Edwards Primary: A Key Win For Obama

David Obey really did want to vote for John Edwards for president.

In fact, aside from the former candidate himself, there could be few better barometers than the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee for defining where "the Edwards vote" is headed now that his backers must choose between New York Senator Hillary Clinton and Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

And Obey has made that choice.

"For eight long years, in extreme partisanship, George W. Bush has governed this country by dividing it," the senior Democrat from Wisconsin explained in an email sent to this reporter after we spoke about the race Thursday. "(Bush) has pursued disastrous foreign and domestic policies and has stubbornly refused to listen to anyone's views except those who march in lockstep with him. America desperately needs a new president who can reach across old barriers to form new alliances that can produce a new era of optimism and a healthier respect for the needs of others. I had originally supported John Edwards for President, but with his withdrawal I am voting for Barack Obama."

Obey, who as chairman of the House Appropriations Committee is one of the most powerful Democrats on Capitol Hill, is an economic populist of the old school. No Democrat was angrier about the tax cuts for the rich and the free-trade deals that defined the economic policies of the Bush administration, and few were more frustrated with the compromises of the Clinton administration that came before it.

Obey wants a Democratic president who will work with a Democratic Congress to forge economic policies that favor Main Streets in Wisconsin cities like Wausau, Superior and Ashland rather than Wall Street. For this congressman, the choices are about a lot more more than legislative maneuvers and political positioning. Obey's one of the few really powerful people in Washington who knows the location of every union hall in his home state. And don't get him started talking about trade and economic policies unless you are ready to listen to a lengthy discourse on how successive administrations have let down the factory workers and farmers of his northern Wisconsin district.

Edwards' populist campaign struck a chord with Obey, and with a number of other old-school Democrats who have made economic concerns central to their tenures in Congress. They joined a number of key unions in backing the former senator from North Carolina.

But Edwards is now out of the race. The unions are making their moves: The Transport Workers Union, which represents 140,000 workers nationwide and has long been one of the savviest political players on economic issues, just announced that, "With Senator Edwards out of the race, our officers found it an easy decision to lend our support to the Obama campaign."

And Obey says, "People will, and should, make their own choices, but I believe that, while both remaining candidates would make outstanding presidents, Senator Obama has the best chance of giving this country the new beginning it so desperately needs."

Comments (38)

1. "Edwards' populist campaign struck a chord with Obey, and with a number of other old-school Democrats who have made economic concerns central to their tenures in Congress."

   Yes...a SMALL number.

   But, every little bit helps I guess, and I think most here (even FRANKGRITS) knew that the "Edwards' vote" would go to Obama, not Hillary.

   Posted by Mask at 02/08/2008 @ 1:39pm

2. Posted by MASK 02/08/2008 @ 1:39pm | ignore this person

   Count me as a real world example of that!

   Posted by jmusolino at 02/08/2008 @ 1:49pm

3. Here's an off the topic article about a topic that I suspect many readers here will be incensed by --apparent strong arm tactics by the Democratic Party establishment to try and unseat Dennis Kucinich.

   Is Dennis Kucinich Being McKinney'd?.

   Excerpt:

   On the Hill some call it being McKinney'd--the treatment Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney received when she was in Congress. Twice, rather than protecting the incumbent, the Democrats put up well funded challengers against her. Now, it looks like Dennis Kucinich may be facing the same treatment in Cleveland.

   There is a report circulating the web that before the Nevada primary Kucinich was visited by representatives of Nancy Pelosi and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the right wing Israeli lobby. They told him that if he would drop his campaigns to impeach Cheney and Bush, they would guarantee his re-election to the House of Representatives. Kucinich threw them out of his office.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/08/2008 @ 1:55pm

4. Kucinich threw them out of his office.

   Posted by B_KOOL_66 02/08/2008 @ 1:55pm

   Good for him.

   Posted by FritztheCat at 02/08/2008 @ 2:01pm

5. Posted by B_KOOL_66 02/08/2008 @ 1:55pm

   Why do I get the suspicion that that story begins and ends in....the Internet.

   And nowhere else?

   Posted by Mask at 02/08/2008 @ 2:07pm

6. Why do I get the suspicion that that story begins and ends in....the Internet.

   And nowhere else?

   ~Maskot @ 2:07pm

   A perfectly valid point, Maskot.

