"No more triangulating" and Other Gems from Take Back America 2007

[Cross-posted at my blog, Madison For Edwards]

The biggest regret that I have of a year just about halfway done is that I was not able to figure out a way to go to Take Back America, a conference put on by the Campaign for America's Future along with sponsors making up who's who of progressive organizations and outlets.  TBA2007 has an impressive lineup of both speakers and breakout sessions.  One session I definitely would have hit today (among many) would be the panel with freshman Democratic senators, which included one of my political heroes, Sherrod Brown.  But really, you couldn't go wrong at TBA2007.  Everything was good.  I can imagine that the only bad thing about it was that you might miss a session.  At least I'll have Yearly Kos.

[More after the jump on CAF, TBA2007, and John Edwards rocking the house]

Campaign For America's Future is one of the cooler new progressive groups that is making up the bulk of what I'd call the New Infrastructure, building on and continuing the work of groups like the Economic Policy Institute, except in a very political and partisan (in a good way) manner - helping to define and advance the progressive movement, and the Democratic Party as the electoral apparatus of our dominant political arm.  Last year, CAF started their project called Straight Talk, which produced one of my favorite pieces of literature from a think tank in 2007, a follow-up to the big gains of the 2006 elections, Straight Talk 2007 - it's a wonderful document that lays out a compelling progressive agenda.  

And just last week, leading up to TBA2007, CAF released what I think is the most important document of the year, their paper Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative America is a Myth, which lays out how America really is a progressive nation when you get down to it.  It's so important that I'm going to link to it again.  Go ahead, you know you want to download it, read it, print it out and give it to all your friends.  Over at TomPaine.com, CAF president Robert Borosage (a true leading light and public intellectual of the progressive movement) writes about the report, its contents, and some of its importance.  

Back to TBA2007...from sessions like "From Conservative Failure to Progressive Action to just seeing major progressive activists and leaders on the prowl, like David Sirota and Drum Major Institute's Andrea Batista Schlesinger to a rally around one of my favorite issues, the Employee Free Choice Act (and more), the conference was packed with the kind of content that makes a progressive movement activist absolutely giddy.  And just to top it all off, at the same time AFSCME held its presidential forum, also in D.C., CAF's TBA2007 had the presidential candidates in town to talk turkey.  

It's a great mix going on in D.C.  AFSCME is holding its forum, the senate is approaching a vote on EFCA (and there is a lot of activity going on around that), and CAF is doing TBA2007.  Where else would a presidential candidate, especially one who supports American workers like John Edwards, possibly want to be?  

Of course, John Edwards rose to the occaison and nailed another great speech at TBA2007.  There shouldn't any doubt that even in the history of Democratic leaders, John ranks as one of the best on the stump.  How does "Tomorrow Begins Today," as the campaign motto is, go?  Like this:

"No more pontificating, no more vacillating, no more triangulating, no more broken promises, no more pats on the head, no more `we'll get around to it next time,' no more taking half a loaf, no more `tomorrow."

THAT is what a Democrat, especially one running for president in an election where we have a chance to remake American politics, needs to talk like.  And as the TBA2007 blog says:

"When he ended his speech with a progressive call to arms, it was evident that Edwards' message still resonates on the left."

When you think about it, John Edwards' progressive message is the perfect dovetail with what CAF laid out in their paper from last week; a progressive message, a proud progressive laying it out matches the American public and is an electoral winner.  Progressive politics is winning politics.  He's rearing back on his heels and cranking out something that is downright exciting, bold and as the campaign has called it, "transformational."  That's right.  John Edwards is the Democrat to turn American politics from the mush of pablum that we get from timid and safe Democrats into a clear, strong, and powerful progressive agenda.  

Do yourself one more favor and watch the speech.  This has got to be our guy - the history of the 21st Century of American politics awaits.



Display:


NO matter. (3.00 / 4)

This is what everyone wants, but every fan of every other candidate will come by here and say he is posturing.  Nevermind that their candidates aren't even posturing.

It makes me angry that Edwards is the only one talking about what America wants and the election is currently being influenced by who the media wants you to see.


BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics
by Robert P on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 06:41:09 AM EST

Re: NO matter. (3.00 / 6)

Don't forget that John Edwards is just reaching some political maturity.  Elected to the Senate having never held elected office meant that he was evolving on the go - and after getting out of D.C., he's matured greatly as a political thinker and figure.  This is not posturing, this is his politics aligning with his values and his heart.


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 10:10:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Faith, Action, Change" forums (none / 0)

I dislike Obama more than I dislike HRC.  His rhetoric and arrogance drives me up a wall. He rouses images in me of Elmer Gantry holding a tin cup and a mirror. As much as I oppose the DLC and the Clintons because of their DLC/Friedman policies; to me, they would be better by far than Obama. I bookmarked your diary so I can come back and read some of the great links you have supplied.  I sure as hell hope that something "progressive" hurries up and takes control of the beltway.  It so sucks, and I see nothing on the horizon that will change that.


Follow the money
by dkmich on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 07:14:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Bread and butter time (3.00 / 8)

Interesting to see the authority with which he now talks about foreign affairs. One of the best moments in his speech was when, talking about Darfur, he asked the crowd to see America from the perspective of the world. Pin drop time.

Now, the word is, having established his cred on Iraq and foreign affairs, he's re-focusing on his bread-and-butter economic populism, beginning with a speech tonight in New York. The centrists and DLCers and Rubinites in the field should consider themselves warned.


by david mizner on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 10:26:28 AM EST

Re: Bread and butter time (none / 0)

Let's see... Carter... Clinton...  Edwards...  when since Chappaquiddick has the Democratic party had a potentially winning candidate who wasn't from the South?  Is this the ancient lore passed on from strategist to strategist all these years...

Ah... But there is a Democratic candidate amongst us who can take back the Dixiecrat South, isn't there?  And I ain't talking 'bout Huey Long.  Who is it?  


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 12:26:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bread and butter time (none / 0)

I'm confused by your comment.


by adamterando on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 01:05:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bread and butter time (none / 0)

Well, I will own the non sequitor.  Truth is I am frustrated that the Democrats have been forced to have populist Good Ol' Boy candidates because of a schism that was created almost a century (eighty years?) ago.

C'mon, a dozen voter registration drives later we must have a better demographic handle on national victory than that.

No slur on John Edwards, either.  I really like some of the stuff he has been saying lately; but it is sinking him.  GWOT bumper sticker and all.  I agree with him but hope my preferred candidate keeps his mouth shut about it until after the election.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 01:19:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bread and butter time (3.00 / 2)

Unfortunately, Obama seems to keep his mouth shut, period, when it comes to leftward stands. Nothing against Obama, it's just that he's a centrist.


by adamterando on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 02:37:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bread and butter time (3.00 / 4)

I'm not convinced that he's a centrist (or a center-ist) on all things policy (although I'm worried about the divergence between his policy ideals in different areas).  It just seems like Senator Obama has decided to run a campaign that is not proud of being a Democrat and what that stands for, other than not being a George W. Bush Republican.  


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 02:43:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bread and butter time (3.00 / 2)

Are you frustrated by the populist thing, the good ol' boy thing, or something else?

And I certainly don't see John Edwards as a good ol' boy.

I think that it's interesting what Kos had to say earlier today:

"He's come a long way since, chucking his b.s. and timid consultants and being more open to following his conscience. He's made several missteps, but I'm more willing to forgive a candidate for making his own mistakes, than for making those of his risk-averse consultants. As I've said before, it really is ironic that Edwards is being penalized in a way for being the sole serious white dude in the race (we've had plenty of those), but it's also ironic (though I couldn't explain why) that this lone white dude is also the least risk-averse, the boldest, and the most passionate candidate in the race."


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 02:42:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bread and butter time (none / 0)

Good question.  On reflection I guess I am resentful that the Kennedy's are dead and the Clinton's led the Democratic party out of the wilderness and into the DLC.

I like Edwards more and more lately, he is saying all the right things, and look where it has taken him in the polls.  He has tacked to the left and promptly tanked.  It is scary.  I fear that progressives are increasingly isolated and marginalised in US national politics.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 07:09:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bread and butter time (3.00 / 1)

I'm bitter Robert Kennedy is dead too.  I see him in Edwards, and that's why he's my guy.

Don't think that Edwards has 'tanked' (as you put it) BECAUSE he tacked left.  The media focus on the 'rockstars' of Obama and Hillary is choking off all the air - and admittedly, some mistakes on the part of the campaign (in an environment where even though that shit shouldn't matter, it does, and campaigns need to be on all the time).  His campaign, which I honestly and wholeheartedly believe will be more than revived in the coming future, even to the extent that it has suffered, is not an RIP for campaigning as a progressive liberal.  

On the other hand from you, I think that progressives are increasingly staking out a definitive and strong position in national politics.  The establishment is fighting to the death to keep them out, but you can see they are tiring and weakening.  The last throes...


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 07:52:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bread and butter time (none / 0)

I sincerely hope you are correct.  Unlike you I do see a connection between Edwards' progressive positioning around the time of the first debate and his current slip in the polls.  Perhaps tanked is too strong a word.

It seems to me he tacked left because the centre was too crowded and he had to do something to differentiate himself from Hillary and Obama in the perception of voters, and soon.  Let's see how it goes.  I don't see anyone challenging him for this territory.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 08:04:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bread and butter time (3.00 / 1)

Let's clear up some causal relationships here, before we decide if progressive politics is an electoral failure nationally.

If we presume that John Edwards' slip in the polls indicates a lack of support in the electorate (which I do not presume to be true, but we can use it as a point of departure) and say that he has indeed slipped recently, we have a place to start.  

That Edwards is "running to the left" as the CW term of convenience would be, is true.

Perhaps Edwards is running to the left because of the need for ideoogical breathing room in the Democratic primary.  I don't buy that either, instead believing that it is because of a political maturation and genuine passion.

However, there is not a causal effect between running left and dropping in the polls.  There might be a correlation, but not a causation.

I would even say that there is not a correlation between the "tanking" of late and his run to the left.  He's been running as the progressive for pretty much ever since 2004-2005.  

No one is challenging Edwards for this territory because Obama and Hillary are challenging each other and the field not on ideological grounds (their campaigns have boiled down to "George Bush sucks"...we saw how well that worked in 2004) or drawing distinctions - except Hillary says she's more tough and more experienced than Obama - but instead because it is battle of personalities, and in some cases, cults of personality.  They are rockstars, not leaders.  John Edwards is the leader here.


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 08:51:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bread and butter time (none / 0)

The only exception I take with that, beyond the somewhat simplistic characterisation of the Hillary and Obama campaigns, is that the run to the left seemed to me a recent and significant development.  Sure Edwards has been running a populist campaign all along, but the chiding of Obama and Hillary over lack of leadership on Iraq, the GWOT bumper sticker statement and so forth seem to have started about the time of the first debate.  I thought it was great at the time and hoped it would pull the field in a progressive direction.  But it apparently hasn't worked, at least not yet.

I actually agree with Edwards on these points.  My concern is that if there is a correlation between his positioning and his rather disappointing polling results lately it does not bode well for progressives in the post-9/11 US political landscape, at least nationally.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 09:20:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bread and butter time (none / 0)

I did simplify a bit, you're right.

But my larger point is that correlation does not imply causation.  My contention is that it is Obama and Hillary's "star power" and the media infatuation with them that is driving the poll numbers.

This campaign has not been about issues or vision yet - Iraq included.


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 12:34:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bread and butter time (none / 0)

Perhaps so.  I'm guessing there are plenty of progressive Democrats watching these developments closely, not least of which the Edwards campaign.

If these are the early indications I really hope you are right about the causal factors.


by Shaun Appleby on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 02:34:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bread and butter time (none / 0)

He hasn't tanked. His national numbers aren't great, but he's still in a solid first place in Iowa. I think once the primaries get closer the caucus goer's and early primary state voters will make the decision about who to nominate and not the entire nation. Besides, the majority of Dems nationally favor Hillary, and personally I think it's mostly because of name recognition, not because of her platform or her electability.


