Dem Candidates Unveil Their Pitches To Big Labor
With the Dem Presidential candidates set to debate at the AFL-CIO forum in Chicago tonight -- and to make their bids for crucial labor support in the process -- the campaigns are starting to release the videotaped opening statements that will be shown tonight.
We've got some of the vids below. Give them a watch, keeping in mind that they can be read as the candidates' preliminary pitches for important Big Labor endorsements.
Here's Edwards' opening statement, showing footage of himself calling for Dems to stand with the labor movement -- an effort to persuade his audience that he's closest to labor on the issues:
More candidates' videos after the jump.
Here's the opening statement from Obama. A relative newcomer, he can't compete with the longevity of the relationship with labor some of the other Dems boast. So he talks here of his roots in community organizing on behalf of people hit hard by steel plant closures:
Here's Biden, a longtime friend of the labor movement, making his pitch about Bush and his "war" on labor:
Tomorrow, the AFL-CIO is likely to say that there will be no unified endorsement and that the locals can endorse whom they please. That's likely to be seen as a blog to Edwards, since he's been working labor extra hard since his 2004 loss.
The locals are likely to go in all different directions, supporting all different candidates. Efforts to game out who's likely to back whom can be found here and here.
The Hillary and Dodd campaigns have yet to release theirs. More videos as we get them.
Relavent to the Obama video:
Singer: Chris Dodd... What was your reaction (to Barack Obama approving of your support for public financing, and Obama and John Edwards not accepting donations from lobbyists)?
Dodd: I found the argument almost insulting to the audience. I'm not a Washington lobbyist? Please. So you're getting money from trial lawyers, and you're getting money from Chicago, Los Angeles... People, this "Washington lobbyists" is a nice bumper sticker, but don't insult the intelligence of people out here. Tell me how you're voting and what you're doing. The fact that you took a contribution from someone is interesting. Or maybe not interesting. But when you vote for the Bankruptcy Act, you may not have taken a contribution from a banker, but the fact is you voted wrong on something that's critical and setting back an awful lot of people in this country.
As someone who has been an advocate for a long time of public financing, people sort of competing with each other as to how many lobbyist checks they won't receive in all of this misses the point, it seems to me, in many ways. And, again, it's to some degree because saying "Washington lobbyist", as if a lobbyist from every other place around the country is okay and they're the only ones who are wrong is trite and superficial.
http://mydd.com/story/2007/8/7/131821/9679#readmore
August 7, 2007 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that. You know... I don't think much of Dodd as a candidate but when I do get to see the man speak, he really strikes me as intelligent.
Of course, gotta love him for the Debate Time Talk-O-Meter.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
August 7, 2007 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why was not one question asked about FISA, warrantless wiretaps, a corrupt DOJ or Gonzo? I guess Olberman finds whether or not Obama will invite Barry Bonds to the White House a more important issue.
August 7, 2007 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
In an earlier post I said I was loving all of them simply to hear politicians defend labor. Now, I that I have reviewed the debate I feel a different emotion. This debate clarified for me why Obama or Edwards are the candidates for me. To actually observe the plapable connection between Washington insiders like Hillary "the Hedgefund" Clinton, Dodd "the Insurance Man" and Biden "The Big Rich Boys File for Bankrutcy in Delaware Because of Legislators Like Me Man" almost unthinklingly defend the status quo was a revelation to me.
August 7, 2007 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ironically, it's Edwards who seems to have to take the "hedge fund" rap just because he consulted for one, at a time when a lot of other national figures did.
But I don't see Edwards working for a hedge fund or buyout fund as hypocrisy. Even Warren Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway has been public for decades (and is really the first public hedge fund, forget about Fortress) has pointed out that executive taxes are out of whack when compared to the taxes of the average working person, on a percentage basis.
Edwards should get more credit. He's seen the circumstances. He understands the inequities. And, he cares about them. Just like Buffett, who is rarely criticized for saying the same things that Edwards does.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
August 7, 2007 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you been dosing on Republican propaganda from Hillary again?
Warren Buffett is the ultimate longterm investor in the style of John Templeton. He is not a wild-eyed hot buck artist.
Here is one definition of a hedge fund that is becoming a bit dated:
http://www.investorwords.com/2296/hedge_fund.html
These bastards are marauders who destroy most everything they touch and suck the life juice out of the market. Their real prey is the small investor who can be easily stampeded.
Damn right Edwards should be ashamed of being employed by a hedge fund. It was the equivalent of being employed by the mob.
At least he said he was sorry.
Hillary is funded by these fine folk.
Best, Terry
August 7, 2007 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Terry, how many apologies will you countenance from Edwards?
August 7, 2007 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you been reading Obama's propaganda again?
2008 PRESIDENTIAL RACE
Contributions from Selected Industries
Hedge Funds
Hillary Clinton (D)
$703,600
Barack Obama (D)
$652,105
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?cycle=2008
August 7, 2007 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
:-)
As many as he cares to make.
I find it rather laughable that Edwards claims that he worked for a hedge fund to understand what was going on. It's like a senator being caught in a raid on a whorehouse announcing he was investigating matters. Some deep probing no doubt.
One of my sons once sought employment as a programmer with a trading company that manipulates markets with its programs. Did he do wrong to even apply? I don't think so but everyone can make their own judgment as they wish.
What Edwards didn't do was defend these sleazy characters whatever assistance he might have rendered them. Maybe like Hillary with lobbyists, Edwards did nothing for the money he made. :-)
I don't expect any politician to be a vestal virgin but I do hope for a modicum of honesty. I think you have a surplus of that with Edwards, while there is not the slightest trace of same with Hillary and her Republican allies.
Best, Terry
August 8, 2007 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink