Edwards Secured Private Commitment From Obama That He'd Go On Poverty Tour As Nominee
Before dropping out of the presidential race, John Edwards secured a private commitment from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that they'd undertake a poverty tour during the general election as the Democratic nominee, according to multiple sources familiar with the talks.
The vows to undertake a poverty tour -- which were confirmed to me by three former top advisers to Edwards -- went considerably farther than what has been publicly known until now about what the two Dems promised Edwards they'd do on poverty. During his drop-out speech last January, Edwards only said that the two Dems had "both pledged" to "make ending poverty central to their campaign."
An actual poverty tour, by contrast, would be a specific, protracted undertaking, possibly with Edwards himself, a possibility that came up in the private talks. Such a tour could be a major media event.
Now that Obama is on his way to becoming the nominee, the private promise is particularly relevant, because it raises the question of whether Obama will honor the commitment Edwards advisers say he (and Hillary) made.
This could require Obama to make a commitment of several days during a hard-fought general election, because Edwards specifically secured a commitment that it be a few days long, one top adviser said.
"Edwards was trying to think of ways to specifically hold them accountable," said another former top Edwards adviser. "It's easy for a Democrat to say, `Sure, I'll make poverty central to my campaign.' A poverty tour was something he felt would be really powerful with the spotlight of the general election, and it was a tangible, real thing he could ask them to commit to."
Matthew Nelson, a spokesperson for Edwards, declined to comment on the talks about the poverty tour, saying that Edwards "does not publicly discuss private conversations."
It's unclear whether Edwards himself explicitly insisted that he accompany the eventual nominee on the tour. But the possibility was discussed, according to two sources familiar with the talks. Indeed, one of the Edwards advisers said that Hillary and Edwards talked in some detail about how the two of them could do such a thing and "make it new and interesting."
But it's Obama who's now on his way to winning. The Obama campaign (and the Hillary camp) declined to comment on any aspect of this story.
Another of the advisers said that Edwards had secured a commitment that he'd accompany the tour. "It was a specific number of days on the road together, putting poverty front and center -- it would be with him," this adviser said. "He got them both to agree to this. He was really excited."
It doesn't mean he'll have to take a break from campaigning, a poverty tour would be a huge campaign event, very good PR, it isn't a trade off for Obama, it is a good thing for everyone, but McCain and the Republicans.
I look forward to it!
May 16, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
My thoughts exactly.
May 16, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
A poverty tour with Edwards through Appalachia could really help Obama's campaign anyway. I think it's worth trying to win some hearts and minds in SW PA, SE OH, and VA.
They could hit inner cities in some of the swing states as well, Detroit, Cleveland, Philly, St. Louis. New Orleans was a good stop, as President Bush was hanging out with McCain, I think at McCain's birthday in Arizona, instead of doing anything to help the city in the aftermath of Katrina.
I'd like to see them stop at one of the poverty stricken Native American reservations out west as well, as they are often places where most people don't realize the poverty. Not all are poor, but some are among the poorest places in the country.
May 16, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a small point, but if I were Obama I would steer far clear of Detroit. The last thing in the world that he wants is any sort of photo of him anywhere near Kwame Kilpatrick - the which would be hard to manage if he came through Detroit. He will do just fine in Detroit without spending much time campaiging there. He would do much better to focus on places like Flint and St Joseph.
May 16, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who grew up in Flint and was just there for the first time in a while last November, let me sincerely echo that sentiment with all my heart. If you flew over Flint in a helicopter tossing money out of each side for an hour, you'd hit somebody who needs it more often than not.
(And nothing says poverty tour quite like throwing bundles of money out of a helicopter right? That's a stupid image, but you know what I mean...)
May 16, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonder why Edwards never did anything like this in the
four year break between presidential campaigns.
Oh well, it generates good publicity for him, I guess.
Makes him look "Sincere."
May 17, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sincere - my Ass
John Edwards could easily retire and have a nice easy life, Just as easily he could become a corporate shill and rake in more money.
John Edwards has chosen a much harder path,, for the poor and Middle Class. Has to so with Ideals and a sense of fainess and Justice for ALL.
John Edwards,
helped set up an ACORN- administered "Louisiana Home Rescue Fund"
And
One Corps - helped with Katrina victims
Why don't you throw in $400 haircut while you are at it.
June 6, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like the idea of the poverty tour also. It could be a real winner for Obama. I really like your idea of touring an Indian reservation - assuming he is invited, of course. Perhaps one of the reservations in John McCain's own home state, with the theme of how McCain ignores poverty in his own home state. Perhaps contrasting his 10-acre ranch in the upper class haven of Sedona with the poverty in the nearby Navajo nation, or perhaps the Gila river reservation, or the Tonoho O'odham nation, or the White Mountain Apaches. Lots of good choices in Arizona.
May 17, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, yeah, I really agree with Lux, A Missouri Voter and you, Ohiomeister that a poverty tour is a great idea. I don't see how it could possibly hurt Obama, or be something he might wish to avoid, as Greg implies. Hasn't Greg ever heard of the "working poor?" That label covers an increasing number of Americans and reaching out to them is exactly what Obama needs to do. It's a win-win.
I like the idea of going to a reservation too, but maybe not in AZ, which might make it seem that the entire thing was based too on much on political calculation rather than a reaching-out to people. But Appalacia and the other areas you mentioned would be great. New Orleans is a must.
May 17, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
How does talking about poverty translate into breaking from campaigning and talking to Americans about the direction and issues of the economy and low income people, the very segment of society that everyone is hand-wringing about whether Obama can connect with them or not?
I also find it bemusing that Greg breathlessly frames it into a 'will Obama break his promise?' narrative.
May 16, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sargent is shameless. I have become used to this. Josh Marshall runs a tight and aboveboard blog (my favorite as well), but I think for some reason he feels the need to retain partisan idiots. And yes, I would feel as pissed if he hired Obama partisan idiots as if he hired Jeff Gannon as an objective journalistic participant. It's the same idiocy, just from different perspectives.
It just eliminates whole sections of the blog, as regardless of who you feel about anybody, you know what (in the words of the Arabian Nights) "so and so" will say.
May 16, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. This tour would be almost as much "Edwards campaigning for Obama" as it would be "Obama campaigning for Edwards' issue". Besides this it's just plain a good thing to see Obama tackling the poverty issue.
May 16, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto; seems like a great campaign idea, nto to mention downright humanitarian.
Remember when McCain tried to speak at the MLK event?
Maybe they ought to send the billionaire's favorite Johnny on a poverty tour, let him visit plain old millionaires.
May 16, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. And the followings is a bit of a rant, but here goes:
It should also tie in with economic growth, as it's not a matter of charity so much as revitalizing industry.
That also ties into national security, as a strong manufacturing base is vital to the national interest, the deficit, China as our banker, and a strong dollar, all of which are vital if we're to remain a strong country.
That also ties to the environment, as energy independence and renewables such as solar and wind turbines, as well as safe nuclear and cleaner coals, all require both tech innovation and labor to manufacture and construct. The environment will also increasingly become a national security issues, as warming sparks wars for water rights, land as regions are flooded, destabilizes governments, etc.
There is also an opportunity there for the US to export clean technology globally, so that developing countries can create clean energy infrastructure which is in their and everyone's long term interest.
Lastly, a more prosperous and secure population in the USA is also more educated, enlightened, and charitable, locally and globally. Generating the innovations, technical and cultural, which have always been our greatest export and influence in the world.
For example, many wealthy tech entrepreneurs have become very rich by inventing products the world desires; and they are also incredibly capable philanthropists. That's the US at it's best and the face of America we're proud to show abroad. Not the ugly faces of oil executives extracting resources from the world and propping up dictators.
So yeah, it's about time poverty and middle class prosperity are addressed under the context of egalitarianism, and how that relates to the overall national and even global health.
May 16, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I respect you much. You have a grip of the whole picture which is sadly missing in this increasingly horse race (not accusing the blog itself, primarily the readers) blog. I followed the news of the CA same-sex marriage thread closely, and, I have to say I agree with you totally.
Further, I think you are correct here, obviously. A better educated population is America's infinite benefit from a major American leader discussing the difficulties (and in my personal opinion, ridiculousness (and I mean that it's sad because we are the richest, most powerful nation on earth)) of poverty in America. I can't possibly see how this is bad. As Senator Obama (and Edwards let us hope) discuss these issues with America we can additionally address major problems in our society: the class disparity of those serving in the American military and the resulting strategic decisions with regard to their immeasurable sacrifices; the terrifying lack of American strategy to deal with global warming (having spent many months in Europe I can say they take it much more seriously than our mighty nation ever has (most sad because America is believed to be the vanguard of Western democratic process (by me as well!)) and the most basic issue itself: in this nation of prosperity (and I'd consider myself and my public-sector family as middle-class) and opportunity there are legions of people who work hard every goddamn day and get disproportionate reward for it. My family was lucky enough to work for their state government - in which, similarly with federal employees, "conservatives" or neoliberals will constantly remind us doesn't change fast enough has left us with Reagan's anti-union, anti-labor campaign. Basically, abandon all support network for employees who have worked for your enterprise (be it public or private) for 40 years.
Change can be only good. And I don't mean any Obama silliness by this, though I am an Oregon Obama supporter. Any candidate willing to address the ridiculous and depressing disparities of wealth in this nation gets my vote. Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, any other than McCain because he'll pledge allegiance to whatever gets him "support" later on.
Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have principles: something they'll fight for once this Democratic primary contest is over.
That's why I will support whoever wins this contest. I prefer Senator Obama, but I will support Senator Clinton should she emerge victorious. They will both address the most paralyzing and embarrassing aspect of the great, prosperous nation of America: poverty.
May 16, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope he honors the commitment. I will be disappointed if he doesn't.
And I think it would be great - no one has shined the light on poverty, really, since LBJ.
May 16, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
No surprise here. I expected Barack to give Edwards some opportunity to continue to champion the anti-poverty cause.
On a side note, did anyone else read Edwards' lips right before his speech on Wednesday? Barack whispered something to him and I'm almost 100 percent sure Edwards responded with, "They like you more." I expect Barack said, "I think they like you" or words to that effect.
--
Obama/Olbermann '08!
May 16, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is exactly what I read from them. Thanks for the confirmation.
May 16, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a great idea, and I hope Obama gives the issue the attention it deserves. The Republicans don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to putting an end to poverty. If anything, I think Obama could make the argument he's stronger on crime by going after root causes, where the Republicans only want to treat the symptoms and support ideas that have already been shown to have no impact on violent crime (see: the death penalty).
I think Obama's got the opportunity to reverse the growth of the prison population in this country, and coming up with a sensible solution to reducing poverty is a good place to start.
May 16, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would be a great idea and he should do right after June 3rd.
May 16, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards has been a stalwart on this issue. He also hasn't received the credit he should for the very positive effect he had on the directions of both Clinton and Obama campaigns.
May 16, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good on Edwards, and I hope Obama does it too.
May 16, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd bet that Edwards was holding out until they actually scheduled the thing.
May 16, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they combined that with a huge voter registration drive, wouldn't that be wonderful???
May 16, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something tells me WV will not be on the Obama poverty tour agenda. Obama spent a scant few hours there and only to dust off his flag pin and talk about the GI Bill. [note: I think the flag pin issue is total BS and I respect him for saying his patriotism shouldn't be determined by whether he wears one]. Not a peep on poverty in WV. Would have been a great place to start his tour.
May 16, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that WV would be a good place to start a poverty tour. I have no idea whether Obama and Edwards plan to stop in WV or not, but I would hope that they would. I would also hope that they would bring Bill and Hillary Clinton with them. I think that such a tour would be good for everyone in the party and in the nation as a whole. I would also hope that they would pass through Kirksville MO (or any of a thousand small Missouri towns like it), Chicago IL and Flint MI. I am sure that there are plenty of other worthy places to visit and highlight as well, but those are the ones that leap most immediately to my mind.
May 16, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree. I hope they bring along the Clintons too.
May 16, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does that something telling you that begin with Wolf- and end in -son?
May 16, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd think a "poverty tour" would almost certainly include one of the poorest states in the nation, but what the heck do I know?
May 16, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The republicans will never let this happen. Long ago GOP insiders set up a shadow group called SFFOP (the Society For Fucking Over the Poor) to counter exactly this kind of thing.
You see, the GOP knows that for the rich to get even richer, the poor need to get even poorer. Where do you think Bush got his economic policies? He got them from SFFOP.
So expect McSame to embark on his own tour when Obama goes on his. McSame's tour won't be of poor areas, but of very wealth areas. McSame will bring camera crews and commentaters like Sean Hannity along with him to show the world that things aren't really that bad (at least for the uber wealthy.)
Now which would rather see: 1) Obama touring a trailer park in Ivegivvenuponlife Arkansa or 2) McSame visiting a mansion in Ieatpoorpeopleforbreakfast Texas?
May 16, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Grampy McBush do his own tour of the imvisible communities?
We saw no vid footage because the Obama/Clinton rivalry had sucked all the MSM oxygen. But the Obama/Edwards (I hope they include Bill and Hill as well...) tour will get more coverage. However, you could be very much on point, because as a nation we seem so resistant to looking at poverty.
May 16, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually that was just my late Friday afternoon snark fest, pay no attention.
May 16, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's McCain's response to Obama at the NRA, where incidentally, Mike Huckabee joked about Obama being shot:
Link to the Huckabee video is here:
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/97143.html
May 16, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this story was so leaked so Obama doesn't weasel out of it like he's weasling out of his pledge to public finaincing in the general election. Even Obama puts it in writing, it's not worth the paper it's written on.
May 16, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
He never promised to use public funding. Look up your facts, smear artist. He promised to discuss it, to determine ground rules, if he was the nominee.
May 16, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
He promised "to aggressively pursue" public financing. If by aggressively pursue you actually mean come to the realization that you can raise $hitloads of money on the internets and then say SIKE I'm not interested in public financing, then he's lived up to his committment. I don't think that's the case here.
May 16, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can stop lying now.
May 16, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hm, Dijamo and I do not often agree when Obama is the subject of discussion, but I think that her characterization is more fair than not here. Sure, Obama did not explicitly promise to take public funding, but he certainly did give the impression that he intended to do so. I am a dyed-in-the-wool Obama supporter, but I was disappointed (albeit only slightly) that he has moved to distance himself from that idea. I think that it is unjust to say that she is "lying" in this instance.
