ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Edwards wins 10,000 Iowa pledges

Posted: Friday, November 09, 2007 4:01 PM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC/NJ’s Tricia Miller
DES MOINES, IA -- In what might have been the sweetest endorsement so far, Edwards this afternoon got the nod from Caucus for Priorities, the brainchild of Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream.

Caucus for Priorities is the political branch of Iowans for Sensible Priorities, a state branch of Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities. Peggy Huppert, executive director of Caucus for Priorities, said that in the past two years Caucus for Priorities staffers in Iowa attended more than 550 events and asked more than 250 questions. Edwards himself answered questions from Caucus for Priorities staffers 36 times, she said.

Caucus for Priorities represents 10,000 Iowa caucusgoers who signed a non-binding pledge to support the candidate who will cut back Pentagon spending in favor of more domestic spending on programs like education and health care.

“Ten-thousand caucusgoers can tip the scales in a tight caucus,” Huppert noted.

Cohen described the endorsement decision process: “There was three criteria,” he said. “One was the answers on the questionnaires and the answers to our bird doggers on the stump. The second was viability, the likelihood that the candidate could come out in the top three in Iowa and go on to win the White House. That was where most of the other candidates were kind of ruled out -- the candidates who scored higher than [Edwards]. Third, the criteria was willingness to speak out on the issue, and the senator was excellent on that issue.”

He cited Edwards’ stand against new nuclear weapons and echoed parts of Edwards’ stump speech when he called for caucusgoers to support a candidate who would stand up to special interests in Washington.

“Our politicians in Washington have neither the spine nor the wit to make these choices, and the people who end up paying the price are our kids,” he said. “We need a president who will answer to the people, not a bunch of lobbyists.”

Huppert said the group would drive get-out-the-vote efforts for Edwards through phone banking, e-mails and direct mailing. She said they also hoped to make him the second choice for caucusgoers who support candidates who were unlikely to be viable in their precincts.

Caucus for Priorities is recognized for its use of political theater, including the priorities moms who give out cookies with the federal budget pie chart on them in icing, the Topsy Turvy Bus (an upside-down bus with wheels on top), the Oreo Mobile, a car which displays the federal budget pie chart over the back seat and the Pig Mobile.

In a question-and-answer session afterward, Edwards denied that his campaign has turned negative during this campaign. In response to a question about why he doesn’t often draw distinctions between himself and Obama, he reiterated that he sees more overlap between his candidacy and Obama’s and sees more distinctions between his and Clinton’s.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Good answer by Edwards regarding Obama.
Politics... Doohhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Ice cream... Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
 good news for a change, edwards gets my vote because he is the only one who has plans that will work for america, not just corporate america, hillary and obama both sold out for the big bucks, but we won't be voting on who collected the most money, we will be voting on the best person to lead the country, a fact that seems to get obscured by the medias complete focus on campaign coffers.
Here is the key words

"Non Bidding Pledge"

It is non bidding and i am sure those guy we change their mind.
I see the overlap between Edwards and Obama's campaigns: they're both losers.
This is great news! Though the pledge is non-binding, and endorsement of this sort from a respected organization can influence a lot of votes, even of non-members. I've received invitations to sign similar pledges from organizations that I support, and I know I never sign them unless the issue the pledge represents is a deal maker or breaker for me or unless I am already confident of my candidate's position being consistent with the pledge. If these Iowa caucus goers are like me in that respect, the ones who signed this pledge are very serious about the issue of cutting military pork and I'm thinking a larger percentage of them will be influenced by this endorsement.
Bee / 'It is non binding and i am sure those guy we change their mind.'

 that will hold true for most of the caucusgoers, which makes all the continuous clatter about poll numbers meaningless, most people polled won't give the pollsters a clue about how they truly intend to vote just to add to the mayhem, polls have become utterly useless, they are nothing more than talking points for the pundits now days
This is great news for Edwards.  However, non-binding is just that, so hopefully he won't count the proverbial chickens before they hatch.
Let's see how many of them actually come out in the freezing cold on caucus night to vote.
is this vote for dummys year go ahead and vote in the next dan quayle edwards needs to go away like that guy did
Ummm, I hardly think John Edwards is a dummy (Mark in Il.) He went to law school. Hello. In any event, I like the issues he stands for and hope he wins the primary. I support him 100 %.
If your listening, again we see the insight of another fool. Cutting our Armed forces, Clinton butchered our miltary and set forth trends to dismantle our security. It was Clinton who sat on his A@@ while 9/11 was being planned! He handed over a system which now has not recovered! So Edwards is just another Paper Hanger, as the month's pass these clowns will promise anything for a vote.

