Why I'm Endorsing Barack Obama
I was privileged to be presidential candidate John Edwards' Senior Economic Policy Advisor, but today I am just as honored to endorse Senator Barack Obama. And I do so for precisely the same reasons I long and enthusiastically supported and helped John Edwards.
At Senator's Obama's very core, and at the core of his Campaign and its economic policies, are his abiding commitments to working men and women and to economic fairness. And the critically important policy issues associated with his core values, and how he proposes to specifically address them, are what are now defining the national election.
Like John Edwards, Barack Obama seeks effective public policy aimed at sustained growth, full employment, an end to poverty, and progress toward solving the major social and environmental problems associated with health care, education, trade, taxation and climate change.
Barack Obama believes in change, but not change for change's sake or change, as some are proposing, in the guise of tried but failed policies. His belief in change is all about the American Dream being once again every American's dream.
Barack Obama believes in vigorously enforcing our existing domestic labor laws and standards. He believes in all workers having an easy and unrestricted ability to join a union, including part-time and contract workers. And he believes in affording low-wage workers the "mobility" they need in order to earn something more than low wages.
Barack Obama believes in fairer and more progressive individual income taxation, taxation which will see every American once again paying his or her fair share. How can anyone but the wealthiest of Americans be satisfied with an economy which has seen forty percent of all economic growth over the past 20 years go to only the top one percent of American families? Where half of the nation's individual income now goes to just 2% of the taxpayers?
Barack Obama believes in incentivizing American companies to create and retain high-quality jobs here in America, instead of unnecessarily and often unfairly shipping millions of them overseas.
And Barack Obama believes that U.S. trade agreements must provide clear and measurable benefits for American workers. He believes that in order for free trade to also be fair trade, trade agreements must incorporate reasonable labor and environmental standards and prohibit illegal subsidies and currency manipulation. He believes that in negotiating trade agreements, "one size does not fit all" - it never has - and that trade agreements which are not vigorously enforced are not agreements at all, they are just so much paper.
It was inspiring for me to be John Edwards' Senior Economic Policy Advisor. But the issues and the solutions that were important to us in the Edwards Campaign, and which have been embraced by millions of working Americans and taxpayers, are also Senator Obama's. And so I invite every worker, labor and business leader, voter and economist who wanted John Edwards to be president to now help Barack Obama in his Campaign.
Barack Obama will be a president of the ages and for all ages.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Senator Obama has rendered nothing in the ways of action. Being head of an oversight committee that is to discern how to go about the Afghani equation in the War on Terror, and forgoing this important element of fundamental brainstorming for the sake of his campaign in itself seemingly belies his sincerity. The Jul 9, 2007 edition of NewsWeek branded Obama a 'hot-shot fundraiser', who had outpaced the GOP in funds raised combined. That to me is telling about where his priorities lie, and further supports my growing suspicion of him and his sincerity
And Clinton fairs no better. She might have been involved in many of these oversight committees and referendums, but the fact is that she herself voted for the invasion, and has not taken direct accountability for it being misguided on her part to do so. Hindsight is always 20/20, and the mere fact she hasn't straight-up apologized for participating in Bush's War reeks of self preservation. Senetor Clinton screwed up in a decision and cannot fully own up to it. She is no different than The Toxic Texan currently squatting in the White House.
Many supporters from both these camps, from what I have seen here, and elsewhere on HufPo have demonstrated a lack of willingness to digest the sheer and obvious fact that both candidates have no substance that is palpable and concrete. Clinton, in particular, lacks needed continuity in her expressed policies and ideas. She has not done well coming through with a 'top-down' campaign, fiery rhetoric and rampant mudslinging aimed at slowing down the momentous Obama Freight Train. And looks a right selfish cad in doing so, only seemingly interested in her preconceived rite to political ascension and nothing more.
I sense many supporters of all stripes lack one thing: defining what 'substance' is. Rather than sound pandering and condescending, which will illicit ultra-vehement and thoughtless responses, I'll give an example:
Ron Paul. He has constantly battled against corporate lobbying, and has refused such sponsorship for his campaign. He voted "Nay' on the Iraqi Invasion in 2003, and has proposed a complete and immediate pullout as part of his campaign piece. Citing non-consti
..because he said no to corporate lobbying and special interest money. That what substance looks like, people. Put down the sloganeering, and do your homework
Wow.
In that entire endorsement, Edwards economic chair didn't comment one specific Obama policy proposal that would reflect Edwards ideals.
Just more of same inane pablum that elucidates nothing. What does Obama intend to do? Funny how none of his supporters seem to know either.
Just the same old vague talking points.
My thoughts exactly--
And what was the : of the ages- for all ages"?? Crap. If he is President- it will be historic-
whether he will be effective, remains to be seen..
.
Mr. Hindery has argued convincingly for supporting Mr. Obama, although it does require a "leap of faith."
Mr. Hindery is a principled businessman and has shown himself to be concerned with ordinary workers and their welfare. His endorsement carries a great deal of weight for me, although I must admit, I still pine away for the some of the Edwards speeches and rhetoric. Hopefully Mr. Obama will not let Leo down. And hopefully Leo can help sharpen Mr. Obama's focus, and help him give us a clearer picture about how the change he proposes might look.
Beth Gorham
THE CANADIAN PRESS
WASHINGTON–Canada was pulled smack into the middle of the U.S. election campaign today at a do-or-die juncture for Hillary Clinton, who jumped on a memo suggesting a top Barack Obama adviser told Canadians not to take his anti-NAFTA talk too seriously.
After days of denials from the Canadian Embassy and the Obama campaign that any such conversation took place, a memo surfaced saying it did — on Feb. 8 at the Canadian consulate in Chicago.
But Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee insisted his comments about NAFTA at the meeting were misconstrued in the summarizing brief written by a Canadian official.
In Carrollton, Texas, Obama told reporters: “Nobody reached out to the Canadians to try to assure them of anything.”
Asked why he had appeared to deny a report last week that such a meeting had taken place, Obama said: “That was the information I had at the time.”
Canada’s Foreign Affairs Department, meanwhile, expressed regret today over the memo, saying there was no intent to suggest Obama didn’t mean what he said publicly about reopening the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Foreign Affairs also stated Canada did not want to interfere in the Democratic race.
But the memo provided new fodder for Clinton, whose bid for the Democratic nomination rests partly on winning tomorrow’s Ohio primary. One way to do so is to break Obama’s hold on blue-collar workers who blame NAFTA for job losses.
The latest polls suggest Clinton is holding an edge over Obama in the state, but they differ on the margin of support she holds.
In Ottawa, the Opposition Liberals accused the Conservative government of leaking word of the meeting last week to CTV News in order to hurt Democrats and help Republican John McCain in the U.S. presidential election this fall.
Bob Shrum, a top Democratic strategist, also accused Canada’s Conservatives of “actively interfering” in the U.S. election campaign.
I'm sorry I'm at a bit of a loss. According to the media this conversation was supposed to have occurred just last week after the last debate with Tim Russert. The details that you put forward are referencing a meeting/memo or communication that occurred prior to Feb. 8th.
As such I tend to think that perhaps all of the facts are not out and that more than likely comments have been taken out of context.
Hello moderators. Well, I guess we'll just have to wait to see if you get your way, i.e. if Obama becomes President. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
President Barak Obama will open up a dialog with Iran’s Ahmadinejad, who will listen to and respect Obama for his Muslim heritage. Ahmadinejad has advocated a solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. With Obama’s support and encouragement, Ahmadinejad will assume his rightful role as leader in the middle east, which will allow the United States to leave the region forever. This will, in turn assure peace between Islam and the West.