May 16, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
His "pursuing" public financing was in the context of having both parties agree to controlling 527s spending outside of public financing.
Since McCain and crew have totally screwed the pooch already on public financing during the primary, it is entirely a moot point and canard to even bring it up and a distraction form the reality of where things stand.
Furthermore, what is the goal of public financing?
Getting the corrupting influence of special interest money out of campaign funding. Obama's small dollar by approaching 2 million donors IS finance reform in action.
Trying to claim that Obama pledged to take public financing is edging close enough to the line of lying that I am more than willing to call it what it is. A fraudulent attempt to mislead people from the facts and truth... i.e. a lie.
But hey let's get distracted biting into smear attempts about public finance instead of the actual topic o this thread, talking about the Obama campaign and John Edwards poverty talking tour.
May 16, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
yep.
May 16, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Contemporaneous news account: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/us/politics/02fec.html?_r=1&oref=login
Mentions of 527 loophole? None. If you could cite Obama's concerns at the time his campaign pledged to aggressively pursure public financing, I'd be very interested to read it. Otherwise it looks like you are just rationalizing after the fact and taking your cues from someone who begins with Axle and ends in Rod.
May 16, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Axelrod's proven pretty reliable thus far...
...maybe more of us should pay attention to him.
Don't see Penn in the winner's circle,now, do we?
I'd wager Axelrod will promote the poverty tour graciously.
May 16, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
From his own words a month before your new media filtered link:
(emphasis mine)
May 16, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forgot the link in the above quoted post.
May 16, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for proving my point. Obama's eureka moment about 527s came not when he originally had to fill out the questionnaire or when his campaign assured they would "aggressively pursue" public campaign finance. It came when he was trying to rationalize backing down from John McCain trying to hold him to that. Real principled guy you got there.
May 16, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't be hurling stones with "unprincipled" written on them at Obama, considering Clinton's behavior during this campaign.
May 16, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI - I know all Hillary supporters are supposed to be uneducated, but I think 3/2/2007 (the date of the NYT article) is significantly earlier than 2/28/2008 (your link - editorial). Translation: you make my point. Obama did not come to his new realization until he started raising $hitload$ of money in the campaign.
It's kind of like your friend who drives a Ford Pinto hoopdie and SWEARS it's the best car in the world and would never buy a BMW on principle. Then he wins the lottery and trades that heap of junk in for a BMW. Can you blame him? No. But you might lose a little respect for him and cause yoou to doubt his authenticity.
May 16, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
All I am saying is if the Obama campaign said "I will aggressively pursue a voerty tour should you endorse me," it would be wise to hold him accountable for his pledge publically. Looks like the Edwards folks agree.
May 16, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
From MediaMatters.org (my emphasis added):
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803060007
May 16, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
No such conditions in his original response and rightfully so because there is no way for the candidate to control outside 527s. his is a red herring to cover his ass so he won't be accused of hypocrisy when he goes against what he himself had proposed aggressively pursuing with the republican nominee.
Come on stop trying to defend the indefensible. I can't believe you don't see the BS. If it was Hillary you'd be all over it.
May 16, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what? It really doesn't matter.
May 17, 2008 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh come on dijamo, that's a little harsh isn't it?
After all, Obama said he'd win the nomination, so he sometimes tells the truth at least! ;)
May 16, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even a broken clock is right twice a day :)
May 17, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can stop lying now.
May 16, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps. Lord knows that Obama, like any other politician, will sometimes disappoint. That said, I think that he has more of an incentive to make good on this pledge than he would to take public financing. As such, there seems less reason to worry about "weaseling" in this case.
May 16, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since McCain has been so upright and forthcoming with regard to his own public financing arrangements...
May 16, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
He pledged to use public financing if his opponent in the general did the same. Given the egregiously sleazy way that McCain's campaign has gamed the finance laws, I really can't blame Obama for dismissing the idea that McCain would be acting in good faith in the general.
May 16, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
point of clarity: the pledge was to aggressively pursue an AGREEMENT on public financing with the repug candidate. no agreement, no public financing.
mccain has already shown his inability/unwillingness to deal with outside spending on his behalf, so why on earth would obama ever agree to be restrained in his spending to counter swift boat attacks? you think hillary, the fighter, would enter the general with one hand tied behind her back? I doubt it
obama, in contrast to mccain, has put the message out that he does not want any 527 spending on his behalf and one group has already suspended their ad campaign as per obama's wishes
perhaps if mccain showed the same level of integrity, there could be an agreement. if he doesn't, there should be no agreement on spending IMO
besides, while raising ungodly amounts of money thus far, obama has done so with an unusually large percentage of small donations from regular folk. that in and of itself is something approaching public spending. neither hillary nor mccain approached such numbers of small donations
May 18, 2008 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and CNN video on the Huckabee joke is here:
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2008/05/16/sot.huckabee.jokes.obama.cnn
May 16, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, at first I thought there must be some context to that that I was missing, but there really wasn't.
Not only is it a bad joke, it isn't even a funny joke.
May 16, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't even like this stuff being publicized on cable. There are too many wackos out there who might think it's funny to take Huckabee up on his "joke."
May 16, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree - this really bugs me - it's not a joke.
May 16, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope he honors his commitment.
This can only be a good thing for both Obama and the Democratic Party. It is issue centered.
Being visibly issue centered is important as Tenn. Repubs go about bashing Michelle Obama and Bush travels the world and raises silly spectres and McCain sits in his bus and demands that Obama do some more 'splaining about nothing. While Obama and Edwards are out and about looking at real problems of real Americans.
Great!
May 16, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why wouldn't he honor it? It's not like the message is against his principles.
That said, this is another reason Edwards won't be on the ticket. He's more interested in his own agenda than in Obama's. There's nothing wrong with that, it's the right thing for Edwards. But it's not what VPs do.
May 16, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no reason in the world he wouldn't honor that pledge. It's part and parcel of his message.
Helping the poor used to be a core American value. Then the Republicans hijacked it and turned it on its head with the dog whistle claims that people were poor because they were lazy. It started with Reagan (think Welfare Queen) and continues to the present day (remember the attack on Graeme Frost over SCHIP?)
The fundamental premise of the Republicans is that the poor are different from everyone else. Obama's message is that we're all Americans with a common stake in a common future. In focusing on the poor he should (and I'm sure will) focus on the idea that the poor are not faceless, undeserving cretins who are best kept in the shadows, but mostly honest hard-working people who are a lot more like us than they are different.
May 16, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
True dat.
May 16, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dijamo, know hope!!!
I think it's a terrific idea and WILL happen. If it's spread out around the country, Obama can both shore up strength (African-Americans, esp. in MS/AL) and build in areas that need it (Appalachian whites, Hispanics/Native Americans in the Southwest).
What I'd love to see? A spotlight on the struggles in urban America, especially the homeless. Not holding my breath on that, though...
May 16, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the last politician to really take this issue on (before Edwards) was Bobby Kennedy. First in South Africa, then in the rural south of the USA.