Netroots Director for Oregon Senate Candidate Jeff Merkley
by Sarah Lane on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 08:04:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bread and butter time (3.00 / 3)

I think people are ready for the GWOT comment.  It's the kind of thing where people look shocked at first, but you check back with them a month later and they're kind of nodding their heads.

It's nice, truly, to see a politician say anything that isn't already conventional wisdom.  Yes, there's a risk involved, but it seems to me that that's what leadership looks like.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 03:56:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bread and butter time (none / 0)

I would sincerely like to believe that it will work and Edwards will be rewarded for his candour and position.  

I think Democrats are terrified of putting a genuinely progressive candidate up against the GOP in a national election, whether they agree with him or not.  And in some ways I don't blame them.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 07:24:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bread and butter time (3.00 / 3)

Ironically, if Edwards doesn't win, his leadership and breaking things down for Obama and Hillary will allow a much 'safer' course candidate to deal with a different "conventional wisdom" and have a much easier coast to the White House.


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 07:55:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bread and butter time (3.00 / 5)

Carter and Clinton were southern in their personality and politics.  Edwards might be in personality, but he's past the days when we Democrats thought we had to run "serious" (read: centrist) southerners.  

I'm pretty sure that Edwards can win some southern states, partially because he is southern.  But as importantly, he can put southern states in play because of both being southern and his message - this means the GOP would have to play against him there and rationalize their ideology, spend time and resources, and divert some attention from places like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Washington and Oregon.


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 02:36:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd just like to add (3.00 / 3)

that not only will he put southern states and the midwest into play, he'd help the chances of the Dems in those states getting elected to statewide office as well. If we're competitive everywhere, it helps all Dems running.


Netroots Director for Oregon Senate Candidate Jeff Merkley
by Sarah Lane on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 08:05:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'd just like to add (3.00 / 1)

Word.

I've heard from many folks within the party and even candidate-types here in Wisconsin that they'd love to have Edwards at the top of the ticket.


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 12:34:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll take a guess (none / 0)

John Edwards? Let me know what my prize is, thanks.


by okamichan13 on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 10:50:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'll take a guess (none / 0)

No, I said I wasn't talking 'bout The Kingfish.  The voter registration drive comment was the hint; perhaps counter-intuitively, I was referring to Senator Obama.

That Mason-Dixon poll recently in SC got me thinking, if southern blacks voted en bloc the conventional wisdom that Democrats need a southern populist favourite son to win the election would no longer hold true.

If anybody can mobilise that vote I am guessing it could be the first black man nominated to run for president by the Democratic Party.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jun 20, 2007 at 11:33:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards for President (none / 0)

Deep,deep down Edwards cares about this country and the world.

If a neighbor needs help,you don't ignore them.

I'm glad that Edwards feels the same way about our 'neighboring' country like Darfur and others.

Let's elect a global President!


by yann123 on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 01:05:42 AM EST

Re: Edwards for President (none / 0)

I'm struck more and more, in recent days and weeks, about how John Edwards' alleged lack of foreign policy ability, because he was never in the military or something, is becoming a major differentiator for him for the road ahead.  He is talking about forming a new global identity for the U.S. that is much in line with the best of John Kennedy's vision, tackling global problems not through bombs and bullets, but instead a more robust take.

He is going to be a conversation-changer - and my gut feel is still that HE is the breath of fresh air in the political process.  Americans aren't tired of partisanship, their tired of the same old bullshit; something John Edwards has eschewed while the others are just in different piles.


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 10:49:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for the shout-out to DMI! (none / 0)

I've enjoyed reading the coverage of the TBA conference. If you want to see Andrea's speech online The Albany Project has it on their site here:
http://www.thealbanyproject.com/showDiar y.do?diaryId=891

and the text is here
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/06 /19/not_in_our_nature.php


by DMIer on Thu Jun 21, 2007 at 10:48:14 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.