Time for (Donna) Edwards to Win

In this next month, it's understandable that attention will be paid 36/7 to what happens in Iowa, New Hampshire, and other early presidential primaries. But progressive democrats shouldn't lose sight of important races in the House and Senate, and there are some fights to watch in those primaries – fights where good progressive candidates are running.

One critical race is in Maryland's 4th District. In 2006, long-time activist and lawyer Donna Edwards ran against incumbent Albert Wynn on an antiwar message, losing the Democratic primary by just 3 points. Now, with the February 12 primary just around the corner, Edwards is mounting another tenacious challenge to Wynn. She recently picked up two key labor endorsements from the Service Employees International Union and the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 400 – the latter of whom endorsed Wynn in 2006. (Wynn also " mistakenly" listed the SEIU as a supporter in campaign materials in 2006 though the union had chosen not to endorse in the race.)

"I am honored to receive this endorsement from SEIU and UFCW – two of the most vibrant leaders among organized labor," Edwards wrote me in an email. "These workers join a host of other organizations that have endorsed my candidacy who are fighting to protect the environment, improve the lives of working families, enhance women's rights, for quality, affordable health care and to end the war in Iraq. I am proud to have the support of such diverse groups that have come together to help bring necessary change to Maryland's 4th Congressional District." Other organizations that have endorsed Edwards include Sierra Club, Emily's List, the National Organization for Women, Progressive Democrats of America, ACORN, and the League of Conservation Voters.

Edwards and her supporters make a compelling case on the need for change, pointing not only to Wynn's support for the War in Iraq, but also votes for the Republican Energy Bill, weakening the Endangered Species Act, tax breaks for oil and gas companies, repealing the estate tax, privatizing the Internet, drilling in Alaska, supporting the pharmaceuticals on drug policy and the credit card companies on the bankruptcy bill. Edwards notes that she herself supported Albert Wynn for Congress when he first ran in 1992, but now she calls him "Maryland's Joe Lieberman," saying, "We haven't left Albert Wynn. He's left us."

In contrast, Edwards says, she represents "the hopes and values that are the core of the Democratic Party – for workers, for families, for our country." Indeed, Edwards used her law degree to serve the public interest, fighting domestic violence and gaining a national reputation for that work in the process. Since 2000, she has served as the executive director of The Arca Foundation, one of the most interesting small progressive foundations working today, with a commitment to social justice at home and abroad that spans over 50 years. (I served on the board of Arca for two months – before I realized that it was going to be too demanding...along with The Nation day job! But during that time I had the good fortune to go on a site visit with Donna. She's tenacious, smart – and will do great work for her constituents as she has done throughout her career!)

Edwards' friends in labor see her as the progressive alternative to Wynn as well. Ebs Burnough, Political Director of 1199 SEIU, told the Prince George's Gazette, "Donna Edwards has the progressive principles to best represent the Marylanders in the 4th District. She is a proven leader, supporting living wage campaigns, preventing domestic violence and promoting innovative programs that make a difference in the lives of working families."

"She's a person who's going to help us lead the change," Mark Federici, Director of Strategic Programs with the UFCW local, told the Washington Post. "The change is about progressive values and the value of people that work – living wages, affordable health care, respect and dignity on the job."

Fighting for his political life, Wynn has made a clear move to the left since defeating Edwards by less than 3,000 votes in 2006, in what Maryland State Senator and valued Nation contributor Jamie Raskin calls "a dramatic turnabout." Raskin, a long-time friend of Edwards and a passionate progressive leader in the Maryland General Assembly since his own landslide upset victory in the 2006 Democratic primary (nine of his bills were passed into law in his first legislative session!), says Edwards has already scored a major victory. "Donna could win this in February, but in a sense she's already won because she's established for the rest of our lifetimes that this is an honest-to-goodness progressive district, not a triangulating DLC district whose representative can vote for Republican war drives or top-down class warfare," Raskin told me. "There's no going back on that now. The question is whether Donna will lead in Congress next year or continue to lead from the outside."

The SEIU has 22,350 Maryland members and the UFCW local represents 14,000 workers in the state. Labor endorsements of challengers to Democratic incumbents are rare, as Terry Cavanagh, executive director of the SEIU Maryland State Council, told the Post: "We do a good job holding Republicans accountable during general elections, but we need to do a better job holding Democrats accountable, too. That's what this is about." According to the Post – which also endorsed Edwards in 2006 – the SEIU has designated "getting Edwards elected [as] a top national priority," and both unions plan "an aggressive ground game on her behalf, including mailings, phone banks and door-to-door canvassing."

When someone like Donna Edwards comes along – someone devoted to progressive principles, ready to amplify progressive voices in Congress, and in a position to win elected office – it's important that we stand up and support her. When the frenzy surrounding Iowa and New Hampshire passes, let's remember the maxim that all politics is local. As Donna Edwards said to me, "This election can and should be a real line in the sand moment for progressives to reclaim the Democratic Party. That means getting members of the progressive caucus – women, union members, activists and elected officials – energized about this election to send a real message that voters are no longer willing to accept ‘business as usual.'"

Business as usual isn't just the fault of Republicans. That's why this time around we need to make sure that Donna Edwards wins.

Comments (12)

1. "She recently picked up two key labor endorsements from...."

   And as "President Dick Gephardt" will tell you, that's what matters!

   No, but good luck to Ms Edwards. If she wins, could be indictative. (Although Maryland pretty Blue, and the Dem victories in 2006 were "Jim Webbs", not "Donna Edwardes")

   And if she loses, of course, there will be plenty of excuses and "dirty tricks" charges.

   Posted by Mask at 01/02/2008 @ 09:22am

2. Everyone makes excuses MASK--even you! And Webb has much to recommend himself from a progressive perspective. The Nation has generally been very positive about him.

   Posted by Peter Rothberg at 01/02/2008 @ 10:53am

3. You need a serious political education JO if you consider these groups below socialist: Sierra Club, Emily's List, the National Organization for Women, Progressive Democrats of America, ACORN, and the League of Conservation Voters.

   Posted by Peter Rothberg at 01/02/2008 @ 12:16pm

4. Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 01/02/2008 @ 10:53am

   Did I claim greater moral superiority, PETER? My point is that if Edwards (Donna) loses, the line from Ms vanden Heuvel will NOT be "Oh, well, I guess the voters of Maryland are less progressive than I thought and supported Al Wynn's views"....

   willing to bet it'll be "dirty tricks"..."DNC support for Wynn" (Or more likely "DNC failure to give Edwards a fair shot")...or any of a 1000 things, except that the people of Maryland didn't share her views.

   While if she wins, that is EXACTLY the reason that will be given. ("The people of MD share her views") So, I merely ask ...why not use it if she loses too?

   Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 01/02/2008 @ 12:16pm

   Curious on this point. JO may be wrong in his assessment of those groups, but as a "person in the know", PETER...

   ARE there ANY major American political groups that you acknowledge as "closet" or even openly socialist?

   Posted by Mask at 01/02/2008 @ 12:34pm

5. I consider these groups and any group that espouse a philosophy of redistribution of someone elses property for the betterment of all as a carte blanche approach..if you examine everyone of these groups listed, underneath that is what they believe...

   Posted by JOMAMMA 01/02/2008 @ 1:30pm

   Whheewww! Now that's what I call a broad definition of socialism. There is also question of origins of wealth/property that may cast a pall over the rightful ownership of property from the start.

   JO: I think you're a bible believing christian? When the OT law was outlined theocratically in Leviticus, wasn't it commanded to not glean the fields around the edges that allowed for provision of the poor? Did the poor own the field? Did they pay for the food? Could the owner have made more $$$ not leaving droppings or by totally harvesting the field? If you suppose the theocracy was divinely based, why would god demand this be done, it was a command? Was she (god) stealing from someone's private property to give to the undeserved?

   How about the year of jubilee (after fifty years the land (wealth) was redistributed so a dynasty of wealth would not accumulate generationally? Now that's what I would call some real socialism. Good reason why we don't have historical record of ancient Israel practicing jubilee even after it was commanded. I would imagine even pious rich landowners would have a tough time with that one. Were not both kingdoms of Israel (north and south) decried by the prophets and conquered due to coveting wealth at the expense of cheating the poor? Why did Jesus state it is easier for a camel to get into the city (kingdom) than a rich person get to heaven (read god's kingdom)?

   Now the amerindians didn't own land like euros, but, they sure lost access to it. Not even considered human, they didn't make the 3/5s person in the constitution like the african slaves. This country's glorious manifest destiny was one of the end chapters of genocide against indigeous peoples. T. Roosevelt called natives 'vermin that needed extermination.' So where did the private property of america come from? Interesting that those without private property could not even vote until around 1850.

   How about the chinese, irish, african-americans and their wives and children working under unbelievable duress and the colonialism practiced by this country against our neighbors to the south that made inordinate $$$ for the american industrialists with illuminating names like carnage, roosevelt, mellon, etc. They earned their $$$ at the expense of common workers.