May 16, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
That helps bring it all together. Bobby Kennedy is Edwards' idol - also a rumored reason why he'd prefer AG to VP in an Obama administration.
May 16, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards would be far better suited to Sec. Health and Human Services than AG. There are much stronger people for the AG position both politically and expertise and skill set.
May 16, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
West Virginia is poor. But so is New Mexico - one of the poorest states in the country.
There is profound poverty all over the country in pockets from Maine to Washington state.
And most Indian reservations are extremely poor - I know of almost no tribe that is doing really well. Maybe there are in Oklahoma and locations going east, but even the casinos have not lifted the Pueblos out of poverty. And the Hopi are barely hanging on since the Navajo keep squeezing them harder and harder.
Our native population is very profoundly poor, in general.
May 16, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd love for Obama and Edwards to go into Native American reservations. Wow. For the press to shine a light into that... oh wow. I cannot even begin to express how much I would like that.
May 16, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correct, there is poverty all over--they should go to the places that will make it more likely that Obama wins the general election and can do something about it. WV, maybe, but perhaps the mountains of VA or NC instead.
May 16, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two outstanding recommendations here.
-
Obama/Olbermann '08!
May 16, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Same here "way up North, aye" with the Native American populations, even with casinos. Obama should get Richardson to tag along to these areas, Clinton for Appalachia, Edwards and Kennedy for the south (or all of them/anywhere). Would be really inspiring and get much coverage with all the Dem super-stars. Anyone know of a Dem interested in "urban issues", besides Obama himself that could come along?
Let's not forget the people who the need a voice most are the poor. The people who need our help most are the poor, no matter how much the media pinpoints the middle class (who are also struggling). Kudos to Edwards for engineering this and making sure the issue doesn't fade away.
May 16, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What have I lied about? Don't be mad at me because I speak the truth.
May 16, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
See upthread.
May 16, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not "weaseling" to refuse to honor an agreement about campaign financing made to someone who was obviously acting in bad faith.
I think accusing you of lying is out of line, because it's entirely possible that you aren't aware of just how outrageously McCain has cheated WRT public financing so far, but at this point, Obama would be a fool to trust him to hold up his end of the bargain.
May 16, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
you lied in misquoting the times article
it read "aggressively pursue agreement"
it did not read "aggressively pursue public financing". if that was all it was about, and there was no conditions on what repug put on the table, he could just unilaterally go public with no aggression required
yet you keep incorrectly quoting it because it serves your purposes to show obama in the worst light over and over here
(sidenote: funny that you spend 95% of your effort here trashing obama and barely any castigating mccain and republicans, as if those are perfunctory just to prove your credibility here. in short, I'm not buying your persona/avatar here. I suspect you are just another repug troll)
May 18, 2008 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/the_obama_pledge.html
It's not just the article or the advice from the FEC - it's the campaign's rhetoric on finance reform trying to create a holier than thou imagae against Hillary on this issue. He never mentioned outside 527s in his original argument. You expect me to believe that if moveon.org ran ads against McCain, Obama would think this was a violation of the public financing agreement? Get a clue. Really. This is a ruse created to deflect criticism and the only people buying it are diehard Obama supporters - not rational people.
Fact check: sometimes Obama has as John Stewart would say dickish moments. This is one of them. It is actually better for you Obama folks to realize it take the punches and move on (like candidates of most other candidates do when their candidate does something dickish) rather than defend him to the bitter end as this perfect unerring being. I think people would take you guys more seriously if your regained some sense of objectivity.
May 18, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
A Modest Proposal:
All in the spirit of a little light Friday evening fun:
The Obama/Edwards Poverty Tour should schedule their first stop to be held at Clinton Fund Raising Headquarters.
May 16, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's very snarky, that is, liam.
;P
May 16, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
bada bing!
He shoots, he scores!
May 16, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ouch! Damn! What's the opposite of ka-ching?
Thanks for rainy, Fri. eve no public drinking lol.
Cheers! My drinking is @ home 2nite w/ Washington Week & Ifill.
May 16, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is one thing for certain... in the wake of the Bush tribulations, there won't be any trouble finding poverty, in any state in this country.
And I agree all round, the more native American reservations they can visit, the more light will shine on that never-resolved problem.
May 16, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
...the poor can't get any poorer, but more of the middle class has joined their ranks since the W era began.
May 16, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI - I know all Hillary supporters are supposed to be uneducated, but I think 3/2/2007 (the date of the NYT article) is significantly earlier than 2/28/2008 (your link - editorial). Translation: you make my point. Obama did not come to his new realization until he started raising $hitload$ of money in the campaign.
It's kind of like your friend who drives a Ford Pinto hoopdie and SWEARS it's the best car in the world and would never buy a BMW on principle. Then he wins the lottery and trades that heap of junk in for a BMW. Can you blame him? No. But you might lose a little respect for him and cause yoou to doubt his authenticity.
May 16, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except, in this case, hhe said that he'd stick with the car as long as someone else did, and that other person didn't.
It should also be pointed out that, previous to this, he hadn't said anything about public financing, so he made the conditional statement about keeping the car after the lottery.
May 16, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kind of slow on the uptake I see. He didn't say anything about public financing except the following. PS McCain's spokesman was right on target asking if Obama wasn't rerally asking the FEC if he could raise money and figure out which would be more:
2/1/07: In a Feb. 1 filing with the Federal Election Commission that was made public on Wednesday, Mr. Obama said that he, too, would seek enough private donations to remain competitive, but with a twist. He asked the commission if he could begin soliciting private donations with the understanding that he might later return the money to his contributors. If he won the Democratic nomination, he could then strike a deal with the Republican nominee to return their private donations and use only public money for the general election. For 2008, that would limit each general election campaign to about $85 million.
On Wednesday, a spokesman for Mr. McCain suggested that Mr. Obama was trying to have it both ways, preserving the possibility of taking public money if he could not bring in enough private donations. โIs he asking for the option of whatever is the higher number?โ Matt David, the spokesman, asked.
9/28/07 Edwards is the first top-tier Democratic candidate to agree to this funding mechanism, and he noted it will include the primary and general elections. Although he has already begun raising money for the general election, federal law requires him to return those funds if he accepts public funding.
Clinton and Obama have also been raising private funds for the general election, but Obama said he would return the money and accept public funding in the general if the Republican nominee agrees to do the same.
And then here is the backing away from the public financing idea on 2/15 before the McCain shady loan story broke. And FYI if McCain is found to have violated public financing rules, he will BE REQUIRED to have puublic financing in the general election and will not be allowed to back out of it. Isn't that what the Obama campaign had wanted to "aggressively pursue"? yes, until thee $$$ started rolling in. UNPRINCIPLED.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/us/politics/15finance.html?_r=5&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=login
May 16, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your own post indicates that Obama's hoped-for public financing agreement would include free radio and TV. Has that happened?
Didn't think so, so it's not exactly the public financing he envisioned at the outset, is it?
Moreover, after having the Repugnanticans ram it up our pootchutes for two cycles, I'm not about to apologize for my candidate's ability to raise enough money to allow our collective rectums to contract.
His ability to raise funds at the grassroots level (without contributions from special interests and lobbyists) is corollary to the resonance of his message.
I shan't apologize for that.
