UPDATE: Corrected to note that the endorsement comes from Caucus4Priorities, the political arm of the 501 (c)3 Iowans for Sensible Priorities.
Okamichan13 has a diary up on this at Daily Kos:
Greg Sargent reported at TPM that Iowans for Sensible Priorities will endorse John Edwards on November 9:
The Edwards Evening News Roundup team at Daily Kos pointed me to this link from ABC News:
The decision to endorse Edwards over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama came down to “courage versus caution,” according to the group's executive director.
“There's a rhetoric gap with Obama,” executive director Peggy Huppert told ABC News. “He told me personally: 'Trust me. Ideologically, I'm with you.' But people have told him to be afraid of being pushed too far to the left. He doesn't bring up [cuts in Pentagon spending] on his own. He doesn't incorporate it into his speeches. He skirts around it. He talks around the edges. He never gets to the heart of it in strong, bold language.”
Chase Martyn says Bill Richardson worked hard to get this endorsement, while Hillary Clinton didn't even bother to return the group's questionnaire:
I should note that Peggy Huppert told Sargent that all of the candidates did return the questionnaire. It would surprise me if Hillary did not even bother to seek the endorsement of this group. They are everywhere on the campaign trail and at other events where progressives gather.
UPDATE: From the ABC piece, it is clear that Hillary did return the group's questionnaire. However, according to Huppert:
Although Clinton filled out the group's detailed policy questionnaire, she was not among the final two candidates under consideration for the endorsement.
“She didn't answer any questions 'yes' or 'no,'” said Huppert. “She has a refusal to commit to anything.”
Iowans for Sensible Priorities is the group with that nifty pie chart graphic you see on car magnets and yard signs all over the place in Iowa. Here's a link to a photo I took of their spinning wheel on Labor Day:
And here's a link to a photo of the car they drive all over the state:
I need to learn how to upload photos on this site!
Anyway, this is a good catch by the Edwards campaign.
6 Comments
Edwards this year's Gephardt?
John Deeth seems to think Dodd may be this year’s Gephardt ’04. I’m thinking it may be Edwards. Lots of endorsements, very little enthusiasm beyond a small insider core group. There is a good chance my guy Obama, or someone else, will also reap the benefits of his sharp Hillary attacks.
What I find interesting about Peggy Huppert, Ed Fallon & co. being so madly in love with Edwards’ populist lefty style is his actual record when he was casting votes in the Senate. From what I understand, not the most progressive record. As I’ve said before, his current positioning reeks of political opportunism.
Also, saw this on a RealClearPolitics blog:
“The sad truth is that what the Journal poll shows is that right now, all the leading Democratic contenders have enormous liabilities. Where is Al Gore when you need him?”
This is exactly what I’ve been talking about for quite some time now. I think all of the D candidates have some major vulnerabilities. This includes my own guy Obama. I’m not naive enough to deny his vulnerability. Mrs. RF agrees with the RCP blogger and wants Gore to get in. I’m personally bitter that Warner dropped out. I think he would have by far been our strongest candidate.
rf Fri 9 Nov 10:22 PM
yes, Obama is sitting back
and counting on reaping the benefits from other people’s hard work in making the case against Hillary.
I do not think it will work for him, not least because he is weakest among the over-50 voters who are most likely to show up to caucus.
But that is obviously his strategy.
As for your contention that Edwards is this year’s Gephardt, I strongly disagree. Undecided voters ruled out Gephardt pretty early in 2003. But as I talk to undecided voters now, many of them are considering Edwards, among other candidates. That means he has room to grow his support.
Many Hillary supporters tell me that Edwards would be their second choice. As things stand, that doesn’t matter much, because Hillary is likely to be viable pretty much everywhere. But if something happens to cause Hillary’s support to slump (a weak debate performance, a big gaffe or an explosive story about her in the LA Times), I think Edwards is better poised than Obama to reap the benefits.
It’s too late for Gore to get in–he has missed the filing deadline for NH.
desmoinesdem Sat 10 Nov 8:35 AM
on voting records
I forgot to respond to that part of your comment. I think it depends on which issues you are looking at. Edwards voted for the AUMF bill but never voted for an Iraq War supplemental funding bill. He voted against the $87 billion long before public opinion had turned against the war.
Obama campaigned against the war, but after being elected to the Senate, he kept voting to sign blank checks for Bush’s war. The supplemental funding bill from this past May was the first one Obama voted against, and even then he didn’t take a leadership role.
Edwards had some Senate votes that were not progressive, which is not surprising, since he was representing North Carolina. But Obama also has some bad votes, such as voting for Bush’s 2005 energy bill.
Someone like Joe Lieberman looks like a great liberal if you only look at his Senate voting scorecards from liberal interest groups. But if you look at his priorities and the rhetoric he uses in public appearances, you get a very different picture.
desmoinesdem Sat 10 Nov 8:38 AM
We must be speaking to different kinds of people
It will be interesting to see which one of us ends up being right. Most people I’ve talked to have completely ruled out Edwards. Sadly, many are seriously considering Hillary. For most people I talk to, it really is between Hillary and Obama. Some people are seriously considering Richardson, Biden less so. I hear very little about Edwards. – This is why I think Edwards will be this year’s Gephardt.
When it comes to Edwards’ Iraq record, I think his vote to authorize the war and then not fund it very soon thereafter makes him seem even more opportunistic. (Only seems to confirm the account of one of his former advisors who said his war vote was based on political expediency.) Like it or not, decisions about warfare are not lightweight, short-term decisions. “Let’s start a war. A few moments later: Never mind, not a good idea.” When you start a war, there must be some follow-through. It’s not like screwing up on some bureacratic piece of legislation and going and fixing it the next year. – Because of this, I stand by my view that the “original sin” with this war was its start and authorization. Once we get a war going, we must responsibly get ourselves out of it.
rf Sat 10 Nov 11:33 AM
Another link from dailykos
Now Hillary is putting plants in her Iowa rallies to lob softballs.
dkmich Sat 10 Nov 10:25 AM
should we increase or decrease the size of our military?
This diary by okamichan13 lays out the differences between Edwards and Obama and Clinton when it comes to increasing or decreasing the size of the military. Obama’s position is much closer to Clinton’s than it is to Edwards’.
desmoinesdem Sat 10 Nov 3:27 PM