Sunday, August 19, 2007
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Mission Statement
"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them." - Senator Paul Wellstone
The LNCFE is a coalition that brings together the men and women of organized labor, the netroots, and the grassroots for a common cause. Our goal is to secure Senator John Edwards the unity endorsement from organized labor that he so clearly deserves.
We are asking Democrats of every stripe, from union workers to bloggers, to join us by e-mailing LNCFE08@gmail.com.
Beginning on Thursday August 16th we are going to contact the decision makers in organized labor and remind them of how much is on the line in this election. A unity endorsement for Senator Edwards will do a lot to move this country towards having the president it deserves. We ask that you contact as many unions as you can as often as you can.
Below we have included some points to make to organized labor if you are not sure what to say.
Points to Make
Note: We also run an information resource blog for Edwards supporters. You can find the general election and Iowa caucus polling that we reference below there, along with essays, comparisons of the major candidates on the leading issues, and the “John Edwards First and Often Only” list. Though it is still under construction, it provides resources that will be helpful when engaging potential Edwards supporters. You can find it here.
Before we get into the discussion about how to deal with some of the myths that currently exist regarding the Democratic nomination and the presidential race in general, let’s take a second to look at the most likely outcomes. Remember that we want the outcome that is best for the future of organized labor, the progressive movement, the Democratic Party, and by extension, the American people.
There is every indication that we are looking at one of the three following outcomes...
1 - Senator Edwards gets a unity endorsement.
2 - The endorsements are divided among Senator Edwards and Senator Clinton.
3 - Few unions endorse, out of fear that they will fall out of favor with the next
president if they endorse the wrong person.
Our goal is to make outcome number 1 a reality. Too much is on the line for it not to be. We are not exaggerating when we say that organized labor’s endorsement decision will dramatically affect the future of the American worker and the American people as a whole.
There is also every indication that, if voting based on whom they want to give the endorsement to, Edwards would receive a unity endorsement. So why has John Edwards not yet received the yet? What stands in our way?
Many unions are concerned about "winnability". They perceive that their survival depends on the next president being a Democrat. If this is the case, it is actually one of the best reasons to endorse Senator Edwards. The focus might be on the nomination right now, but there is a general election that we must win, and Senator Edwards is clearly the most electable Democrat. More on that later.
Too many have bought into the Clinton campaign's spin that her nomination is "inevitable". Unions fear that if they endorse Edwards and Clinton wins the nomination and the presidency, their agenda will be ignored or worse. They are forgetting that Senator Clinton has already made it crystal clear who she stands with in "crunch" time.
The myth that those concerned about "winnability" should support Senator Clinton's candidacy is like Senator Clinton's candidacy itself. It is a house of cards. If you look at it closely, you see that there is nothing to it. Together, we can knock this house of cards down.
Though DC convention wisdom should always be received with skepticism, there are many reasons to believe that the typical analysis of the impact of labor's endorsement is generally accurate. If a candidate receives a unity endorsement, they will receive a huge boost, especially as far as organization is concerned. However, if the endorsements split, or even if a candidate does not receive a very large chunk of the endorsements, the outcome on the race will be far less significant.
This is why Senator Clinton's likely strategy is to either split the endorsements or keep Senator Edwards from receiving the bulk of them. Her strategy hinges on the people of organized labor being too intimidated to do what is right.
Winning the Nomination / Winning the General Election
The "winnability" myth is based on the idea that Senator Clinton’s nomination is “inevitable”. Not only is this idea ridiculous, but it completely ignores the ability to win the general election. If the future of organized labor depends on the next president being a Democrat then it makes no sense to allow the nomination of the candidate that is by far the least electable in a general election setting.
It will be easier to work together to ensure that Senator Edwards is the nominee than it would be for Democrats to try (likely in vain) to get Senator Clinton elected in the general.
But let's leave the general election out of it for a moment.
