How Green Is Your Candidate? - Updated

Grist Magazine has updated it's "How Green Is Your Candidate?" section. It's very useful for comparing the candidates. Click here to check it out.

Here's a preview of what they say about Senator Edwards...

John Edwards is running left. What mixture of genuine sentiment and political calculation is behind that strategy only he knows, but it's translated into far and away the strongest, most comprehensive climate and energy plan among the three Democratic front-runners. He's stumping for 80 percent cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050, and fleshing that goal out with detailed proposals for big boosts in renewables and fuel efficiency, changes to the energy grid and efficiency standards (the only front-runner to emphasize these), a green-jobs program, and more. On these issues, Edwards has done his homework and he's not trimming his sails

.

Why I Support John Edwards by "desmoinesdem"

Note: This was posted on the front page of MyDD as part of a series of essays written by supporters of different presidential candidates. I think that "desmoinesdem" did an outstanding job. This is a must read.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/14/141110/755

Why I support John Edwards

by desmoinesdem, Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:11:10 PM EST

Listening to John Edwards speak outside his Des Moines campaign headquarters yesterday, I was as proud as ever to support his candidacy. My reasons for supporting Edwards are too numerous to discuss in one diary, but I want to introduce myself and tell part of that story.
I am a 38-year-old mother of two young boys, living in an older suburb of Des Moines. I grew up here, left Iowa for college, grad school and work, and returned in 2002 when my husband and I were ready to start a family. I've been a Democrat my whole life and been interested in politics since I was a kid. I was proud to fly back to Iowa my freshman year of college to caucus for Paul Simon.

Deciding which candidate to support in a Democratic primary is rarely simple for me. I am not looking for one overriding quality (best policy plans, most reliably progressive, most experienced, best temperament for the job, best ability to communicate, most electable), but for the candidate who has the best combination of these qualities.

I saw most of the Democratic field speak in Iowa more than once in 2002 and 2003. My initial leanings were toward Florida Senator Bob Graham. What he lacked in the charisma/communication department I thought he made up for in other areas. I still think he would have been a good general-election candidate and president. When he failed to catch fire and dropped out of the race early, it took a while for me to decide.

I had ruled out Dean earlier in the year. John Edwards was the best speaker in the field and connected well with audiences. However, I ended up in the John Kerry camp in large part because of his lengthy background (outstanding record on environmental and other progressive issues, Senate Foreign Affairs Committee service). The Edwards campaign of 2003 was touching on a lot of important themes, but I didn't see enough specific proposals about how to address the big problems facing the country.

As I witnessed the tidal wave of momentum toward Edwards in the final weeks before the Iowa caucuses, I noticed a few things. First, when people saw Edwards in person, he was often able to seal the deal, even if people had been leaning toward a different candidate earlier. Second, he seemed to do especially well with suburbanites in their 30s and 40s (a critical swing group). Third, my friends in the sustainable agriculture community told me that he was making the best connection by far with people in the smaller towns and rural areas.

Kerry held on to win Iowa and the nomination. I don't think he ran as bad a campaign as people say he did (and I still think he won Ohio), but no one can deny that his communication problems, and his identity as a northeast liberal, hurt us badly, especially in down-ticket races in much of the country.

Going into this election cycle, I had no idea who I would support for president. I went to hear a lot of the candidates when they came to central Iowa in 2006. When I saw Edwards a couple of times, the way he talked about economic and labor issues caught my attention. I wrote diaries about those speeches here and here.

This diary by RDemocrat lays out a strong case for why Edwards is the best candidate to strengthen organized labor in this country. Academics who study voting behavior have repeatedly shown that belonging to a labor union both makes people more likely to vote and more likely to vote for Democrats.

But those weren't the only things that impressed me when Edwards talked about the disparity between how we tax work and wealth, and the need to strengthen labor unions in this country. He used simple but powerful language. In a different context, I thought jsamuel did a great job articulating Edwards' ability to talk about issues in accessible language:

John Edwards is capable of not only turning progressive ideals into wonderful realistic plans, but he is also capable of advocating for them so that they become mainstream.

Since I decided to support Edwards late last year, he has shown repeatedly that he has outstanding ideas to offer voters, such as:

A detailed, universal health care plan, which has been praised by many who follow this issue
closely (including Ezra Klein and Paul Krugman).

An ambitious energy plan, analyzed well here by BruceMcF. He has not just committed to decrease CO2 emissions, he has committed to concrete proposals and is not afraid to say no more subsidies for coal, and no new coal-fired power plants (even when speaking in Marshalltown, Iowa, the site of a proposed new coal-fired power plant).
A detailed proposal to reform the tax system, which would have particular benefits for working people, as RDemocrat has shown.

A commitment to take on abusive lenders, a growing problem.

And of course, a 30-year plan for ending poverty.