   But given the vociferousness of Kucinich on impeachment as well as his clamorous sounding of the klaxon on the attempted zillion dollar theft of Iraq's oil rights --remember that story in the spring of last year?-- he's gotta have a big fat neon bullseye painted on his back. Believing otherwise is sheer naïveté.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/08/2008 @ 2:16pm

7. But, every little bit helps I guess, and I think most here (even FRANKGRITS) knew that the "Edwards' vote" would go to Obama, not Hillary.

   Posted by MASK 02/08/2008 @ 1:39pm

   no way. edwards is white. everybody knows they'll now side with hillary. do your homework.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 2:21pm

8. Count me as a real world example of that!

   Posted by JMUSOLINO 02/08/2008 @ 1:49pm

   Musolino? That's a mulatto name, right?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 2:23pm

9. Kucinich threw them out of his office.

   Posted by B_KOOL_66 02/08/2008 @ 1:55pm

   unfortunately, they're gonna reciprocate the favour.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 2:24pm

10. Posted by B_KOOL_66 02/08/2008 @ 2:16pm

    Sorry, it's got ALL the earmarks of the Left Wing Blogosphere coming up with a "viral legend".

    1. Love for Dennis Kucinich and an example of him "standing tough"

    2. Impeachment talk

    3. Pelosi conspiring against "the will of the people"

    and of course the perennial #4. AIPAC

    And I'll bet this too....somebody asks Kucinich, he denies the story happened that way (or even happened) and the story becomes "Well, of course Dennis HAS to say that. He's not going to pick a fight within the Party on the eve of the Election" (in direct contradiction to what was credited to him in the original story).

    Next up...."Cheney and Halliburton are building concentration camps outside of Bozeman!....Really, man! Here's a satellite photo, I found on www.israeli_mind_control.org!!!"

    Posted by Mask at 02/08/2008 @ 2:32pm

11. do your homework.----Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/08/2008 @ 2:21pm

    No,no, no. It's "do your homework and get back to us"!

    FRANK has to make it seem as if YOU are the outsider and loner, trying to pass lies to "us" the "majority" who love and support Hillary!

    Posted by Mask at 02/08/2008 @ 2:34pm

12. Posted by MASK 02/08/2008 @ 2:32pm

    follow the links and you end up here:

    http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/02/371899.shtml

    i do, however, believe that AIPAC will be helping whomever is running against mr. kucinich.

    i imagine the don't really like him.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/08/2008 @ 2:56pm

13. The way the left is humping Obama's leg without realizing he hasn't said one meaningful word this whole campaign is embarassing. Edwards was the candidate of substance and it's sad to see that his supporters are now throwing their weight behind this empty promise machine.

    Posted by badtimmay at 02/08/2008 @ 3:08pm

14. Posted by BADTIMMAY 02/08/2008 @ 3:08pm

    Are you saying you would rather see Hillary? The one who's full of lies?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/08/2008 @ 3:15pm

15. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/08/2008 @ 2:56pm

    Yep, thought so. "portland.indymedia.org" is RESE!!!!'s source for 90% of his conspiracy theory drivel and "Check this outs".

    Posted by Mask at 02/08/2008 @ 3:33pm

16. no way. edwards is white. everybody knows they'll now side with hillary. do your homework.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM

    Oh, man, that's right! I totally forgot that I can't vote outside my racial bloc. Duh! Can I take back my primary vote? My bad!

    Posted by cyrano at 02/08/2008 @ 4:24pm

17. I think Frosty was joking cyrano

    I say this as a supporter of Edwards who is excited about neither of the centrist campaigns we have left, but there is every reason to think that a significant portion of Edwards' support came from racist and sexist democrats. He always did much better than he should have with self-identified conservatives than he should have given that his policies were the most left-wing of the three. My guess is that the informed Edwards voters go to Obama but that a good number won't support Clinton or Obama, for the same reason they originally supported Edwards (I forget the exit poll numbers for conservatives, but I would bet the percentage of Edwards' vote that came from such voters doesn't break either way).

    Posted by dentedpat at 02/08/2008 @ 6:52pm

18. No - not all Edwards supporters are going for Obama! Especially after Obama used the "Harry and Louise" ad against Hillary that Republicans used in 1993 to kill universal health care. Obama's rightwing attacks prove he's a Republicrat!