The truth is that Senator Edwards has a much clearer path to the nomination than the mainstream media would lead you to believe. The grassroots/netroots is beginning to solidify behind Edwards. The most active members of the Democratic Party are with Edwards and he has shown an ability to win over the Democratic primary electorate that is unrivaled. The DNC Winter Meeting, the California Democratic Party convention, the Take Back America conference, and the Tavis Smiley forum on PBS are all examples of Edwards giving a powerful performance that caused him to surpass expectations and make huge gains in in polls or straw polls taken at the event. Edwards has also won numerous straw polls in locations as different as Wisconsin and Los Angeles.
I would imagine that much of the concern about "winnability" stems from national primary polling. The national polls that Senator Clinton's "inevitability" is based on are not accurate measurements of where the Democratic primary electorate stands. Too many non-primary and non-caucus goers are included in the sample. These casual Democrats lean heavily towards Clinton and Obama, the names they know best.
In January 2004, John Kerry went from 10% to 50% in national polls. Two things fueled his rise.
1) The idea that he was the most electable Democrat.
2) His win in Iowa
John Kerry's electability was perception. In the wake of 9/11, Democrats were all afraid that our nominee would be "hawked" to death by President Bush. Senator Edwards' electability is reality. When looking at the totality of 2008 polling it is clear that Edwards is far more electable than any other Democrat. And every Democrat wants to elect a candidate that can win the general election, and win big.
The Democratic nomination is won state by state, as we saw in 2004. John Kerry was behind in New Hampshire, so he bet it all on Iowa, and his victory there had a slingshot effect. It propelled him to victory in New Hampshire, and the Democratic nomination. Let's look at the race state by state...
Iowa Caucus
John Edwards has come in 1st place in every credible poll of the 2008 Iowa Caucus that has ever been taken. Polling has shown that his lead in the state is at least partially due to his lead among union households. This is another reason why a unity endorsement would have such a profound effect on the race.
14 months after the Des Moines Register released the first 2008 Iowa caucus poll Edwards still has a solid lead in Iowa, both in the polls, and as far as organization is concerned. A win in Iowa will change the race entirely. The media will make no distinction between the national front-runner and the Iowa front-runner. Edwards' win in Iowa will be huge news. In fact, it's quite possible that the free media Edwards will receive will match or possibly surpass the value of the free media that Senator Clinton is selling her soul (and her agenda) to K street Lobbyists to pay for.
Nevada Caucus, New Hampshire Primary, South Carolina Primary, Florida Primary Michigan Primary (?), Ohio Primary (?)
Like Iowa, Nevada is a caucus state, and caucuses are usually attended by activists and committed Democrats, instead of the more casual “low-info” Democrats who support Senator Clinton.
Though the order of the caucuses/primaries after Iowa is anything but set in stone one thing is clear. The momentum from winning Iowa will fuel Edwards to victory in Nevada, New Hampshire, and beyond. It is also worth noting that Edwards' operation in New Hampshire is much larger than it was in 2004. In 2004, South Carolina Democrats came home to Edwards in the end, and he won by a large margin. In 2008, he will go into South Carolina with victories already behind him.
The LNCFE is a coalition that brings together the men and women of organized labor, the netroots, and the grassroots for a common cause. Our goal is to secure Senator John Edwards the unity endorsement from organized labor that he so clearly deserves.
We are asking Democrats of every stripe, from union workers to bloggers, to join us by e-mailing LNCFE08@gmail.com.
Beginning on Thursday August 16th we are going to contact the decision makers in organized labor and remind them of how much is on the line in this election. A unity endorsement for Senator Edwards will do a lot to move this country towards having the president it deserves. We ask that you contact as many unions as you can as often as you can.
Below we have included some points to make to organized labor if you are not sure what to say.
Points to Make
Note: We also run an information resource blog for Edwards supporters. You can find the general election and Iowa caucus polling that we reference below there, along with essays, comparisons of the major candidates on the leading issues, and the “John Edwards First and Often Only” list. Though it is still under construction, it provides resources that will be helpful when engaging potential Edwards supporters. You can find it here.