Several of Edwards' proposals address issues that particularly important for Democrats as we try to win over swing demographics:

His rural recovery plan addresses the biggest problems affecting those who live in rural or small-town America. In this context, I recommend ManfromMiddletown's excellent diary on electability, complete with lots of maps that show how a candidate who connects well in rural areas puts many more states into play for Democrats.

Edwards' balanced approach to trade is good policy and good politics, which will help in the midwestern swing states.

He has taken a strong stand on food safety and country-of-origin labeling, one of those no-brainers that Congress can't manage to get done because of the undue influence of certain industries. I believe this issue will become more salient, especially with parents of young children.

I have confidence in Edwards' ability to make the case for these policies with the general public as well as with Democrats.

I will write more about Edwards' campaign in Iowa in future posts. For now, I'll just say that as a volunteer precinct captain, I am happy with the resources Edwards has invested in building up an organization here. His focus on substantive, progressive policies is well-suited to the Iowa caucus-goer. His campaign events have been balanced geographically, hitting counties where he did very well in 2004 as well as counties where he will need to improve his showing considerably.
The events have been managed well; yesterday, as I waited with many others in the 90-degree heat to kick off Edwards' bus tour of Iowa, campaign staff repeatedly wandered through the crowd offering cool, bottled water. Those details matter. For more on the first day of the bus tour, see diaries by cosbo and by NCDemAmy (both with video).

Thanks to all who are reading, to Jerome for the invitation to advocate on Edwards' behalf. I look forward to everyone's diaries in this series.

Why John Edwards? Part 1

This is an essay I wrote a few months ago. Though it is slightly outdated I think it makes some important points.

Here is the link to view the essay on MyDD http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/6/10/165415/060

Note: The group mentioned in essay, "Team Edwards" is now a part of the LNCFE (Labor-Netroots Coalition For Edwards) and all resources for Edwards supporters included on its blog has been moved to this blog.

Why John Edwards (Part 1)

My name is Michael Conrad. I am a General Director with Team Edwards, a coalition of supporters working together to nominate and elect John Edwards. I am writing this for two reasons. One is to introduce Team Edwards to other supporters of John Edwards. The second, and far more important reason, is to lay out a few reasons for supporting John Edwards that I feel have been overlooked. There many reasons to support John Edwards. Instead of listing all of them here I think it would be best if I did this in a series. Consider this the first part.

For the first time in a long time the Democrat who best represents our values is also the most electable. That is just one of the reasons why I feel it is so important for the progressive movement to come together and support John Edwards' campaign. This diary would be far too long if I went into detail about all the reasons to support John Edwards, but after the jump I'll list some of the things he has done that make it clear that he is the bold progressive leader that both our party and our country desperately needs. If you dispute the point that John Edwards is the most electable Democrat I would like for you to check out the latest post on our blog. If you are already a John Edwards supporter you will be able to find information that will help you when engaging fellow Democrats about supporting John Edwards.

So why John Edwards?

Like I said before, he is the Democrat who best represents our values and is also the most electable Democrat in the race. For far too long we have had to weigh our desire to see our convictions represented in our candidate against our need to win. Finally we can throw that scale away.

John Edwards is the best communicator of progressive values. He does not need to tear down the party in a pathetic attempt to build himself up. Whether by enforcing myths about fighting terrorism, taxes, or trade, every other major Democratic candidate (Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and Governor Richardson) have at one time in this campaign thrown the party under a bus when it suited the image that they wanted to project. When John Edwards criticizes our party he focuses on the need for our party to have more backbone and political courage. And he often does it to the face of Democratic leaders. The moment I knew that this was the campaign that I and many other progressive populists had been waiting for was when John Edwards told the DNC that now is the time to stop trying to reinvent the Democratic Party, now is the time to reclaim the Democratic Party.


At both of the recent debates it was clear to me that John Edwards is the best communicator in our party. I am obviously biased, but I am confident that if you watch the recent debate when it is replayed tonight on CNN you will see exactly what I am talking about.

We need to remember that the ability to communicate effectively is what gets people elected. I am clearly not a Ronald Reagan fan. He did terrible things to this country as well as others and shrugged it all of by stuffing his face with jelly beans. But he was able to communicate. And that is why, not some conservative fantasy that the country loved his policies, he won two elections by wide margins. Bill Clinton is a very effective communicator. While I am glad that President Clinton was in the oval office instead of a Republican I think that he squandered an opportunity to be a truly great president instead of just a good president. NAFTA, Ricky Ray Rector, his support for the huge amounts of money wasted on "Missile Defense", and his failure to act with regards to Rwanda are my reasons for not being the biggest fan on President Clinton. But, he was a very effective communicator and for this reason was, and still is, a very popular president.


Immediately after he learned that President Bush had won re-election Clinton was quoted as saying that Democrats need to remember to speak to people who are concerned about social issues. Personally, I believe that national security concerns (another issue that John Edwards has recently showed bold leadership on) was the main reason why Bush was re-elected. But Clinton is right about the need to speak to people who are concerned about these issues. Clinton also was right to point out that we should not change our positions on these issues, but we do need to address them. And no one speaks with more candor about social issues than John Edwards.

