I'm sitting here in a hotel room in Delware, the state known for a tax-free holiday, any day of the week, any week of the year for any good you need - or want - to consume. Delaware, the state of Joe "let's divide all these folks up in Iraq to solve our problems" Biden (and after driving through downtown Dover today, I can tell ya - dividing folks up by ethnic group is something that struck me as being something organic in this state).
This is the state of the DuPont family, the folks that made their money off of chemicals and death-in-the-form-of-selling-gunpowder. It's the state of the super rich, who own multiple mansions...and the super poor, like Phillip Reid, an 18-year-old walking down the 1400 block of W Forth Street in Wilmington when he was shot dead by a 17-year-old stranger who passed him on the sidewalk and said, "You got a problem?" (In Section B of "The News Journal" today - yes, I'm referencing newsprint!)
Yesterday, my husband and I took our kids to a local Chick-fil-A (they don't have these in New England so whenever we travel to more southernly climes we try to stuff our faces with these heavenly, fatty, fried chicken sandwiches. And sweet tea). Our children are young, and so moving them physically around can generally be somewhat of a challenge. This time an older woman with her teenage daughter saw us struggling between a stroller and a four-year-old, attempting to get both of them going in the same direction, so she took pity on us and opened the door to help us herd the little ones inside.
She briefly smiled at my husband and said, "Don't put your kids in public school. Been there, done that. It was a disaster."
Yes, it was an odd thing to say in front of her own teenage daughter. Yes, it was even odder in that it was a complete nonsequitor, without any lead-in, without any conversation about schools, or kids, or anything.
Here's the even odder thing: when you look at the statistics of public school rankings nationwide, Delaware as a whole isn't that bad. It's ranked #7 in spending per pupil, and average academic achievement is generally above national percentages (with huge disparities between white students and all other minorities, it should be noted - link here: http://www.all4ed.org/states2/Delaware.p df)
That got me thinking about how we look at money and public institutions. I'm a self-described liberal - progressive, even - and most of us on this side of the political spectrum love the idea of public institutions. Public parks. Public libraries. Public schools. And public - or universal - healthcare. But there are some of us at times (and I don't exclude myself from this assessment) who like the idea of the public institution more than the reality of it. Sure, public parks are great...but sometimes you just want to have the nice, expensive treehouse-slide-swingset-fort playcenter in your own backyard. Yeah, public schools are wonderful institutions...as long as I live in the right neighborhood. If I'm "pioneering", you know my kid's going to that nice private school down the road.
Public institutions are looked upon in this country too many times as places of last resort. In fairness, more often than not they are. But should they be?
The people who built the original colonial towns in this country built them with greenspace. Either a commons, or a town green, or some area around which the main business of the community could be conducted. People could interact with each other. Sometimes, it was used for a collective place to graze your cattle, or hang people. Sometimes the best and the worst of the community was on display in these areas. But it was a public place that the public used, and it was a vital part of the community...and not just some area that those desperate people utilized because it was their last resort.
All of this leads me to John Edwards and his decision to use public campaign financing. Serious politicians aren't supposed to use public financing now, not if they "really want to win". Only if you're desperate, only if this is a complete area of last resort, is one supposed to use this imperfect public institution as a means to become President and help set an agenda for all of our imperfect public institutions.
And we want to know why our government doesn't work for us. Hmmmmm....
Edwards is a rich guy. Not only that, his campaign has raised some serious dough - more, I might add, than a good number of his Republican counterparts. But all of us on the left, all of us who want to protect and expand our public institutions have been sold the meme of the "money primary", that somehow "most electible" means "person with the most campaign cash". Not best ideas. Not best strategies to move the country forward. Not even best in running against candidates from the other party in the general election.
Just...cash. Money. Mulah. The almighty dollar-ino.
Personally, I think we need to change the way we look at this whole thing, if we believe in Martin Luther King's admonition that your ends are in your means. Maybe, just maybe, Edwards - this independently wealthy guy of $400 haircut fame - took a look at this insane methodology we're using to pick our presidents and thought to himself, "You know, I could either run on money or on people and ideas. Let's just go the public campaign financing route." I don't know if this was the thought process - I've never spoken to the man before in my life. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was.
It's never too late to change, and it's never too late to do the right thing. I'm glad Edwards took this step, even if it is somewhat late in the game. I'm not saying that all of the other candidates have to "join him", far from it.