   If you see the fight for living wages, protection at work, social benefits to improve communities, environmental protection mandates et. al. as socialism, you have denied the very struggle americans have endured to build democracy. In your view of socialism, how would you even distinguish between it and democracy?

   It appears that both your christianity and american experience have been subverted by corporate sensibilities and Ayn Rand. OOOooopppsss, if this is so, why are you concerned with elections?

   Posted by steve foster at 01/02/2008 @ 6:21pm

6. I live in MD-04, and will vote for Ms. Edwards on 12Feb. It was great seeing this editorial.

   Ms. Edwards sent out a New Year's Day e-mail, the contents of which would (IMHO) have a real impact in the less affluent parts of this district, especially in the the southern (Prince George's County) precincts. The e-mail has been published in its entirety here. [blog.pdamerica.org]

   Of necessity, she has had to seek funding where she could find it, which is mostly outside of the district. Her personal story would (I think) really resonate with a lot of folks here who might otherwise dismiss her because of where her financial support originated. [Al Wynn has made this argument regarding her funding, conveniently not mentioning all his corporate support, albeit "voluntarily" donated by corporate executives or beneficiaries, some of whom live in the wealthier enclaves in MD-04.]

   There are a number of posts - nearly all pro-Edwards - on this race at Free State Politics [freestatepolitics.us], Open Left [openleft.com], and MyDD [mydd.com]. I'm no expert on politics or campaigning, but it looks like Ms. Edwards will have to at least retain the support she had in Montgomery County precincts in 2006, while making some inroads into Wynn's traditional PG County base. An honest election process is also required, of course, which these days is not a given, especially in precincts populated by poor minorities.

   I think she has a great message, a great personal story, and the intelligence, honesty, drive, and decency to do a great job. It's a matter of convincing enough folks here of that in time for the 12Feb primary.

   Posted by lawrensh at 01/02/2008 @ 7:08pm

7. Posted by STEVE FOSTER 01/02/2008 @ 6:21pm |

   STEVE, as usually happens when this question is put to somebody on the Left....you're good at the "Oh, so you think helping poor people is socialism" or "Oh, so you think Social Security is socialism" retort.

   But not the answer. Or the other question "Are YOU a socialist?" and if not...why not? Or if so, why so few step up and admit it?

   Posted by Mask at 01/02/2008 @ 8:48pm

8. If income and property taxes constitute a sacrilegious attack on private property, then what is one to make of ever-increasing sales taxes, borne by workers whose incomes are diminishing?

   No, it's not a rhetorical question; it's a conundrum that antedates FDR by many millenia. Taxes of some kind are necessary, even in a free-market democracy - or in a crony-capitalist oligarchy, like ours. But raising the price of everything with sales taxes kills economic growth, and the Republican policy of shifting the tax burden onto the workers is causing not only a recession but also a protracted bear market in assets, just as it did 20 years ago.

   Posted by samcrossett at 01/03/2008 @ 10:44am

9. Speaking of history repeating itself, those of you who do own assets would do well to sell stocks and buy bonds, if you haven't done so already. I sold most of the stocks in my IRA last spring, not because I believed companies like Intel or Corning to be fundamentally unsound, but because the Republican policy of borrow-and-spend that created the bubble is fundamentally unsound.

   Five percent on an investment-grade bond fund may not seem like much today, but it will look like El Dorado if the next bear market lasts as long as the one we endured in the late 80s and early 90s.

   Posted by samcrossett at 01/03/2008 @ 10:50am

10. "But raising the price of everything with sales taxes kills economic growth..."----Posted by SAMCROSSETT 01/03/2008 @ 10:44am

    See, I think classic liberalism embraces the idea that "Yes! Raising taxes can kill economic growth"....what I wonder is, if many of today's "progressives" believe that, and that it could even be effected by income taxes at SOME extraordinarily high rate.

    Posted by Mask at 01/03/2008 @ 4:48pm

11. Mask, good point. Even workers, union and non-union alike, understand that taxing incomes at 70%, as we once did, can lead to capital flight, abusive shelters, and other counter-productive outcomes. The question is this: where exactly on the Laffer curve are we? Or are we to believe, as some apparently still do, that "cutting taxes reduces deficits"?

    Posted by samcrossett at 01/04/2008 @ 09:26am

12. Posted by SAMCROSSETT 01/04/2008 @ 09:26am

    Not sure. But I think that many on the Left seem to think that "big money" is a bottomless and INESCAPABLE pool of cash that they can dredge from (not just "dip from").

    Posted by Mask at 01/04/2008 @ 10:47am