Gephardt to Endorse Clinton*
What does this mean? Well, as a born and raised Missourian myself, it isn’t nothing,
because Gephardt remains a very popular man in the show me state. Gephardt has
been involved with advising Clinton for at least a couple of months, but an
endorsement is a different thing. Does anyone really care? Clinton does and
I imagine Edwards does too, because Gephardt was once Mr.
Union, though in 2004 that title clearly diminished when unions couldn’t
even deliver Iowa. But unions had begun to change by then, becoming quite a
different beast than when Gephardt grew up.
Then there’s his personal story. Gephardt’s upbringing as the son of a Teamster
milkman who grew up in Catholic, blue-collar St. Louis lends a powerful authenticity
to his working-class-oriented politics. (It’s also a fine contrast to Bush’s
patrician roots, far better than Dean’s Manhattan roots or even Clark’s urban
Chicago origins.) This innate credibility should translate into real grassroots,
general-election strength. Gephardt’s union supporters may not have the fanaticism
of Dean’s, but they’re close: Just last week, more than a dozen international
unions flew in hundreds of ground troops to give him a last push in Iowa.
Taken together, these factors suggest Gephardt could be a nightmare for Bush
in major industrial swing states–Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania–where
job losses and vast union machines will work enormously in Gephardt’s favor.
No other candidate, save perhaps Edwards in the South, has so strong a regional-electoral
advantage.
Gephardt was for universal health care and against tax cuts that would keep this from happening. He also criticized the original Clinton health care plan. Gephardt
was also against NAFTA, though he still doesn’t get credit for that, because
of his position on GATT. He also slapped Bill Clinton around on fast track.
Although he strongly opposed nafta in 1993 and organized a stinging rejection
of fast-track trade powers for Clinton in 1998, his support for the 1994 gatt
agreement (which created the World Trade Organization) shows that his opposition
to trade agreements is not entirely reflexive. (source)
The issue of Gephardt and Clinton, however, makes a lot of sense. They have
many things in common, including the ability to fight dirty. This is what got
Gephardt in trouble in the ’04 campaign.
Mr. Sloan said the group’s treasurer, David Jones, solicited the money by
saying it would pay for ”issues ads.” The union, Mr. Sloan said, believed
the group’s commercials would focus on economic and health care policies.But in the end, he said, the advertisements were not what the union had bargained
for, especially the latest one, in which an announcer questions Dr. Dean’s
national security qualifications as a camera zooms in on a magazine cover
showing Osama bin Laden’s face.”Osama bin Laden has nothing at all to do with this campaign; it’s a travesty,”
Mr. Sloan said. ”We think the ads are despicable and if it was up to me,
we’d ask for a refund.”ADVERTISING;
Two Unions Criticize Ads For Attacks Against Dean
Democrats should never do this type of ad against one another, not ever, especially
on national security. It hurts us all. Not being a Deaniac, I can only imagine
how infuriated his supporters were at a time.
People have differing views on Gephardt today, mostly because he of what he
did on Iraq, which I criticized back in 2002 up and down the line. His vote
on Iraq as well as his leadership on it are insurmountable historical problems for Gephardt personally. But as endorsements go,
this is a good one for Clinton.
*TM NOTE: As an fyi, I was passed this info *much* earlier this morning, but just had time to upload it. I’m in the process of packing and moving, including my radio studio, the next few days. It’s bedlam around here.
Comments are closed.