But maybe they - and we - should step back and think about how this process has been corrupted. Maybe we should consider how this affects our country if our ends are in our means.
Maybe we should really start being the change we want to see.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Saturday, September 15, 2007
John Edwards and Our Interconnected, Post-9/11 World
It's a dark, cool fall night in New England, where the diningroom/computer room/throughway to the kitchen/kids art area has finally ceased of all the activity it can handle within its modest 9' x 12' walls. Our family struggles with two small children, one of whom likely has mild autism. As parents our minds agitate over every bill, our souls rejoice over every word our children speak. Trapped in a house that we cannot sell in this current real estate market, we gird ourselves against the here-and-now and focus on the future.
We are like every other family on our block, and all of these families are interconnected with famililes from Great Britain, and Iraq, and North Korea, and Russia, and South Africa. What affects our one family directly affects all of these other families indirectly, and what these far-away families experience directly affects us indirectly.
To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., we are tied in the inescapable bonds of mutuality.
September is one of the hardest months for me, as it reminds me of younger days when my husband and I were DINKS (double-income no kids). Where was I on 9/11? I was in an up-and-coming, African American suburb of Atlanta, Georgia, working what many would consider a dream job: matching my professional talents with my passion for social justice.
On 9/11, I was on the phone, strong-arming a business executive, using an opening he had left wide-open for me to exploit. I was focused, shutting out the bright blue sky and crisp morning air outside my office so that only he and I existed in this moment in time. In tense negotiations, we were discussing the possibility of his company sponsoring an educational program on nonviolence...
...then the first plane hit.
We couldn't ever pick up that conversation again. It wasn't that we didn't understand its importance, it's just...well, let's say a lot of things went undone after 9/11. Best to put them away, try to hide the sensory memory of the experience.
I eventually left that job and wandered through this world, raising my children, having more conversations with more people about more money and what I would and would not do for them. But always, I carried in the back of my mind the memory of that day, the thick-as-mud irony of my small attempt to spread the message of nonviolence right when the World Trade Center was attacked.
The dark ironies seemed to continue: a cynical use of a national tragedy to play "Democracy dominoes" in the Middle East by attacking Iraq; our national leader declaring "you're either with us or against us" (and giving one the sinking sensation that - in addition to France and Russia - he meant you); a hooded man, arms akimbo, wires dripping off his body as if he was some decorative indoor palm tree in a shopping mall just waiting for the Christmas lights to be turned on.
Martin Luther King viewed the world through the lense of what he termed the "triple evils" of society: racism, poverty and war. It was in the middle of my wandering through my daily life that I encountered this message that gave me hope, that made me think, "Wow. Here's finally a presidential candidate who knew what King was actually talking about":
Being the jaded, research geek that I am, I dug deeper. I found his policies on poverty: http://johnedwards.com/issues/poverty/ and universal health care: http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/ . And I started to notice something: this guy's policies were all interconnected. This wasn't politics-by-laundry-list. This was the beginnings of a coherent strategy to take on King's triple evils proactively, to start the process of true justice by using the tools of our sometimes-corrupt-but-still-accountable Democratic system.
Over time, either the policies grew or my knowledge of them did, but I discovered the same consistency in John Edwards' stance on labor: http://johnedwards.com/issues/working-families/ (King, by the way, was an unabashed supporter of unions and organized labor) as well as the environment: http://johnedwards.com/issues/energy/ .
Recently, he's put out a plan to combat terrorism that is the closest I think one can realistically get to protecting our country by not just going after global terrorists structures but also the root causes of terrorism:
All of this has made me very hopeful that maybe, just maybe, we'll have a Presidential candidate that can implement not just King's words, but his policies.
Maybe John Edwards, once elected, would fall short on that. Maybe the realpolitik of Washington would crush his progressive policies and my soaring expectations. If so, he's got one seriously jaded, vocal blogger on his hands.
But I think at least he deserves a chance.
We are like every other family on our block, and all of these families are interconnected with famililes from Great Britain, and Iraq, and North Korea, and Russia, and South Africa. What affects our one family directly affects all of these other families indirectly, and what these far-away families experience directly affects us indirectly.
To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., we are tied in the inescapable bonds of mutuality.