Before we get into the discussion about how to deal with some of the myths that currently exist regarding the Democratic nomination and the presidential race in general, let’s take a second to look at the most likely outcomes. Remember that we want the outcome that is best for the future of organized labor, the progressive movement, the Democratic Party, and by extension, the American people.
There is every indication that we are looking at one of the three following outcomes...
1 - Senator Edwards gets a unity endorsement.
2 - The endorsements are divided among Senator Edwards and Senator Clinton.
3 - Few unions endorse, out of fear that they will fall out of favor with the next
president if they endorse the wrong person.
Our goal is to make outcome number 1 a reality. Too much is on the line for it not to be. We are not exaggerating when we say that organized labor’s endorsement decision will dramatically affect the future of the American worker and the American people as a whole.
There is also every indication that, if voting based on whom they want to give the endorsement to, Edwards would receive a unity endorsement. So why has John Edwards not yet received the yet? What stands in our way?
Many unions are concerned about "winnability". They perceive that their survival depends on the next president being a Democrat. If this is the case, it is actually one of the best reasons to endorse Senator Edwards. The focus might be on the nomination right now, but there is a general election that we must win, and Senator Edwards is clearly the most electable Democrat. More on that later.
Too many have bought into the Clinton campaign's spin that her nomination is "inevitable". Unions fear that if they endorse Edwards and Clinton wins the nomination and the presidency, their agenda will be ignored or worse. They are forgetting that Senator Clinton has already made it crystal clear who she stands with in "crunch" time.
The myth that those concerned about "winnability" should support Senator Clinton's candidacy is like Senator Clinton's candidacy itself. It is a house of cards. If you look at it closely, you see that there is nothing to it. Together, we can knock this house of cards down.
Though DC convention wisdom should always be received with skepticism, there are many reasons to believe that the typical analysis of the impact of labor's endorsement is generally accurate. If a candidate receives a unity endorsement, they will receive a huge boost, especially as far as organization is concerned. However, if the endorsements split, or even if a candidate does not receive a very large chunk of the endorsements, the outcome on the race will be far less significant.
This is why Senator Clinton's likely strategy is to either split the endorsements or keep Senator Edwards from receiving the bulk of them. Her strategy hinges on the people of organized labor being too intimidated to do what is right.
Winning the Nomination / Winning the General Election
The "winnability" myth is based on the idea that Senator Clinton’s nomination is “inevitable”. Not only is this idea ridiculous, but it completely ignores the ability to win the general election. If the future of organized labor depends on the next president being a Democrat then it makes no sense to allow the nomination of the candidate that is by far the least electable in a general election setting.
It will be easier to work together to ensure that Senator Edwards is the nominee than it would be for Democrats to try (likely in vain) to get Senator Clinton elected in the general.
But let's leave the general election out of it for a moment.
The truth is that Senator Edwards has a much clearer path to the nomination than the mainstream media would lead you to believe. The grassroots/netroots is beginning to solidify behind Edwards. The most active members of the Democratic Party are with Edwards and he has shown an ability to win over the Democratic primary electorate that is unrivaled. The DNC Winter Meeting, the California Democratic Party convention, the Take Back America conference, and the Tavis Smiley forum on PBS are all examples of Edwards giving a powerful performance that caused him to surpass expectations and make huge gains in in polls or straw polls taken at the event. Edwards has also won numerous straw polls in locations as different as Wisconsin and Los Angeles.
I would imagine that much of the concern about "winnability" stems from national primary polling. The national polls that Senator Clinton's "inevitability" is based on are not accurate measurements of where the Democratic primary electorate stands. Too many non-primary and non-caucus goers are included in the sample. These casual Democrats lean heavily towards Clinton and Obama, the names they know best.
In January 2004, John Kerry went from 10% to 50% in national polls. Two things fueled his rise.
1) The idea that he was the most electable Democrat.
2) His win in Iowa
John Kerry's electability was perception. In the wake of 9/11, Democrats were all afraid that our nominee would be "hawked" to death by President Bush. Senator Edwards' electability is reality. When looking at the totality of 2008 polling it is clear that Edwards is far more electable than any other Democrat. And every Democrat wants to elect a candidate that can win the general election, and win big.
