Oregon for Edwards steering committee announced
In a statement released today, Senator John Edwards announced his Oregon campaign steering committee today.
Oregon for Edwards will be co-chaired by State Senator Margaret Carter (D-Portland) and Robert Stoll, a long-time Democratic activist and trial lawyer. Senator Carter co-chaired the Clinton '92 and Clinton '96 campaigns, and Bob Stoll co-chaired the Kerry-Edwards '04 campaign.
From the statement:
“I am glad to have the support of Margaret Carter, Robert Stoll and all these important Oregon leaders,” said Edwards. “I look forward to working with them to address the critical issues facing our nation and to fundamentally change America.” ..."I support John Edwards because he is the only candidate that boldly stands up to an issue America wants to hear about and that is poverty,” said Carter. “It takes courage and conviction to do that."
[Stoll said,] “John Edwards impresses me because of his clear vision, forthright and clear position on the most important issues facing our country: getting the US out of the Iraq civil war; having a country and world divided between those who have much and those who don’t; and honesty and integrity in our government."
In addition, the campaign team will include:
* Beth Bernard, executive director for Oregon Trial Lawyers Association.
* Peter Bragdon, vice president of Columbia Sportswear, and former chief of staff to Governor Ted Kulongoski.
* Kari Chisholm, president of Mandate Media.
* Jesse Cornett, vice-chair of the Democratic Party of Oregon.
* Kevin Looper, political consultant and campaign director for America Votes Oregon '04.
* Homer Williams, urban developer.
Donate via the Oregon for Edwards page on ActBlue here.
|
March 20, 2007
Posted in in the news 2007. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
3:31 p.m.
Mar 20, '07
An important reminder:
While Jesse Cornett and I may be supporting Senator Edwards, BlueOregon has been and will continue to be a neutral site in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary -- much as it was during the 2006 gubernatorial primary.
We've previously announced the Obama for Oregon effort, and haven't yet heard from any of the other campaigns about their Oregon efforts - but will be happy to announce them when they're underway.
3:40 p.m.
Mar 20, '07
Last Wednesday, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ducked the question of whether they agree with Peter Pace that homosexuality is immoral (Obama was asked three times and refused to respond). Edwards was the only one who gave a straight answer (pun intended), reaffirming, for me, that Edwards is the best candidate. (To be fair, John Warner gave a good answer more emphatically even that Edwards did.) Hillary and Obama did issue statements the next day that they disagreed with Pace, presumably after their pollsters told them that Americans are pretty evenly split on the issue (51 immoral, 44 not immoral) so it's not too dangerous a position to take.
3:45 p.m.
Mar 20, '07
Kari--
So do you think you could give the campaign some advice on collecting and using e-mails? ; )
They once again e-mailed the address that I asked to be removed in '04 after they collected it from a Generation Dean web site.
3:58 p.m.
Mar 20, '07
I like Edwards and Obama, but to me they are both very similar candidates: Lightweight populist one term Senators with little experience, but with good looks and lots of charisma.
Personally, I prefer someone with real credentials, experience, and good policy ideas, even if he/she isn't the best looking or the most charismatic public speaker. Someone like New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, or even Hillary.
I'm not a fan of populism. To me, populism means ideas that pander to what works politically, which usually means it's a bad idea policy wise. I much prefer ideas that are actually good policies, even if they aren't necessarily political winners right now.
It takes real leadership to turn good policy ideas into ideas that are winners politically. Populists are followers that pander to public opinion to get elected, and then implement half baked and poorly thought out policies simply because they are political winners and they don't have the stomach to lead anyone in the direction of truely good policy.
Mar 20, '07
Thanks to Mr. Novick for relaying the remarks, or lack thereof, by Edwards, Clinton, and Obama regarding General Pace. Frankly, I favor none of them, but it's always good to know how frequently each candidate checks his/her weather vane before answering a simple question.
Mar 20, '07
homer williams??
so what are you guys going to be doing in the next few months?
Mar 20, '07
"Populists are followers that pander to public opinion to get elected, and then implement half baked and poorly thought out policies simply because they are political winners..."
Wow. That's your definition of a populist? (Sounds like 90% of all politicians to me... but anyway.) I'd always believed populism was, as my dictionary states:
A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.