I would like to wrap up this diary by pointing out the need for a nominee who puts political courage ahead of political calculation. John Edwards has also run a very bold campaign and displayed the type of political courage that will be needed when a Democratic president attempts to make the end of the War in Iraq, Universal Health Care, Energy Independence, or any of the other things that are being focused on in the primaries a reality.

John Edwards' recent confrontation of the Bush doctrine of a "War on Terror" is a great example of this. Confronting one of the most widely used and effective political frames in recent memory was not an easy task but it was something that someone, for the long-term well being of both our party and our country, needed to do. What makes this decision even more important is how it was made. Edwards had a few seconds at the most to decide whether to raise his hand when the question about a "war on terror" was asked. Not only was he the only major candidate not to raise his hand, he did not stop there.


He showed progressive Democrats why engaging conservative myths is important, that it is possible, and how it can be done. Every counter-terrorism/national security expert that I have seen speak (usually on C-Span's "Book TV") has made it clear that the Bush administration has made us less safe, increased the number of terrorists, and fueled their hatred for us. As Edwards himself pointed out, we need to give those on the fence (and there are many) a hand to our side, not a shove to the other. Edwards confronted this conservative myth publicly and vigorously and he offered a substantive alternative to the Bush doctrine.

Note: This essay ended with an earlier version of the "John Edwards First and Often Only List". An updated version is the first resource that was post on this blog.

General Election Polling

Related Links

Rasmussen
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics

Real Clear Politics: Head to Head Polls
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

Pollster
http://www.pollster.com/polls/

Polling Report.com's White House 2008: General Election
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

Survey USA
http://www.surveyusa.com/electionpolls.aspx

We only went back to January out of fairness to Senator Obama, who was not included in many of the polls before that time. In an ironic twist many of Senator Obama's supporters are now claiming that he is the most electable Democrat, and many of the polls they cite do not include Senator Edwards.

I want to make a quick point about using Real Clear Politics' averages as a means of deciding who is electable and who is not. Because Senator Edwards is included in far fewer polls than the celebrity candidates, when Quinnipiac (whose polls are never kind to Senator Edwards for some reason) or some other pollster give him uncharacteristically bad numbers it skews his average far worse than if the same were to happen to Clinton to Obama. That is why I suggest that those looking to determine which Democrat has the best chance of beating the Republican nominee look at all of the 2008 polling in which all three candidates are included. After doing that it will be no mystery who the candidate most capable of beating the Republican nominee is.

Since 2008 general election polling was first released, whether the other Democrats were John Kerry or Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and no matter whether the Republicans he faced were Jeb Bush and Condi Rice, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, or Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, Senator Edwards has shown time and time again that he is the most electable Democrat. Senator Obama, and to a lesser extent Senator Clinton, have had a few days in the sun. But if you look at the totality of 2008 general election polling it is obvious that Senator John Edwards is the most electable Democrat.

Ramsussen's polling is sometimes hard to group together because different sources list their numbers in different ways. For this reason we are going to group the numbers together by the month in which they were released. Others might prefer different methods, but this is how we feel we can best present the information. We will update each month as the numbers are released.

We went back to April's Rasmussen numbers (that was the month in which Senator Edwards became the first Democrat to defeat every Republican) because we did not feel that we would have been to break down their numbers into groups of months credibly before that time due to the conflicting available information. It is also important to note that no matter who has had the better favorable/unfavorable number in Rasmussen's polls, Senator Edwards always does the best in the match-ups themselves. Senator Edwards usually has the best favorable/unfavorable number, as he does now. However, Senator Obama has had the better number on occasion, and both have seen their numbers fall dramatically, only to rise again on numerous occasions. Senator Clinton, on the other hand, has for the most part stayed in the 49/49 range she is in now.

It has become crystal clear that if we as Democrats want to make the most out of the opportunity that has presented itself in 2008, we need to nominate and elect John Edwards. He is the only candidate who can win a realignment victory, and substantially grow the Democratic majorities in Congress. Edwards can win a sweeping mandate that can help end the "progressive = unelectable" myth, reclaim the Democratic party from corporate interests and spineless baby-steppers, and allow John Edwards to, in his own words, "really move this agenda". For the first time in a long time the bold progressive leader running the substantive campaign is the most electable Democrat. Let's make the most of this amazing opportunity. Support Senator John Edwards for President in 2008!

