. You have to go with your gut. Really, that's what it amounts to. Has Edwards changed? Yes, I think he has. I think it's genuine. I think his change is similar to Bobby Kennedy's. The events of the last six years have shocked him, and have moved him to rethink policy and to greatly widen his perspective.

As with Bobby, I was already about 90% on Edwards (believing his change of heart is genuine). I am comforted that Granny D agrees. I also have a lot of respect for Bonnie Raitt--a very solid and reliable and very smart progressive activist.

But, as with 1968, I may vote for Kucinich in the Calif primary--depending on circumstances--for what one's vote is worth these days. Kucinich is someone whom I don't have to rely on gut feelings about--or endorsements. His positions on the war and other policies have been consistent and quite courageous all along. He has no chance, due to the corporate media, but a vote for him is certainly a "message" to the powers that be. If Edwards gets into a position such as Bobby Kennedy's--running away with the race--I would vote for Kucinich to keep Edwards honest, so to speak. And if he's in a close race, with Obama or Clinton or both, I would probably vote for Edwards (rather than Kucinich). (Note: The Calif election system has improved, under Sec of State Debra Bowen, so my vote is not as worthless as it was in the 2003 recall election and in 2004 and 2006 elections).

Granny D is a wonder! There is no one's judgment I would trust more. If she thinks Edwards' change of heart on the war is genuine, then I would trust that we, the people, will not be betrayed by him, as we have so many times experienced with Democratic leaders.

I'm also voting Kooch in NY if Edwards sews things up early. My gut tells me its not going to be that easy.