From Answers.com:
Which is exactly why, I agree with Margaret Carter when she said: "I support John Edwards because he is the only candidate that boldly stands up to an issue America wants to hear about and that is poverty."
I'm sorry, but it DOES take courage and conviction to do that. To stand for the common man against the power elite. And he is the only one who is making this issue a primary part of his campaign.
Zman, you wrote: "It takes real leadership to turn good policy ideas into ideas that are winners politically."
I'd say you have that exactly backwards. I don't want somebody dreaming up "good policy ideas" and then trying to convince me that's what I need. Not if it means that what the people want and need takes a back seat to effective policy. I take a pretty dim view of that paternalistic attitude.
IMHO, it takes a real leader to turn political winners into good policy ideas. Not the other way around.
5:22 p.m.
Mar 20, '07
While Jesse Cornett and I may be supporting Senator Edwards, BlueOregon has been and will continue to be a neutral site in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary -- much as it was during the 2006 gubernatorial primary.
There's at least one BlueOregonian whose mind is not yet made up. Okay, not completely made up. Hillary's out.
5:37 p.m.
Mar 20, '07
i don't know what America Margaret Carter listens to, but the America i see around me doesn't appear to give a rat's ass about poverty. the last thing America wants to hear about is poverty. it's ugly, it eats bad food (or none at all), and it doesn't buy the right clothing. not to mention, as God's New Chosen Land, poverty in America can exist for one reason alone: godlessness.
we have to resources to wipe out poverty now, and for the future, but too few Americans give enough of a damn. between fear (that profits the military-industrial complex), anti-tax/anti-government "libertariansim" (that profits the rich) and the absurd belief that "i could be rich one day, too), the will to address this issue simply does not exist.
i'm glad Edwards is taking a stand and raising his voice; i hope his campaign lasts until the convention so he can continue to make the case that America needs to wake up. poverty is a horrible evil, the more so because it's so easily resolvable. but it's not enough to get him elected. in 2008, America is going to be looking for someone to restore hope, and that's just one reason i am supporting Obama.
Mar 20, '07
We are really hoping Hillary get's the nomination. It's time for a WOMAN to president. MEN simply cause war. We need PEACE, not death and destruction. Also FREE HEALTH CARE will be provided to amerikans.
Mar 20, '07
"Homer Williams, urban developer." A man of the people, at least those living in $650K condos.
"i'm glad Edwards is taking a stand and raising his voice;" Puh-leeze, he is using the platform of poverty as a prop to garner votes. He won't do anything besides cry about how there are two classes and then he will hop in his limo and go to either his $30M or $5M house.
I honestly think only Hillary has the intelligence to do something among this bunch.
Mar 20, '07
I'm not going to criticize any of the other candidates, but I do note that only Edwards has released a detailed health insurance proposal, and it's a good one, as it would force the insurance companies to compete with a Medicare for all program, and let the people determine the winner. It's a great proposal.
Edwards is also the only candidate in either party to commit to an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 (he committed to it in response to a question at Howard University). This is precisely what the best science says is required.
And, Edwards simply and forthrightly admits he was wrong to support the war.
I think that the Democratic Party could do much, much worse than to nominate and elect someone with the intelligence to analyze tough cases, and the persuasiveness to persuade southern juries to give money to tort victims harmed by corporations. THAT takes skill and determination.
(My first choice, Gore, hasn't announced. In the meantime, I see Edwards as an excellent choice.)
Mar 20, '07
Speaking of presidential preferences, this would be an EXCELLENT opportunity to run a continuing IRV poll about the Democratic presidential candiates on this site.
Mar 20, '07
With a May primary presidential primary in Oregon is any of this going to matter? Won't it be decided by then?
Mar 20, '07
Just wanted to chime in and let you all know that - not to worry - John Edwards MEGA-Mansion is "Carbon Neutral":
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070320125451.aspx
"Edwards also avoided how he holds himself to one standard but wants to hold businesses to another. As anchor Miles O’Brien put it: “One of the keys to your plan is the so-called cap plan which would institute, as it suggests, caps on the amount of carbon dioxide industry can put into the environment.”
Do as I say, Not as I do?
8:01 p.m.