-
Obama/Olbermann '08!
May 16, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, Obama has been a beneficiary of free public tv for quite some time. Please reference Countdown with Keith Obama'sman & Chris "tingle up my leg" Matthews.
Second, Obama's vision of free tv and radio is not what he proposed for the 2008 election. He proposed that if the republican nominee agreed to public financing, he would as well. That's what he proposed to the FEC and now he's backing away from it. Come on. I like Hillary, but I don't actively blind myself to realiy. He was hedging his bets. He's less committed to public finance than he said he was. He's a politican doing the expedient thing rather than the principled thing. To try and defend that crap and say no he'd not despite all facts to the contrary is kind of sad.
This whole thing started because I made a snarky comment about Edwards wanting to hold Obama accountable for his pledge publicly so he couldn't backtrack. It wasn't until I was accused of lying that I defended the reality of Obama's campaign finance bait switch. My apologies for the not-on-message post as this thread WAS originally about Obama's poverty tour.
May 16, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is sniper fire expediency or something else altogether?
How about bringing peace to Northern Ireland?
Or Chelsea jogging near the WTC when the planes hit?
I'm not purchasing any high-toned thoughts on what's honorable from an admitted supporter of a bald-faced liar.
Sorry.
-
Obama/Olbermann '08!
May 16, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
See that's the difference between you and I.
1. I would not and have not defended snier fire. she was wrong. I ahng my head in shame and move, taking the sniper fire remarks as they come. I don't sit here and try to defend them.
2. She never claimed she brought peace to Northern Ireland. She said she "I went [to Northern Ireland] more than my husband did. I was working to help change the atmosphere among people because leaders alone rarely make peace. They have to bring people along who believe peace is in their interests." All true - while she was not directly involved with Good friday Peace accords, she helped bring women into the process and contributed to the environment for peace. I would belive the following over an Obama campaign attack memo: Gerry Adams, John Hume and senator mitchell who stated: "he believed that Mrs. Clinton's characterisation of her role was generally accurate. "She was helpful and supportive, very much involved in the issues. She knew all of the delegates. Her greatest focus was on encouraging women in Northern Ireland to get into and stay in the political process and the peace process and as I've said publicly many times and wrote in my book, the role of women in the peace process in Northern Ireland was significant."
3. My criticisms are based on TRUTH not effing lies based on right wing smears like Dick Morris. Hillary never said Chelsea was jogging aroung the WTC on 9-11 when the planes hit. Fact cxheck attached. Glad to know so-called democrats are still taking their marching orders from Dick Morris on false attacks on the Clintons. Kudos to you.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803270008
So it looks like you are the one peddling bald faced lies.
May 17, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
If anyone has already mentioned up-thread forgive me - I'm still working my way through the comments - but this would be a great revival of RFK's Appalachian Tour back in the day. Which of course drew attn to the the forgotten of the forgotten. Not like McCain's b.s. - as someone said - only the Repubs forgot about the poor.
This is why McCain's free ride is so infuriating right now and why this primary should have ended long ago - and now, sooner rather than later. No WAY would McCain be able to get away w/ faux compassionate conservatism (is that an oxymoron?)-and he wouldn't if our contest was over.
May 16, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, sweetie.
No one has done more for poverty than Barack Obama.
May 16, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo is surprisingly bitter and likely furious about Obama's ability to have already demonstrated public financing through his millions of small contributors. So bitter, in fact, that she carefully avoids the real point of public financing which is to counter the usual campaign funding mechanisms which maintain the status quo and allow widespread problems like poverty to fester and grow. So bitter, in fact, that she drops her criticism into a thread about a poverty tour with Edwards.
May 16, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents
agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you
participate in presidential public financing system?
You answered this question as follows:
OBAMA: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of
campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce
the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing
legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to
have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) bill to reform the
presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel
way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008
election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a
fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the
public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed
announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public
financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The
Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John
McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I
am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the
Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.
May 16, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're all over this issue, as if it represented something really important. I don't get what you want from our candidate. Early in the process he's asked whether he'll participate in a publicly financed campaign and he basically said, yes, if he can assure that it's fair to the Democratic party. Whether or not the details of 527s came to him then or later the general idea was making sure it didn't put Democrats at a disadvantage. Now, he effectively has a publicly financed campaign, free of special interest money. So what if the funds are not funnelled through the government.
This campaign finance "issue" is almost a parallel with the whole negotiation is appeasement foreign policy flap. If he says he's willing to negotiate but can't swing a deal that doesn't amount to appeasement then don't go through with the deal. McCain may or may not play fair (he has a lousy record) but Obama to his credit is willing to give negotiation a chance at least in principle even if it's a long shot. Also to his team's credit they made sure he didn't have to negotiate from weakness, in other words broke and in debt. And finally he got us what we're all really after, a campaign free of special interest money. What's not to like?
May 17, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
The purpose of campaign finance is to remove the influence of money from campaigns. It's not just about special interest and lobbyist money (which Barack has taken money from special interests so long as they are not officially called "lobbyists"). It's about have a marketplace of ides so folks can compete on a level playing field. He said that he supported public financing and would aggressively pursue an agreement with his opponent to have a publicly financed general election campaign. John Edwards was publicly financed both primary and general election. Barack said he would accept public financing if his Republican opponent did not and then criticized Hillary for not vowing to take public financing in the campaign.
In addition for someone who has long believed int he principle of public finacing of presidential campaigns, on his tax returns he didn't even check the $3 box to contribute.
And finally,I know Barack is getting most of his contributions from small donors and that's really impressive. But I'm thinking many of those donors in the general election would be THRILLED to get their excess donations back. Barack would not be at a disadvantage. The Dem's have plenty 527s should the republicans decide to play dirty. That doesn't put him at a disadvantage with mcccain - it puts them on an even playing field. if Obama truly believes he is better than John McCain and truly believes in the priniples of public financing, then he has the opportunity to prove it now. Or he can demonstrate that his principles change with the winds of political expediency. His choice.
May 17, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
For this small donor it's not excess until he's safely in office and the Republicans are out. And then, to the extent its legal I hope any extra money is plowed back into the party. I don't want a level playing field. I want the advantage progressives deserve due their greater numbers. (Whether or not people adopt the labels Democratic policies are much more popular.)
So far public funding doesn't eliminate the influence of money, it just controls it. The influence of money is democratized. Edward's campaign received matching public funds.
Whether or not we like it the general cannot be waged on matching funds when the other side represents concentrated wealth and they're willing to do anything to retain power. GOP 527s are astroturf organizations with shadowy financing and unaccountable to any portion of the public. Democratic-leaning 527s represent legitimate ongoing interest groups almost always, if not always, representing large memberships with accountability arrangements. They're not equal.
I doubt Obama agreed to campaign under the limitation of matching funding given the careful language he used, already described at length in this thread. At least I've never seen a news account describing his position that way.
Perhaps someday we'll have a clean campaign laws such as the system in Arizona, but for now we have what have and Obama's funding is possibly the cleanest I've ever seen, at the national level. It's something we can all embrace with pride. He's an order of magnitude or more better than McCain.