September is one of the hardest months for me, as it reminds me of younger days when my husband and I were DINKS (double-income no kids). Where was I on 9/11? I was in an up-and-coming, African American suburb of Atlanta, Georgia, working what many would consider a dream job: matching my professional talents with my passion for social justice.
On 9/11, I was on the phone, strong-arming a business executive, using an opening he had left wide-open for me to exploit. I was focused, shutting out the bright blue sky and crisp morning air outside my office so that only he and I existed in this moment in time. In tense negotiations, we were discussing the possibility of his company sponsoring an educational program on nonviolence...
...then the first plane hit.
We couldn't ever pick up that conversation again. It wasn't that we didn't understand its importance, it's just...well, let's say a lot of things went undone after 9/11. Best to put them away, try to hide the sensory memory of the experience.
I eventually left that job and wandered through this world, raising my children, having more conversations with more people about more money and what I would and would not do for them. But always, I carried in the back of my mind the memory of that day, the thick-as-mud irony of my small attempt to spread the message of nonviolence right when the World Trade Center was attacked.
The dark ironies seemed to continue: a cynical use of a national tragedy to play "Democracy dominoes" in the Middle East by attacking Iraq; our national leader declaring "you're either with us or against us" (and giving one the sinking sensation that - in addition to France and Russia - he meant you); a hooded man, arms akimbo, wires dripping off his body as if he was some decorative indoor palm tree in a shopping mall just waiting for the Christmas lights to be turned on.
Martin Luther King viewed the world through the lense of what he termed the "triple evils" of society: racism, poverty and war. It was in the middle of my wandering through my daily life that I encountered this message that gave me hope, that made me think, "Wow. Here's finally a presidential candidate who knew what King was actually talking about":
Being the jaded, research geek that I am, I dug deeper. I found his policies on poverty: http://johnedwards.com/issues/poverty/ and universal health care: http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/ . And I started to notice something: this guy's policies were all interconnected. This wasn't politics-by-laundry-list. This was the beginnings of a coherent strategy to take on King's triple evils proactively, to start the process of true justice by using the tools of our sometimes-corrupt-but-still-accountable Democratic system.
Over time, either the policies grew or my knowledge of them did, but I discovered the same consistency in John Edwards' stance on labor: http://johnedwards.com/issues/working-families/ (King, by the way, was an unabashed supporter of unions and organized labor) as well as the environment: http://johnedwards.com/issues/energy/ .
Recently, he's put out a plan to combat terrorism that is the closest I think one can realistically get to protecting our country by not just going after global terrorists structures but also the root causes of terrorism:
All of this has made me very hopeful that maybe, just maybe, we'll have a Presidential candidate that can implement not just King's words, but his policies.
Maybe John Edwards, once elected, would fall short on that. Maybe the realpolitik of Washington would crush his progressive policies and my soaring expectations. If so, he's got one seriously jaded, vocal blogger on his hands.
But I think at least he deserves a chance.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Kumbaya and the Politics of Race
There comes a time when regardless of how much that inner voice tells you restraint is the higher form of virtue, you just have to trudge forward and get your hands in the dirt.
This is one of those times.
My personal breaking point came yesterday when reading that somehow certain folks think that John Edwards was using a racial slur when referring to Barack Obama as a "kumbaya" candidate.
I read these comments in yesterday's Huffington Post, under an article with the title "Edwards Smacks Obama As "Kumbaya" Candidate" (link is here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-news/c omments/2007/09/11/63942). This is actually an excerpting of a larger article in the New Yorker (link here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/ 09/17/070917fa_fact_lizza?printable=true ).
Just for the record, here is the exact quote from the article:
"...Edwards dismisses Obama's argument that more consensus is needed in Washington. The difference between them, Edwards told me, is the difference between "Kumbaya" and "saying, `This is a battle. It's a fight.'..."
Nowhere in this article does the author mention that Edwards' intention was a racial slur. Nowhere does the author even think to ask whether a racial slur was intended.
Nowhere does the thought that this could be a racial slur ever even appear to pop into the author's head.
Why is that? Well...because "kumbaya" is not a racial slur.