Rasmussen - August (so far)

Favorable/Unfavorable

Hillary Clinton - 49/48 - 50/48
Barack Obama - 48/45 - 48/42
John Edwards - 52/42

vs. Mitt Romney

Clinton -

Romney -

Obama -

Romney -

Edwards -

Romney -

Clinton, Obama, Edwards

vs. Fred Thompson

Clinton - 45%

Thompson - 46%

Obama - 46%

Thompson - 39%

Edwards - 47%

Thompson - 41%

Clinton trails by 1%, Obama leads by 7%, Edwards leads by 6%

vs. Rudy Giuliani

Clinton - 45%

Giuliani - 46%

Obama - 44%

Giuliani - 43%

Edwards - 46%

Giuliani - 44%

Clinton trails by 1%, Obama leads by 1%, Edwards leads by 2%

vs. John McCain

Clinton - 45%

McCain - 43%

Obama - 46%

McCain - 40%

Edwards -

McCain -

Clinton leads by 2%, Obama leads by 6%, Edwards

Rasmussen - End of July

Favorable/Unfavorable (at months end)

Hillary Clinton - 52/46
Barack Obama - 53/41
John Edwards - 54/39

vs. Mitt Romney

Clinton - 46%
Romney - 42%

Obama - 47%
Romney - 38%

Edwards - 52%
Romney - 36%

Clinton leads by 4%, Obama leads by 9%, Edwards leads by 16%

vs. Fred Thompson

Clinton - 45%
Thompson - 45%

Obama - 46%
Thompson - 40%

Edwards - 50%
Thompson - 39%

Clinton is tied, Obama leads by 6%, and Edwards leads by 11%

vs. Rudy Giuliani

Clinton - 44%
Giuliani - 43%

Obama - 47%
Giuliani - 41%

Edwards - 49%
Giuliani - 42%

Clinton leads by 1%, Obama leads by 6%, and Edwards leads by 7%

vs. John McCain

Clinton - 47%
McCain - 38%

Obama - 47%
McCain - 38%

Edwards - 45%
McCain - 38%

Clinton leads by 9%, Obama leads by 9%, and Edwards leads by 7%

Averages
Clinton leads the Republicans by an average of 3.50%
Obama leads the Republicans by an average of 7.50%
Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 10.25%

Rasmussen - End of June

vs. Mitt Romney

Clinton - 50%
Romney - 41%

Obama - 49%
Romney - 37%

Edwards - 51%
Romney - 33%

Clinton leads by 9%, Obama leads by 12%, and Edwards leads by 18%

vs. Fred Thompson

Clinton - 45%
Thompson - 45%

Obama - 43%
Thompson - 41%

Edwards - 50%
Thompson - 41%

Clinton is tied, Obama leads by 2%, and Edwards leads by 9%

vs. Rudy Giuliani

Clinton - 44%
Giuliani - 43%

Obama - 41%
Giuliani - 44%

Edwards - 45%
Giuliani - 45%

Clinton leads by 1%, Obama trails by 3%, and Edwards is tied

vs. John McCain

Clinton - 46%
McCain - 42%

Obama - 46%
McCain - 38%

Edwards - 49%
McCain - 36%

Clinton leads by 4%, Obama leads by 8%, and Edwards leads by 13%

Averages
Clinton leads the Republicans by an average of 3.50%
Obama leads the Republicans by an average of 4.75%
Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 10.00%

Public Policy Polling - June 21, 2007

North Carolina

Clinton - 47%
Romney - 41%

Obama - 47%
Romney - 43%

Edwards - 51%
Romney - 37%

Clinton - 43%
Thompson - 46%

Obama - 44%
Thompson - 45%

Edwards - 47%
Thompson - 43%

Clinton - 43%
Giuliani - 47%

Obama - 42%
Giuliani - 46%

Edwards - 46%
Giuliani - 45%

Clinton - 45%
McCain - 44%

Obama - 44%
McCain - 45%

Edwards - 48%
McCain - 40%

Gallup Poll - June 20th, 2007

Clinton - 53%

Romney - 40%

Obama - 57%

Romney - 36%

Edwards - 61%

Romney - 32%

Clinton - 50%
Giuliani - 46%

Obama - 50%
Giuliani - 45%

Edwards - 50%
Giuliani - 45%

Clinton - 49%
McCain - 46%

Obama - 48%
McCain - 46%

Edwards - 50%
McCain - 44%

Rasmussen - End of May

vs. Mitt Romney

Clinton - 47%
Romney - 44%

Obama - 52%
Romney - 37%

Edwards - 55%
Romney - 29%

Clinton leads by 3%, Obama leads by 15%, and Edwards leads by 26%

vs. Fred Thompson

Clinton - 48%
Thompson - 43%

Obama - 47%
Thompson - 44%

Edwards - 51%
Thompson - 38%

Clinton leads by 5%, Obama leads by 3%, and Edwards leads by 13%

vs. Rudy Giuliani

Clinton - 45%
Giuliani - 46%

Obama - 39%
Giuliani - 51%

Edwards - 47%
Giuliani - 43%

Clinton trails by 1%, Obama trails by 12%, and Edwards leads by 4%

vs. John McCain

Clinton - 42%
McCain - 48%

Obama - 46%
McCain - 42%

Edwards - 48%
McCain - 41%

Clinton trails by 6%, Obama leads by 4%, and Edwards leads by 7%

Averages
Clinton leads the Republicans by an average of .25%
Obama leads the Republicans by an average of 2.50%
Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 12.50%