May 17, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
My last two paragraphs are loaded with errors, generally typgraphical except this;
I doubt Obama agreed to campaign under the limitation of matching funding absent a like GOP arrangment given the careful language he used, already described at length in this thread. At least I've never seen a news account describing his position that way.
May 17, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes I wonder if "poverty" is not too strong a word to use in ginning up support in a political race. Not that poverty doesn't exist here, and not that tackling poverty shouldn't be a high priority for our public servants. It does, and it definitely should be. But political success for this relies on peoples' goodwill, and in hard times, magnanimity tends to run scarce.
No one likes to be at the bottom of the pecking order. That isn't trivial. It's a deep-seated psychological trait. We don't like to think of ourselves as the worst-off. We will always find someone who, for some reason, we can consider ourselves to be "above." And because we associate "poverty" with the people in at the very bottom, we don't tend to associate ourselves with poverty. Even if we're struggling. Rather, most Americans align with "middle class." Poverty is a "them" term - like ugly - it applies to them, not to us.
By association, helping those in poverty, means helping "them" not "us." But "we" need help. The "middle class" needs help. And the "middle class" going to vote for the guy who says, "we're going to help You!" As people face harder times, they are less likely to be willing to help others, and the "us" v. "them" dichotomy becomes stronger.
An interesting point is that in reality our middle class (blue-collar, hard-working, [white] Americans) is shrinking as poverty expands - a reality that people are loath to apply to themselves. So, while the number of people who are actually in poverty increases, the percentage of those in poverty who identify themselves as in poverty decreases, and percentage of those in poverty who identify as "middle class" goes up.
As Edwards, who I respect, continues to ask people to help those in poverty, which is respectable, he should remember that, politically speaking, the "middle class" is the group that needs the most help, because "middle class" is the biggest voting block.
May 16, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Project much?
May 17, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doing an event like this North Carolina, with John Edwards, could net Obama 15 electoral votes.
May 16, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
^ in North Carolina ^
May 16, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will this Poverty Trip also include the section of Chicago that Rezko promised to rehab (and didn't) and the residents were without heat during the winter? Just asking since Sen Obama is such a champion of the poor.
May 16, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to know right from John Edwards he said what it was on Wolf's show today when he appeared. Wolf asked him outright what it cost Obama and what Edwards got out of it for his endorsement. I don't remember all of it but I am sure it is in a transcript somewhere.
Also I presume if it is a poverty tour as all above have mentionned he won't be going to Kentucky too quickly either since he has said he won't even be going to Kentucky for a visit or to campaign before they vote on Tuesday. He is too busy now and there will be plenty of time later he said. Once again he says he knows he will lose so he isn't going. I wonder how they will feel knowing he had plenty of time to go to Michigan on Wednesday where they have already voted?
May 16, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
This story provides me with the hope that Obama might yet become the person required to lead our great nation. I recognize that it is our duty and obligation to mold him into that person and I am thankful that Edwards is lending his efforts to that task.
Americans need to be introduced to our shameful secret and we all need to devote ourselves and our actions to edifying our fellow humans.
Wealth is not finite. There is enough wealth for everyone. Scarcity is a fairy-tale Milton Friedman devotees tell themselves and their children to rationalze their cruelty to their fellow man.
We, the people, are better than that.
May 16, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
See that's the difference between you and I.
1. I would not and have not defended snier fire. she was wrong. I ahng my head in shame and move, taking the sniper fire remarks as they come. I don't sit here and try to defend them.
2. She never claimed she brought peace to Northern Ireland. She said she "I went [to Northern Ireland] more than my husband did. I was working to help change the atmosphere among people because leaders alone rarely make peace. They have to bring people along who believe peace is in their interests." All true - while she was not directly involved with Good friday Peace accords, she helped bring women into the process and contributed to the environment for peace. I would belive the following over an Obama campaign attack memo: Gerry Adams, John Hume and senator mitchell who stated: "he believed that Mrs. Clinton's characterisation of her role was generally accurate. "She was helpful and supportive, very much involved in the issues. She knew all of the delegates. Her greatest focus was on encouraging women in Northern Ireland to get into and stay in the political process and the peace process and as I've said publicly many times and wrote in my book, the role of women in the peace process in Northern Ireland was significant."
3. My criticisms are based on TRUTH not effing lies based on right wing smears like Dick Morris. Hillary never said Chelsea was jogging aroung the WTC on 9-11 when the planes hit. Fact cxheck attached. Glad to know so-called democrats are still taking their marching orders from Dick Morris on false attacks on the Clintons. Kudos to you.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803270008
So it looks like you are the one peddling bald faced lies.
May 17, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The word 'poverty tour' is disturbing at many levels. I live in central Maine. We are much like most of the U.S. in that there are poor people at a glance, all around, 24/7. Poverty is endemic to the United States today. We don't notice it only in the same sense we notice and don't notice the sun rising each day. The main source of poverty in Maine today is a lack of jobs, a lack of well paying jobs, and the absolutely crushing weight of $4 a gallon heating oil. My wife and I will not have paid off this winter's heating oil bill until August, then it starts again. It is perpetual peonage.
May 17, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary did try to give herself credit for the Northern Ireland peace. Said she "worked hard" or words to that effect. She went to a freakin' TEA!
(I'm sure you're adept with the Internets, so LOOK IT UP!)
And, you're wrong, I wouldn't trust Dick Morris any farther than John McCain can lift his arms, but, on Sept. 17, 2001, this conversation took place between Hillary and Jane Pauley on NBC's "Dateline":
---
Senator HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: She'd gone what she thought would be a great jog. She was going down to the Battery Park, she was going to go around the towers. She went to get a cup of coffee and--and that's when the plane hit.
PAULEY: She was close enough to hear the rumble.
Sen. CLINTON: She did hear it. She did.
PAULEY: And to see the smoke...
---
Chelsea later admitted that she was asleep in a friend's apartment when the first plane hit and her friend called, woke her up and told her to turn on the TV just before the second plane hit.
Do you REALLY think Chelsea jogged that day? Much less "heard the rumble"?
Uh, no.
So, you are WRONG!
Dick Morris is not a part of my equation.
But thanks for playing!
-
Obama/Olbermann '08!
May 17, 2008 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh, You are worse than a liar. You are a compulsive liar. When Hillary got caught out on Bosnia, at least she fessed up. YOU continue to lie repeatedly knowing your bullshit has been proven wrong. YOU CAN STOP LYING NOW. To promote your candidate, you don't have to tell lies about mine, and I certainly don't make up stuff about Obama.
The quote you are pulling is from DICK MORRIS LIES. Check the actual transcript, not the one posted on effing Fox News or Clinton Hating Obama sites. God you are an idiot.:
PAULEY: Tuesday morning, Senator Hillary Clinton's first thought when the second plane hit was terrorists. Her next thought was Chelsea, who was not only in New York, but staying downtown.
CLINTON: She'd gone, what she thought would be just a great jog. She was going to go down to Battery Park, she was going to go around the towers. She went to get a cup of coffee and -- and that's when the plane hit.
PAULEY: She was close enough to hear the rumble.
CLINTON: She did hear it.
PAULEY: And to see the smoke in person, not on television.