First, some background on the song. The song appears to have originated among the Gullah people of the South Carolina coast:
"...According to ethnomusicologist Thomas Miller, the song we know began as a Gullah (an African-American people living on the Sea Islands and adjacent coastal regions of South Carolina and Georgia, see also here) spiritual. Some recordings of it were made in the 1920s, but no doubt it goes back earlier. Published versions began appearing in the 1930s..." (http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_col umnists_ezorn/2006/08/someones_dissin.ht ml)
The first claim of ownership of the song comes from a Rev. Marvin Frey in the 1930's. The most reknowned use of the song is Joan Baez's recording of it in 1962, where it became associated with the civil rights movement.
As far as the derisive references to the song, in pop culture it is meant to personify someone who is helplessly encased in rose colored glasses, who naively assumes that just by sitting down and talking all of the world's problems can be immediately solved.
For instance, Arianna Huffington uses it in this September 2006 article, "Bill Clinton and Laura Bush: Homogenizing the '06 Election":
"...By making nice with Laura and promoting a kumbaya, "we're all in this together" atmosphere Clinton is blurring the very real distinctions between Democrats and Republicans and homogenizing the '06 race. And homogeneity is death in elections..." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-hu ffington/bill-clinton-and-laura-bu_b_298 68.html)
Or this reference by then-President Clinton's spokesperson:
"...Smooth sailing," Mr. Clinton said as he led the leaders single-file off the passenger ferry Tyee and into the lodge. "I don't now if they are going to be holding hands and singing 'Kumbaya,' but this is just what the President had in mind," said Lorraine Voles, a White House spokeswoman. "This all about getting to know each other..." (http://en.allexperts.com/q/Etymology-Mea ning-Words-1474/Idiomatic-use-kumbaya.ht m)
Or this recent use by David Sirota (thanks to blogger mkj for the research on this one):
"...I've written a lot about Obama, including a major piece for The Nation magazine last year. In my time studying his career, it became obvious that this is a person who wants to do the right thing and has genuinely strong convictions. But he also seems to believe that the reason our country has such challenges is because all sides of every issue have not come together in unity (I've gone back and forth wondering whether this is a sincere belief or merely a justification for overly cautious behavior, but I'm not a psychoanalyst, so I have no idea).
The problem with this outlook is that it fundamentally misunderstands why we are at this moment in history. Forty-five million Americans are uninsured, and millions more underinsured not because low-income health advocates and the insurance industry haven't sat down together and sung Kumbaya..." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-siro ta/i-want-to-believe_b_40901.html)
But I think one of my favorite uses of this word to illustrate this point comes in this over-the-top video game:
Nowhere have I ever heard "Kumbaya" used as a racial slur. Not even the notorious white-power group Stormfront uses this as a racial slur (and trust me - they use all of them).
So why do some Obama supporters suddenly think Edwards is using this as a racial slur when he refers to him at the "kumbaya candidate"? I wish I knew.
Racism is an ugly thing, and the charge of racism is one that as a society we do not take seriously enough. It is not a blunt instrument to be used on people simply because you don't agree with them. Tossing it around lightly and without merit removes power from the word itself, equating it to just so much political correctness.
Let's talk about the issues, let's debate the positions. But please, let's not invent racism where none exists.
This is one of those times.
My personal breaking point came yesterday when reading that somehow certain folks think that John Edwards was using a racial slur when referring to Barack Obama as a "kumbaya" candidate.
I read these comments in yesterday's Huffington Post, under an article with the title "Edwards Smacks Obama As "Kumbaya" Candidate" (link is here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-news/c omments/2007/09/11/63942). This is actually an excerpting of a larger article in the New Yorker (link here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/ 09/17/070917fa_fact_lizza?printable=true ).
Just for the record, here is the exact quote from the article:
"...Edwards dismisses Obama's argument that more consensus is needed in Washington. The difference between them, Edwards told me, is the difference between "Kumbaya" and "saying, `This is a battle. It's a fight.'..."
Nowhere in this article does the author mention that Edwards' intention was a racial slur. Nowhere does the author even think to ask whether a racial slur was intended.
Nowhere does the thought that this could be a racial slur ever even appear to pop into the author's head.
Why is that? Well...because "kumbaya" is not a racial slur.
First, some background on the song. The song appears to have originated among the Gullah people of the South Carolina coast:
"...According to ethnomusicologist Thomas Miller, the song we know began as a Gullah (an African-American people living on the Sea Islands and adjacent coastal regions of South Carolina and Georgia, see also here) spiritual. Some recordings of it were made in the 1920s, but no doubt it goes back earlier. Published versions began appearing in the 1930s..." (http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_col umnists_ezorn/2006/08/someones_dissin.ht ml)
The first claim of ownership of the song comes from a Rev. Marvin Frey in the 1930's. The most reknowned use of the song is Joan Baez's recording of it in 1962, where it became associated with the civil rights movement.
