Big Money, Big Lobbyists, Little d's

What's a "little d"? It's Democrat who doesn't stand up for Democratic values. It's a Democrat who puts power over policy and party over people.

It's a little d.

Wanna know what I'm talking about? Check out this clip from a movie made in 1998, at the end of the Clinton years:



Remember that time when Democrats held the White House and we were "standing at the doorstep of a new millenium"? Wanna know what the heck happened?

It wasn't the brilliancy of George W or a little man known as Turdblossom.

We forgot who we were...and now we've forgotten that we forgot who we were by buying into corporate America's pitch to all of us that the "money primary" is the real one, and somehow all of us normal folks will just fall in like lemmings behind the person with the most cash.



You can't take Big Money and expect Big Change. The world just don't work like that, and all of us know this in the back of our minds. And if we know it, trust me, the former First Lady knows it, too.

Do you need universal healthcare today? Do you need an end to war after war after war in our continuing quest for bigger profits for Big Oil companies encased in the logic of national self-interest?

Is your wallet a little lighter, and your home worth just a little less?

Do you want this to change now...or do you want to hope it changes in, say, six-ish years from now?

Little d's are for little change. Incremental steps. Let's all have a seat at the table, including the folks that pocket the silverware and hog the dessert tray.

We had little d's before our eight years of Bush, and that brought us downsizing, and "welfare reform", and an abandoned attempt at universal healthcare.

We need to remember that.

We need to elect big D's that stand up for those of us who can't afford to hire our own lobbyist. Big D's who walk their talk by not just believing in public campaign financing but by actually participating in it. Big D's who help the working men and women of our country by supporting unions and workers rights. Big D's who will not allow one person in this country to go without health care, and who know that there's something that we stand for that is more patriotic than war.

John Edwards is a Big D. Elect him. Now.

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.

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.

Alternet: Big Media Can't Write off Edwards

This great, amazing article by Joshua Holland is one to share with our brothers and sisters in the Progressive Movement (you know - the real Progressive Movement, not the one the DLC thinks is just another way of diffusing the unpopular label "liberal").

It also shows that if your heart belongs to Kucinich, your head should tell you to vote for Edwards.

Joshua elegantly, honestly makes the case why all true progressives who want to see systemic change need to be embracing Edwards for the Democratic nomination:

"...Edwards isn't the only candidate in the race making such bold statements, of course. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has long spoken of economic issues in the kinds of terms Edwards used last week. But John Edwards was the vice presidential nominee on a presidential ticket that won 59 million votes and he's raised $23 million in the current cycle (20 times what Kucinich has raised), and that means that corporate media is forced to cover him. So far, they've mocked him, written stories about his haircuts, pushed shadowy innuendo about his personal business dealings and suggested his focus on poverty is disingenuous or hypocritical, but they simply can't write him off as a member of the fringe. Unlike Kucinich, they can't ignore him..." (http://www.alternet.org/story/60748/)

So, who will win out? Big Media and politics as usual? Or the grassroots, netroots and working people?

You have a say in this contest, and the louder we speak the more we will start being the change we want to see.

The Debate They Needed Him to Lose

The historic irony: Edwards, the Man Who Courted the Labor Vote, Loses it to Clinton. Puts the nail right in the coffin right there, don't it?

And, historic ironies always make great headlines.

So, it's no wonder initial reports from Big Media put Edwards as a "poor performer", and Hil as the winner (more historic irony as the Woman Behind NAFTA Gains the Labor Vote).

Again, it begs the question: what's up with that?

Here's the deal: all of us working people who thought Edwards hit a home run were listening for one thing, and all of the chattering classes were listening for another.

Check out this early analysis on MSNBC (host of the debate):

"...If this debate is remembered for anything, it will be for the moment that Joe Biden turned into Hillary Clinton's surrogate. He went after Obama on foreign policy and targeted Edwards on how sincere his labor stances are.

In fact, Dodd seemed to also take part in the attacks on Obama (less so on Edwards). But clearly, the old guard of Washington are not taking kindly to either Obama and Edwards. The problem for the two chief Clinton challengers, though, is that they are fighting to be the same person, the anti-Hillary. And Clinton, now, has a lot of supporters on stage with her, including Dodd and Biden. It's a fascinating dynamic that I think is developing in this primary. But how long can Edwards and Obama be allies and how comfortable will Dodd and Biden be carrying Clinton's water?..." (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/).

What is important to Big Media in this debate? Strategy. Politics. Hillary vs Obama. Who's supporting who?

Now, for all the rest of us working folks, and the fifteen thousand union members who showed up to this debate, this is what this debate will be remembered for: a retired steelworker with a camcorder, plaintively asking a blank screen, "Why?" Why was my pension cut? Why can't I pay for my wife's health insurance?

His age-scarred voice near to the breaking point, he simply asked, "What will you do about it?"

Edwards' answer was spot-on. Make CEO pensions tied to your own. Provide universal healthcare so you're not punished for the sins of your employer.

This is why folks stood outside, with rain threatening a desolate stadium on a muggy Chicago night. They're not there because they care about the personality politics of the Democratic party.

They care about health care. Their pensions. Their futures.

Any network that can't grasp that one has failed in understanding what their viewers want from their government, and in turn, what they want for themselves.