The Democratic nomination is won state by state, as we saw in 2004. John Kerry was behind in New Hampshire, so he bet it all on Iowa, and his victory there had a slingshot effect. It propelled him to victory in New Hampshire, and the Democratic nomination. Let's look at the race state by state...
Iowa Caucus
John Edwards has come in 1st place in every credible poll of the 2008 Iowa Caucus that has ever been taken. Polling has shown that his lead in the state is at least partially due to his lead among union households. This is another reason why a unity endorsement would have such a profound effect on the race.
14 months after the Des Moines Register released the first 2008 Iowa caucus poll Edwards still has a solid lead in Iowa, both in the polls, and as far as organization is concerned. A win in Iowa will change the race entirely. The media will make no distinction between the national front-runner and the Iowa front-runner. Edwards' win in Iowa will be huge news. In fact, it's quite possible that the free media Edwards will receive will match or possibly surpass the value of the free media that Senator Clinton is selling her soul (and her agenda) to K street Lobbyists to pay for.
Nevada Caucus, New Hampshire Primary, South Carolina Primary, Florida Primary Michigan Primary (?), Ohio Primary (?)
Like Iowa, Nevada is a caucus state, and caucuses are usually attended by activists and committed Democrats, instead of the more casual “low-info” Democrats who support Senator Clinton.
Though the order of the caucuses/primaries after Iowa is anything but set in stone one thing is clear. The momentum from winning Iowa will fuel Edwards to victory in Nevada, New Hampshire, and beyond. It is also worth noting that Edwards' operation in New Hampshire is much larger than it was in 2004. In 2004, South Carolina Democrats came home to Edwards in the end, and he won by a large margin. In 2008, he will go into South Carolina with victories already behind him.
Florida has moved their primary up to the same day as South Carolina. There is talk that Michigan and/or Ohio will do the same, though the conventional wisdom regarding their possible movement seems to change on a daily basis. All of these three states are fertile ground for the Edwards message. They are also three states that will be very concerned with nominating a Democrat who can win the general election.
As we have seen time and time again, the results of the early states shape how the rest of the country votes. Because a large chunk of delegates will be selected on February 5th, it will be hard for a candidate to recuperate from a string of early losses. If organized labor and the grassroots mobilize like we all know that we can, the night of February 5th we will be able to celebrate that our party has nominated the candidate that has stood with union members in the past, and can win the general election so he can stand with them as president.
Now let’s turn to the general election.
John Edwards can win a realignment election that can change the map for a generation, and give a huge boost to down ticket candidates. This is important because if we can increase the majorities in congress we can to pass the legislation that is critical to organized labor.
As we have seen time and time again, the results of the early states shape how the rest of the country votes. Because a large chunk of delegates will be selected on February 5th, it will be hard for a candidate to recuperate from a string of early losses. If organized labor and the grassroots mobilize like we all know that we can, the night of February 5th we will be able to celebrate that our party has nominated the candidate that has stood with union members in the past, and can win the general election so he can stand with them as president.
Now let’s turn to the general election.
John Edwards can win a realignment election that can change the map for a generation, and give a huge boost to down ticket candidates. This is important because if we can increase the majorities in congress we can to pass the legislation that is critical to organized labor.
Though Senator Clinton has had a day in the sun or two, if you look at the totality of general election polling, it is overwhelmingly clear that John Edwards is far more electable than Hillary Clinton.
Statewide polling backs up the large lead that Edwards has over Republican candidates in general election polling. Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado are all likely to go blue with Senator Edwards as the nominee. Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina could also turn Democratic. And for the first time in a long time, states like Georgia and Texas will be up for grabs. In fact, Survey USA has Edwards winning even in states like Texas and Kansas and within striking distance in states like Alabama, even if the Republican nominee is a southerner like Fred Thompson.
