AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, left, on stage with seven of the eight Democratic presidential candidates, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill)., Sen. Joe Biden, (D-Del)., Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, (D-N.Y), Sen. Christopher Dodd, (D-Conn.), former Sen. John Edwards, (D-N.C)., and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, (D-Ohio), before the debate at Soldier Field. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)
by Mark Silva
"I'm your girl,'' Sen. Hillary Clinton told Democrats tonight.
"We need to give the power in America back to you,'' former Sen. John Edwards told the union members he is fervently courting.
And Sen. Barack Obama, facing criticism for his tough talk about terrorists in Pakistan, complained tonight: "Look, I find it amusing that those who helped to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me.''
In a forceful jostling for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2008, the three leading candidates took a few turns at one another tonight while the rest of the pack played for memorable lines. But it was Clinton who posed the biggest target in this football field debate.
The AFL-CIO thought it might hold its summer meeting in Chicago indoors. The union had McCormick Place all picked out. Then 12,000 people asked for tickets.
So there they were this evening at Soldier Field, thousands of union members, along with a stage full of Democratic candidates for president vying for the 2008 Democratic nomination -- if not also the early endorsement of the AFL-CIO. And we're ready, here in the Swamp, to hear what you think about it all.
For all the talk of declining union membership in America, the AFL-CIO has been undertaking its own new form of political organization during the past two years. Starting in 2006, when 32 congressional districts were targeted for canvassing, the union started asking non-union members in six states in particular if they would like to join a national AFL-CIO political network, not a bargaining unit per se, but an organization nonetheless. And 1.5 million said yes, including 750,000 in Ohio, according to the union's political director.
This means that not only local union members, but also others whom the AFL-CIO is enlisting for an expanding network will be hearing from organizers next year. The union, which could not agree on one candidate early in the 2004 contest, withheld its endorsement until Feb. 19 of that year, when Sen. John Kerry appeared well on his way toward nomination. And the same scenario may well play out during this cycle again.
But that won't stop voters from making up their own minds about these candidates or their Republican rivals. So now, with the forum ready to get underway at Soldier Field at 6 pm CDT -- and with MSNBC providing live coverage of the event -- the Swamp hereby opens the doors of its own Spin Room to let you make your own judgments on what you see and hear.
The Spin Room will stay open long after the players file out of the field.
Seven took the stage tonight.
"This crowd came out because we are so ready to change the direction of the country.'' said John Sweeney, AFL-CIO president, at the start of the event on Soldier Field. "We believe one of the people up here tonight will be our next president.''
Sen. Barack Obama at a campaign rally before the AFL-CIO forum. Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images
“My late father was a fanatic Bears fan,'' said Clinton (D-N.Y.), drawing the second question at the forum and addressing the need for improvement of the nation's infrastructure but making her own home-styled appeal, "The idea that any of his children would be on the 10-yard-line fat at Soldier Field is an astonishing accomplishment.''
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) welcomed everyone to his home town.
"I don't believe that we are safer now than we were after 9/11,'' Obama said, "because we made a series of mistakes... in our foreign policy... We know right now, according to the National Intelligence Estimates, that al Qaeda is hiding in the hills between Pakistan and Afghanistan... Because we took our eyes off the ball, they are stronger'' than after 9/11.
Edwards, former senator from North Carolina and the party's 2004 vice presidential candidate, is making a fervent pitch to union workers with the hope of making a strong stand in the first presidential nominating caucuses in Iowa -- where perhaps a third of Democratic caucus-goers will be union members and their families.
"I think the fundamental question is, who is going to bring about the change that has not occurred in Washington?'' Edwards told the audience at Soldier Field. "We need to give the power in America back to you, back to working men and women.''
The candidates were pressed about the North American Free Trade Agreement, which the unions oppose as a threat to American jobs.
Most agreed they would change NAFTA to make it more even-handed for American workers.
"A president's job is to create jobs, not export jobs,'' said Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.). "I would change it.''
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), member of an AFL-CIO local in Ohio, said he would "scrap it.''
Edwards, who campaigned in 2004 with a trademark gentility and gloves-on approach to his party's rivals, rolled out a thinly veiled attack at Clinton tonight -- saying that you won't see him on the cover of news magazines as a friend of big corporate interests. Clinton has taken some flak in the debate over congressional ethics in suggesting that lobbyists are people, too.
The host of the event, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, gave Clinton a chance to reply to the obvious shot.
"I am just taking it all in,'' said Clinton, who later said in a "lightning round'' that she has waged a considerable fight against special interests.
"I have noticed in the last few days that the other campaigns have been using my name a lot... I'm here because we need to change America... not to fight other Democrats,'' Clinton said, then delivering her own personal best line of the night.
"And I will say that for 15 years I have stood up against the right wing machine, and I have come out stronger,'' she said. "So if you want a winner who knows how to take them on – I’m your girl."
(The Clinton campaign liked that line enough that it's already video on their "HillaryHub'' web-site.)
If any of these candidates were president, they were asked, and the United States pulled out of Iraq and then violence erupted, what would they do then?
“If we had followed my judgment originally, we wouldn’t have been in Iraq,’’ said Obama, who was not a member of Congress when the use of military force was authorized. “It is my strong belief that… the only way we’re going to stabilize Iraq… is to begin a phased redeployment.. We can still have troops outside of Iraq’’ which can deploy against terrorism there.
“It matters how we get out of Iraq,’’ said Biden, who has called for the portioning of Iraq. “Let’s start talking the truth.’’
“I have a three-point plan to get out of Iraq, starting with redeploying our troops,’’ said Clinton, calling diplomacy part of the formula. But “If it is a possibility that al Qaeda would stay in Iraq, we need to stay focused on keeping them on the run.’’
“We have to prepare for that possibility,’’ Edwards said. “I would engage the Iraqi government… into trying to reach some kind of political reconciliation…
"And we have to prepare for the possibility, which George Bush has never done, that things may actually go bad,'' Edwards said. "That means we've got to be prepared to control a civil war if it starts to spill outside the borders of Iraq. And we have to be prepared for the worst possibility that you never hear anyone talking about, which is the possibility that genocide breaks out and the Shi'a try to systematically eliminate the Sunni. As president of the United States, I would plan and prepare for all those possibilities.''
“We need to get out of Iraq, and get out now,’’ said Kucinich, who voted against the war in 2002. “I’m the only one here on the stage who had the vision and the foresight to not only vote against the war but also vote against funding for the war.’’
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) was asked about his criticism for Obama's pronouncements on foreign policy -- particularly Obama's stance that the U.S. should take action against terrorists inside Pakistan if the Pakistani government won't.
"Words mean things... While (Pakistani President) Gen. (Pervez) Musharraf is no Thomas Jefferson, he may be the only thing standing between us and an Islamic state in Pakistan,'' said Dodd, calling it "irresponsible'' to speak of an invasion that could destabilize the government.
"Well, look, I find it amusing that those who helped to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me for making sure that we are on the right battlefield and not the wrong battlefield in the war against terrorism,'' said Obama, saying it is time to redeploy forces against terrorists. "If we have actionable intelligence on al Qaeda operatives, including bin Laden, and President Musharraf cannot act, then we should. Now, I think that's just common sense.''
"I do not believe people running for president should engage in hypotheticals,'' Clinton said.
"I think it is a very big mistake to telegraph that and to destabilize the Musharraf regime, which is fighting for its life against the Islamic extremists,'' Clinton said. "So you can think big, but remember, you shouldn't always say everything you think if you're running for president, because it has consequences across the world. And we don't need that right now.''







Comments
This is what I want the Democrats to talk about,
Yhis guy:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tiganatoo/751745888/
And this guy:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tiganatoo/729537419/
Posted by: John E | August 7, 2007 6:11 PM
Isn't it interesting that this group pounds their chests about reducing special interest access and influence while cowtowing to one of their largest special interest groups in Chicago?
As a member of the 80% of working Americans who is NOT part of a union, will any of these candidates work for any of my employment concerns?
Posted by: Fred Faulkner | August 7, 2007 6:13 PM
Fred, if you enjoy 40 hour work weeks, 8 hour days, safe working conditions, no child labor, etc...thank a Union.
I'd wager there are a LOT of people (like me) who would happily join a union to help their bargaining power with mgmt.
Here's another tidbit: If you work for a living, you're working class. If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | August 7, 2007 7:15 PM
As I expect this place to become a hotbed of regurgitated rhetoric in the coming moments, I'd truly appreciate it if everyone posting here can keep it civil.
Discourse is one thing, childish jabs are useless.
Now let's get it on.
Posted by: Mordechai | August 7, 2007 8:19 PM
12,000 people at Soldier Field. How impressive. But you forgot the 55,000 people who came disguised as empty seats.
Posted by: Shields | August 7, 2007 8:30 PM
Weiner,
Seeing your intellgence on display, I think having a union helping you thru life would be a good decision.
Posted by: Terry | August 7, 2007 8:34 PM
Terry,
Read some history will ya? Do you think 40 hour weeks, overtime pay, child labor laws, workplace safety, just happened? Unions fought and people died for these reforms. You have no business questioning any one's intelligence.
Posted by: dt | August 7, 2007 8:57 PM
Poor Senator Obomber just doesn't get much respect from his colleagues.
Posted by: Addison | August 7, 2007 8:57 PM
Wiener,
Don't listen to Trickle Down Terry, he's only worried about the angry old rich Republican white guys being able to stay angry, richer and whiter after 2008.
He's a proud member of the W. 26% club who don't give a damn about anyone other than themselves and their rich Republican pals.
The great thing about the Democratic debates is the enthusiasm and the understanding that as a country we need to move as far away as possible from the Republican led knuckledragging thugery that has plagued us for the last 6 years.
The Republicans don't even debate (other than Ron Paul) they slap each other on the back, lockstep, agree with each other and talk about how great it would be to bomb Iran and double the size of Guantanimo.
The Republicans also could care less what the average lower and middle class American has to say about our country and their refusal to participate in the YouTube debates and answer questions from average Americans proves this.
Posted by: John E | August 7, 2007 9:10 PM
Everyone: Watch the debate for the older gentleman in crutches, yellow shirt, stating that he lost his pension from a major steel company and then lost one third of his pension and now cannot afford health insurance for his wife of 5 children. Listen to the rat bag republicans call universal health care "Socialist Insurance" and keep in mind that gentleman in the yellow shirt. That could be anyone in here and doesn't it worry you at all?
Posted by: MASTER of REALITY | August 7, 2007 9:26 PM
John E, the funny thing is that I used to be a Repug myself. Proudly voted for Jerry Ford, then Reagan twice. It was St. Ronnie's relentless attacks on the environment that got me questioning the bigwigs. Then the constant kowtowing to the bible thumpers. The HATRED of a woman's right to choose.
But it really wasn't until the witch hunts of the Clinton admin that made me toss aside the Repugs forever. The modern Repub party is not 'conservative'; it's insane. They drove me to the Dems. And you know what, I AM enthusiastic. We have a great field. Even Newt refers to the other side as the 'seven dwarfs'. If 2006 was bad for them, they ain't seen nothin' yet.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | August 7, 2007 10:00 PM
Conservatives supported slavery, conservatives opposed women's suffrage, conservatives supported Jim Crow, CONSERVATIVES OPPOSED THE 40-HOUR WORK WEEK AND THE ABOLISHMENT OF CHILD LABOR, and consevatives supported McCarthyism. In short, all the major advancements of freedom and justice in our history were pushed by liberals and opposed by conservatives....no matter the party that these "conservatives" inhabited at the time.
Conservatism is Bill Bennett lecturing you about self-denial, then rushing off to feed his slot habit at the casino. It's James Dobson telling you that children need regular beatings to stay in line. It's a superannuated nun rapping you on the knuckles so you won't think about your dirty parts. It's Jerry Falwell watching "Teletubbies" frame by frame to see if Tinky Winky is trying to turn him gay.
Conservatism is everyone and everything that you never wanted to grow up to be.
-PAUL WALDMAN-
Senior Fellow at Media Matters
Posted by: John E | August 7, 2007 10:25 PM
GOOOOOOOOO HILLARY!!!!!!
Posted by: jane | August 7, 2007 10:26 PM
John E., speaking of liars, please tell us how life in Iraq is, OK? Didn't you tell us last Fall that you were being "recalled" by the Pentagon and sent to Iraq by February? Or how about your "son"? He was in Iraq too, huh? Or how about the times you've posted as me? Or other people?
Now speaking of unions, my friends who are still work for Jewel, a union store, tell me under the latest contract, part-time workers can't get health insurance coverage until they have been there five years. No more Sunday pay. And, of course, starting pay is less than $8 an hour, less than someone can make at most McDonalds or Wal Mart for part-time work, and who get health care and who don't pay union dues.
I know, I know, Lefties, you hate it when facts get in the way of your delirium.
Posted by: John D | August 7, 2007 10:37 PM
If there is anything that has been apparent since the Democratic takeover of Congress, it’s that many and probably most of the current Republican members of Congress will NEVER work with Democrats for the good of the country. Since the rise of Newt Gingrich, the majority of Republicans in Congress have demonstrated that they don’t care about the good of the country. Grover Norquist is inadvertently one of the most honest of conservatives, and when he referred to bipartisanship as date rape, he wasn’t revealing just his own personal view, he was describing the mindset of much of the Republican Congressional caucus and it’s allies in think tanks, among campaign hacks and activists, and in a sizeable chunk of its electoral base.
It’s a realization many of us had come to long ago, the knowledge that George W Bush, his allies in Congress and the people who push them in to power will use unscrupulous means to attain, maintain and exercise power. They know they have to conceal their unscrupulousness from the public. While the Republican party has veered farther and farther to the right, the American people haven’t really budged. In fact, on individual issues, the American public is more liberal today than it was 10 or 20 years ago, and far more liberal than it was when Lyndon Johnson crushed Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election, which provided the mandate to enact our major civil rights legislation and the most major extension of the social welfare state since the New Deal and World War II. Republicans involved in organizing and running elections and selling their policy positions to the press and the talking heads know that the American public is far to their left. But they conceal their radicalism through clever marketing scams like Frank Luntz’ Contract on America and the pabulum of "compassionate conservatism."
Republicans need to shut up do this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tiganatoo/821441317/
Posted by: John E | August 7, 2007 10:46 PM
"if you enjoy 40 hour work weeks, 8 hour days, safe working conditions, no child labor, etc...thank a Union."
If you don't have a job anymore because it was outsourced overseas, thank a union.
Posted by: Unions drive our jobs to China | August 8, 2007 1:02 AM
And we have to prepare for the possibility, which George Bush has never done, that things may actually go bad,'' Edwards said. "That means we've got to be prepared to control a civil war if it starts to spill outside the borders of Iraq.
Good point and not only a possibility, but the scenario the Blood Thirsty Bush Administration and their Neo-con sheep have been salivating over for quite a while. Continue this "We're gonna put a boot in your ass" attitude. Let the Bush created Iraqi civil war spill across the borders into surrounding countries. Have Madison Avenue come up with some catchy slogan that will hook the evangelical Republican base, award billions more in no-bid contracts to your corporate buddies to perform sub-standard work and pocket the profits, misplace another 190,000 weapons and allow them to be sold to the very "enemy" you profess to be fighting, and, what the hell, just lose another $10-$12 billion, shrug your shoulders and say, "We don't know where the money is". Bush's arrogant attitude is "stay the course and let history judge me". If there is any justice left in this country it will first be the courts, not history, judging GW.
Posted by: Mrs. Jesus | August 8, 2007 1:39 AM
Enough of this nonsense about issues, media. Who was the best dressed and who had the best and most costly hairdo?
Posted by: Sierra | August 8, 2007 7:40 AM
The 9/11 question that should have been asked at last night's debate: "We all know that fire doesn’t melt steel. So were the twin towers brought down by Rove’s weather machine or Cheney’s evil destructo-ray?"
Posted by: Bruce | August 8, 2007 8:37 AM
Hmm...
Isn't ANYBODY going to talk about Globalism... and NAFTA... and the Democrats' complicity in passing NAFTA?
OR Golden Boy Obama supporting NAFTA? (In spite of him assuring us that he's a different kind of politician)
That's odd.
Posted by: [INSERT CLEVER POST NAME HERE] | August 8, 2007 9:16 AM
Pre-screened questions? So called candidates who know what they will be asked? This tells you the intelligence level of these incompitents. Let's see one of them have the gonads (yes, this means Hillary too) to answerspontaneous questions. Let's see them go to the American People as they claim they will and ask "what questions can I answer for you?" I can answer, NONE. These people cannot go number 2 without their "spin doctors" there to guide and clean them. That is what we have to choose from in 2008. Sleep well!?
Posted by: Rob S | August 8, 2007 9:22 AM
Hillary is not our girl, she is our disaster. I would like to ask everybody out there to answer this. When a debate consists of pre-screened questions, that the candidates know will come, does this really acheive anything? I say, no. All it shows is that these poeple, who want us to vote them into power, could not go #2 unless their spin staff have prepared, assisted and cleaned them. Choose well!
Posted by: Rob S | August 8, 2007 9:30 AM
Poor Johnny D. Part-time workers are lucky to even have benefits in the first place. You cannot survive working one PT job, unless you are a student. Many PT employees have another full time job that does offer them benefits. They are taking on a PT job to supplement there income. What percentage of Jewel employees are PT?
Posted by: jethro | August 8, 2007 9:38 AM
Did anyone see that Socialist gathering in Chicago last night? I've never seen so many "Get well Fidel" signs before. Lots of "Democrats for Hugo Chavez" shirts also.
Posted by: Steven P. Richardson | August 8, 2007 9:45 AM
The irony about unions supporting Democrats is that if the Democrats get their way on social issues, organized labor may become obsolete.
I am not disputing that unions had a large part in insuring safe working conditions, minimum wages, etc. However, most of this is now regulated by federal law, and protection from a union is less necessary. One of organized labor's last flagships, guaranteed health care by contract, would be become obsolete if the Dems were successful in socializing medicine. The more the federal and state govt.s implement union ideals into law, the less relevant organized labor becomes. That is why union membership has dwindled to something like 12% of the work force, half of what it was 30 years ago.
Posted by: Herbie H. | August 8, 2007 9:48 AM
Rob S,
I agree. It's not a debate. This does happen on both sides of the political spectrum. The contract agreements between the media, sponsors & candidates are a joke. They cover every detail from lighting to podium height so no one is reflected in a "more positive light" during these staged readings.
Your fascination with "number 2" is a little alarming though.
Posted by: Mordechai | August 8, 2007 10:18 AM
Mordechai, If you knew what I do for a living, the "fascination" might be understandable. I am a Social worker, and I work with adults that are profoundly disabled. Each day can be a crappy day, both literally and figuratively. Actually, this was the way I could say that they are all full of s..having cream. Both side are pathetic, aren't they?
Posted by: Rob S | August 8, 2007 11:00 AM
"When a debate consists of pre-screened questions, that the candidates know will come, does this really acheive anything?
Posted by: Rob S | August 8, 2007 9:30 AM"
I read The Swamp every day, and I've never seen you post such a complaint about the Republican "debates" - so why are you complaining about the Democratic debate? The Republicans were spoon-fed questions from a totally biased moderator.
Posted by: BC | August 8, 2007 11:00 AM
"you hate it when facts get in the way of your delirium.
Posted by: John D | August 7, 2007 10:37 PM"
Well, John D, we're still waiting for you to post proof of your "fact" that John Edwards pays as much for his suits as Bush does (several thousand apiece) - which I posted PROOF of several days ago.
Your "support" by saying that you read in Men's Vogue magazine that Edwards "buys imported suits" is useless, my suits purchased at Men's Wearhouse are imported too.
By the way, Men's Vogue magazine's web site doesn't have a search function, nor does it let you read past issues. So please cite the issue, story, page number and the exact quote that validates your allegation about the price tags on Edwards' suits.
Posted by: BC | August 8, 2007 11:05 AM
BC, you clearly have some brain abnormality, don't you? Edwards is on the stinkin cover of the Men's Vogue. I supplied the link once before and cut and pasted the verbage about his suits. You look it up, I am tired of your ceaseless infatuation about suits, whether Bush's or Edwards'.
Beverly Hillbilly Jethro, sorry, but there was a time in which Jewel did offer health benefits to part timers. That is no longer the case and after five years you still have to put in a minimum number of hours a week to qualify. Yes, many employers do not offer health insurance to part timers. Many still do, including McDonalds and Wal Mart, non-union shops.
And, as usual, you miss the point, which is today workers can do better at nonunion retail jobs than they can at most unionized retail jobs in regard to pay and benefits.
Posted by: John D | August 8, 2007 11:14 AM
I read The Swamp every day, and I've never seen you post such a complaint about the Republican "debates" - so why are you complaining about the Democratic debate? The Republicans were spoon-fed questions from a totally biased moderator.
Posted by: BC | August 8, 2007 11:00 AM
Well BC, if I am not mistaken we are having this discussion because there was a DEMOCRATIC" debate. I have commented in the past that BOTH PARTIES do this. Trust me, when the next Republican debate occurs, I will make sure that I make comments so you can sleep at night.
Posted by: Rob S | August 8, 2007 11:35 AM
Yessa masser, I gets right on it. I is so lucky to haz whuzever job the Republicans wanntza givs me so ma job don endz up in China.
Thanke, thanke, thanke. Myz Republican members of Congrezz must be sooo proud!!!
Posted by: thankz massa china jobz | August 8, 2007 12:29 PM
Yessa masser, I gets right on it. I is so lucky to haz whuzever job the Republicans wanntza givs me so ma job don endz up in China.
Thanke, thanke, thanke. Myz Republican members of Congrezz must be sooo proud!!!
Posted by: thankz massa china jobz | August 8, 2007 12:29 PM
If you want to join in to this blog session, do so like an adult. If the above comment is the best you can do, try the funny pages. There is a hugh chasm between sarcasm and prepubescent stupidity.
Posted by: Rob S | August 8, 2007 1:16 PM
Robs
Yassa massa. izs be willin to tak wuzever "hugh chasm' between a gud job and a Republican job that yawz be willin to let this po 'merican have.
thynx yo massa!
Posted by: Yassa Massa | August 8, 2007 5:42 PM
Mark, these posts by "Yassa Massa" are not highly offensive? Or is what constitutes highly offensive change depending on wheher someone from the Left posts it and someone from the Right?
Posted by: John D | August 8, 2007 8:56 PM
dt,
I have read history and yes the unions did some good things, as you stated, in the past. They ghave run their course when it comes to workers' compensation. I still think they have a place in worker safety issues.
As far as a 40 hour work week - if you want to succeed in the business world, only 40 hrs will not cut it. That should be the choice of the individual.
John E
- that's comingfrom the voice of "get trickled on" economics from the democrats.
The republicans won't debate with YOu-Tube. I lve the courage of the democrats not to debate on Fox
"Conservatives Supported Slavery" - go re-read history. It was the Republican leadership that freed the slaves. It was Republican leadership that pushed Civil Rights legislation thru Congress.
Posted by: Terry | August 9, 2007 1:59 PM