CLINTON: No. Of course, Bill was in Australia. And, you know, he was so upset by what he was seeing on television that I didn't want to tell him that I couldn't find her until I found her. I told him that, you know, everything's fine, don't worry. But I couldn't do it with the level of assurance that I needed until I could find her a couple of hours later.
And the following encapsulates more than just fucking tea as first lady:
Sinn Fรฉin president Gerry Adams told The Irish Times that, although he admires all three remaining US presidential candidates and is not endorsing any of them, Mrs. Clinton is justified in claiming a role in the peace process. "David Trimble is reported as saying Senator Hillary Clinton played no part in the Irish peace process. That is not true. Senator Clinton played an important role in the peace process," he said. "I met the senator on many occasions when she was First Lady, and subsequently when she became a senator for New York State. I always found her to be extremely well informed on the issues."
Former SDLP leader John Hume has also come to Mrs. Clinton's defense, expressing surprise that anyone should doubt the importance of her contribution.
"I can state from first-hand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland," he said in a statement posted on Mrs. Clinton's website.
"There is no doubt that the people of Northern Ireland think very positively of Hillary Clinton's support for our peace process, due to her visits to Northern Ireland and her meetings with so many people. In private she made countless calls and contacts, speaking to leaders and opinion makers on all sides, urging them to keep moving forward."
Mrs. Clinton visited Ireland seven times between 1995 and 2004, both as first lady and as a US senator. The Obama campaign is correct in stating that she played no direct role in the negotiations leading up to the Belfast Agreement in 1998.
She went beyond the traditional, ceremonial duties of first lady, however, particularly in facilitating the engagement of women in the political process by introducing Vital Voices, an international organisation she founded with former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, to the North.
Former senator George Mitchell, who chaired the talks leading up to the 1998 agreement, said this week that he believed that Mrs. Clinton's characterisation of her role was generally accurate. "She was helpful and supportive, very much involved in the issues. She knew all of the delegates," he told CBS News.
"Her greatest focus was on encouraging women in Northern Ireland to get into and stay in the political process and the peace process and as I've said publicly many times and wrote in my book, the role of women in the peace process in Northern Ireland was significant."
In 2004, Hillary and President Clinton met with the party leaders still working on establishing lasting peace during their visit to Ireland and Northern Ireland. They met with Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein; David Trimble of the UUP; Paul Murphy, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; Peter Robinson of the DUP; and Mark Durkan of the SDLP. In addition Hillary sat down with Taoiseach Bertie Ahern during her visit where she and President Clinton discussed the current issues and a plan to move forward.
On August 26, 2004, Hillary was asked to deliver the Tip O'Neill Lecture at the University of Ulster's Magee campus on the theme of peace and reconciliation in the modern world and was awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws degree. During that visit, Professor Gerry McKenna, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ulster said that, โThe honorary degree marks both Senator Clintonโs distinguished career as a lawyer, politician and eminent public figure and her deep commitment to peace and progress in Northern Ireland.โ [Irish News, โHillary in Magee lecture,โ August 24, 2004]
Hillary continues to meet with elected and party leaders since the Northern Ireland Assembly was restored on May 8, 2007. In December 2007, when Martin McGuinness and Ian Paisley were in Washington, they sat down with Hillary in a private meeting and thanked her for her contribution to the peace process. As McGuinness put it, โthese are wonderfully exciting times for all of us back home, not least because of the contributions made by President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton.โ [AP, December 7, 2007].
May 17, 2008 5:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you read? Look at the quote I posted from the Pauley/Clinton transcript and the one you posted. There's zero difference in the two.
As for Northern Ireland, I'll concede that there are different opinions of how much she actually did. I certainly put a lot of credence in the opinion of a man who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work toward the peace than the word of Gerry Adams. But, since Hume gives her more credit, okay, there's a legitimate difference of opinions.
That said, Bosnia was a lie and WTC was a lie. Again, look at what YOU posted (which is the same as what I posted, except with some inconsequential language before and after). Did Hillary not say Chelsea was out for a jog? Well, she wasn't, and has publicly said so.
Oh, yeah. I'm no idiot. But if it makes you feel better to call me one, then fine.
I'm done with this and done with you.
-
Obama/Olbermann '08!
May 17, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reading IS fundamental. And if you read the second question you would see that Hillary said Chelsea did not see the smoke in person. If she was lying and said Hillary was at the WTC, Chelsea would have seen the smoke. Will you apologize for your smears & lies or continue repeating them? And if you do continue repeating them, you have no moral authority to xriticize republicans who lie and say Barack is a muslim. Stop the smears and lies please. Democrats should be better than that.
PAULEY: And to see the smoke in person, not on television.
CLINTON: No. Of course, Bill was in Australia. And, you know, he was so upset by what he was seeing on television that I didn't want to tell him that I couldn't find her until I found her. I told him that, you know, everything's fine, don't worry. But I couldn't do it with the level of assurance that I needed until I could find her a couple of hours later.
May 18, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think its cute that John Edwards thinks he can educate Barack Obama about poverty.
After taking BO on the poverty tour, JRE can take Warren Buffett on a tour of Wall Street.
May 17, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see this as a win win for Obama, who is having issues with the working class White folks, who are in the low income group. This could only help him.
May 17, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dijamo
Give it a rest. Forget Public financing. Look at what is already happening. The Republicans did nasty attack ads in North Carolina. McCain said, "Sorry, nothing I can do about it." Same thing in Mississippi, Tennessee, and West VA. John McCain says he can't control this and you know what? He can't. Barack Obama has donors who give him an average of $96.00 each. What is more Public Financing than that? The Republicans have said they will attack Obama on everything. They have already started and he is not even officially the nominee yet. As an ardent supporter, I not only release Obama from pursuing this agressively or other wise, I implore him to do so. He can't submit to this and then be swiftboated out of the race, becuase McCain can't control the Republican. Now can you get back on the subject of the Post?
May 17, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you don't understand publicly financed campaign. It's not just about the source or amount of individual donations; it's also about reducing the amount of influence money has in elections so the $96 argument. He's going to be swiftboated whether or not he and mccain agree to public financing. He stands for something forcefully until it is no longer in his best interests.
But thanks for giving the republicans another example of his flip-flop and even worse the willingness of his supporters to applaud every nose blow, accept at face value every op-ed and campaign memo no matter how stupid the argument, and humbly prostrate yourselves before the messiah's all-knowing, always righteous and unerring wisdom no matter how transparently hypocritical his position is. Yet another reason why Hillary supporters are not buying the infomercial candidate yet.
May 17, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you actually drool out the corners of your mouth while you write such tripe?
I always find your comments most interesting as they suggest someone with an intellect behind the ridiculous identity you've developed here at tpm.
Are you this arrogant outside this safe, yet vast haven?
"But thanks for giving the republicans another example of his flip-flop and even worse the willingness of his supporters to applaud every nose blow, accept at face value every op-ed and campaign memo no matter how stupid the argument, and humbly prostrate yourselves before the messiah's all-knowing, always righteous and unerring wisdom no matter how transparently hypocritical his position is."
One of the most intellectually vapid statements I have read here thus far. You must take naps right after you put all of these careful examinations into one long winded sentence. I have to give you credit for likening Mr. Obama's supporters to followers of the messiah.
I'm curious, what do you stand for that you can back up with action in your offline life? I'm guessing not much.