It is hard to imagine Senator Clinton keeping her electoral vote count above 250 (270 are needed to win the election. She has problems in the upper Midwest, and polls have shown that if she is the nominee light red states like Colorado become dark red. Polling has shown that Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey will all be in jeopardy if she is the nominee. And with the possible exceptions of Iowa and New Mexico, it's hard to think of a red state that she can turn blue. Senator Edwards on the other hand is poised to hit 350 electoral votes, possibly 400. If Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee, you might as well paint every state but Utah blue.
Corruption was a huge issue in the 2006 mid-terms and it's going to be a huge issue in the 2008 presidential election. Because he is anything but a Washington insider (the out of touch elite in both parties strongly dislike Senator Edwards), and he has never taken a dime from Washington lobbyists, John Edwards is the best candidate in either party to run as the agent of real change in 2008.
The Endorsement Effect
This will be a pivotal moment for organized labor and the Democratic Party. Organized labor asks Democrats to forsake political convenience and convention wisdom, to stand on principle. If they fail to endorse Edwards even though he is clearly the best candidate to represent them, they will be doing the same thing that they ask Democrats not to do. They are asking Democrats to stand on principle and forsake immediate political convenience. How can they do that if they bypass the candidate who is the best for the long-term interests of labor, the progressive movement, and the party out of fear?
Organized labor is clearly concerned about making sure the next president is a Democrat. This is yet another reason why they should do all they can to make sure that they nominate a Democrat who can actually win? If they fail to give Senator Edwards a unity endorsement because of Senator Clinton, and she loses in the general election (which is likely) then future presidential candidates will see no point in paying attention to the agenda of organized labor.
How can unions remind Democrats to value principle over politics if they set such a bad example? And how would not endorsing the candidate that is clearly best for union workers effect the way that future presidential candidates treat the agenda of organized labor? If candidates feel that a ultra-cautious political calculation is going to made in the end, and even if they are clearly the best candidate in the race they won’t receive a union’s endorsement, they are more likely to ignore the agenda of organized labor
Senator Clinton’s campaign is counting on organized labor fearing that their agenda will be ignored if she is elected (which frankly is not likely), unless they give her campaign what it wants. The men and women of organized labor have never allowed themselves to be bullied before, why should they start now? This is not 1993. The grassroots is a lot more vocal and powerful than it was nearly 15 years ago. If a Democratic president ignored the agenda of organized labor they would face sever consequences, likely in the form of a credible primary opponent.
However, all of the hypotheticals regarding what Senator Clinton might do to organized labor if she is elected miss the point. We have a candidate who stands with working Americans, leads on the issues, is running a substantive campaign and can actually beat the Republican nominee and grow Democratic majorities while doing it.
This is not a difficult choice.
The Difference
The choice organized labor is facing could not be more clear.
Senator Clinton is beholden to Washington lobbyists. And frankly, she is far too cozy with the DLC wing of the Democratic Party to be an effective advocate for working men and women. Senator Clinton has done some good things for this country, and many of the attacks on her from the right wing have been unfair. But the American worker needs more than a part time friend.
It is hard to imagine Senator Clinton keeping her electoral vote count above 250 (270 are needed to win the election. She has problems in the upper Midwest, and polls have shown that if she is the nominee light red states like Colorado become dark red. Polling has shown that Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey will all be in jeopardy if she is the nominee. And with the possible exceptions of Iowa and New Mexico, it's hard to think of a red state that she can turn blue. Senator Edwards on the other hand is poised to hit 350 electoral votes, possibly 400. If Mitt Romney is the Republican nominee, you might as well paint every state but Utah blue.
Corruption was a huge issue in the 2006 mid-terms and it's going to be a huge issue in the 2008 presidential election. Because he is anything but a Washington insider (the out of touch elite in both parties strongly dislike Senator Edwards), and he has never taken a dime from Washington lobbyists, John Edwards is the best candidate in either party to run as the agent of real change in 2008.
The Endorsement Effect
This will be a pivotal moment for organized labor and the Democratic Party. Organized labor asks Democrats to forsake political convenience and convention wisdom, to stand on principle. If they fail to endorse Edwards even though he is clearly the best candidate to represent them, they will be doing the same thing that they ask Democrats not to do. They are asking Democrats to stand on principle and forsake immediate political convenience. How can they do that if they bypass the candidate who is the best for the long-term interests of labor, the progressive movement, and the party out of fear?