Mar 20, '07
With a May primary presidential primary in Oregon is any of this going to matter? Won't it be decided by then?
There's so much front-loading this year, it seems to me that we could have a primary season that could extend into the convention.
Kudos to Edwards. He has certainly lined up a top-notch group of organizers, money people, etc here in Oregon.
8:05 p.m.
Mar 20, '07
There's also a work session tomorrow on a bill that would allow the SOS to set the date of the presidential primary.
There's quite a push to move to Feb 5th. If that happens, we'd actually be the second voting in the nation.
8:31 p.m.
Mar 20, '07
Madam Hatter: Which is exactly why, I agree with Margaret Carter when she said: "I support John Edwards because he is the only candidate that boldly stands up to an issue America wants to hear about and that is poverty."
I unfortunately, can't agree to that overheated rhetoric. The only candidate? Insofar as I can tell, if you ask every candidate about poverty, they're all for reducing it. Even Republicans claim to. (They just argue about how.)
And if you talk to only the Democrats, most agree in general on the way to go about doing that: reverse the decades long Republican plutocratic policies.
That said, Edwards isn't responsible for the comments of his supporters. He's a good person, as are the other strong candidates we have this season, Mrs. Clinton, Barak Obama, and Bill Richardson.
Mar 20, '07
What's your point, Ted? Carbon neutral is widely used to mean just that--minimizing CO2 emissions and offsetting the remainder.
9:16 p.m.
Mar 20, '07
I unfortunately, can't agree to that overheated rhetoric. The only candidate? Insofar as I can tell, if you ask every candidate about poverty, they're all for reducing it. Even Republicans claim to. (They just argue about how.)
Isn't there a difference between opposing poverty -- which every candidate claims to do -- and making a conversation about poverty a centerpiece in you political campaign -- what Edwards is doing?
I don't see Madam Hatter's rhetoric as terribly overheated on that point.
9:49 p.m.
Mar 20, '07
An IRV poll has been done already, look in the older posts.
My guess is that average Blue Oregon readers (who are probably more informed then most) have already picked someone or are leaning in a certain direction.
I like Jeff haven't made up my mind (except the fact I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton). I'm open to listening to both Obama and Edwards.
That being said, I think Blue Oregon should try to stay neutral in terms of supporting any candidates. I've seen ads for almost all of the candidates on the Democrats side, which is a good way to let people know they can get involved.
We don't know at this point whether the nominee will be decided on Feb 5th or whether it will take longer. My hope is that the nomination won't be won until at least late March so that most states get some say in what will happen.
10:40 p.m.
Mar 20, '07
That being said, I think Blue Oregon should try to stay neutral in terms of supporting any candidates. I've seen ads for almost all of the candidates on the Democrats side, which is a good way to let people know they can get involved.
As we've said many times, BlueOregon won't endorse any candidates. We won't even go out for donuts.
Mar 20, '07
Yes, an IRV poll was done once, for a totally different purpose.
But since there WILL only be one nominee standing at the end, IRV would be perfect for this application, since we will all likely have to consider (at least momentarily) who ELSE we might be supporting before all this is done.
4:12 a.m.
Mar 21, '07
BlueOregon won't endorse any candidates.
Fair enough.
And while I'm leaning towards Edwards myself, can someone explain why, uh, Homer Williams?
With all due respect to Homer, who I don't personally know, he's certainly become a lightning rod for a lot of what people feel is going wrong with Portland, which is turning our backs on existing neighborhoods and throwing resource after resource into new development...with Homer's condos and projects --with heavy public subsidies-- seemingly everywhere you turn.
I'm willing to listen with an open mind, but I don't know that the Edwards Campaign couldn't find a more controversial figure to be representing the business/development community.
Honestly, my response to reading the post about the formation of the Edwards steering committee went from "cool" to "what?" in the ten seconds it took to read. And from reading the comments, I'm apparently not the only one.
Mar 21, '07
Jean Fitzgerald said: "We are really hoping Hillary get's the nomination. It's time for a WOMAN to president. MEN simply cause war. We need PEACE, not death and destruction. Also FREE HEALTH CARE will be provided to amerikans."
I can't wait to have a woman president someday soon, but I don't want her to be Hillary Clinton. Hillary voted for the Iraq war, so I don't see her as the peace candidate. She was also one of the longest Democratic hold-outs on admitting that she was wrong to do so.
Edwards voted the wrong way on this war, but at least he figured out the error in his ways much sooner than the American people figured out that Bush was full of it.
I had the opportunity to meet Edwards last year. He is a very different candidate this time. He seems less concerned with trying to live by the polls and most concerned with stopping this race to the bottom that the people in our country are stuck right in the middle of.
I know people got tired of hearing his story of rising up out of poverty to the place where he is today, but we all need to hear more stories like his. They especially need to be told to the poor in our nation today - because they aren't seeing the same opportunities and the same possibilities that used to exist.
I truly miss those days, in our country when somebody could be born in to poverty and still rise above it all to live the American Dream. There are many working poor families in this country who just dream to stay alive and feed their kids at least one meal a day.
There are young men and women signing up to go to Iraq because it's the only way they can make $1200 a month plus benefits for them and their family. It is the only way they can pay for higher education (if they make it back alive and mentally well enough to function). In poor neighborhoods throughout our country, there is a poverty draft. With the education people have received and the lack of family wage jobs where they live, that is the best they can do to give their family any hope.
Poverty is the one single factor you can link to all of our other serious problems in this nation. If we solve the problem of poverty and take care of our own, put money in to education and innovation instead of bombs and companies that move their headquarters to Dubai, we will all be amazed by what we can accomplish. Edwards seems to be the candidate that gets that.
Mar 21, '07
Well at least he's reaching out to a diverse group from across the state and not just relying on Portland kingmakers.
Oh, whoops...so much for the rest of us.
Mar 21, '07
It appears from his recent news interview that he is the most capable man to lead us on a path to enery independence.
He stated that it only costs him $300-400/month in utility bills to power his 28,000 square foot mansion.
Even with turning off the lights, using long lasting lightbulbs, and turning off the power at night and sleeping under an extra blanket, my 1900 square foot home comsumes $110.00 or so in power expense.
Obviously, John Edwards is far more frugal, and environmentally intelligent, than any of us.
He is apparently very honest and transparent; being willing to share with us his power bill and a few of his tips (we use energy efficient devices in our home).
Let's give Senator Edwards a big, green, round of applause!
Mar 21, '07
I'm sure Edwards will have the full support of his team until (SURPRISE! [wink]) Al Gore officially announces his presidential bid. All bets will be off then and Edwards & Obama will be quickly relegated to potential VP candidates. When will this momentous event occur? Only those at Gore 2008 campaign headquarters know for sure. Someone should start a pool.
Mar 21, '07
"Last Wednesday, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ducked the question of whether they agree with Peter Pace that homosexuality is immoral (Obama was asked three times and refused to respond). Edwards was the only one who gave a straight answer (pun intended)"
To also be fair, Gov. Bill Richardson also flattly disagreed with Gen. Pace's morality comment.
Mar 21, '07
Hillary's policy statements about Iraq and health care are not at all encouraging. If elected she plans to leave a sizeable military force for many years to come and thus continue the occupation indefinitely. In my view that is not"ending the war." She also puts off implementing any plan for universal health care until a second term, assuming she would have one.
Mar 21, '07
Thank you Sal. That's exactly what I was getting at.
Of course, every pol is going to say they're against poverty. It's kind of like every Miss America contestant saying they want world peace. But to actually keep the conversation going, to make it a "centerpiece in you political campaign," as Sal wrote, is unique among candidates - from any party.
And I greatly admire Edwards' background as well as his record as an attorney. I think its extremely duplicitous of anyone to criticize him for his wealth. As Sadie wrote, isn't that the kind of success story we are all told we should be able to expect in this great country of ours? That if we go to school, work hard and keep our noses clean, EVERYONE has the opportunity to pull him or herself up by their bootstraps.
I know that's the America I grew up in. And I also know that its not that way anymore. Ther really are two Americas here, and I've been a supporter of Edwards' ever since I learned he had the guts to keep talking about it.
Mar 21, '07
Ominous news.. Edwards has cancelled campaign appearance and is appearing with his wife tomorrow (thurs.) at a news conference. She's just had a check up so it doesn't sound good. Any inside information? It would be a terrible loss should he drop out.