Edwards, just another contriving lawyer who should be seeking a car wreck!  Where is his ""Bond""?? is it $20k ? LOL !!!!
that's the way to stand on principles, item 2 viability. give me the best candidate's name in your decision without viability, the best qualified. i want to know how biden did in your survey. all your doing is reinforcing choices not based on principle but electability when the first vote hasn't been cast.so much for integrety boys. like your new york super ice cream but your endorsement criteria with electability as a factor sucks.
re:
"Let's see how many of them actually come out in the freezing cold on caucus night to vote."
Tareli, Fuquay Varina NC

This is why we don't let the people from North Carolina have the first caucus.  The people from Iowa take the responsibility seriously.
The "freezing cold" is not a factor for people who know they are playing a significant role in electing the next President of the United States.

re: the pledge...
I'm a Clinton supporter, but no doubt this is good news for Edwards.
Great news for Edwards! WooHoo!
Time for Mark Penn to roll out some "rumors" about Edwards.
Oh wait - Hillary's campaign has been doing that for months, along with push polling against Edwards in Iowa and NH.
mark, what an insanely stupid comment.
Grandpa told me that who I vote for is nobodys business, a lot of people will always keep that secret, that is what gives us the true power in this country, Lie to them all, Baffle them and confuse them and then vote for your person.
Another thing while I am ranting needlessly late into the evening, you want to do something nice for your country, here it is, go out tommorrow with a plastic bag and pick up all the litter until the bag is filled and clean up america, Lady Bird will be proud of 'you all'.
This is good news for Edwards Campaign. I think that if he wins Iowa, he will ride it all the way to the presidency. But if he loses Iowa, he is done for good.
I was shocked to get an e-mail today from sensible priorities regarding the endorsement of Edwards. I was betrayed. It is clear from the e-mail Ben Cohen was really only looking at Hillary, Obama, and Edwards.

I wish I would have known this, I would not have gone from event after event trying to get questions answered for the organization. I took time off of work for what? So I could post on Sensible Priorities website what Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Obama or Richardson answered. I went to two Clinton events, but she never took questions from the audience. I learned a lot, and I found a candidate I'll be supporting now, but I used over half my yearly vacation time for what? Going to events of candidates Ben Cohen wasn't ever really going to endorse! I'd really like an explanation why Ben Cohen asked us to "Birddog" if in the end the choice was going to come down to The lesser of three evils. I'm not saying Edwards, Clinton, or Obama are realy evil they aren't, it's just a saying!

From the e-mail (and bird dog responses from candidate debates) it is clear that Joe Biden should have gotten the endorsement, but Ben apparently talks a good game, but in the end, he was looking or a candidate with the financial resources, not the candidate with any actual legislative record consistent with the groups goals.

The e-mail we got actually said only Edwards, Obama and Clinton have the financial resourses so the other candidates were excluded-how sick is that. This winter when I won't be able to take a personal day, because I've used up all of them bird dogging for Ben, I'll remember how naive I was to believe our efforts mattered. We were Ben's loyal pawns! Hey Ben was the fix in from the start? Each time I used a personal day or vacation day since March to go bird dog a candidate, did you already know you were only going to consider the top three? If you did, do you feel bad that people spent money (on gas, baby sitters, lost work days, etc) going to events when you knew the fix was in?

Even the fire fighters union, a huge union didn't allow the size of the candidates fundraising influence its endorsement. They looked at the candidates past legislative record. More importantly they didn't con Iowans into going to event after event keeping the candidates honest, only to exclude any candidate other than the top three from consideration.

I made a pledge "to support the candidate who best championed sensible budget prioritites" , but you see I thought there was a corresponding promise, or pledge by Ben Cohen to actually endorse that candidate. Instead he made a joke out of the process, and used real people, not to mentioned wasted candidate's time, in individual meetings. Poor Bill Richardson, he basically sold his soul trying to get the endorsement. He wore the lapel pin to forums and debates, and took positions opposite his 15 year voting record. All to be snubbed in favor of a guy whose pro defense spending voting record is almost as bad as Richardson's.

This is what Ben Cohen said in the e-mail about Joe Biden:
"joe Biden offered the same direct, level headed analysis of our questionaire that distinguishes him among the Presidential field. The weight of his answers, rooted in his foreign policy experience, and the persuasiveness of his arguments are impressive and should inform the other candidates. His support for Sensible Priorities demonstrates that thoughtful politicians can support strong national security with smart defense spending"  Sounds nice doesn't it?

Not only is everything Ben said about Joe Biden true, but he's the only candidate with a voting record consistent with his statements on the camapign trail, he has a proven track record of voting to eliminate waste.


Here is where Ben Cohen lost 100% of his credibility. In endorsing Edwards instead of stating he was a strong advocate for "sensible priorities", he changes the wording to "new budget priorities" in other words  Edwards 2007 commitment  to health care reform, etc.. I don't know if Ben thought his faithful bird doggers wouldn't notice, but no where in his endorsement does Ben claim that Edwards has shown a committment to the organizations principals. It talks about Edwards commitment to lobbying reform. I wonder if Ben's even looked at Edwards voting record? When he was in the Senate he voted against public campaign financing (which he now supports)and was always against lobby reforms.

Ben Cohen completely ignores how Edwards compares with other Democrats, and instead draws the contrast between Edwards and the GOP field. What a joke, of course the contrast is great between Edwards and Rudy and company, but the primary comes before the general, and Ben Cohen endorsed a candidate who scored poorly on the candidate questionaire.