As far as the derisive references to the song, in pop culture it is meant to personify someone who is helplessly encased in rose colored glasses, who naively assumes that just by sitting down and talking all of the world's problems can be immediately solved.
For instance, Arianna Huffington uses it in this September 2006 article, "Bill Clinton and Laura Bush: Homogenizing the '06 Election":
"...By making nice with Laura and promoting a kumbaya, "we're all in this together" atmosphere Clinton is blurring the very real distinctions between Democrats and Republicans and homogenizing the '06 race. And homogeneity is death in elections..." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-hu ffington/bill-clinton-and-laura-bu_b_298 68.html)
Or this reference by then-President Clinton's spokesperson:
"...Smooth sailing," Mr. Clinton said as he led the leaders single-file off the passenger ferry Tyee and into the lodge. "I don't now if they are going to be holding hands and singing 'Kumbaya,' but this is just what the President had in mind," said Lorraine Voles, a White House spokeswoman. "This all about getting to know each other..." (http://en.allexperts.com/q/Etymology-Mea ning-Words-1474/Idiomatic-use-kumbaya.ht m)
Or this recent use by David Sirota (thanks to blogger mkj for the research on this one):
"...I've written a lot about Obama, including a major piece for The Nation magazine last year. In my time studying his career, it became obvious that this is a person who wants to do the right thing and has genuinely strong convictions. But he also seems to believe that the reason our country has such challenges is because all sides of every issue have not come together in unity (I've gone back and forth wondering whether this is a sincere belief or merely a justification for overly cautious behavior, but I'm not a psychoanalyst, so I have no idea).
The problem with this outlook is that it fundamentally misunderstands why we are at this moment in history. Forty-five million Americans are uninsured, and millions more underinsured not because low-income health advocates and the insurance industry haven't sat down together and sung Kumbaya..." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-siro ta/i-want-to-believe_b_40901.html)
But I think one of my favorite uses of this word to illustrate this point comes in this over-the-top video game:
Nowhere have I ever heard "Kumbaya" used as a racial slur. Not even the notorious white-power group Stormfront uses this as a racial slur (and trust me - they use all of them).
So why do some Obama supporters suddenly think Edwards is using this as a racial slur when he refers to him at the "kumbaya candidate"? I wish I knew.
Racism is an ugly thing, and the charge of racism is one that as a society we do not take seriously enough. It is not a blunt instrument to be used on people simply because you don't agree with them. Tossing it around lightly and without merit removes power from the word itself, equating it to just so much political correctness.
Let's talk about the issues, let's debate the positions. But please, let's not invent racism where none exists.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
Draft Gore to Endorse Edwards: A Write In Happening
Today's (well, technically tomorrow's) WaPo hints that Al Gore may endorse a Democratic candidate before the end of the primary season:
"...Former vice president Al Gore's pronouncement that he is likely to endorse one of the Democratic candidates for president before the primary season is over has set off a slew of speculation about who his choice might be.
Truth is, the courting of the "Goreacle" began many months ago. Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Gore huddled in Nashville in December, and Gore has also met with former senator John Edwards (N.C.). Gore and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) conferred as recently as last week..." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090801458. html)
So, I'm asking everyone's help in a "Draft Al Gore to Endorse John Edwards" write-in happening.
John Edwards is right on the environment. He is right on alternative energy. He is right on terrorism. He is right on Iraq. He is right labor.
Before I launch into a laundry list of items that Edwards correctly supports, here's the real reason why Al Gore should endorse him for President: unlike the other candidates, Edwards has a clear, concise holistic vision of this country. It is the Big Idea that Dan Balz in WaPo recently stated Dems did not have (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2007/09/07/democrats_make_new_blogger_f ri.html).
It is the idea of America. We are a country founded on an idea, captured on paper in the language of all men being created equal. The idea is expressed in working men and women saving and scrimping so they can afford that extra well-baby visit. It lives and breaths in co-workers being called into active service in Iraq, where they try as best they can to stop an administration's bad foreign policy from becoming an unmitigated disaster on the ground.
