Cory Booker takes the third Democratic debate

State Representative Amy Nielsen was the first Iowa legislator to endorse Cory Booker for president. -promoted by Laura Belin

Last night in the third Democratic candidate debate, we saw a lot of candidates get lost in the fray, getting distracted by what divides our party rather than what unites us.

But there was one candidate who rose above the chaos, Cory Booker. That’s the kind of leadership we need if we’re going to bring this country together to defeat Donald Trump and heal the pain and division he has inflicted.

Senator Booker showed America what a President Booker would look like. Well thought out policies rooted in evidence based research, someone with a proven history of success working with uncommon allies, a calm and collected personality that doesn’t need to tear other people down, and let’s not forget the dad jokes. Cory is laser-focused on the issues because he knows too many Americans are suffering, and these so-called purity tests that distract us from urgently solving the most pressing issues of our time are a privilege we can’t afford.

We’re not going to beat Trump if we’re divided. Our party and our candidates are strongest when we unite around our shared values and dedicate ourselves to the fundamentals of winning campaigns: organizing and activating as many Americans as possible to get behind our movement.

Cory Booker has been going about the real business of building a strong ground team here in Iowa, listening to voters whether they are Democrats or Republicans, farmers or moms in the suburbs, and helping to build a stronger Democratic party brick by brick. It’s not sexy, it doesn’t grab headlines, but it’s what Iowans know. Hard work and authenticity win the race, and most importantly, it wins caucuses.

Find out more about the plans Cory Booker has for our country at his campaign website.

Editor’s note: Bleeding Heartland welcomes guest posts related to the Iowa caucuses, including but not limited to candidate endorsements. Please read these guidelines and contact Laura Belin if you are interested in writing.

  • I disagree.

    What divides is not in fact policy differences, but corporate money. There is a certain subset of candidates, two to be exact, that have absolutely sworn off raising money from wealthy donors. Unfortunately, Senator Booker has decided to continue to take money from large contributors, attend private fundraisers, and even has a Super PAC, which allows large dark money contributors to influence our process, supporting him. The country is not tired of ‘divisive’ rhetoric, but rather wealthy individuals holding extraordinary influence over our elections. This jab about “getting distracted by what divides our party” in the context that you used it is nonsense, because that is what a primary election is all about, letting the people decide which set of policies they best support. When there are only two political parties, it is natural, if not given, for there to be differences within the party, although I would say that polling suggests that the platforms of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren best suit the desires of democratic voters.

    This article is completely absent of any policy substance, which isn’t particularly surprising, but worth mentioning when considering the validity of your argument. I’ve already spoken to the popularity of certain platforms as opposed to others so I will digress in that regard. Winning elections is not in fact about “bringing the country together,” but rather motivating a party’s base support enough to accumulate more votes than the other party. Hillary Clinton’s loss should’ve been enough evidence towards this point, but apparently it is rather hard for some people to understand. This misunderstanding, however, is rather unsurprising coming from a member of the democratic delegation from the Iowa House, it doesn’t seem as though they have been particularly successful in recent years, I can’t quite put my finger on why that might be.

    The same people denouncing the ‘divisive’ nature of our politics are in fact the main purveyors of division. As mentioned before, the majority of democratic voters support the platform of Warren and Sanders, and yet this not reflected in the slightest among federal or state legislators. The method for correcting this disparity would seem to be running everyday people in primary elections against incumbent democrats who don’t support the same general policy prescriptions as the people they represent (the central idea of democracy). Cory Booker said last week “We cannot tolerate Democrats who turn against other Democrats and try to tear us down” in reference to primary election challengers. Running in a primary election is not in fact ‘trying to tear us down’ but rather trying to give the people an opportunity to express their opinions, that is the central idea of democracy! We need look no further than Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia, a ‘democrat,’ who voted to nominate someone seriously accused of sexual assault to the Supreme Court. Trying to empower the people of West Virginia by giving them an alternative in a primary election to someone complicit in sexual assault, is not tearing us down, in fact, those who would prevent such a challenge, are guilty of the crime which they accuse others of doing, “tearing us apart.”

You need to signin or signup to post a comment.