Why don't you get the facts before you troll? The Right Wingers in the Canadian Govt are as loud mothed and racist as Limbaugh. Here is what the Prime Minister was forced to say after his trolls were caught:
http://www
I am hoping that Mr. Edwards steps forward soon to endorse Obama. It is almost like he is waiting to see who is coming out on top so he can be safe.
Now is not the time to be safe, now is the time to change the direction of our beloved country.
Mr. Hindery, Jr
Don't you think Barak H. Obama should also question his endorsers Kennedy and Rockefeller about their vote on Iraq War? If he makes it a big dot on Hillary, why not on his friends? I guess his yardstick is different for his friends and a different one for anyone who disagrees. Is it about; if my supporters doing or have done something, it should not be talked about, and all others must be slammed? Would you advice him to be truthful about this and many things such as what Council of American Islamic Relations has to say about him?
What I have read on blogs, the trends is that anyone who disagrees or ask question is being cursed, threatened and called filthy names, so much for change from a little decency to vulgar onslaught.
Whenever someone questions them, instead of using the opportunity to make the point by answering the question, addressing the concern, his supporters chose to curse them out. Sound like Pervaiz Musharraf or the Kenyan President's equal running for highest office in our America. The world would really be a changed place, I guarantee you that.
Regards,
Najam, NJ
Very good points.
To imply that Obama is hypocritical because he doesn't openly criticize his friends is way off point. Of course Kennedy and Reckefeller aren't running for president. If they were, don't you think that Obama would question them, too?
Don't confuse bloggers with supporters. If you talk to a true supporter of Obama, Clinton, or any candidate, it's highly unlikely that you will encounter invective. No candidate has any control over what independent individuals may post. If that were the case then it would likewise be fair to say that Clinton should be held accountable if *you* should say something that others deem offensive.
While you may be upset about blogs or particular bloggers, they are equal opportunity offenders; Clinton or McCain bloggers are no less offensive than Obama's. If you *choose* to be offended, then you will be. However, that has nothing to do with Obama or Clinton.
Dear Mr. Hindery, Jr.
Please don't tell us in all those detail, I do not want to loose any respect that I may have for you. Please let him spell it out, other than loud rhetoric or his wife's constant anger over truth. I wish you and Obama was looking at the same issues and come with the same conclusion or resolution.
Regards,
Naj, NJ
This is exactly what I'd hoped to hear from someone like you, Mr. Hindery.
After ardently supporting Edwards, I shifted to Obama, but with concerns that his corporate ties are almost as strong as the Clintons'. We all know a lot of Wall Street money is behind Obama and it's more than reasonable to wonder why
Well, you definitely chose an appropriate username, because since the beginning of the campaign when the media was screaming "BLACK CANDIDATE" and "FEMALE CANDIDATE", Obama and Clinton have been all about GLITZ and nothing else.
WHere do you get your numbers?? When I compare the two, clearly, Clinton wins in the PAC Lobbyist realm.
http://www
Yes, she does, but not substantially. Also, it has been shown that many of Obama's "individual" donors are persons who are working for the various interest groups. Look how Rezko gave him so much money. Because he had already given the maximum, he merely had his friends make the donations.
CNSNews.co
A memo obtained by the Associated Press over the weekend shows how Canadian officials viewed their conversation with Sen. Barack Obama's senior economic policy adviser, Austan Goolsbee.
The memo was written by Joseph DeMora, who attended a meeting with Austan Goolsbee at the Canadian consulate in Chicago.
DeMora, summarizing the conversation with Goolsbee, wrote: "Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."
Later in the memo, DeMora wrote: "As Obama continues to court the economic populist vote, particularly in upcoming contests like Ohio, we are likely to see a continuation of some of the messaging that hasn't played in Canada's favour, but this should continue to be viewed in the context in which it is delivered.
CTV, the Canadian television network, reported last week that Obama was playing both sides on NAFTA -- saying one thing publicly to please union voters in Ohio (yes, we'll renegotiate NAFTA), and something else privately (it's just campaign rhetoric) to ease Canadian concerns.
In a conversation with the Associated Press on Sunday, Goolsbee disputed DeMora's memo. He said that DeMora was not quoting him and had mischaracterized the conversation. Goolsbee specifically told the A.P. he did not use the phrase "it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."
However, Goolsbee admitted he did tell Canadian officials that Obama is not a protectionist. Goolsbee told the Associated Press he was trying to convey that Obama wants to strike a balance between free trade -- and labor and environmental protections.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton was also on the line when Goolsbee spoke to the Associated Press on Sunday, apparently to help Goolsbee explain what happened. Burton told the Associated Press that Goolsbee's visit to the Canadian consulate was not official -- that Goolsbee was there as a private citizen, not as an emissary from the Obama campaign.
Both Sens. Obama and Hillary Clinton have insisted they would renegotiate NAFTA to include more labor and environmental protections -- and threaten to "opt out" of the trade agreement as leverage to force a renegotiation.
Such talk does not please Canada.
When Cybercast News Service contacted the Canadian Embassy in Washington last week, a spokesman said only that the CTV report about Obama's double-speak on NAFTA was not true; that "no one has contacted our embassy or our ambassador" to discuss anything of the sort.
No mention was made at the time about the existence of the DeMora memo -- which was "widely distributed within the Canadian government," according to the Associated Press.
I praise you for getting the story on Huffington Post but if you think the Obama supporters care you better think again. They will say this is another racist attack on him.
I agree. It's a lot like the Bush supporters; no matter how many negative stories came out, they just kept on supporting him. Some of the Obama supporters are also every bit at nasty as the far-right nut jobs. What a tragedy for the Democratic Party, and this country.
Who in Canada would benefit from discrediting Obama on trade? I give you a choice. 1) a leftt wing trade hating extremist, or 2) a right wing free trader who is in love with NAFTA, or 3) a citizen of Canada so concerned with fariness that they could not hold it in.
The whole issue would have more weight, or rather have some weight, if it were not a disclosure that was obviously not in the interest of Canadaian business. I doubt seriously that they would enable a candidate, Clinton, if they thought she would be tougher on NAFTA. If Obama were making assurances, that information would be the last thing you heard from Canadian government sources.
last summer I gave Edwards and Obama $50 each - and supported both through South Carolina. Once Edwards dropped out, I have been a die hard Obama supporter
Texans for Obama '08
Why won't Hillary release last year tax returns? She says this years will be released after April 15 or so. That's great but she still has a problem releasing last years taxes - says she's busy right now. How long does it take to go to cupboard you store old tax returns in and pull it out and make a copy for all to see?
Maybe she doesn't want the American people knowing where Bill earned his bucks last year. I wonder if any came from Dubai? Just curious.
Just as Obama is too busy to sit down with reporters and discuss the Rezko case. The trial has finally begun, and it will be interesting to see how Obama's friend, Rezko, mounts his defense.
What difference does it make?
If you want to turn off 50% of voters IMMEDIATELY, run Bill Clinton's wife or a black man with "HUSSEIN" in his name.
The media led you morons right by the nose to defeat. You're a frog in a pot on the stove that hasn't started boiling yet. You don't even see it coming, but the day that Edwards dropped out was the day that the Democratic Party lost the 2008 Presidential election.
You are troll. Why don't you read this first, you redneck punk.
News from the Embassy of Canada
Statement by the Canadian Embassy
Washington, D.C., March 3, 2008 — The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect.
The people of the United States are in the process of choosing a new President and are fortunate to have strong and impressive candidates from both political parties. Canada will not interfere in this electoral process. We look forward, however, to working with the choice of the American people in further building an unparalleled relationship with a close friend and partner.
----------
As a former Edwards supporter I totally agree!
Obama 2008
Great endorsement.
-a former Edwards' supporter.
Great post enlightening those important principles shared by both candidates. Thank you.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
