Posts filed under 'Edwards'

Dumbass Of The Day

Shorter Rielle Hunter: Does this lack of pants make my ass look pantsless?

I particularly like the GQ video accompanying the interview and photo shoot, in which the photographer is showing Hunter the pantsless photos he’s taking, and she seems quite happy with them.  Although I suppose maybe they never showed her the ones they ended up using…

3 comments March 16th, 2010 at 11:26am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Edwards,Media

Wanker Of The Day

Mike Huckabee:

“We need fiscal sanity in government,” Huckabee writes. “Congress is truly spending like John Edwards in a beauty shop (sorry I couldn’t resist.)”

Hahaha!  Edwards is a great big sissy!

I thought Huckabee was supposed to be branding himself as one of the few Republicans who’s actually a decent, likable guy who can appeal to people outside the mean-spirited conservative base.  And yet here he is, trying to be Ann Coulter Lite, taking shots at a guy who’s pretty much completely irrelevant now.  Stay classy, Huck!

1 comment April 28th, 2009 at 07:09am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Economy,Edwards,Huckabee,Quotes,Teh Gay

Wanker Of The Week

Okay, so he’s not nearly as bad as Michael “Autistic kids are whiny brats” Savage, but Ron Fournier is still pretty heinous:

Last week, we learned that while investigators for the House Oversight Committee were looking into the 2004 death of Cpl. Pat Tillman… they discovered that top political aide Karl Rove had exchanged emails with the Associated Press’ Ron Fournier on the day the news of Tillman’s death broke.

In one email, Rove asked, “How does our country continue to produce men and women like this?” Fournier responded: “The Lord creates men and women like this all over the world. But only the great and free countries allow them to flourish. Keep up the fight.

(…)

Fournier, now the wire service’s D.C. bureau chief, shrugged off the embarrassing revelation, conceding only: “I regret the breezy nature of the correspondence.”

Of course, Fournier wasn’t simply being breezy. “Have a great weekend” — that’s “breezy.”

(…)

The Fournier revelation came as no surprise to anyone who has read his recent campaign work, which has routinely been caustic and dismissive of Democratic contenders. In two “Analysis” pieces and a column, Fournier questioned whether John Edwards was a “phony,” announced the Clintons suffered from “utter self-absorption,” and claimed that Barack Obama was “bordering on arrogance.” That’s the right of a pundit. But at the same time, Fournier avoided raising any doubts about Sen. John McCain, and in fact rushed to his aid in print during the senator’s time of campaign need.

(…)

Just in case this isn’t perfectly obvious, just in case people might be wondering if it’s common for objective political reporters to email partisan operatives off the record and behind the scenes, urging them to “keep up the fight,” the answer is a resounding no. Because it violates the basic journalistic guideline of maintaining neutrality. Especially at the AP, that kind of correspondence should be considered breathtakingly inappropriate.

Think about it: That year, Rove was engineering the president’s re-election — a campaign Fournier was covering as an AP reporter — and Fournier urged Rove to “keep up the fight”? Even if that phrase was not written in connection with the campaign, that kind of communication is just wrong. If Fournier could produce emails from 2004 in which he urged top Democratic strategists to “keep up the fight,” it would certainly remove doubts about his relationship with Rove, but I suspect Fournier cannot.

(…)

But let’s dig a little deeper: In his attempt to dismiss the Rove correspondence, Fournier said that the exchange came “in the course of following an important and compelling story” while he was an AP political reporter. Meaning Fournier was just doing his job.

Yet according to a search of Nexis, Fournier didn’t write any bylined articles about Pat Tillman’s death in April 2004. Or ever, for that matter. That means Fournier wasn’t reaching out as a reporter to Rove for information, quotes, or context about the sad Tillman story. Fournier didn’t need Rove to be a “source” for the Tillman story because Fournier wasn’t covering the Tillman story.

Instead, Fournier seemed to be using the Tillman story as an opportunity to initiate contact with Rove and let him know that Fournier was on his side, and to urge Rove to “keep up the fight.”

But wait, there’s more!  This is what separates a Wanker Of The Week from a mere Wanker Of The Day:

Warning Clinton during the primaries about the dangers of having a candidate’s character questioned by the press, Fournier noted that Al Gore got unfairly tagged during the 2000 presidential campaign for having claimed to have invented the Internet. Fournier patiently set the record straight, noting that Gore “never said he invented the Internet,” that “his mistake was to place himself more centrally than warranted at the creation of the technology,” and that “such nuance was lost on people who voted against him in 2000.”

Silly voters. But how on earth did they come to the false conclusion that Gore ever claimed to have invented the Internet? Answer: By reading Ron Fournier.

  • “He [Gore] claimed credit for inventing the Internet, and comics had a punch line for months.” [November 13, 1999]
  • “Gore, who once claimed to have invented the Internet, e-mailed Bush and said Democrats won’t air TV ads purchased with unlimited, unregulated donations called ‘soft money’ unless Republicans do so first.” [March 15, 2000]

Awesome.  Ron Phonier is a wanker on so many levels.

July 22nd, 2008 at 09:22pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Edwards,Elections,McCain,Media,Politics,Republicans,Rove,Wankers

I Can Haz Leadership? (Updated)

As I understand it, the presidential primaries are supposed to be all about demonstrating to the voters of your party that you have the leadership qualities necessary to be President of the I-think-still-just-barely most powerful nation on Earth. We’ve heard all kinds of back and forth between the top three candidates about who can best effect Change.

Well, there’s this FISA vote coming up, wherein Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will attempt to ram through a bill granting telecom corporations retroactive immunity for turning their customer’s calls over to the Bush Administration without warrants. Reid intends to do this over Chris Dodd’s dead body, and will dispense with the courtesies that he granted to Republican opponents, such as honoring holds and not requiring actual reading-from-the-phone-book-until-you-keel-over filibusters. As if this were not bad enough, it appears that this is actually the outcome that the Senate Democrats want, and the only Democrats willing to stand with Dodd in support of a filibuster are Teddy Kennedy and Russ Feingold (of course).

The first time FISA almost came to a head, Hillary and Obama refused to tear themselves away from their campaigning, which was a non-response worthy of our current Ignorer-In-Chief. If Hillary and Obama really want to show voters, especially Democratic voters, that they have the mettle to lead our country, then they need to get their asses down to the Senate floor and help Dodd out. Vote against cloture, ask Dodd long rambling questions so he can take breaks, and perhaps most importantly of all, use the megaphone of your presidential campaigns to let the American people know that the Bush administration (with the active collusion of the Democratic leadership) is once again trying to chip away at the rule of law to let themselves and their corporate henchmen escape accountability.

If you want to show leadership, then lead, don’t hide. If you want to demonstrate your ability to effect change, then change something. If you want to show that you’re not beholden to corporations and lobbyists, then tell the telecoms who have been pelting you with money that you appreciate their support, but you have to follow your conscience and do the right thing.

Of course, even if you do all that, you’ll still be following Chris Dodd, who despite polling in the low single digits in his bid for the nomination, still managed to display more leadership in a week than either of you has shown in the entirety of your brief, cautious Senate careers. But at this point I have to take what I can get, and I’d rather have a fast follower for President than someone who hides under the desk every time Republicans shout “9/11.”

But what about Edwards, you ask? After all, he is the Officially Endorsed Candidate Of Multi Medium, is he not? He most certainly is – but what he is not is a sitting Senator. I would love to see him go down to DC in a show of support and solidarity, but Edwards can only affect the outcome indirectly, either by focusing the meager spotlight the media deign to give him onto the immunity issue, or by shaming Actual Sitting Senators Hillary and Obama into showing up so he can’t lord this over them for the rest of the campaign.

And as long as I’m on the subject of leadership, where the hell is ours in Congress? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is actively facilitating an enormous gift to the Bush administration, and Nancy “Impeachment Is Off The Table” Pelosi still refuses to call a vote to hold Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten in contempt, over six months after they blew off Congressional subpoenas to testify on the US Attorney firings. If covering for a lawless, out-of-control Republican President is the kind of “leadership” our Democratic Representatives and Senators actually want, then God help us all, and we need better Democrats. Much, much better Democrats.

UPDATE: I forgot to ask: Why can’t Reid just say, “Sorry, fellas – as much as I’d like to help you with the whole shielding-corporations-and-Bushies-from-accountability thing, my hands are tied as long as that mean ol’ Mr. Dodd persists with his hold. And since it doesn’t look like he’s going to change his mind anytime soon, you might as well just pass the version without telecom immunity. And, I might add, the absence of retroactive immunity for telecoms does not in any way impede our ability to catch terrorists, regardless of what the Bush administration may say.”?

Am I asking too much?

3 comments January 24th, 2008 at 07:46am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Constitution,Corruption/Cronyism,Democrats,Dodd,Edwards,Elections,Favorites,Obama,Politics,Republicans,Terrorism,Weirdness

Krugman Vs. Obama, Round II

Krugman is still underwhelmed by Obama… as am I:

Suddenly, the economic consensus seems to be that the implosion of the housing market will indeed push the U.S. economy into a recession, and that it’s quite possible that we’re already in one. As a result, over the next few weeks we’ll be hearing a lot about plans for economic stimulus.

[Krugman is generally appalled by the Republican plans - tax cuts for the rich! - and the pathetic state of contemporary political reporting]

On the Democratic side, John Edwards, although never the front-runner, has been driving his party’s policy agenda. He’s done it again on economic stimulus: last month, before the economic consensus turned as negative as it now has, he proposed a stimulus package including aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments, public investment in alternative energy, and other measures.

Last week Hillary Clinton offered a broadly similar but somewhat larger proposal. (It also includes aid to families having trouble paying heating bills, which seems like a clever way to put cash in the hands of people likely to spend it.) The Edwards and Clinton proposals both contain provisions for bigger stimulus if the economy worsens.

And you have to say that Mrs. Clinton seems comfortable with and knowledgeable about economic policy. I’m sure the Hillary-haters will find some reason that’s a bad thing, but there’s something to be said for presidents who know what they’re talking about.

The Obama campaign’s initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I’m sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from “morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending.” Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure — doesn’t that sound familiar?

Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.

For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments. I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.

Sigh. How depressing is it that our two most viable choices for our Democratic nominee are Hillary Clinton… and someone to the right of Hillary Clinton? Sadder yet, I think “to the right of Hillary Clinton” is gonna win.

January 14th, 2008 at 11:56am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Clinton,Economy,Edwards,Elections,Media,Obama

You Wouldn’t Like Me When I’m Angry

So, according to Chris Bowers, Hillary won New Hampshire because she was more appealing to angry, dissatisfied voters there:

Did Obama’s message of conciliatory unity cost him the New Hampshire primary? Sure looks like it. According to exit polls, 30% of Democrats identified themselves as “dissatisfied” with the Bush administration. Obama narrowly won those voters, 39%-38%. However, among the 62% of participants in the Democratic primary who described themselves as “angry” with the Bush administration, Clinton won 39%-34%. And thus, we have Clinton’s 2.6% margin of victory almost precisely.

Democrats are pissed off at Bush, I mean really pissed off and angry. There simply isn’t anyway to win this primary without winning the support of those voters. It appears “change” isn’t enough to put one over the top in that category, at least here. Clinton won the angrier voters, and so she won New Hampshire.

This makes sense to me, but here’s what I don’t get. If you review the data at the exit poll link Bowers cites, it also shows that Edwards does slightly better among Dissatisfied voters than Angry ones, 18% to 16%. Yet of the top three candidates, Edwards has by far the most adversarial message. Even if his campaign isn’t strong enough for him to beat out Clinton and Obama with Angry voters, I would expect him to at least have his biggest success there.

Maybe the Angry voters don’t think he’s tough enough?

2 comments January 10th, 2008 at 07:17am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Bush,Clinton,Democrats,Edwards,Elections,Obama,Politics

Iowaftermath

Okay, so Obama and Huckabee won, Edwards came in second, and Dodd showed so poorly that he dropped out. My thoughts:

o Not sure how significant this is, but the most charismatic candidates on each side won. This could be partially a function of the whole “retail politics” thing, where Huck & Obama had the opportunity to personally charm lots of voters on an individual basis.

o I’ll be curious to see whether the media ever suggests that Huckabee’s economic populism played into his victory at all, or if it’s all faith ‘n’ folksiness. My guess is that the establishment narrative will be reluctant to acknowledge that there’s a deep hunger for economic fairness. I was hoping that Edwards would win to really drive this point home (not that anyone would notice), but he did place a solid second despite being massively outspent.

o I was really hoping Dodd would do better. I thought he was the only presidential candidate to demonstrate Actual Leadership by taking a stand against telecom immunity when no-one else could be bothered. It’s shameful and depressing that his courage translated into zero support.

o I have mixed feelings about Obama, to say the least. On the one hand, Chris Bowers points out a huge positive:

…Obama won because he did something many campaigns have claimed they would do in the past, but never until now had never actually accomplished: he turned out young voters and new voters in record-smashing numbers. This has long been the holy grail of progressive politics, and until now no one had been able to pull it off. Well, Obama pulled it off. That is a remarkable an historic accomplishment. That is why he won.

If he could deliver that same kind of energized youth and new voter turnout in November, then not only would he be almost certain to win the election, but he would also give a huge assist to other Democratic candidates on the state and local ballots.

On the other hand, BooMan (who also believes that Obama could win big in the general) provides an excellent summation of why the liberal blogosphere prefers Edwards:

…Obama hasn’t really embraced us. He’s gone his own way. And that explains why, in the end, the blogosphere broke heavily for John Edwards.

No, I don’t mean people turned their back on Obama because he didn’t pay the proper respect to the blogosphere. That isn’t what happened. Obama didn’t embrace our way of doing things. Worse, he began to use rhetoric we had spent energy to debunk. He went even further. He tossed aside one of our central insights…an insight won through hard experience: we cannot compromise with the Republican Party…we must smash them.

Perhaps because his wife is such an avid reader of blogs, Edwards’ campaign tapped right into our zeitgeist. He came out with our insight front and center. You want Edwards’ message? Here it is: ‘Fuck David Broder, fuck Joe Klein, fuck Chris Matthews, fuck FOX News, fuck Tim Russert, fuck Mitch McConnell, fuck Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Defense. We don’t need them. They won’t negotiate in good faith. They’re stacking the deck against us. And we can beat them by telling the truth and getting organized.’ That’s Edwards’ message, and that is the message we have internalized both through our successes and our failures.

What’s funny is that Obama is saying many of the same things, in his own way. The policy differences between Edwards and Obama are minimal. But Obama’s tone deaf to the blogosphere. And, as a result, the blogosphere didn’t trust him. Take Armando:

…we do not criticize Obama’s political style on aesthetic grounds; we criticize his style because we think it will not work to actually EFFECT CHANGE. We believe that despite his being touted as the change candidate, his political style is the one LEAST likely to achieve progressive policy change.

His ‘style’ will be ineffective. Why did so many of us conclude this? It’s because we have watched Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi try to negotiate with the Republicans (in the minority, the majority, no matter) and it does not work. We have watched the Dems talk tough and then back down time and time again. We’re done with conciliation and we don’t believe bipartisanship is possible without first crushing the Republican Party down to a stump.

…More than anything, I want Edwards’ style to be vindicated. I want partisanship and combativeness to be rewarded. And I want Clinton/Lieberman/Ford/Carper/Carville/Begala/Penn to lose.

What’s the value of a candidate who wins election handily, and then proceeds to be conciliatory and ineffectual as a president, even with a favorable Congress behind him? And what will that do to the Democratic “brand,” which is already pretty well tarred with the collaborator brush?

Also, bear in mind that a presidential campaign is just about the only time when the media will reliably report on what a Democrat is saying. I would much rather that that Democrat were the one making a powerful case against the status quo of economic equality and Republican corruption.

For what it’s worth, now that Dodd’s gone, I’m switching my endorsement to Edwards.

(h/t Three Rivers Online Guy for the BooMan post)

7 comments January 4th, 2008 at 07:32am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Democrats,Dodd,Edwards,Elections,Favorites,Huckabee,Media,Obama,Politics

Rush Limbaugh Ponders A Mysterious Mystery

Who could have planted this terrible, awful story in the National Enquirer? And how did it slip past their rigorous fact-checking process?

This National Enquirer story, John Edwards’ lovechild, I’ve been having trouble with this. I’m not sure I buy this. But I think I understand why the story hit last night. From NBC: “In an Insider Advantage poll in Iowa, John Edwards leads among 977 likely voters, 30, 26, 24 over Clinton and Obama. He’s also the clear second choice winner, 42, 29, 28 over Clinton and Obama. It’s the first poll to show Edwards solely in the lead in Iowa since July.” Bammo! National Enquirer story hits last night: Edwards has love child. Now, less than three weeks until an important election, and we have another liberal dirty trick. We’ve had Obama “selling drugs.” We’ve had Obama going to madrasahs, and Muslim parents, or mother and grandparent. So now we got another liberal dirty trick: Edwards has begat a love child. Now, this obviously didn’t come from the Republicans. The Republicans have their own problems to worry about before messing around with a Democrat campaign. But I’ve been trying to think: who leaked, who planted, who dropped this story right before a neck-and-neck primary?

So let’s go through the list of possibilities. Could it be Obama? Well, we’re told he’s not that kind of guy, that he eschews the politics of old and these dirty tricks and opposition research, and he wants to run a new campaign, a higher level campaign, above all of this. He said he doesn’t run that kind of campaign. Bill Richardson? Would Richardson drop this kind of bomb? Don’t think so because he’s actually running for veep. He’s not running for president. Chris Dodd? Do you think Chris Dodd would do this? Chris Dodd wouldn’t hit double figures in the polls if two of the big three dropped out, and he knows it. Kucinich? This doesn’t strike me as something that Kucinich would do. How about Biden? Would Biden do this? Joe Biden? Maybe Biden’s campaign leaked it. Wouldn’t he like to move up in the cauci? He’s got more experience than the three of them, and this could be his last chance. The thing about Biden, though, he wouldn’t do this until somebody else did it first, because he copies. So I doubt that it’s Biden. If it’s not Obama, and if it isn’t Richardson, and it’s not Dodd, and it’s not Biden, and it’s not Kucinich, who could it be? Who would plant this kind of a story, this ugly story right before the election? It beats me. I cannot think of anyone.

That’s a stumper – I can’t think of anyone with a track record of planting bogus scandals and smears in the media, can you?

Also: The National Enquirer??? Did Rush fret about whether the Bill Bradley campaign planted those stories in The Weekly World News about how Clinton was getting advice from space aliens?

3 comments December 20th, 2007 at 07:29am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Edwards,Elections,Media,Politics,Republicans,Wankers

Edwards Rising

Okay, so I’m still not sold on Edwards as a campaigner, and I was disappointed with the way he let Amanda Marcotte and Shakes twist in the wind when the right wing flying monkeys began their sorties, but it does look like he “gets” it. In 2004, it was his “Two Americas” narrative about the cruel economic inequalities in this country, and this year he put his finger solidly on the root cause:

[T]he truth is the system in Washington is corrupt. It is rigged by the powerful special interests to benefit they very few at the expense of the many. And as a result, the American people have lost faith in our broken system in Washington, and believe it no longer works for ordinary Americans. They’re right.

As I look across the political landscape of both parties today — what I see are politicians too afraid to tell the truth — good people caught in a bad system that overwhelms their good intentions and requires them to chase millions of dollars in campaign contributions in order to perpetuate their careers and continue their climb to higher office.

(…)

I saw the chase for campaign money at any cost by the frontrunner in this race — and I did not join it — because the cost to our nation and our children is not worth the hollow victory of any candidate. Being called president while powerful interests really run things is not the same as being free to lead this nation as president of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people….

(…)

And what has happened to the American “can do” spirit? I will tell you what has happened: all of this is the result of the bitter poisoned fruit of corruption and the bankruptcy of our political leadership.

It is not an accident that the government of the United States cannot function on behalf of its people, because it is no longer our people’s government — and we the people know it.

This corruption did not begin yesterday — and it did not even begin with George Bush — it has been building for decades — until it now threatens literally the life of our democracy.

While the American people personally rose to the occasion with an enormous outpouring of support and donations to both the victims of Katrina and 9/11 — we all saw our government’s neglect. And we saw greed and incompetence at work. Out of more than 700 contracts valued at $500,000 or greater, at least half were given without full competition or, according to news sources, with vague or open ended terms, and many of these contracts went to companies with deep political connections such as a subsidiary of Haliburton, Bechtel Corp., and AshBritt Inc.

(…)

The long slow slide of our democracy into the corporate abyss continues unabated regardless of party, regardless of the best interests of America.

We have a duty — a duty to end this.

I believe you cannot be for change and take money from the lobbyists who prevent change. You cannot take on the entrenched interests in Washington if you choose to defend the broken system. It will not work.

It is extremely important to get this idea into the mainstream. The fact is that our political system is rigged so that ordinary citizens have as little influence as possible. It’s not the gays or the immigrants or the abortions that are dragging the country down, it’s a political system where the money that delivers votes is more important than the voters who cast them.

Apparently Edwards acquitted himself well in the debate yesterday, so hopefully that will give him a little extra oxygen to get his message out. If he can strengthen his antiwar position to full withdrawal, and highlight Hillary’s hedging on withdrawal and awful Kyl-Lieberman vote, he can pick up the progressives who are deserting Obama, and maybe peel off some of Hillary’s support as well.

I still like Dodd, who looks like more of a leader and a warrior to me, but his position on driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants is disappointing. Not sure if this vaults Edwards over him in my estimation yet, but the gap is definitely narrowing.

October 31st, 2007 at 09:29pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Democrats,Edwards,Elections,Politics

Kill This Meme Now

Ron Fournier makes one good point in his largely hacktacular AP column about whether or not John Edwards is a great big hypocritical phony:

Some who call Edwards a hypocrite assume that a multimillionaire trial lawyer can’t be an authentic advocate for the poor and working people. That’s nonsense. You don’t need to be blind to help those who can’t see or crippled to aid those who can’t walk, and wealthy families like the Roosevelts and Kennedys had no problem connecting with working-class voters.

(He immediately goes on to complain that Edwards’ “excuse” for taking a hedge fund job is “lame”)

The “rich hypocrite” meme is very, very pernicious, because if it takes root it will effectively doom all Democratic advocacy for the poor. The fact is that almost everyone who gets to the senatorial/presidential level in politics is going to have a lot of money, as well as multiple indicators of “elite” status. If this meme takes hold, they will be even more reluctant to aggressively advocate for the poor than they are now, and I don’t think the poor can afford any more timidity from the party that purports to represent their interests.

5 comments September 19th, 2007 at 11:52am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Democrats,Edwards,Media,Politics,Wankers

More Labor Day John Edwards Photoblogging

The rest of the Edwards pictures:

Edwards 4

Like I said, he was fired up.

Edwards 6

Here, he attempts to lighten the mood with some bird calls.

Edwards 7

John gets some love from the Steel Workers.

Edwards 8

Elizabeth doesn’t seem to mind.

Edwards 9

Elizabeth gets some love too. And why not.

September 3rd, 2007 at 07:17pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Democrats,Edwards,Labor,People,Photoblogging,Pittsburgh,Politics

Labor Day John Edwards Photoblogging

Also, did I mention John Edwards was in town? He was pretty fired up, talking to a pretty much all-Labor crowd. The highlights that I can remember:

o Universal, mandatory, portable healthcare, to be paid for by repealing upper-class tax cuts.

o No more tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas either.

o Tighter trade regulations in general.

o Inviolate picket lines.

o Enforcement of safety regulations.

Needless to say, that all went over pretty well.

And, of course, I have pictures…

Edwards 3

Edwards 1

Edwards 2

Edwards Baby

Edwards is polling very strong in the all-important 0-1 demographic.

September 3rd, 2007 at 05:31pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Democrats,Edwards,Labor,People,Photoblogging,Pittsburgh,Politics


Contact Eli

Shoeshine




Choose a color scheme:

Feeds

Linkedelia!

Most Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Calendar

October 2014
M T W T F S S
« Sep    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  


Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter


View My Stats *