Organized labor is clearly concerned about making sure the next president is a Democrat. This is yet another reason why they should do all they can to make sure that they nominate a Democrat who can actually win? If they fail to give Senator Edwards a unity endorsement because of Senator Clinton, and she loses in the general election (which is likely) then future presidential candidates will see no point in paying attention to the agenda of organized labor.
How can unions remind Democrats to value principle over politics if they set such a bad example? And how would not endorsing the candidate that is clearly best for union workers effect the way that future presidential candidates treat the agenda of organized labor? If candidates feel that a ultra-cautious political calculation is going to made in the end, and even if they are clearly the best candidate in the race they won’t receive a union’s endorsement, they are more likely to ignore the agenda of organized labor
Senator Clinton’s campaign is counting on organized labor fearing that their agenda will be ignored if she is elected (which frankly is not likely), unless they give her campaign what it wants. The men and women of organized labor have never allowed themselves to be bullied before, why should they start now? This is not 1993. The grassroots is a lot more vocal and powerful than it was nearly 15 years ago. If a Democratic president ignored the agenda of organized labor they would face sever consequences, likely in the form of a credible primary opponent.
However, all of the hypotheticals regarding what Senator Clinton might do to organized labor if she is elected miss the point. We have a candidate who stands with working Americans, leads on the issues, is running a substantive campaign and can actually beat the Republican nominee and grow Democratic majorities while doing it.
This is not a difficult choice.
The Difference
The choice organized labor is facing could not be more clear.
Senator Clinton is beholden to Washington lobbyists. And frankly, she is far too cozy with the DLC wing of the Democratic Party to be an effective advocate for working men and women. Senator Clinton has done some good things for this country, and many of the attacks on her from the right wing have been unfair. But the American worker needs more than a part time friend.
Senator Clinton cannot have it both ways. Especially in politics, you simply cannot serve two masters. Either you serve the American people, or you serve the people lobby for an agenda that is the complete opposite of the agenda of the American worker.
The party of the people should not nominate someone who is out of touch with the struggles of average Americans. Senator Clinton has proven that she is out of touch by surrounding herself with Washington insiders who are as out of touch as it gets. It is troubling enough when a candidate’s pollster is their chief policy advisor. The poll-driven, triangulating, compromising, baby-steps mentality has failed us miserably and will fail us again. But the worst part of Mark Penn being such a powerful force within the Clinton campaign is the union-busting he has taken part in.
The party of the people should not nominate someone who is out of touch with the struggles of average Americans. Senator Clinton has proven that she is out of touch by surrounding herself with Washington insiders who are as out of touch as it gets. It is troubling enough when a candidate’s pollster is their chief policy advisor. The poll-driven, triangulating, compromising, baby-steps mentality has failed us miserably and will fail us again. But the worst part of Mark Penn being such a powerful force within the Clinton campaign is the union-busting he has taken part in.
Penn saying that he does not take part in it himself is not enough. He’s still facilitating it, and that shows a huge lack of commitment to core progressive values and principles. The truth is that Mark
Penn’s union-busting, taking tons of money from Washington lobbyists, and being on the cover of Fortune magazine as the candidate that big business is counting on are all serious issues. If big business is counting on you then the American people cannot count on you.
You cannot fight for big insurance companies, big pharmaceutical companies and Universal health care. It simply does not work like that. Senator Clinton talks about being "everybody's president", but the lobbyists who fund her camp do not represent every American. They represent a select few, and their agenda is to block what is best for the American people so they can continue to concentrate power and wealth among themselves. If Senator Clinton truly wanted to represent "everybody", she would stop taking money from DC lobbyists and decide who she wants to fight for.
And for the record, saying that NAFTA “did not realize its promise” is the understatement of the century. NAFTA has been a complete disaster for this country, and though Senator Clinton has changed her tone regarding the issue, she is still very closely aligned with the very out of touch insiders who brought us NAFTA. Senator Edwards, on the other hand, has always opposed NAFTA.