Newsweek - May 3rd, 2007

Clinton - 57%

Romney - 35%

Obama - 58%
Romney - 29%

Edwards - 64%
Romney - 27%

Clinton - 49%
Giuliani - 46%

Obama - 50%
Giuliani - 43%

Edwards - 50%
Giuliani - 44%

Clinton - 50%
McCain - 44%

Obama - 52%
McCain - 39%

Edwards - 52%
McCain - 42%

Survey USA - May 2nd, 2007

Massachusetts

Clinton - 60%
Thompson - 31%

Obama - 48%
Thompson - 37%

Edwards - 61%
Thompson - 25%

New York

Clinton - 64%
Thompson - 30%

Obama - 50%
Thompson - 38%

Edwards - 59%
Thompson - 29%

California

Clinton - 57%
Thompson - 36%

Obama - 53%
Thompson - 36%

Edwards - 54%
Thompson - 31%

Washington

Clinton - 54%
Thompson - 37%

Obama - 53%
Thompson - 37%

Edwards - 57%
Thompson - 32%

Oregon

Clinton - 48%
Thompson - 41%

Obama - 50%
Thompson - 36%

Edwards - 49%
Thompson - 34%

Wisconsin

Clinton - 46%
Thompson - 43%

Obama - 45%
Thompson - 42%

Edwards - 50%
Thompson - 37%

Minnesota

Clinton - 53%
Thompson -37%

Obama - 48%
Thompson - 40%

Edwards - 56%
Thompson - 32%

New Mexico

Clinton - 51%
Thompson - 41%

Obama - 47%
Thompson - 40%

Edwards - 52%
Thompson - 34%

Iowa

Clinton - 46%
Thompson - 44%

Obama - 51%
Thompson - 41%

Edwards - 58%
Thompson - 35%

Missouri

Clinton - 49%
Thompson - 41%

Obama - 47%
Thompson - 41%

Edwards - 53%
Thompson - 32%

Ohio

Clinton - 53%
Thompson - 38%

Obama - 43%
Thompson - 43%

Edwards - 57%
Thompson - 33%

Virginia

Clinton - 43%
Thompson - 47%

Obama - 40%
Thompson - 46%

Edwards - 48%
Thompson - 38%

Kentucky

Clinton - 53%
Thompson - 40%

Obama - 42%
Thompson - 48%

Edwards - 56%
Thompson - 34%

Texas

Clinton - 49%
Thompson - 43%

Obama - 42%
Thompson - 46%

Edwards - 49%
Thompson - 38%

Kansas

Clinton - 42%
Thompson - 49%

Obama - 46%
Thompson - 42%

Edwards - 50%
Thompson - 37%

Alabama

Clinton - 44%
Thompson - 49%

Obama - 37%
Thompson - 53%

Edwards - 42%
Thompson - 44%

Survey USA - May 2nd, 2007

Ohio

Clinton - 48%
Giuliani - 45%

Obama - 40%
Giuliani - 51%

Edwards - 50%
Giuliani - 42%

Iowa

Clinton - 45%
Giuliani - 48%

Obama - 49%
Giuliani - 44%

Edwards - 54%
Giuliani - 40%

Missouri

Clinton - 45%
Giuliani - 48%

Obama - 42%
Giuliani - 50%

Edwards - 48%
Giuliani - 43%

Wisconsin

Clinton - 44%
Giuliani - 45%

Obama - 43%
Giuliani - 45%

Edwards - 49%
Giuliani - 39%

Minnesota

Clinton - 48%
Giuliani - 45%

Obama - 43%
Giuliani - 49%

Edwards - 49%
Giuliani - 41%

Virginia

Clinton - 44%
Giuliani - 49%

Obama - 38%
Giuliani - 53%

Edwards - 45%
Giuliani - 45%

Kentucky

Clinton - 46%
Giuliani - 48%

Obama - 38%
Giuliani - 54%

Edwards - 47%
Giuliani - 44%

WNBC/Marist - May 1st, 2007

Clinton - 48%
Giuliani - 43%

Obama - 41%
Giuliani - 43%

Edwards - 49%
Giuliani - 43%

Clinton - 47%
McCain - 42%

Obama - 39%
McCain - 46%

Edwards - 49%
McCain - 39%

Rasmussen - End of April

vs. Mitt Romney

Clinton - 50%
Romney - 41%

Obama - 51%
Romney - 36%

Edwards - 55%
Romney - 29%

Clinton leads by 9%, Obama leads by 15%, and Edwards leads by 26%

vs. Fred Thompson

Clinton - 47%
Thompson - 44%

Obama - 49%
Thompson - 42%

Edwards - 53%
Thompson - 32%

Clinton leads by 3%, Obama leads by 7%, and Edwards leads by 20%

vs. Rudy Giuliani

Clinton - 45%
Giuliani - 45%

Obama - 43%
Giuliani - 44%

Edwards - 49%
Giuliani - 43%

Clinton is tied, Giuliani trails by 1%, and Edwards leads by 6%

vs. John McCain

Clinton - 44%
McCain - 48%

Obama - 48%
McCain - 42%

Edwards - 47%
McCain - 38%

Clinton trails by 4%, Obama leads by 6%, and Edwards leads by 9%

Averages
Clinton leads the Republicans by an average of 2.00%
Obama leads the Republicans by an average of 6.75%
Edwards leads the Republican by an average of 15.25%

Newsweek - March 1st, 2007

Clinton - 53%
Romney - 38%

Obama - 54%
Romney - 34%

Edwards - 58%
Romney - 30%

Clinton - 46%
