Charles Peters of the Washington Monthly points out in the Washington Post delineates:
Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.
Obama didn’t stop there. He played a major role in passing many other bills, including the state’s first earned-income tax credit to help the working poor and the first ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years (a law a Post story said made Illinois “one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure”). Obama’s commitment to ethics continued in the U.S. Senate, where he co-authored the new lobbying reform law that, among its hard-to-sell provisions, requires lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who “bundle” contributions for them.
Taken together, these accomplishments demonstrate that Obama has what Dillard, the Republican state senator, calls a “unique” ability “to deal with extremely complex issues, to reach across the aisle and to deal with diverse people.” In other words, Obama’s campaign claim that he can persuade us to rise above what divides us is not just rhetoric.
I just find this a bit funny…if not slightly hypocritical. Check out the first 20 seconds of this video…(h/t to Jesse Thomas and Baratunde) [warning: cursing on both posts]
Who Will Edwards Endorse?
I think a strong case can be made that Edwards will endorse Obama. Five basic reasons will motivate Edwards to endorse B-rock:
1) Both agree on changing power in Washington DC
2) Obama’s lack of polarization
3) Obama’s electability particularly with independents. Obama won’t galvanize the GOP base to vote not-democrat.
4) Obama’s desire to cross race and class lines.
5) I imagine Edward also understands that Obama can create a bigger movement and create greater cultural change than can Clinton.
Ultimately the trump card is this: its crystal clear that Edward sees changing power politics in Washington as the prerequisite to any fundamental change on urgent policy issues. Certainly, in the debates he seemed to be tipping his cards in the direction of Obama. The only issue that might divide the two is health care.
When Will Edwards Endorse?
Edwards will endorse within a month. He was pretty waiting to see the delegate divide after Super Tuesday. (If Edwards makes it into the administration, I predict HUD or perhaps he will lobby for a department devoted to poverty issues–perhaps even related to its international manifestations.)
What about Al Gore’s Endorsement for the Democratic Nomination
Gore won’t endorse. As a Nobel peace prize winner and advocate of the environmental movement, he may want to stay above the political fold. To him, creating bridges with whomever eventually wins will be the most important objective. To me, though, every day he doesn’t endorse is a snub to the Clintons. The advantage here for Gore is that if anything the Clintons owe Gore, not the other way around.
UPDATE: Why Edwards can’t endorse Hillary in his own words on YouTube. Enjoy!
Have you noticed that Hillary talks big about taking down “corporate power “and “taking a stand against the oil companies.” Unfortunately its not listed anywhere in her 14+ pages of lofty campaign goals. Zero. Zip. Zilch.
The proof is in the pudding, I did a Google search targeted to Hillary’s campaign issues pages (see footnotes below) and “corporate power” and taking down the power of “oil companies” didn’t show up except in relation to a tangential mention of agribusiness. Seriously agri-business????? Wonder why the absolute silence on these two issues which she is touting on her fundamental campaign?
First, she has gone after big dollar contributors for much of the bling in her campaign coffers.
Second, now she see’s in order to carry the banner of “change” she has to talk about corporate power and lobbyists. This means that taking a stand against such things means she should either give the money back or stop the campaign. Using that money and ultimately returning those monetary favors is aquiessense to the very powers her commercial attempts to decry. I think I smell a contradiction anyone. (Flip-flip anyone? Double back flip with a twist, perhaps?)
Third, if you really think it is a core issue, why hasn’t it been featured in any media coverage as a central campaign theme? This is clearly a last ditch effort to coopt votes and rhetoric from Obama. Perhaps Hillary should go back to the tape from the debate at the Daily Kos convention to refresh her memory.
Its time for Hillary’s words and deeds to come from being in contadiction to in sync in order for them to have any value (beyond a jelly donut). Her ethics and our democracy and our people demand no less.
Footnotes:
1. Oil companies are of course mentioned in her Energy Policy paper, but not in relation to the power and corruption of oil companies. Its not there.
2. On the issue of corporate power, this policy paper on Government Reform mentions corporate welfare, but not in the comprehensive way that the commercial discusses. And if lobbying dollars and corporate dollars corrupting our democratic process is really what she meant, then she has some requisite action to engage in to make her political rhetoric match her political deeds.
John stepped aside with leadership, grace, and conviction on his side:
I began my presidential campaign here to remind the country that we, as citizens and as a government, have a moral responsibility to each other, and what we do together matters. We must do better, if we want to live up to the great promise of this country that we all love so much.
It is appropriate that I come here today. It’s time for me to step aside so that history can blaze its path. We do not know who will take the final steps to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but what we do know is that our Democratic Party will make history. We will be strong, we will be unified, and with our convictions and a little backbone we will take back the White House in November and we’ll create hope and opportunity for this country.
Senator Frist points out that the One Campaign “uses health and medicine as a current of peace.” I hope the American people can hear that urgent call.
Should it be an Election issue? Is it better than the war in Iraq? Will solving poverty address terrorism? Is poverty the most important issue thats being talked about? Is this a faith issue? Should we engage goverments to solve poverty? Should the government engage faith communities?
Thanks for visiting. I hope my research and ideas provide insight into social entrepreneurship, innovation, and positive social change.
If you are in social enterprise or passionate about these issues feel free to connect via Twitter, Facebook, or Linked In.
Thanks and have a great day!