Big business should not get to decide who the Democratic nominee is. They have made their preference known for quite some time, but they do not control the Democratic Party, and as long as we are breathing, we need to fight to make sure that they lose any power they have in the Democratic Party.
The media should not get to decide who the Democratic nominee is either. They are looking for a Democratic nominee that they can sensationalize and turn into ratings fodder during the general election. Committed Democrats should decide who our nominee is. It is time to take our party and its presidential nomination back.
This is not the party of the corrupt K Street lobbyist.
This is not the party of the DLC hack.
This is not the party of the out of touch talking head.
This is the party of the people.
Penn’s union-busting, taking tons of money from Washington lobbyists, and being on the cover of Fortune magazine as the candidate that big business is counting on are all serious issues. If big business is counting on you then the American people cannot count on you.
You cannot fight for big insurance companies, big pharmaceutical companies and Universal health care. It simply does not work like that. Senator Clinton talks about being "everybody's president", but the lobbyists who fund her camp do not represent every American. They represent a select few, and their agenda is to block what is best for the American people so they can continue to concentrate power and wealth among themselves. If Senator Clinton truly wanted to represent "everybody", she would stop taking money from DC lobbyists and decide who she wants to fight for.
And for the record, saying that NAFTA “did not realize its promise” is the understatement of the century. NAFTA has been a complete disaster for this country, and though Senator Clinton has changed her tone regarding the issue, she is still very closely aligned with the very out of touch insiders who brought us NAFTA. Senator Edwards, on the other hand, has always opposed NAFTA.
Big business should not get to decide who the Democratic nominee is. They have made their preference known for quite some time, but they do not control the Democratic Party, and as long as we are breathing, we need to fight to make sure that they lose any power they have in the Democratic Party.
The media should not get to decide who the Democratic nominee is either. They are looking for a Democratic nominee that they can sensationalize and turn into ratings fodder during the general election. Committed Democrats should decide who our nominee is. It is time to take our party and its presidential nomination back.
This is not the party of the corrupt K Street lobbyist.
This is not the party of the DLC hack.
This is not the party of the out of touch talking head.
This is the party of the people.
This is the party of the American worker, the passionate grassroots activist, and the dedicated blogger.
Senator Edwards is committed to fighting for the American worker and the future of the American people as a whole. He is fighting for the values, the identity, and the heritage of the Democratic Party. He is the progressive populist leader with the bold vision for change that our party has been waiting for. Instead of running a campaign based on hype and myth he is running a substantive campaign based on the issues that affect all of our lives. And for the first time in a long, the Democrat who best represents and communicates our values is also the most electable.
Maybe I should have just taken a page from Dan Wood, a good friend who runs
Deaniacs for Edwards and summed it up like this…
John Edwards 08’ - Progressive. Electable.
This is the time for the grassroots of the Democratic Party to take a stand.
Make no mistake about it. We are talking about the very future of organized labor, the progressive movement, the Democratic Party, and the American people. So let’s work together, let’s get involved, and let’s get Senator Edwards the unity endorsement from organized labor that he deserves, so we can have the president that we deserve.
Too much is on the line for us not to act, and the choice could not be clearer.
Senator Edwards is committed to fighting for the American worker and the future of the American people as a whole. He is fighting for the values, the identity, and the heritage of the Democratic Party. He is the progressive populist leader with the bold vision for change that our party has been waiting for. Instead of running a campaign based on hype and myth he is running a substantive campaign based on the issues that affect all of our lives. And for the first time in a long, the Democrat who best represents and communicates our values is also the most electable.
Maybe I should have just taken a page from Dan Wood, a good friend who runs
Deaniacs for Edwards and summed it up like this…
John Edwards 08’ - Progressive. Electable.
This is the time for the grassroots of the Democratic Party to take a stand.
Make no mistake about it. We are talking about the very future of organized labor, the progressive movement, the Democratic Party, and the American people. So let’s work together, let’s get involved, and let’s get Senator Edwards the unity endorsement from organized labor that he deserves, so we can have the president that we deserve.