I imagine you in a tee shirt with just the word 'impudent' printed on the front and 'bloviate' printed on the back.
The photo indicates that your an attractive female. It's a shame your critical thinking skills detract from such a gift.
Peace
May 17, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
YAAAAAAAAWN, sorry for the delayed response. I just woke up from the nap induced by my long winded sentence. Thanks for the wake up call. Being in small and ever dwindling minority of Hillary supporters on this site by itself makes me more noticeable and more willing to engage others in debate, but I don't think I create a "ridiculous identity". That said - can I come off a tad bit arrogant at times or sarcastic / snarky? Absolutely! But come on, some folks on this site have accused Hillary of everything from murder to being the grand master of the Klan. I don't think I've said anything near that inflammatory.
In real life my opinions on the issues are absolutely the same as what I say on TPM. In real life I am in HR at a non-profit that serves NYers living at or below the poverty line. The vast majority of folks at my job are PRObama. I have engaged in passionate debates about the elections with my friends, family & co-workers co-workers, but the debate is always respectful. I don't think many people who actually know me would picture me in an imputent/bloviate t-shirt.
Obviously the world of internets allows for more freedom of expression and more snarky retorts and sarcasm that make the conversation more interesting but also more confrontational. But I try to keep my criticisms truthful and on the issues, not personal attacks. But I take you point that sometimes in that discussion I can come across as arrogant or bloviating. So I vow no more long winded posts... Oops too late. SORRY :)
May 18, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
...until it is no longer in his best interests.
You're obsessed. He's representing our interests including yours though you're still too bitter to see it.
Prostate, messiah, infomercial; get a grip.
May 17, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think obama represents "her" interests. Her interest is in bashing obama at every turn, hijaking threads using straw man arguments and misrepresentations to try to put obama supporters (i.e democrats) on the defensive.
I strongly suspect we are dealing with just another repug troll here, one with quite a lot of time for disruption. just look at the number of words "she" has written here versus everyone else, and look at how many have little to nothing to do with the actual topic
May 18, 2008 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
YOU GOT ME! All the repug trolls I know spend hours debating the merits of Hillary's more progressively liberal healthcare plan, foreclosure plan and economic plan. It's all the rage, especially as the race is winding down and the focus is turning towards McCain. It is not possible that a democrat does not buy in to Obama or finds him to be just another politician with worse policies than Hillary and a better PR campaign.
You my friend need to grow up and accept the fact that there is diversity in the democratic party and not everyone is sold on Obama. And put down the puppy. Your avatar scares me.
May 18, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, TPM has gone from directing people to news from other sites to actually becoming a source of breaking news. Congratulations. That's a big step forward TPM.
May 17, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I had a dime for all of the Edwards bashers at this site who speculated that Edwards would surely instead have bargained for AG or some other Obama Administration job, I could take my wife and kids out to a nice dinner tonight without the bill showing up on my credit card statement next month. I wonder how many of them will own up to being entirely wrong about this matter.
May 17, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why did the "hope and change" Messiah need anyone to suggest this to him???
Because he ain't.
Meet the new boss...
May 17, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
this reads like the shitty trailer of an even shittier movie. is it too much work to include something substantive in your tiny little posting. how proud you must be when it comes time to hit the send button.
May 17, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow...you've actually managed to both channel my third grade teacher, Mrs. Bascomb and do the same thing you accuse me of doing at the very same time.
Bra-vo.
May 18, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Present, and others: John Edwards has done more in the last 4 years to raise the awareness of poverty in America than anyone. Just because you've been glued to Fox news doesn't mean it wasn't happening.
May 17, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well you and I now know there's at least one stand-up denizen in this thread who saw the comment and stood up. I'll keep an eye out for your name henceforth, longtimewatcher.
May 18, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo, i agree with you 100%. i find it ironic that obama supporters act as if obama has never lied or acted like a politician. of course he has! i don't see the point of defending him. i don't defend clinton when she makes a stupid mistake. i realize that these things happen.
initially, obama said he was for public financing so that he'd seem so noble and "above politics," but when the time came for him to show his true values, he weaseled out of his promise. meh, typical politician.
May 18, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
YAY! I thought we'd all run for the hills :) I'm still holding out hope for a close race in Oregon that will mean Hillary's not done yet!
I totally agree with you. The most troubling to me is someone not being able to see flaws in their own candidate. No one is perfect. Why can't they fairly look at an issue and say you lnow what Obama is wrong or doing the "POLITICAL" thing, but I will accept the valid criticism and support him anyway? There are some capable of this like A Missouri voter, but many just refuse to acknowledge any error no matter how obvious. That is what's truly scares me. I'd rather believe they know he is wrong and are defending hom anyway. The more scary thought is they truly believe he is this perfect messiah figure above politics, above error etc.
May 18, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
well, IF you detest republicans, you will support him regardless of whatever fault you might find
IF you don't detest republicans, well then, go on pretending to be a democrat, make almost every single comment here anti-obama, and don't forget to check the box for crazy grandpa mccain in november
May 18, 2008 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ypsilanti may not be bad either. Close to U of M, it's a struggling city (economically), Washtenaw County has adopted a plan in which 20% of electricity, county wide, will be produced by wind mills, and not to mention Ypsilanti is a former industrial community.
Poor, looking for green, lost jobs, far enough away from kwame, yeah... (plus it'd make it easy for me to visit his stop here!)
May 18, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty good idea. A wonderful community that has struggled along with Flint through the changes wrought by globalization. Clinton supporter and economic guru Gene Sperling has an Ypsi or EMU connection, though I'm not sure what it is. He's credited with setting up a Bill Clinton speaking engagement there in 2000.
May 18, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Barack Obama announced his candidacy in Jan of 2007 most people, particularly Blacks, didn't even know how to pronounce his name let alone support him. I had followed Obama since his speech in 2004 at the Dem Convention and was particularly inspired by his stance against the Iraq War....a move that could have been political suicide. I started our grassroots organization www.Blacks4Barack.org in hopes of inspiring and invigorating support for Obama, particularly in the Black community at a time when Hillary had 82% of the black support. Keep in mind...black folks LOVED Bill Clinton (the first black pres.) But as folks (of all races) learned more about Obama...the more they were inspired. While the more we learned about Hillary....there was more, not only disappointment but actual hurt due to her and Bill's racist overtones. Because of her own actions, Hillary has lost the black vote....possibly forever. And whereas the media acts like all blacks are for Obama just because he's black....that is absolutely incorrect. Fact is, all blacks were for Hillary at first ! But now the black community feels like the Clintons have slapped them in the face....and in the heart....and that may be unforgivable. Despite the unfortunate divisiveness, the time is now for us all to unite...For The Re-Birth of America !
Greg Jones
www.Blacks4Barack.org
A Multi-Racial, Grassroots Org...Dedicated To Truth !
May 18, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm all for it except for the term "poverty tour" - it sounds touristy. Call it something else.
May 18, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has got to be some kind of a record for staying on the TPM page one for so long. Did nothing else happen this weekend that warrants the top slot?
May 18, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
One is only left wondering why the deliberately misleading headline was chosen.
(Don't bother playing stupid about it.)
May 18, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink