Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (Updated)

In one of the twists of the 2008 race, Democratic nominees for president may end up spending the summer in a serious discussion about poverty. Although no one can doubt Obama's lifelong commitment to fighting poverty and I am a supporter, I do give Edwards some credit for helping to really bring this issue to the fore. This is shaping up to be one of the most serious conversations about poverty in a presidential primary in quite a few years, and it's not over yet:

During a speech in Washington last week, Obama laid out his urban poverty agenda, announcing that he would be coming out with an agenda to fight rural poverty "in the coming weeks":

But poverty is not just a function of simple economics. It's also a matter of where you live. There are vast swaths of rural America and block after block in our cities where poverty is not just a crisis that hits pocketbooks, but a disease that infects every corner of the community. I will be outlining my rural agenda in the coming weeks, but today I want to talk about what we can do as a nation to combat the poverty that persists in our cities.

Obama's Rural Poverty Agenda:
From the AP:
In a move that is likely to keep the discussion about poverty going through the summer, Obama today announced a rural policy summit in Iowa in mid-August and laid out some of the issues he's planning to address with his agenda, listing his three top issues as improving broadband access, creating jobs with green technology, and improving the community college system:
The Democratic presidential candidate plans a rural policy summit in Iowa in mid-August that will focus on rural economic development, quality of life and agriculture and renewable energy policy.

"People in the rural economies suffer from many of the things people do all across the country," he said in a telephone interview Sunday with The Associated Press.

He noted common problems with health care access, failing school systems and lack of livable wages. But the Illinois senator said there are unique issues that must be addressed as well.

He mentioned spotty rural broadband and wireless coverage, underfunded community colleges and a need to make the most of the growing alternative energy industry.

The announcement of a policy summit follows Obama's pattern of soliciting public comment and putting together his agenda. It's good to see that two of the three major candidates will have laid out serious and progressive challenges to poverty with targeted solutions for urban and rural America.

For a start, Obama plans improving community colleges and providing training to help the rural economy benefit from green technology:
We've got to provide, I think, some seed money to help boost not just the production, but also the distribution of alternative fuels," he said. "We've got to train people to have the skills" that are needed in those new industries."

In the Senate, Obama has focused on ethanol and biofuel production as a way of creating jobs and growth in southern Illinois. Edwards has also released an expansive proposal for developing the "green collar" economy.

Broadband Access:

I'm happy to see that improving broadband access is going to play a central role. A couple of the strongest points for me of Obama's urban poverty agenda, along with his creation of an Urban Policy Director at the White House to provide reports on the efficacy of the programs, were his emphases on improving access to public transportation and building up broadband access. Obama recognizes the importance of expanding broadband access both for fighting poverty and expanding social equality:
Getting broadband Internet access into every home and business in urban America at an affordable rate could give low-income people increased opportunities to start businesses, obtain access to finance, educate young people, learn about government services and engage actively in our communities.

Broadband access was also included in the details of the poverty agenda pdf released last week. He made three main points:
1. Reform the Telephone Universal Service Program: Direct the FCC to propose reforms changing the Universal Service Fund program from one that supports voice communications to one that supports affordable broadband. 2. Better Manage the Nation's Airwaves: Work to manage our wireless spectrum in the public's interest. Obama would create incentives for more efficient and experimental use of government spectrum and new standards for commercial spectrum so that underserved urban and rural communities can enjoy affordable broadband and also ensure that we have enough spectrum for police, ambulances and other public safety organizations. 3. Encourage Public-Private Partnerships: Encourage public-private partnerships to get low-income communities and resident connected and work with cities and municipalities to distribute information on best practices among those that have deployed citywide free wireless broadband networks and how those lessons learned can be applied in other communities.

Obama seems to be focused on fostering the public/private partnerships that we've seen sprouting up in various cities. In other words, it seems like a pragmatic plan of cobbling together local solutions with private businesses in each individual city --- which may be the only way to do it --- but it would be nice to see a more all-encompassing approach. I'm also not sure how one could apply this approach to rural areas that lack the population density cities have.

I'd be interested to hear if other candidates have released plans on this.

Winning Back Rural America:

In the AP interview published today, Obama also make some comments about the political importance for Democrats of carving out an economic message that addresses the specific needs of rural America, speaking out on issues of faith, and calming fears of hunters and sportsmen on gun control:
Although rural America long has been a stronghold for Republicans, Obama said Democrats have made major strides in rural areas.

"Obviously, rural communities and agricultural regions often times are politically more conservative, but part of that has to do with positions on social issues more than it has to do with economic issues," he said.

"I think Democrats have come to understand that on issues of faith, on respecting the rights of sportsmen and hunters ... we haven't always listened as much as we should have. We're getting, I think, a much better sense of what's required and what's important to win over rural America."


Hillary Clinton:

On a separate note, I've noticed that nothing like "Fighting Poverty" is listed among the "Issues" on Clinton's website. She merely has "Strengthening the Middle Class," which seems telling to me and more revealing of a Mark Penn poll-tested campaign focused on the needs of the middle class than one that will openly address issues of poverty, and although you can dig through her issues pages to find proposals addressing poverty, it would be nice to see her address this more directly. She does have a couple fact-sheets addressing social inequality and labor issues, but they state general goals rather than offering much policy detail, nor has she laid out a health care plan. It would be nice to see her join in the conversation.

Update [2007-7-23 18:24:52 by psericks]:
In an updated version of the AP article, Obama gives a list of his policy staff working on rural poverty. Looking at this list, I kind of wonder if Obama might end up with some proposals more directly impacting agriculture than just biofuels, community colleges, and broadband. Does anyone know the folks on the list? I'd be interested about any insights. For one, all three are from Iowa.

While Obama gave no specific date for rolling out his rural policy plan, he said he has put together a team of experts to assist in the effort.

They include:

-- Mike Dunn, of Keokuk, former under secretary of agriculture for marketing and regulatory programs during the Clinton administration.

-- Gary Lamb, of Chelsea, who has farmed for 55 years and has served as president of the Iowa Farmers Union, chairman of the Iowa State Committee of the Farm Service Agency and as an agricultural liaison for Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.

--Neil Hamilton, of Waukee, director of the Agricultural Law Center at Drake University. In 2000, he was appointed by Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack as chairman of the Iowa Food Policy Council.

Obama said his ability to create such a team reflects on his experience as a former community organizer. Obama said he has "the ability to find smart, common sense, pragmatic people to come together and listen to their ideas and synthesize them and put them into action plans."

[Corrected] Icebergslim has the address for a rural poverty issues forum scheduled already for July 27th --- not to be confused (as by me) with the summit.

Display:


The Obama policy guru strikes again. (3.00 / 1)

Good job psericks.  Rec for sure.


Obama Citizen Ad Videos
by lovingj on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 06:01:25 PM EST

Good Job... (3.00 / 1)

Clinton will eventually have to put out a Healthcare Plan and state directly if she is going to work on it, immediately.  Her hedging and talking in a vacumn on this will not work for long.  Watch someone asks a question directly to her about this.  Where is her plan at?  Does she intend to implement one in the 4 years immediately in office?  If not WHEN?  Because she is getting a lot of lobby monies from the insurance companies, which will make many wonder where she is EXACTLY on this issue.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 06:11:05 PM EST

Re: Good Job... (none / 0)

Hillary has stated we'll have healthcare by the end of her 2nd term - in 10 years!
She'd certainly like to bury the only viable candidate with a universal healthcare plan - so the people would never be able to hear the specifics of his plan compared with her non-plan and Obama's non-UHC.
Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 08:14:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What should be said (3.00 / 1)

by Obama and Edwards in a debate, if Clinton continues to tout that she's called for "universal health care by the end of my second term":

"Senator Clinton, if you don't work to implement a plan to get coverage to all Americans by the end of your first term, you will not have earned a second."

Frankly, I'm starting to wonder why Obama and Edwards haven't gone after her yet for not putting out a plan.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:32:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good Job... (none / 0)

Hillary is not going to reveal her plan. She knows what we are up against. With these GOP thugs waiting to pounce on her every move, she would be wise to keep the plan close to her hip. Anyway, Hillary knows that there are really only a few viable ways to get the plan done.  In order for the plan to work she will need the will of the people as well as total support from ALL Democrats. Hillary will be POTUS and will get universal health care up and rolling. Neither Obama or Edwards have the fight in them to take on these GOP thugs when they come out and they will come out. Considering what she went through in the 90's, she is DEFINITELY taking the right course and will not be swayed by bloggers to present her plan.


by lonnette33 on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 09:02:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good Job... (3.00 / 1)

Can I just say that this is exactly the strategy John Roberts used to waltz onto the Supreme Court? How can we make democratic decisions in this country if we never have an open and honest discussion about issues?
In one of the most laughable moments of the 2006 race, now ex-Senator Conrad Burns used exactly the same argument to respond to challenges that Bush had no plan to deal with Iraq:
CONRAD BURNS: I said we gotta win. [Tester] wants to pull out. He wants everybody to know our plan. That's not smart. If you had a plan in order to win are you gonna tell the enemy? He's not -- the enemy's not gonna tell us! That is absolutely unbelievable that anyone would take that approach! He says our president don't have a plan. I think he's got one. But he's not gonna tell everybody in the whole world. And if you wanna go out and spar for a fight or you gonna tell your enemy what your plan is? I don't think so. And that's the way we'll win it, Because we want to win it.

BURNS: Again he says there's no plan. There is a plan. We're not gonna tell you, John. We're not gonna tell you what our plan is because you'll just go out there and blow it. Period! By heavens, that's just common sense. That's enough.


Here's video from of the debate from ThinkProgress. You can hear the audience burst out laughing. John Stewart also mocked Conrad "Secret Plan" Burns on the Daily Show.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:33:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good Job... (none / 0)

Edwards and Obama don't have enough fight in them to take on the GOP? Well they had enough fight in them to put their plan in public, you want to portray Hillary as heroic for hiding her plan? How will she get the support from all Dems that you say she needs if she won't even discuss it with them. How many people will die from lack of access to quality health care while we wait for her second term?


by jazzyjay on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 02:02:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Good Job... (3.00 / 1)

Isn't that how she got nailed in her first try on healthcare - coming up with a plan in secret?


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 02:25:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (3.00 / 2)

"I think Democrats have come to understand that on issues of faith, on respecting the rights of sportsmen and hunters ... we haven't always listened as much as we should have. We're getting, I think, a much better sense of what's required and what's important to win over rural America."

There he goes again.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 06:15:10 PM EST

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (3.00 / 2)

An "on the one hand, on the other hand" you mean in criticizing Democrats? I dunno. He says "have come to understand." A line like this could just as easily (and has) come out of the mouth of a Jon Tester, Jim Webb, or Brian Schweitzer.
Isn't he basically right? Isn't this the story of how we lost the mountain West, and how we're starting to get it back?
At some point, I think showing some remorse on the level of the national party might go a little ways towards helping the problem. Do you really think this is damaging the party to say things like this?
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 06:22:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (3.00 / 1)

I agree.  It is this "thinking" that made the west unapproachable.  


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 06:27:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (3.00 / 1)

What also seems vitally important to me is that he has taken some stands on gun control, such as reinstating the assault weapons ban, which Democrats haven't touched in a while:
Nearly three dozen Chicago students have been killed this year, according to Chicago Public Schools. Obama said that figure is higher than the number of Illinois serviceman who've died in Iraq in 2007...

He said the government needs to permanently reinstate an assault weapons ban and close regulatory loopholes that protect unscrupulous gun dealers.

One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 06:29:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (3.00 / 1)

So in other words, he's scoring points off Democrats without actually changing his gun control position.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 10:59:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (none / 0)

I still don't think he's scoring points on Democrats. Look at my quotes below: Dean, Reid, Daschle, Gephardt --- most of the Democratic establishment hold this position on gun control.

Second, look at what Obama says: "respecting the rights of sportsmen and hunters." He's making a distinction here. You don't need an assault weapon to hunt deer.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 11:04:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (3.00 / 2)

Sure. When did a Democrat say they wanted to take away hunting rifles?


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 11:07:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (3.00 / 1)

Democrats went after the assault rifles ban without addressing quietly adequately the concerns of gun owners, and they suffered for it electorally.
This is what Schweitzer means with "national Democrats need to understand that their Western members have a different view of guns." And today you're seeing a more responsive Democratic party, reaching out specifically to those voters to find common issues like conservation.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 11:47:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (3.00 / 1)

That's different than trying to take away hunting rifles.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 11:48:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (none / 0)

I'm not saying that Dems in the 90's were trying to take away the guns of sportsmen (although the NRA was certainly inflaming them to believe they were), I just keep saying that Dems in the 90's weren't reaching hunters and sportsmen and easing their concerns about gun control bills in Washington, let alone reaching out to them to build coalitions on things like conservation. That's how you get them to vote for you, you prove you're not threatening them and you find new ways to work with and listen to them, and it's why Democrats could be elected in places like Wyoming or Montana.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:51:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (none / 0)

All of you on here need to understand the difference between reality and PERCEPTION.  It doesn't matter if any Democrat ever said we should take away someone's hunting rifle.  A LOT of people think ALL Democrats think that.  When those politicians who say that, say it, they're trying to move PERCEPTIONS.


by dlh77489 on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 11:34:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (none / 0)

we do understand perception versus reality. that's precisely the point. it's you who don't understand branding.


by bruh21 on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 11:45:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (3.00 / 2)

It's annoying because he basically says (again) that Democrats haven't been people of faith, and now he's saying that Democrats haven't respected hunters.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 07:08:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you serious? (3.00 / 1)

We've been getting our asses handed to us among regular church-goers in the last several Presidential elections. I believe it was something like 60-40 Bush over Kerry among people who attended church on a weekly basis in 2004. That's landslide territory, and that's almost hard to overcome in other demographics, as there is a lot of overlap in churchgoers with other demographics since it is such a huge group. For example, think of the number of Hispanics in the country going to mass every Sunday.

It's pretty clear that we have to do a better job of Faith outreach, and it's also pretty clear that we have been since 2004. Obama communicates both of these points here, and seems to be praising the Party for its recent efforts (though there is certainly work left to be done).

There was a pretty interesting article about Dean, faith outreach, and the 2008 candidates in Time last week.


Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)
by Max Fletcher on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:42:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (none / 0)

NO it doesn't.  AGAIN, you need to realize that politics is about PERCEPTION.  Read my comment above.


by dlh77489 on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 11:35:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (none / 0)

point to where words like this have come out of any of the men you mention and then lets talk. I don't buy that any  of them used that when running for office, but if you are correct, you should be able to show it.


by bruh21 on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 07:42:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (3.00 / 1)

It's no secret that all three only won election in their respective states because of their position on gun control. All three, along with Reid and Dean, have records against gun control.
I'll start with Schweitzer:
Democrats' ability to attract rural voters in the West is a key to their hopes in 2006. In Montana, where Democrats hope to pick up a US Senate seat next year, candidates must be pro-gun to have a chance at winning, said the state's Democratic governor, Brian Schweitzer, an avid hunter who has ''more guns than I need but not as many as I want."

''I guess I kind of believe in gun control: You control your gun, and I'll control mine," Schweitzer said.

Democrats have made some headway in elections in the Mountain West, Schweitzer noted, winning majorities in both houses of the Colorado Legislature and picking up the Montana governorship last year for the first time since 1988. But national Democrats need to understand that their Western members have a different view of guns than those who live in areas where "teenagers are wearing their caps backward, wearing baggy pants, and are shooting at each other," said Schweitzer.
From the Boston Globe
In the same article, here's Dean's spokeswoman making much the same point Obama did:
Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, who had been a critic of some forms of gun control during his tenure as governor of Vermont, has urged candidates to view gun control laws as state issues, allowing those in rural states to reflect the values of hunters and others hostile to gun control, while supporting restrictions in urban areas with serious crime problems.

''On gun rights, we've allowed the Republicans to paint us in a way that just doesn't represent our values," said Damien LaVera, a Dean spokesman, noting that Republicans have repeatedly portrayed Democrats as hostile to the Western way of life.

''It's all about not letting the Republicans define our values," LaVera said.

One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 10:18:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (3.00 / 1)

There was a Salon.com article after the Virginia Tech shooting describing the process through which Democrats abandoned gun control. Here's Eliot Spitzer explaining the problem with pushing gun control (Salon.com):
"The desire to court voters in swing states with a large percentage of gun owners is the primary reason that Democrats have recently tended to view the issue of gun control as poisonous. There were other reasons as well, however. First, there were fears that support for gun control could split a key Democratic constituency: union members. A survey done by Americans for Gun Safety has shown that 54 percent of union households own a gun. Moreover, gun control is an issue with what Spitzer describes as "hassle" and "intensity" factors that don't favor advocates. Supporters of gun rights are passionate in a way that supporters of gun control are not -- gun-rights backers are single-issue voters and activists, while on the other side, Spitzer says, "the typical gun control supporter is somebody for whom the issue is not a No. 1 concern, it's No. 6 or No. 8."

As the article tells the story, Terry McAuliffe, Daschle, and Gephardt all played a role in urging the party to drop gun control. A line about John Kerry:
There is, perhaps, no better example of the way this message has been embraced by the Democratic Party than the 2004 presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. As Bennett notes, the Kerry campaign wanted voters to see photos of the senator, an accomplished marksman, in action with a hunting rifle.

According to a source in the article, "aides to all the major candidates of the 2004 Democratic presidential primary series met with AGS [Americans for Gun Safety, a wing of "The Third Way"]; he names Dean, Gephardt, Kerry, retired Gen. Wesley Clark, Lieberman and former Sen. John Edwards as candidates whose staffs came to AGS "asking what to do and how to frame things."
Here's Bill Clinton blaming gun control for Dem losses in 1994.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 10:20:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (none / 0)

Oh dear. You're quoting Bill Clinton?


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 11:03:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (none / 0)

I'm just making the point that saying Democrats have realized that gun control is a hot button issue in rural America and can get them in trouble is a very, very mainstream position in the Democratic party. There are lots of people you can quote saying it from every wing of the party.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 11:06:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (3.00 / 0)

Here's a double-edged comment from Tester on his website distancing himself from the Democratic party: "In the United States Senate, Jon will stand up to anyone - Republican or Democrat - who wants to take away Montanans' gun rights."
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 10:50:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (none / 0)

you are talking about one issue- gun control. You aren't talking about something as intrinic as whether all democrats view religon as bad.


by bruh21 on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 10:58:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (none / 0)

These quotes are only digging you in deeper. Every single one makes a distinction that most hunters will honestly agree with Democrats on. Why does Obama say that Democrats need to learn to respect hunters?


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 11:01:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (none / 0)

I'm not following you. Obama nowhere says that Dems need to learn to respect hunters. He basically says that the Democratic party has already --- I would argue at least seven years ago --- learned to show sensitivity in talking about gun control to rural voters.
What is there to disagree with in that statement, and are there not countless other politicians have already repeated it?
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 11:17:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In real life... (3.00 / 1)

Don't you think you mold consensus in part by listening.  Not so you can be more like them but so you'll have a clue about how to get them to listen to you.  

It's a very well-known fact in social psychology that people are more likely to comply with a request (i.e. "listen!") if you do it first.

--------

By the way, you'll probably have the same problem with Dean or Edwards; they've expressed the same idea.


by chicago jeff on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 10:55:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In real life... (none / 0)

no because we know what they think. what exactly do you need to hear from teh insurance companies that you don't already know. for that matter, what on poverty needs to be heard when we have been addressing these issues for a while. this isn't a matter of peo not knowing what the options are. it's amatter of someone doin what it takes to get them done.


by bruh21 on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 11:00:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hah! (none / 0)

That's the robot theory of human psychology.
Listening isn't just about acquiring information.

It's an essential part of demonstrating
everything that progressives value:
  respect for other beings
  trustworthiness
  benevolence
  concern for justice
  leadership through democractic means
  etc.


by chicago jeff on Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 10:40:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In real life... (none / 0)

I know what Edwards' position is on gun control, and it doesn't bother me. I just don't like it when Democrats say that fellow Democrats don't respect whole groups, like people of faith or hunters, without giving some sort of evidence.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 11:06:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In real life... (3.00 / 1)

Obama says the exact opposite of that though. He says Democrats have already come to respect hunters. Democrats have been dropping gun control since at least 2000.
I don't see why Obama gets the hit for saying something that others have been saying for a decade.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 11:12:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In real life... (none / 0)

I think Democrats have come to understand that on issues of faith, on respecting the rights of sportsmen and hunters ... we haven't always listened as much as we should have.

You don't see him implying Democrats have been at best ignorant on issues of faith and on the rights of hunters? It's a shame, because he can speak so eloquently about his faith, and as you've cited, on gun control. So why does he need to ding the Democratic Party?


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 11:25:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In real life... (3.00 / 1)

But isn't "we haven't always listened as much as we should have" the most gentle admission of guilt you could imagine? And again, just like in the faith quote we were talking about yesterday, he says we. I feel like this is part of his style of being self-deprecating, while at the same time thoroughly associating himself with the party.
It's a fair statement that Democrats in the 90's overshot on gun control, pushing through an agenda that just wasn't politically viable in a lot of places, and were wiped out in the mountain West (and maybe also in the South, though there were a lot of other reasons for that) because of it. And a new generation of Democrats like Schweitzer there have this incredibly delicate political balance worked out appealing to the environmentalist sensitivities of hunters and sportsmen, while backing completely away from gun control.
I think this is all Obama's talking about. And in the end his message is, 'We're listening now.' He's much better at it than Kerry was, with his clumsy photos with a gun.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 11:41:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In real life... (none / 0)

So your argument is that the naysayers are correct, that the Democrats in the past have been ignorant at best towards people of faith and to hunters?


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 11:47:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In real life... (3.00 / 0)

Why all the hyperbole? I think you're reading too much into this. "Ignorant at best." The comment below refers to wife-beating.
People of faith and hunters are constituencies Democrats have lost repeatedly, I would argue in large part because we haven't been trying to talk to them, trying to address their concerns, to find ways to include issues important to them in our agenda. But with faith voters since 2004 and with hunters since at least Schweitzer's election in Montana, Dems have been finding ways to work with hunters and sportsmen towards good ends. And Obama gives Dems credit for reaching out to these new groups of voters.
It's not a new point. Lots of other Dems have said it. Why the double standard with Obama?
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:58:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In real life... (none / 0)

OK I'll write up a diary about this, since this discussion is dragging on and isn't really on topic.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 08:42:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In real life... (none / 0)

I would look forward to seeing that because I agree with you along this thread and would like to see more on this subject.


by bruh21 on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 11:46:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In real life... (none / 0)

I see it as a kind of "when did you stop beating your wife" frame, except he's using it on his own party.  "When did we stop betraying sportsmen and people of faith?"


"If [John Edwards] seems too good to be true, well, so be it; instead, you can pick a candidate who's bad enough to be plausible." - Daily Kos user Drew
by Junior Bug on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:20:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In real life... (none / 0)

exactly right


by bruh21 on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 11:47:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (3.00 / 1)

"There he goes again..."

...acknowledging reality, being self-deprecating, and sounding reasonable.

Of course, now you have to attack him for it. Absolutist thinking isn't any prettier coming from progressives than it is from the Christian Right or the Taliban.


by upper left on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:18:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (none / 0)

OK - name the Democrats who don't pay attention to religious voters or who want to take away hunting rifles.


Join us at Show Me Progress!
by clarkent on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 02:24:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is to Obama's credit... (3.00 / 2)

that he is addressing this issue.

Edwards released his program over three months, and it seems Obama's is much of the same as already proposed by Edwards.

http://johnedwards.com/issues/rural/2007 0416-rural-recovery/

That said, I wonder if this summit would have been called, but for Edwards's leadership, or would it have remained something ignored, much like in the past?  


by citizen53 on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 06:27:49 PM EST

Re: This is to Obama's credit... (3.00 / 2)

I think it's great that Edwards managed to get his proposals out early. And I do give credit in the diary to Edwards for really pushing poverty to the fore, and I also tried to provide some links to his proposals when they were similar to Obama's.
Without Edwards I think it's safe to say that poverty wouldn't be playing as large a role in the campaign this early.
I think it's really helpful that Democrats are actually talking about poverty instead of just following the Bill Clinton / Mark Penn line of "Strengthening the Middle Class." I agree that Edwards is helping to bring about that shift.
That said, Edwards has had a lot of time to prepare them the last few years. Obama got into this pretty late and, like the other candidates, is still working out the details.
Lastly, a lot of these ideas have been out there in the ether. Most Democrats are going to have pretty similar plans. In urban poverty agenda, there are going to be a lot of common elements like the EITC, the living wage, etc. that have been Democratic ideas for years before Edwards or Obama came along.
In the end, I think Obama and Edwards have a lot to gain in conversation with each other. And chances are the race will sooner or later, whether in January or on February 5th, come down to a race between Clinton and either Obama or Edwards. It behooves their supporters to learn more about the other side if they're not willing to vote for Clinton.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 06:48:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The question is whether or not... (none / 0)

Obama would have addressed the issue, but for Edwards?

I am not going to rag on Obama here.  I will say, however, that your excuses of being late to the game, etc. are flimsy.  There are many reasons why.  First, he has been running for longer than many admit.  Second, he has tons of money.  These ideas are not new, as you acknowledge, and there was nothing to stop him from spending a few bucks to have some experts prepare a plan.  It's not like he came up with something bold or different.  The ideas he has come up seem to mirror Edwards's in many respects.  Finally, as some claim, Obama has been concerned about poverty for decades.  If so, why was he not driving the issue, even as Senator?

When it comes to the poverty issue, perhaps we should all give Edwards more than his due, even  extra credit, for bringing this issue to the forefront of attention in this campaign and in America.  But I am betting that Obama, and particularly his supporters, will try to co-opt the issue as if he is the foremost proponent.  Just watch.


by citizen53 on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 07:14:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The big picture (3.00 / 1)

Just a suggestion:  "acknowledge your allies."  

Rather than taking every opportunity to snipe at Obama, try recognizing that in the long run, Obama and Edwards and their supporters are primarily allies in the progressive cause.  They are engaged in a competition to see who can most effectively advance that cause, but their basic values are quite similar.  Time will tell who is the most effective messenger and who has framed these values in the most effective way.

I for one find it counter-productive when people loose sight of the bigger picture.


by upper left on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 10:29:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is to Obama's credit... (none / 0)

I think we could have three standing for a while. Don't assume anything, you know what they say that does!!


by RDemocrat on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 07:50:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is to Obama's credit... (none / 0)

I guess it's possible if Edwards were to win Iowa and build up some momentum, Clinton however still won New Hampshire and Nevada, and then Obama either had the funds to continue competing on Feb 5th or won South Carolina. I don't know how likely that all is though. But it is possible. I still think though that for Clinton to be beat, Edwards and Obama supporters would have to work together at some point down the road.

Part of my point is actually that with so many caucuses, second choices are important. If a candidate doesn't hit 15%, their supporters go elsewhere and it doesn't help to sow discord between two candidates who I think share a lot of progressive ideals and have more in common with each other than the rest of the field. It's not just the caucuses in Iowa and Nevada, but there are at least four caucuses on Feb 5th: Alaska, Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, and maybe Michigan.

It's my impression that second choice voters in Iowa artificially wiped out Dean in 2004. Letting an "anybody but Dean" kind of narrative build up around Edwards or Obama is fatal.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 08:06:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is to Obama's credit... (none / 0)

teh race in nevada is between edwards and clinton. the rest of teh race would e between southern states etc. so clinton wouldn't necessarily win- including delegae rich texas,.


by bruh21 on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 11:01:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is to Obama's credit... (none / 0)

How is the race in NV between Clinton and Edwards when Obama has outpolled Edwards in about every single nevada poll ive seen...I just dont get this stuff...

The Edwards fans are banking too much on the NV union coming to their rescue,but those edwardians do not udnerstand that the Union will be very reluctant to pick a horse,specially if the horse is Edwards,the candidate that is trending down.

The Edwardians will make you believe that Obama and Hillary are so anti-union, the Union will have no choice but to endorse Edwards...From what i'm hearing on the ground,Edwards chance of getting their endorsement is a big as Hillary or Obama....The fact that his national numbers are trending down will hurt him,not help.

Edwardians needs to be careful here because they sound like the Union endorsing edwards is in the bank...

What i'm hearing  is that it is very likely the Union will stay out of the democratic nomination because they really like all 3 candidate.....I just dont see any proof that the Union is titlting strongly toward Edwards...The Union arent going GAGA over ewdards and just arent excited about Hillary or Obama...Obama gets as much cheers if not more, then edwards or hillary...This big theory that the Union is in the bag for Edwards is a huge myth.


by JaeHood on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:36:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is to Obama's credit... (none / 0)

because of teh support of the unions there and because it's a caucus state.


by bruh21 on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 08:48:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is to Obama's credit... (none / 0)

As some of us have been arguing for some time now and the media have acknowledged as well,

...the populist [Edwards] seems to be playing an outsized role in driving the terms of the party's debate -- generally to the left -- on everything from Iraq to health care.

What I find most interesting is not that Obama has put out a plan to address rural poverty (since most of his plan mirrors Edwards's plan) or that he's calling for a summit (when the experts on the issues already their proposals out there and most have already worked with Edwards or the UNC Poverty Center), but this:

That said, Edwards has had a lot of time to prepare them the last few years. Obama got into this pretty late and, like the other candidates, is still working out the details.

One of the things that has been said repeatedly here and on other blogs is that Obama has a long history of combatting poverty beginning with his work as a community organizer in Chicago. He was a state senator in Illinois and presumably addressed urban (Chicago) and rural poverty in that body. He is a US Senator now and again, has had the position to promote this agenda.

Time and again, Edwards supporters have been told that Obama has a longer history of fighting poverty (I don't agree with this argument and am not resurrecting it here). But now, I'm being told that "Obama got into this pretty late and is still working on the details."

Right now, John Edwards is leading on the issues. That he has been focused on poverty issues for years can no longer be debated. That this is an issue on which he leads can no longer be debated. That other candidates are being forced to address these issues can no longer be debated.

My support for John Edwards is premised on his understanding of the issues that face this country, his identification of the complexity and interrelationship of those issues, and his willingness to put himself out there on behalf of those in our society without the voice or ability to speak for themselves. I choose my candidate based on his ideas and his willingness to stand up for those ideas and beliefs.  I'm not satisfied with candidates who are tentative or checking the polls before sticking their toe into an issue.  And I'm not satisfied with a candidate who isn't ready.


by edgery on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 09:18:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is to Obama's credit... (3.00 / 0)

I think your argument is weak. Pushing an urban poverty agenda as a community organizer, as a state legislator, as a US senator, or as a potential US president are four different planes of existence. Just because you have been working in the Senate on certain committees, on particular pieces of legislation, doesn't mean you've developed a comprehensive agenda for the next decade that you would submit to Congress as president (or even dreamed you would ever be able to present one), and you certainly have a completely different set of tools than as a state legislator. That includes public servants who haven't spent the interim since their last run for president writing up a platform. I frankly appreciate the caution and thoughtfulness with which Obama is laying out his plans. He has the time to work through his agenda and get it right.
I think it's safe to say that this election has begun earlier and in a more intensive way than any in a while. Edwards has been running for president for the last four years, and most of the other candidate in this race actually have a day job in the Senate or as Governor --- I don't mean that in a bad way, but it explains his head-start. You're going to see more details from all of these candidates.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 09:58:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

sorry, I don't agree (none / 0)

As I said, many Obama supporters here and elsewhere have used Obama's history working on poverty issues as a counter to his relative inexperience or newness on the national level. Now, his newness on the national level is being used as a counter to why he hasn't clearly articulated what he wants to do as President.

If the campaign started early this cycle, that's not an excuse to lag behind.  That's an incentive to get up to speed.  I note that the cycle didn't start early in terms of Obama's fundraising.


by edgery on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 10:16:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, I don't agree (none / 0)

His experiences as a community organizer and a state legislator are quoted as examples to prove his commitment to poverty issues. No one will dispute he's a new figure on the national stage. And he's taken a disproportionate amount of abuse of his initial slowness in coming out his policy positions, considering in the last couple months he's released an array of policy proposals. Only Edwards is ahead of him in detail, and only because Edwards has been writing for the last four years.
I think Obama's been getting up to speed. He's released plans on at least health care, urban poverty, foreign aid, the Iraq war, and the most detailed and best plan on ethics reform. You'll see more.
Obama is running the campaign at his own pace, thoughtfully putting together a national agenda.
As for your swing at his fundraising, no one expect him to raise so much money so fast. I bet he himself was astonished by it. But if he's to have a realistic shot at the presidency, he has to do his day job in the Senate, write up his national agenda, spend his weekends in the early states, and his evenings at fundraisers and forums. I'll cut him some slack for doing all four at once.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 10:41:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry, I don't agree (none / 0)

it wasn't a swing at his fundraising. it was a quesiton of priorities. And he is right- teh argument by more than a few obama supporters here have been to smear edwards as fake or insincere. How many diaries have we seen on that subject here? They do so- including a friend of mine offline who is an obama supporter- by tauting how obama is a true progressive and knows these issues. one of my misgivings about things like a summit is that it suggests there is some confusion about the many things poverty orgs have been saying for years. if obama has been involved as much you claim- as the poster above brings out, and i hadn't though about until he did- then where is the  proof of this? why doesn't he have these plans arleady set out?


by bruh21 on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 11:05:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: unfair comparison (none / 0)

Considering this is Edwards second go around at a run for the presidency, where or what were his detailed plans in  2003 & 2004?  Obama is in the same position(as instances go) as John Edwards was back then.  They are not at the same playing field since Edwards has a 4 years head start on him to develop the details of his plans.  Compare apples to apples and revisit Edwards plans 4 years ago to where Obama's plans are today.  That's a true comparison.


by Jalenth on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:22:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: unfair comparison (none / 0)

do you even bother to check before talking- what do you think the two americas campaign was referring to?


by bruh21 on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:31:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Detailed plans from Edwards 04 (3.00 / 1)

Check out these diaries I did earlier:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/2/0 1813/11981

Edwards Calls For Immediate Implementation Of Country Of Origin Labeling Rules

Rules Will Help American Farmers Compete Fairly
DES MOINES, IA - North Carolina Senator John Edwards today called on the Senate to help American farmers compete fairly with imported meat products by supporting implementation this year of `country-of`-origin labeling rules that were included in the 2002 farm bill. An amendment to require the Agriculture Department to devise regulations so that the rules can be implemented was defeated in the House yesterday by a `208-193` vote, and a similar amendment will be considered in the Senate Appropriations Committee today

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/27/ 51149/8236

And the other problem we face in America, we've got about a half a million young people who are deciding not to go to college because of rising tuition costs, and they don't think they can afford it. Here's
my idea. College for everyone. Any young person who's willing to work ten hours a week their first year of school and is qualified to be in college should be able to go tuition-free to a state university or a
community college. [applause] Every young person in America should have exactly the same opportunity that I've had; this is very personal for me.

I think we have to move this country toward energy independence. One of the things that we haven't talked about yet but that really troubles me about the President and some of his unilateral actions is the way he disengaged from Kyoto unilaterally very early on in the
administration. [applause] We all know that there are some problems with Kyoto, but the way to fix it is to work with others and engage on the issue. I think we ought to move the country toward alternative cleaner sources of energy.

One of the things that I have proposed specifically is that we build four large biomass refineries around the country where we use - for those who aren't familiar with the concept, basically what it does is it uses the waste products from agricultural products (corn, wood chips are essentially what it is) to produce ethanol. It's a total winwin.
Because not only can we produce an alternative clean source of energy, but secondly, it creates jobs and it creates jobs out in places in rural America where we desperately need to pay some attention

Sure. Well, what I would do is focus specifically, not just ... I mean, I have a whole series of ideas about how to get the economy going in general, which I talked about, but particularly the rural economy, which is in shambles in a lot of America. A variety of things.

First, we need incentives in what I call economic revitalization zones. Places not just in urban areas, but in rural areas, whose economies are struggling, either because of low commodity prices for farmers because of plant closings, loss of manufacturing jobs. We need to create incentives, tax write-offs, financial incentives for businesses and industries to locate in those places.

Second, we need to continue to invest in the build out of infrastructure in those areas. And third is one of the things that you just mentioned, which is we have to be able to make sure that those rural schools have the same quality of education that we have in some urban schools, because otherwise businesses and industries won't be willing to locate there.

But I can tell you, having spent a fair amount of time in rural areas -- not just in North Carolina, but in other parts of the country -- people feel completely ignored there. They think nobody pays attention to
them. They think the Democratic party ... They think, because he's good at the sloganeering, they think President Bush maybe is somebody who's looking out for them. Actually, his policies are devastating for
rural America. But we can't just say that; we have to actually have an alternative plan. And I think it includes the things that we just talked about. Also, making sure that the trade agreements we're entering into around the world still allow our workers here to compete.

HE WAS SAYING THE EXACT SAME THINGS in 03 and 04...

nice try though


by Chaoslillith on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 01:47:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Excellent (none / 0)

This is good news and the timing is also great. Spacing out proposals is the best way to get people to pay attention instead of rattling and lumping all your plans so early no one pays attention to them.


by rosebowl on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 06:40:09 PM EST

good spin (none / 0)

especially if one candidate routinely follows another candidate.


by edgery on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 09:22:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (none / 0)

YES!

Thanks for posting.


"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama
by BlueDiamond on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 06:48:07 PM EST

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (3.00 / 0)

it would be nice to see her address this more directly...

When you say address rural poverty more directly, do mean like this?

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statement s/details.cfm?id=235524&&

Senator Clinton's Broadband Legislation Passes Senate

Bill would accelerate the deployment of broadband high-speed internet access across the country

Washington, DC - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) today announced that the amendment she co-sponsored with Senator Conrad Burns (MT) and Senator Jay Rockefeller (WV) to provide incentives to accelerate the deployment of broadband high-speed Internet access across the country passed in the Senate late last night. The "broadband expensing" amendment was included in the Senate's tax package. The amendment would create a financial incentive to encourage broadband providers to extend their networks into rural communities and other underserved areas.

"I am very pleased that this amendment to encourage broadband deployment to Upstate New York and rural and underserved areas throughout the country passed the Senate last night," Senator Clinton said. "In our modern world, communication is the key to progress and economic revitalization. High speed Internet access is becoming as vital to businesses struggling to compete in the 21st century marketplace as phone service was in the early 20th century. I will be fighting every step of the way to make sure that Upstate New Yorkers are not left out of this technological revolution. Broadband is like a field of high tech dreams for businesses: if you build it, they will grow."

Senator Clinton's amendment to the tax bill aims to stimulate broadband infrastructure deployment and demand for broadband services by:

Providing 50% expensing for investments in rural and underserved areas of "current generation" broadband technologies, which are defined as those delivering at least 1 megabit per second of information downstream to the subscriber, and at least 128 kilobits per second upstream from the subscriber.

Providing 100% expensing for investments in "next generation" broadband technologies, which are defined as those delivering at least 22 megabits per second of information downstream to the subscriber, and at least 5 megabits per second upstream from the subscriber. The incentives are provided for investment in 2004 to encourage immediate investment to help stimulate the economy. In January of this year, Senator Clinton joined with Senator Burns and Senator Max S. Baucus (D-MT) as a lead sponsor of the Broadband Expensing Act of 2003. At the time, Senator Clinton said that she hoped to include the Broadband Expensing Act of 2003 as part of Congress' overall economic stimulus package.

Senator Clinton has also been active in the promotion of broadband services throughout New York State. In November 2002 she hosted the New Technologies for New York Forum 2002 - the first telecom summit of its kind in the state, aimed at bringing investment, jobs and services to Upstate New York.

Or this legislative package this year:

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statement s/details.cfm?id=271662&&

Senator Clinton Introduces Legislative Initiatives to Help Restore the Promise of Rural America

Washington, DC - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, continuing her long-standing efforts to restore the promise of rural and small-town America, today introduced a package of legislation addressing some of the most urgent needs facing rural communities. The legislation will help create good jobs, develop new sources of capital, and invest in education, healthcare, broadband, and agriculture to grow local economies and restore the promise of America's rural communities and small towns.

"Insuring that we keep rural America prospering is an important goal for our country. Whether it's places to grow businesses or grow fresh foods, new kinds of renewable energy or long-held values, many of the solutions to the challenges we face as a nation can be found in our small towns and rural areas," said Senator Clinton. "It's time to create jobs and renew the promise of rural communities by investing in broadband, biofuels and renewable energy, agriculture, healthcare, education, and new sources of capital to bring the Information Age economy to every corner of our country."

Senator Clinton today introduced a series of bills focused on investing in rural America, including:

* The Rural Investment to Strengthen our Economy Act (Rural RISE Act). The Rural RISE Act will help spur rural economic development by expanding access to capital and strategic advice for rural entrepreneurs and small businesses. The legislation will help create a more efficient grant process for small businesses through a National Board on Rural America, which will develop a national strategic investment plan, oversee the disbursement of all planning and innovation grants, and submit an annual report on program performance.

The bill will also bring together businesses, colleges and universities to help develop and implement effective programs to ensure workers have the training needed to compete in the global economy. The bill also provides small business tax credits to increase wages and raise low job growth rates by creating a special classification of employer tax credit for small businesses that locate in rural counties.

* The Rural Broadband Initiatives Act. This legislation will extend and improve access to broadband services in small towns across America. It creates a policy and action framework to ensure that the federal government employs an effective and comprehensive strategy to deploy broadband service and access in the rural areas of the United States. The bill will also establish a Rural Broadband Innovation fund to explore and develop cutting edge broadband delivery technologies to reach underserved rural areas. The Rural Broadband Initiatives Act has been endorsed by the Communications Workers of America.

* The School Food Fresh Act. The School Food Fresh Program will coordinate and better direct the commodity foods programs for school children by linking local and regional farmers with local schools. The program is similar to Farm to Fork, an initiative established by Senator Clinton that links New York State growers, distributors, retailers, restaurateurs, and others to expand markets for New York's diverse array of agricultural products, particularly in downstate regions such as New York City. The legislation also creates a taskforce that will be responsible for making the commodity foods programs more efficient and beneficial. Thirdly, the School Food Fresh Act will establish a grants program to evaluate and recommend product specifications for a variety of different commodities used in United States Department of Agriculture feeding programs.

Senator Clinton has been a tireless advocate of restoring the promise of rural and small town America. She has worked to expand access to broadband and spur innovative strategies for rural economic development. In a major speech last year, Senator Clinton addressed the many challenges facing rural communities and called for new strategies to preserve the quality of life and keep good jobs in rural and small-town communities. Senator Clinton first introduced the Rural Broadband Initiatives Act during the 109th Congress.

Or, this major speech on rural development issues:

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statement s/details.cfm?id=260022&&


by hwc on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 07:48:06 PM EST

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (none / 0)

Or this one on the Sanders-Clinton Amendment passed by the Senate for Green energy job training and development:

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statement s/details.cfm?id=276854

Clinton Applauds Passage of Green Jobs Energy Amendment

Measure Now Included in Comprehensive Energy Bill

Washington, DC - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) announced that the Senate has approved a green job training proposal she introduced with Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). The measure authorizes new programs to train workers for "green collar jobs" that involve the design, manufacturing, installation, operation, and maintenance of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. The amendment is now part of the comprehensive energy bill currently being debated by the Senate.

"To attack global warming, we need to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy," said Senator Clinton. "Deploying these technologies is a win-win that will reduce pollution and create new, good-paying jobs. This important legislation will help to train workers to meet the needs of the growing clean energy sectors of our economy."

"One way to slow global warming is to use energy in a smarter way. An effective and economical way to cut consumption is to make homes and businesses more energy efficient. Trouble is, today you would have a hard time finding workers qualified to do the job," Senator Sanders said. "If we're smart, we can help people make their homes and offices more energy efficient and in the process create millions of good-paying "green jobs'."

The Sanders-Clinton Amendment would establish an Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Workforce Training Program to be administered by the Department of Labor in coordination with the Department of Energy. The amendment addresses emerging workforce shortages that could stymie growth of the renewable energy and efficiency industries. A 2006 study from the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) identified the shortage of skills and training as a leading non-technical barrier to renewable energy and energy efficiency growth. In particular, the NREL study identified a number of critical unmet training needs, including lack of reliable installation, maintenance, and inspection services, the shortage of key technical and manufacturing skills, and failure of the educational system to provide adequate training in new technologies. The program established by the Sanders-Clinton amendment would target individuals including veterans, workers displaced by economic globalization, workers seeking pathways out of poverty and into economic self-sufficiency, and individuals in need of updated training. Industries eligible for training services under the program include: energy-efficient building, construction, and retrofits; renewable electric power; advanced automotive drive trains; bio-fuels; and the deconstruction and materials use industries.

The Sanders-Clinton amendment would authorize up to $40 million per year in grants on a competitive basis under a National Training Partnerships program and up to $40 million per year in grants to states to implement labor exchange and training programs. Preference would be given to states that show leadership in promoting renewable energy, energy efficiency, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Eligible entities would include non-profit organizations that are composed of partnerships between industry and labor, taking advantage of established programs in order to ensure the highest-quality training possible. The funding would be sufficient to train between 20,000 and 30,000 workers per year. The Sanders-Clinton amendment also provides up to $20 million per year for national and state industry-wide research, labor market information, and labor exchange programs.

"As Congress advances programs to enhance our energy security and address global warming, workforce shortages are emerging in the utilities sector that could stymie growth of the renewable energy and efficiency industries," Apollo Alliance President Jerome Ringo said. "According to the American Public Power Association, half of current utility workers will retire within the next decade. However, our nation is not training enough new workers to fill their places."

The amendment is supported by a diverse array of renewable energy, labor, trade, environmental, and other groups: Apollo Alliance, Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), Wider Opportunities for Women, Union of Concerned Scientists, AFL-CIO, National Association of Energy Service Companies (NAESCO), Sierra Club, Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), Solar Energy Industries Association, Clean Water Action, American Wind Energy Association, Earthjustice, American Solar Energy Society, American Council for An Energy Efficient Economy (ASCEE), Public Citizen, Center for American Progress Action Fund, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).



by hwc on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 08:10:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (none / 0)

Thanks for posting this. Am I right in summing this up that her broadband legislation works on tax incentives (your first quote) and a "Rural Broadband Innovation Fund" meaning a fund handing out subsidies for further infrastructure construction?
As far as I can tell from the rural development proposals, she's talking basically about small business loans and tax incentives, as well as an undefined effort involving community colleges and improving job training programs.
I'm just trying to sum up the details for the sake of comparison.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 08:17:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (3.00 / 0)

My point about her addressing poverty more directly was partly about rhetoric. I made the point that it would be nice if poverty had a tab on the website, played a larger role in her rhetoric --- instead of falling back on the "Strengthening the Middle Class" line, which is great but is a different issue with different solutions. There's a difference between having some assorted proposals about poverty and have it as an existential rationale for your campaign (like Edwards). You know what I mean?
I'll grant you that she's done some great things for upstate New York and won support there for taking on their issues.
One Million Strong --- Join up
by psericks on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 08:37:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Announces Rural Poverty Summit (none / 0)

I made the point that it would be nice if poverty had a tab on the website, played a larger role in her rhetoric --- instead of falling back on the "Strengthening the Middle Class" line, which is great but is a different issue with different solutions.

It's bad politics for two reasons:

a) The United States currently breaks down as follows: 13% poverty, 75% middle class, 17% wealthy. It is pretty obvious why it makes much more sense to frame issues as addressing the "invisible middle class".

b) This framing is vitally important for Democratic candidates since one of the two most ingrained knocks on Democrats is that their domestic policy consists entirely of raising taxes to fund welfare programs for the poor (the other being that Democrats are weak on national security).

Just as he hurt the Democratic Party's election chances by branding the war on terror as a political slogan, Edwards is undermining the Democrats with his "poverty tour". I wish that he had the sense not to do it, but it's his choice...just like Republican candidates are free to undermine Republican chances with their racist lingo.

It is so much more saavy to take exactly the same issues (for example, rural broadband and support of green jobs) and frame them in a way that does not play into longstanding electorate fears about Democrats. However, not all campaigns are that politically saavy.


by hwc on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 10:12:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards is NOT undermining the Party (none / 0)

Quick identification quiz:

- One candidate focuses on finding a middle ground (some call it triangulation).

  • One candidate focuses on finding a way to work with the party across the aisle (some call it "new politics).
  • One candidate harks back to Bobby Kennedy, FDR, MLK Jr, and speaks out for those without a champion.
  • One candidate supports a balanced budget amendment.

Which one is undermining the Party?
Which one is reclaiming the values of the Democratic Party?


by edgery on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 10:22:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards is NOT undermining the Party (none / 0)

One candidate focuses on finding a way to work with the party across the aisle (some call it "new politics).

Clinton, right? Many, if not the majority, of her legislative initiatives have been co-sponsored with Republican Senators. It's almost essential because it takes 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate. The political reality is that any successful legislative bill or amendment must be bipartisan.

That's why candidate promises are largely empty rhetoric. The reality is that the "plans" tossed out on the campaign trail mean absolutely nothing if there aren't 60 votes in the Senate. These "plans" are mostly posturing. Sometimes blatant posturing like Richardson's "plan" to have all US troops out of Iraq five months from now.


by hwc on Sun Jul 22, 2007 at 10:34:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards is NOT undermining the Party (none / 0)

Then what is the basis for voting for a candidate. If they are not going to put out a plan or take a general stand that it is their intention to pass a universal health plan  in the four year term that they were elected. They could then get an electoral mandate to get it enacted. If you have an electoral mandate, you donot need 60 votes by party to get something done. We are not going to have 60 democratic senators in 2008

Richardson's plan is no more posturing then Clinton saying she will end the war with a residual force(by all estimates to be 60-70000 troops) that she will leave in Iraq. THAT WILL NOT END THE WAR.


by BDM on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 12:31:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards is NOT undermining the Party (3.00 / 0)