In the e-mail Cohen falsely claimed that Edwards committed to reducing nuclear war heads to 1,000 war heads. Unless the web site is screwed up he did not agree to do so. The website states he answered undecided.

The e-mail falsely claims that Edwards agreed to 31 billion in defense spending cuts, however the website indicates Edwards agreed to 22 billion in cuts, which is less than half the amount of cuts the website (presidental candidate scoreboard) shows Biden agreed to.  

If I hadn't spent so much time believing in this cause I guess I could laugh at this, and maybe someday I will. I guess it's one of those life lessons, don't trust people who claim to be reformers. I don't knwo, I'll figure out the lesson saome day.

But until then I would love it if Ben Cohen could tell me how he can sleep at night knowing he made a mockery out of the organization? You endorse a guy who provide no answer at all to five of the questions. He was undecided regarding reducing nukes  to 1,000. Biden has committed to this, and actually did long before the campaign started, he's been on the forefront on the issue (since when is an actual track record meaningless?). Biden committed to cancelling the DDG-1000, where was Edwards on this issue? UNdecided. Biden committed to cancelling the C-130J, and again Edwards was undecided on this sensible priorities goal. Biden was committed to reducing 18 future combat systems, again Edwards was undecided. Biden was committed to eliminating 2,822 in earmarks, but not Edwards.  

Edwards is a good guy, but he hasn't made a commitment in  the past or currently on the organizations defense cuttung priorities. This was a priority of Joe Biden, long before there ever was a sensible priorities.

Ben Cohen, people looked to you for guidence, but you failed them
privide bihjunforunately n    
Edwards already has my vote. He is the only one with any morality.
A non-binding pledge?

This is one rerason I hate all these PACs in grassroots clothing. They give people false hopes. Wouldn't it be better if the pledge was binding.
Frankly, endorsements of these sort are useless.

Smart response on the Obama question.
What I'm looking for in a president is one who'll challenge the big money equation that diminishes my vote and influence.  John Edwards is the only candidate speaking in terms of erasing lobbyist influence from the political arena.  
Bee baby Edwards is TOASTED!
"that's the way to stand on principles, item 2 viability. give me the best candidate's name in your decision without viability, the best qualified. i want to know how biden did in your survey. all your doing is reinforcing choices not based on principle but electability when the first vote hasn't been cast.so much for integrety boys. like your new york super ice cream but your endorsement criteria with electability as a factor sucks.

karlos "

Karlos,

This group claimed it was looking for the candidate who best represented it's goals, but in the end, all they did was endorse what their Iowa director referred to as the "unhillary" candidate. I don't support Hillary either, but either the priorities are important or not. Endorseing either Obama, Edwards or Clinton, would be like the fire fighters union endorsing a candidate seeking to privatize fire fighting. They conned a lot of hard working college students.

In answer to your question. Biden was the only candidate with an actual track record of voting to cut defense pork, and the only one scoring better than him on their Presidential scoreboard was Richardson, but Richardson's 15 year voting was as pro defense pork as they come.  
RE: To Jan, in Nashua, NH. You wrote: This is why we don't let the people from North Carolina have the first caucus. The people from Iowa take the responsibility seriously. The "freezing cold" is not a factor for people who know they are playing a significant role in electing the next President of the United States.

-------------------------------------------------

Who are """you""" to say that the good people in NC don't take our voting responsibilities seriously????!!!! Please, why don't you get off your high-horse and realize we take voting just as seriously as every other state. I've gone out in the snow, freezing rain, whatever. I've worked for many political campaigns over my lifetime. (Can you say the same?) My family encouraged me to always vote, no matter what. I still stand by those values today. Voting is what matters to me. Also, more importantly, it's not "who" you vote for, but that you get out and vote!!!!!!!

By the way, how dare you make gross generalizations. Shame on you. By the way, John Edwards, in my opinion, is the best candidate the Democrats have going. Also, he's honest and is not a pandering, slick politician like the other alternatives we have out there, mainly Clinton and Obama.

John Edwards has truly high morals. I will not only be supporting him 100 %, but I will also be working on his campaign in what state, you might ask????? NORTH CAROLINA!!! Oh, and if there's 10 inches of snow I'll still be out there voting, because contrary to what some shallow-minded people may think (Jan, in Nashua, NH), we "do" take voting VERY SERIOUSLY here in our beautiful state.

All this aside, I encourage everyone to get out and vote, no matter what. Just do it!!!! Thanks! :)
North Carolina is my home and I love it there. Sweden is my second home and I suppose it will be quite cold when I go out to cast my absentee ballot as it is every year. I have voted from the moment I was of age to vote. I vote in Sweden too. I have made my decision without judging the decisions of others. I didn't think we were still living in the age of "North and South". Our Country needs to stand united. We don't need to agree on the same candidate but we do need to vote. Mark, everyone could do without your pontification. Maybe you should get a hobby.
Biden is good too, Mark. I wasn't speaking with you I was speaking with Mark from Il. Sorry for the confusion.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=458044

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google