It is an optimistic belief in the good of all of us, that somehow we can all pull together to build a future that truly is better than the present we have now. It involves sacrifice, and hard work. But we are ready.
We can be patriotic about something other than war. After two disastrous terms of the Bush administration, we need the right leader to put us on that path.
John Edwards is that leader.
Please write Al Gore and ask him to endorse John for President.
Vice President Gore does not have a public email address, but he does receive snail-mail here:
Honorable Al Gore
2100 West End Avenue
Suite 620
Nashville, TN 37203
"...Former vice president Al Gore's pronouncement that he is likely to endorse one of the Democratic candidates for president before the primary season is over has set off a slew of speculation about who his choice might be.
Truth is, the courting of the "Goreacle" began many months ago. Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Gore huddled in Nashville in December, and Gore has also met with former senator John Edwards (N.C.). Gore and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) conferred as recently as last week..." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090801458. html)
So, I'm asking everyone's help in a "Draft Al Gore to Endorse John Edwards" write-in happening.
John Edwards is right on the environment. He is right on alternative energy. He is right on terrorism. He is right on Iraq. He is right labor.
Before I launch into a laundry list of items that Edwards correctly supports, here's the real reason why Al Gore should endorse him for President: unlike the other candidates, Edwards has a clear, concise holistic vision of this country. It is the Big Idea that Dan Balz in WaPo recently stated Dems did not have (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2007/09/07/democrats_make_new_blogger_f ri.html).
It is the idea of America. We are a country founded on an idea, captured on paper in the language of all men being created equal. The idea is expressed in working men and women saving and scrimping so they can afford that extra well-baby visit. It lives and breaths in co-workers being called into active service in Iraq, where they try as best they can to stop an administration's bad foreign policy from becoming an unmitigated disaster on the ground.
It is an optimistic belief in the good of all of us, that somehow we can all pull together to build a future that truly is better than the present we have now. It involves sacrifice, and hard work. But we are ready.
We can be patriotic about something other than war. After two disastrous terms of the Bush administration, we need the right leader to put us on that path.
John Edwards is that leader.
Please write Al Gore and ask him to endorse John for President.
Vice President Gore does not have a public email address, but he does receive snail-mail here:
Honorable Al Gore
2100 West End Avenue
Suite 620
Nashville, TN 37203
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Elizabeth Edwards and U of M Strikers: Why I Love This Woman
Talk about putting your action behind your words: Elizabeth Edwards spoke to striking union members at the University of Minnesota yesterday.
Local TV station KARE-TV carries the details:
"...Braving the heat and humidity in a grey suit, Elizabeth Edwards, wife of presidential candidate John Edwards, showed up to lend support. She told the sign-waving strikers and their supporters, "If they respect you and believe in your dignity, they're going to provide you with this raise!"
It was a sudden burst of political star power on the first day of AFSCME's second strike in four years at the institution..." (http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article. aspx?storyid=264007)
KARE-TV also notes that the news of the strike wasn't even carried in the campus newspaper, the "Minnesota Daily" that day. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that because of Elizabeth's presence supporting the strikers, they're covering it now: http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2007/09/ 06/72163251?com=add
Also, please see KARE11's video news report posted online here: http://www.kare11.com/video/player.aspx? aid=53345&bw=
Elizabeth put the case for the workers in clear, blunt language at the end of the report, "This is just to keep up with inflation, for Pete's sakes, they're not askin' for the moon."
I couldn't agree more.
Local TV station KARE-TV carries the details:
"...Braving the heat and humidity in a grey suit, Elizabeth Edwards, wife of presidential candidate John Edwards, showed up to lend support. She told the sign-waving strikers and their supporters, "If they respect you and believe in your dignity, they're going to provide you with this raise!"
It was a sudden burst of political star power on the first day of AFSCME's second strike in four years at the institution..." (http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article. aspx?storyid=264007)
KARE-TV also notes that the news of the strike wasn't even carried in the campus newspaper, the "Minnesota Daily" that day. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that because of Elizabeth's presence supporting the strikers, they're covering it now: http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2007/09/ 06/72163251?com=add
Also, please see KARE11's video news report posted online here: http://www.kare11.com/video/player.aspx? aid=53345&bw=
Elizabeth put the case for the workers in clear, blunt language at the end of the report, "This is just to keep up with inflation, for Pete's sakes, they're not askin' for the moon."
I couldn't agree more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)