Giuliani - 47%

Obama - 43%
Giuliani - 48%

Edwards - 45%
Giuliani - 47%

Clinton - 47%
McCain - 46%

Obama - 45%
McCain - 43%

Edwards - 48%
McCain - 43%

Newsweek - January 18th, 2007

Clinton - 47%
Giuliani - 48%

Obama - 47%
Giuliani - 45%

Edwards - 48%
Giuliani - 45%

Clinton - 48%
McCain - 47%

Obama - 46%
McCain - 44%

Edwards - 48%
McCain - 43%

Investor's Business Daily - January 4th, 2007

Clinton - 48%
Romney - 35%

Obama - 43%
Romney - 31%

Edwards - 53%
Romney - 29%

Clinton - 43%
Giuliani - 48%

Obama - 36%
Giuliani - 49%

Edwards - 42%
Giuliani - 47%

Clinton - 41%
McCain - 48%

Obama - 36%
McCain - 48%

Edwards - 43%
McCain - 44%

Leading On The Issues: Ending The War In Iraq

(need to add a more thorough discription of the legislation listed)

We all know where the candidates stood when the war began. But in the last few years what have they done to end the war?

The Kerry - Feingold Amendment (2006)

This amendment was being discussed the same time as the Levin-Reed (RI) amendment.
Although Levin-Reed was a step in the right direction it was not nearly as important as Kerry-Feingold could have been. Kerry-Feingold would have set a timetable for withdrawal.

Clinton: Voted against Kerry-Feingold, for Levin-Reed.
Obama: Voted against Kerry-Feingold, for Levin-Reed.
Edwards: In an interview that aired on ABC's This Week, Edwards told George Stephanopoulos that he supported both amendments.

The Connecticut Senate Primary (2006)

Clinton: Endorsed Lieberman in the primary. Many believe that her husband's speech in favor of Lieberman of kept him from losing the primary by such a large margin that he would have had to drop out of the race. After Lamont won the primary Clinton endorsed him. She sent his campaign a check and gave the Lamont campaign use of her communications director, Howard Wolfson.
Obama: Endorsed Lieberman in the primary. Obama campaigned for Lieberman, telling Connecticut Democrats that although Obama understood Lieberman's views of foreign policy, he hoped Connecticut Democrats would have the "good sense" to re-elect Lieberman. After Lamont won the primary Obama endorsed him, sent him a check, and sent out a fundraising e-mail on Lamont's behalf.
Edwards: Never endorsed Lieberman in the primary. Was the first person to call Lamont after he won the primary. Edwards was also the first major Democrat to come campaign for Lamont. While campaigning for Lamont both John and Elizabeth Edwards made it clear that they believed that because Lieberman had ran in the Democratic primary he needed to accept the will of the party and drop out of the general election race. Until that moment only one other major Democrat had made a similar statement.

Stopping The Escalation of The War in Iraq

Clinton: Stopped short of calling for funds for the escalation to be cut off.
Obama: Stopped short of calling for funds for the escalation to be cut off.
Edwards: Vocally supported cutting of funds for the escalation. Repeatedly called for Congress to stop the escalation by cutting of the funding.

The Gregg Amendment

Clinton: Voted for it.
Obama: Voted for it.
Edwards: Made it clear that he supported Congress using it's funding authority to end the war.

Reid (NV) -Feingold

Clinton: Had to be prodded into supporting it by Chris Dodd and others.
Obama: Had to be prodded into supporting it by Chris Dodd and others.
Edwards: Supported Reid-Feingold as a first step but wants to go further.

The "Capitulation" Bill

Clinton: Waited until after Obama had voted, then voted the right way.
Obama: Waited until many others had voted, then voted the right way.
Edwards: Made it very clear from the start that he was opposed to the bill, and any funding bill without a timetable for withdrawal.