    Obama/Raygun08

    Posted by JoseyJ at 02/08/2008 @ 7:19pm

19. Everyone speaks of the prophet obams's vision, but, i have yet to hear it articulated. I hear him speak of hope, but, whom among us unmedicated people don't already hope? Also, he speaks of change from old political ways, but, his response to voting 130 times present is, "that is a long time political strategy in Illinois". And finally, his "vote" against the war before being a US Senator and actually voting every time to fund it. I must need glasses because I cant see the vision.

    Posted by Blome at 02/08/2008 @ 7:59pm

20. Posted by JOSEYJ 02/08/2008 @ 7:19pm

    Got proof of that???

    Posted by Mask at 02/08/2008 @ 8:09pm

21. Yes it is called the congressional record.

    Posted by Blome at 02/08/2008 @ 8:14pm

22. Certainly, Obama has his faults, as does Hillary. Not a lot to distinguish them, but there are some things. But let's not confuse Obama with being a leftie. So why am I supporting him over Hillary? Because, he actually has a chance of accomplishing some things. Hillary would be fighting a rear-guard battle from the beginning, and given her history, that would mean trying to prove she can be just as vicious and right-wing as those attacking her. My sense is that Obama would have a chance to build a coalition that can bring about some substantive policy chnages, and won't have to be expending political capital just to survive, as Hillary would. And although Obama never faced the opportunity to put a voting face on his opposition to the war, we know what Hillary did, and I find it unforgivable personally.

    Posted by Durutti at 02/08/2008 @ 9:16pm

23. TO DURUTTI: Actually Obama has had plenty of opportunity to put a "voting face" on his "opposition" to the war. Every time he voted to fund it!

    Posted by Blome at 02/08/2008 @ 9:35pm

24. Posted by BLOME 02/08/2008 @ 8:14pm

    And what's in it that proves what JOSEY said?

    Posted by Mask at 02/08/2008 @ 9:47pm

25. The new math:

    Kennedy + Kerry + Leahy + Obama = Change?

    Posted by Blome at 02/08/2008 @ 10:10pm

26. Yes, let's just boycott this election. That will show them.

    Posted by Durutti at 02/08/2008 @ 10:29pm

27. You don't have to go to drastic steps like boycotting...just vote for the right candidate....Hillary

    Posted by Blome at 02/08/2008 @ 10:38pm

28. That's ok, 8 years of Republicans in the WH is enough. And Hillary voted for the war. You know, the first vote that started the whole mess to begin with.

    Posted by Durutti at 02/08/2008 @ 10:58pm

29. Hmmm, didn't Hillary vote for the war, the thing that got us in this mess? Nope, can't do it. Same reason I will be voting against Kerry when he comes up. Besides, 8 years of Republicans in the WH is enough. Hillary can't win the general election.

    Posted by Durutti at 02/08/2008 @ 11:06pm

30. I think Frosty was joking cyrano

    Posted by DENTEDPAT 02/08/2008 @ 6:52pm

    i thought his reply was in jest, as well.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/09/2008 @ 12:45am

31. You don't have to go to drastic steps like boycotting...just vote for the right candidate....Hillary

    Posted by BLOME 02/08/2008 @ 10:38pm

    is taupe your favourite colour?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/09/2008 @ 12:46am

32. Hillary can't win the general election.

    not with all these purists throwing away their vote.

    I know many dems voted for the war. I also know that it is the repubs who fraudulently started it.

    we can't let them have the white house and the congress any longer. they are criminals.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/09/2008 @ 09:59am

33. So Obama is so "progressive"? How about a specific comparison? When Senator Dayton of Minnesota proposed Amendment #31 to S.256 (the 2005 Bankruptcy Act) which would cap credit card interest rates at 30%, the Republicans argued that "free-markets" should rule and government should not interfere. Obama voted with the Republicans against the Amendment; Hillary Clinton voted for the Amendment.

    Senator Dayton spoke passionately (linked below) about lenders charging vulnerable people 300%, 500%, and even 1000% annual interest rates. Yet, Obama voted against the Amendment to cap rates at 30%.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r109:1:./temp/~r109Sb6Xhl:e166855:

    Later, in the 1-21-08 South Carolina debate with Hillary and John Edwards, Obama first lied about his vote, saying he thought a 30% cap was "too high a ceiling," and then, after John Edwards challenged the audacious lie, Obama admitted "It didn't make sense for us to cap interest rates."