9:10 p.m.
Mar 21, '07
I just saw that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/us/politics/21cnd-edwards.html
DAMN. I hope it's not that bad.
10:40 p.m.
Mar 21, '07
With all due respect to Homer, who I don't personally know, he's certainly become a lightning rod for a lot of what people feel is going wrong with Portland
I don't speak for John Edwards, and I don't speak for Homer Williams - but let's just make one thing clear (though it should be obvious):
Homer Williams is endorsing John Edwards. John Edwards is not endorsing Homer Williams.
Just because Homer's decided he wants to support John Edwards, doesn't make Edwards responsible for anything bad (or good) that Homer is alleged to have done -- any more than John Edwards is responsible for anything bad or good I've done here at BlueOregon.
Mar 22, '07
Kari, can you tell us which Portland developer John Edwards does endorse?
Mar 22, '07
John Edwards endorses Breck hair shampoo. He is their new model.
Mar 22, '07
Doesn't matter all that much...looks like Edwards will be "suspending" his campaign sometime this morning. I think that its the right thing for him to do as much as I'd like to see him continue to run.
Mar 22, '07
Yikes...no sooner do I say that then Edwards comes out and says he's staying in the race even though his wife's cancer is back and not curable.
1:09 p.m.
Mar 22, '07
"Not curable" but also not a death sentence. Dr. Bernadine Healy pointed out on MSNBC that the particular sort of cancer can be treated - and people can live 20-30 years with it.
1:31 p.m.
Mar 22, '07
Madam Hatter:
I guess what I object to are typical populist solutions to problems, rather than the goals. You talk about supporting populist goals, and then Steven Maurer correctly points out that just about everyone supports goals such as eliminating or reducing poverty - the debate is about how best to accomplish this.
To me, whether or not a candidate makes poverty reduction the central theme of their campaign or not means very little to me, in the absense of a specific and practical plan to achieve this. I don't care how strongly someone feels about the issue of poverty or any other issue. It doesn't do much good if they care deeply about something but want to implement misguided policies that will be ineffective or do more harm than good. What matters is their judgement to recommend good policies and the skill to actually get them implemented.
I tend to see populism as being all about rhetoric and charisma withoug being backed up by sound policies and skill in getting anything done. Populism is often more about grandstanding and sounding good while trying to implement the wrong solutions or not being able to get anything done.
Effective and sound policy ideas often are not political winners because they are often percieved as bitter medicine rather than the subsidies and handouts that people want to hear about.
For example, giving subsides and tax breaks for ethanol production is a populist idea that is a political winner, but is actually a bad policy idea. It's a bad idea because ethanol takes about as much energy to create as you get out of it, and ends up driving up the price of corn, hurting farmers in Mexico. It's costly to taxpayers and is an example of politicians trying to pick technological winners via subsides and tax breaks rather than letting the market and consumers determine the best technology and fuels over time.
But it's a political winner because farmers here in the US like how it drives up the price of corn, and gives them a market to sell more corn. It sounds like it is good for the environment but really isn't.
In contrast, putting a tax on carbon emissions would be a great policy that would create an economic incentive for everyone to phase away from fossil fuels while promoting clean renewable energy technologies. It doesn't pick which new technology would be the winner, it would just create a disincentive for carbon emissions. The tax could be offset by tax reductions elsewhere if desired.
But the carbon tax is a political loser because it is a tax, and people have allergic reactions to new taxes, no matter how economically sound they might be. They would rather get handouts and tax breaks, even if they are less efficient and sound economically.
Mar 23, '07
Coming to this discussion pretty late, but as a co-editor here at Blue Oregon, I'm with Jeff and have yet to commit to a candidate. I continue to be impressed with Edwards, and am attending a lunch in Tampa next month my family's hosting for Barack Obama. It's still early -- and we've got some great choices. And one not-so-hot choice.
Most importantly, we'll cover the Presidential race (with disclosures when appropriate) but will not be making any endorsements as a site.
Mar 23, '07
Wondering if anyone knows if Edwards plan on filing a lawsuit against those who caused his wife's cancer? There's mounting evidence that this cancer has it's roots in groundwater polution and could most likely be the result of chemical dumping. Just an FYI - as I do not know what action Edwards team is planning.