MoveOn.org Virtual Town Hall: Environment Poll

The second MoveOn.org "Virtual Town Hall" dealt with Envrionmental Action. Both global warming and energy independence were discussed. Here is a clip from MoveOn's press release

Edwards Wins Straw Poll on Climate Change
Print Ads to Run in NH and IA Next Week

Largest MoveOn Event Since 2004; Over 100,000 People Joined at 1,300 House Parties and Online to Watch Virtual Town Hall

Former Senator John Edwards won MoveOn.org Political Action’s poll on the climate crisis which asked, “Which candidate’s position on dealing with the climate crisis do you prefer?” Of the field of eight Democratic hopefuls, Edwards received 33% of the total votes cast–more than twice the support of the next two candidates, Rep. Kucinich and Senator Clinton, who each garnered 15.7%.

MoveOn member vote results:

John Edwards - 33.10%
Dennis Kucinich - 15.73%
Hillary Clinton - 15.71%
Barack Obama - 15.03%
Bill Richardson - 12.60%
Joe Biden - 3.06%
Chris Dodd - 3.01%
Mike Gravel - 1.78%

MoveOn will run print ads in newspapers in early primary states Iowa and New Hampshire next week, announcing the results of the straw poll on the climate crisis. Fundraising for the ads begins today.

“The enormous response we got from our members on this issue emphasizes how important it will be for our next president to make solving the climate crisis a top priority in 2008,” said Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MoveOn.org Political Action.

“MoveOn members want leaders who will take on the oil and coal industry and create a clean energy economy. That’s probably why Sen. Edwards’ support of cap and auction systems – which force polluters to pay citizens—and his call for more green collar jobs received such strong backing,” added Ilyse Hogue, Campaign Director of MoveOn.org Political Action.

The membership vote began immediately after the organization’s Saturday night Virtual Town Hall and concluded on Tuesday, at midnight PST. The Virtual Town Hall, at which, the candidates answered members’ questions about climate change and global warming, coincided with the Live Earth concerts around the world.

MoveOn members who watched the Town Hall at one of the parties voted differently from those who did not.

Votes by MoveOn members who attended house parties:

John Edwards - 25.53%
Bill Richardson - 20.19%
Dennis Kucinich - 17.55%
Hillary Clinton - 13.80%
Barack Obama - 10.18%
Joe Biden - 6.15%
Chris Dodd - 3.63%
Mike Gravel - 2.96%

MoveOn.org Virtual Town Hall: Iraq Poll

(needs to be fact checked)

MoveOn.org is holding a series of "Virtual Town Halls" that allow the candidates a chance to answer questions from MoveOn members regarding the three key issues of the campaign. Each town hall is dedicated to a different issue. The three issues they are covering happen to be the three issues that John Edwards (who is most definitely shaping the debate) has focused his campaign on. The issues are...

Ending the War in Iraq
Universal Health Care
Environmental Action

The first town hall was about ending the war in Iraq.

This town hall was done differently from the second one. Members voted for the candidates that they wanted to see at the town hall and then the candidates answered via phone interviews.

The first number is the poll of all voters who took part in the poll. Because the videos were put on You Tube individually as the poll was open many of those who voted in the poll likely did not watch all of the candidate's videos. Nevertheless John Edwards did very well.

MoveOn (All voters)

Obama - 28%
Edwards - 25%
Kucinich - 17%
Richardson - 12%
Clinton - 11%
Biden - 6%
Dodd - 1%


A second poll was done just of those who actually attended the "Town Hall". This meant that they streamed the Town Hall on their computer as it aired. John Edwards won this poll.

MoveOn (Town Hall Viewers Only)

Edwards - 25%
Richarson - 21%
Obama - 19%
Kucinich - 16%
Biden - 10%
Clinton - 7%
Dodd - 4%

Feeling The Love From The Grassroots

This section will focus on the rising grassroots support/acclaim for John Edwards and will adress some of the reasons why he is a favorite of the grassroots.

Daily Kos (July)

Edwards - 38%

Obama - 25%

Clinton - 8%
Richardson - 6%

Daily Kos (June)

Edwards - 40%

Obama - 22%

Clinton - 6%

Richardson - 5%

Daily Kos (May)

Edwards - 39%

Obama - 24%

Richardson - 8%

Clinton - 6%

Daily Kos (April)
Edwards - 42%
Obama - 25%
Richardson - 13%
Clinton - 3%

MyDD (April)
Edwards - 43%
Obama - 34%
Richardson - 8%
Clinton - 4%

Democrats.com
Edwards - 41%
Kucinich - 24%
Obama - 18%
Clinton - 9%
Richardson - 6%

Daily Kos (March)
Edwards - 38%
Obama - 26%
Richardson - 8%
Clinton - 2%

I am a Woman & I Choose Edwards by "sarahlane"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/25/114228/247

This is an excellent diary that "sarahlane" posted on Daily Kos. It underlines the importance to nominate someone who will fight for ALL Americans no matter their gender, race, faith, economic status, or sexual orientation.