    Obama is NOT the working-class candidate in this race. There is no working-class candidate in this race.

    Posted by wgilwood at 02/09/2008 @ 3:55pm

34. I'm an Edwards Dem. I live in Wisconsin. I wouldn't follow Dave Obey anywhere. If he told me where the bathroom was I'd doubt it.

    Last year he confronted a woman whose son was in Iraq about how she was wrong about how to the end war. He berated her. He told her I know how to do this and I'll get it done, you don't konw what you're doing (by protesting).

    Well, who was right about that?

    I didn't support JRE because of Obey in the first place and I'd never vote for anyone he told me to vote for. He's a good Dem, but he's no leader.

    I'm voting for JRE in Wisconsin on Feb. 19. You can say it's throw my vote away, but if I vote for either of the two corporate Dems still left, I throw it away as well.

    News bulletin folks: the election is over. Corporate America won. Again.

    Posted by neaguy at 02/09/2008 @ 9:21pm

35. Obama is NOT the working-class candidate in this race. There is no working-class candidate in this race.

    Posted by WGILWOOD 02/09/2008 @ 3:55pm | ignore this person

    there never has been.

    Posted by emile duBois at 02/09/2008 @ 11:08pm

36. We have two candidates that have been vetted by corporate America, as any examination of their funding records will confirm. Personally, I was lukewarm to the task of even turning on the radio on the evening of Super Tuesday. Comparative analyses of the Clinton policy proposals (hers are more aggressive and progressive) vs. Omaha's have given me slight pause despite my long held commitment to never support the Clintons; Obama's choice of economic advisors and policy initiatives along with the level of exhilaration with which big industry has pumped tens of millions of dollars into his campaign has mad it very difficult to support him. Obama has made what should have been an easy decision difficult.

    Despite my own disappointment that our long-awaited response to the Bush nightmare and three decades of government-corporate assault against working and middle class Americans looks to be incremental insiderism, it is Obama who appears to have a better chance of delivering the few inches we're likely to gain. We are told that Obama is all for grassroots participatory democracy and yet he insulates himself with former Clinton advisors and elite-thinking economists and market dogmatists. The Obama ‘we are all one' strategy offers something to everyone and so I fear that it is the progressive causes, which in reality represent the interests of ninety percent of Americans that will be ‘compromised' away to satisfy the former Bush supporters who are supposed to share our goals and interests. We'll see how 'united' we are the moment big business begins to shriek against legislation taking away their ability to plunder national wealth and resources or cutting into their obscene profit margins they are unwilling to share with the people who actually work. Still, Obama probably offers more promise in enabling further democratic gains in the house and senate. I am leaning towards the Obama vote this week in Virginia.

    Posted by Oustbush at 02/10/2008 @ 10:26am

37. Still, Obama probably offers more promise in enabling further democratic gains in the house and senate. I am leaning towards the Obama vote this week in Virginia.

    Posted by OUSTBUSH 02/10/2008 @ 10:26am

    vote twice!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/10/2008 @ 1:39pm

38. WILL WE EVER LEARN?

    With all this talk about Stuper-Delegates deciding for us, I can't help but feel cheated once again by the system. It's bad enough that the Florida and Michagan votes won't count-bad enough that the party leader Dean, a former candidate, would acknowledge and count the people's votes. But even worse is that the tiny populous of Iowa and New Hampshire have decided who the other 99.99 per cent of us dems may choose from. ALL BECAUSE OF MONEY. Maybe the party needs to collect ALL DONATIONS and then split it evenly amongst the candidates who compete in 2 national primaries. The first is to thin the herd, the 2nd to choose from top 2 or 3. Pipe dream, perhaps, but obviously much fairer. If I was Edwards, or even Kucinich, would be seething about the way things have transpired. I compare the prospective super delegate at the convention scenario to the Baseball All Star game, when they didnt have enough players to go extra innings, and didn't have a rule to deal with the situation. But that was a meaningless game, not the future of our nation. Let's through a big wrench in the workings by having GORE/EDWARDS declare on the 1st day of Convention. Then we'll see real entertaining programming, as Hill and Bar will have to ally. However,what will happen is that we will have a fractured party, and the Repubs will then have digested (with plenty of rolaids) their candidate in a united front.

    WILL WE EVER LEARN?

    Posted by clarinet40 at 02/12/2008 @ 09:19am