Too much is on the line for us not to act, and the choice could not be clearer.
Contact Organized Labor
Email: webmaster@usw.org
Phone: (412) 562-2400
United Steelworkers
Five Gateway Center
Pittsburgh PA 15222
National Education Association (NEA)
http://www.nea.org/aboutnea/contact.html
AFL - CIO
E-mail form: http://www.aflcio.org/siteguides/contactus.cfm
AFL - CIO
815 16th St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
AFSCME
E-mail form: http://www.afscme.org/forms/contact_us.cfm
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO
1625 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5687
Tel: (202) 429-1000
TTY: (202) 659-0446
FAX: (202) 429-1293
AFT (American Federation of Teachers)
E-mail form: http://www.aft.org/contactus/index.cfm
American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO
555 New Jersey Ave. N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: (202) 879-4400
Go to http://www.aflcio.org/aboutus/unions/ for contact information for the following AFL-CIO unions.
Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA)
Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU)
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE)
American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada (AFM)
American Federation of School Administrators (AFSA)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
American Postal Workers Union (APWU)
American Radio Association (ARA)
American Train Dispatchers Department (ATDD)
Associated Actors and Artistes of America (4As)
Actors' Equity Association (AEA)
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA)
American Guild of Musical Artists (AGMA)
American Guild of Variety Artists (AGVA)
Hebrew Actors' Union Inc.
Screen Actors Guild (SAG)
The Guild of Italian American Actors (GIAA)
Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM)
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS)
California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee (CNA/NNOC)
California School Employees Association (CSEA)
Communications Workers of America (CWA)
Association of Flight Attendants (AFA-CWA)
Farm Labor Organizing Committee (FLOC)
Federation of Professional Athletes (Professional Athletes)
Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics and Allied Workers International Union (GMP)
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employes, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States, Its Territories and Canada (IATSE)
International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers (Iron Workers)
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF)
International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers (AWIU)
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM)
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers (IBB)
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)
International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE)
International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU)
International Longshoremen's Association (ILA)
International Plate Printers, Die Stampers and Engravers Union of North America
International Union of Allied Novelty and Production Workers (Novelty and Production Workers)
International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers (BAC)
International Union of Elevator Constructors (IUEC)
International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE)
International Union of Painters and Allied Trades of the United States and Canada (Painters and Allied Trades)
International Union of Police Associations (IUPA)
Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association (MEBA)
Professional Airways Systems Specialists (PASS)
National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA)
National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC)
National Postal Mail Handlers Union (NPMHU)
Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU)
Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International Association of the United States and Canada (OP&CMIA)
Seafarers International Union of North America (SIU)
Sheet Metal Workers International Association (SMWIA)
Transport Workers Union of America (TWU)
Transportation Communications International Union/IAM (TCU/IAM)
United American Nurses (UAN)
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada (UA)
United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America International Union (UAW)
United Mine Workers of America (UMWA)
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union (USW)
United Transportation Union (UTU)
United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers (Roofers and Waterproofers)
Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA)
Writers Guild of America, East Inc. (WGAE)
Change To Win
E-mail: info@changetowin.org
1900 L Street, NW Suite 900
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 721-0660
Fax: (202) 721-0661
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
1800 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
National Capital Area: 202-730-7000
Toll-free: 800-424-8592
Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA)
http://www.liuna.org/contactus.htm
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
25 Louisiana Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20001
UNITE HERE
E-mail form: http://www.unitehere.org/contactus/
UNITE HERE Headquarters
275 7th Avenue
New York, NY 10001-6708
Tel. 212-265-7000
United Farm Workers of America (UFW)
E-mail: execoffice@ufw.org
UFW National Headquarters
P.O. Box 62
29700 Woodford-Tehachapi Road
Keene, CA 93531
Phone: (661) 823-6250
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (UBC)
http://www.carpenters.org/home.html
United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW)
http://www.ufcw.org/about_ufcw/contact_us/
Monday, August 13, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