I am a Woman & I Choose Edwards

by sarahlane

Wed Jul 25, 2007 at 08:42:28 AM PDT

There has been lots of back and forth about remarks made by Elizabeth Edwards where she said she believes her husband is the best women's advocate in the race. She also addressed the perception that a woman should naturally vote for a woman candidate because they are a woman. I believe, as Elizabeth does, that it's not gender that matters most, but how much a candidate would affect women as a whole in America. All of candidates in the race have great record on women's issues. Hillary Clinton has a long history of fighting for equal pay, and both Hillary and Obama have done their fair share to help with reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies by way of education. The reality is, all of our candidates are pro-choice, are adamant about doing something to fight physical abuse of women, and want to make sure women get the same opportunities that men do. It's not a matter of which candidate is better than any other on women's issues, it's which candidate you think will affect the most women's lives if they are elected POTUS. Everybody has their opinion on the matter, and here's mine........

Now, for a little backtrack, let's look at Edwards record on women's issues when he represented North Carolina in the Senate. For some reason his advocacy for women's issues have gone largely unnoticed in the blogosphere. Yes, he got a 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, and has been endorsed by Kate Michelman for POTUS, but that's just the icing on the cake. Even though Edwards was only in the Senate for one term, his positions on a woman's right to choose couldn't be more clear:

Woman's Right to Choose

Edwards is for a Federal Freedom of Choice Act, which would protect a woman's right to choose no matter if Roe is eventually overturned. He came out in favor of this publicly back in 2003.

Edwards opposes the Global Gag Rule, which Bush reinstated during his tenure, the gag rule would prevent an organization receiving federal or UN dollars if they perform abortions, or counsel people about abortions.

When Edwards had the chance to vote for or against AG nominees or SCOTUS nominees such as Priscilla Owen, John Ashcroft and Bill Pryor, he did. He also was a very vocal opponent against the nominations of Alito and Roberts after he had left the Senate.

When the Senate pulled a fast one of many politicians with the passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, Edwards was not one of them. He knew that the passage of this act would put Roe V Wade into jeopardy, so he voted against it.

Back in October of 1999, Edwards voted to lift the ban on women having abortions on military bases. He also voted to allow military women overseas to have abortions.

Edwards also voted against restrictions for funding abortions for federal employees and other residents of DC. He also voted against a ban on partial birth abortion five times while in the Senate. So, now it's pretty obvious to you all where he has stood when it comes to choice. Let's review other legislation he sponsored and co-sponsored that would have helped women all across America...

Women in Trauma Act

In 2002, Edwards introduced this act which would have funded shelters all across America, and helped them improve mental health and substance abuse services for women who are affected by domestic or sexual violence.

Counseling in Shelters Act

Edwards introduced this act to provide federal funding to enable shelters and other `community-based` providers to hire mental health and substance abuse counselors to help victims.

Funding Breast Cancer Research

Edwards co-sponsored several bills to provide additional funding for breast cancer research and to promote awareness of the disease. Edwards also authored a bill to increase awareness of the link between periodontal disease in pregnant women and birth defects.

Supporting Equitable Coverage of Contraceptives

In 1999, and in 2001 Edwards co-sponsored two bills to require health insurance companies provide equitable coverage of contraceptives. When a bill finally hit the floor back in 2003, he voted to require insurance companies cover contraceptives.

What about equality in the workplace? Or, lending a helping hand to working families who have just had a baby? Or allowing women to choose their OBGYN as their primary care provider?

Paycheck Fairness Act

Edwards co-sponsored this act which would penalize employers for not giving women equal pay for equal work.

Family Leave Tax Credit

Edwards proposed a 2,500 tax credit for working families who have a baby but cannot afford to take off work. It would have helped 3.5 million families each year.

Patients Bill of Rights

Edwards co-sponsored this bill which would have forced the HMO's to pay up for the health care they're supposed to cover. Edwards also was an advocate for allowing women to choose their OBGYN as their primary care provider as well as providing inpatient care after any mastectomy, lumpectomy, or lymph node dissection.

There's plenty more bills he authored and co-sponsored that would have helped women, but what about his proposals today? How will Edwards become a champion for women? Right now, women make nearly .77 to every man's dollar. There are 18 million women who do not have health insurance. Women make up over 61% of the American workforce working for minimum wage. Who will best represent these women? IMO, it's a no-brainer, Edwards has the boldest policy proposals on the table that will directly affect millions of America women.

Ending Poverty for Women

Right now 21 million women live in poverty. Edwards has multiple proposals to help lift them out of poverty. His Stepping Stones Jobs Program will lift 1 million Americans each year out of unemployment and get them to work. Edwards has proposed raising the minimum wage to $9.50 by the year 2012, which will directly help millions of Americans who are suffering from low wages. Edwards is also a proponent of the card check, expanding the SEIU and other unions as well as creating new ones, and is wholeheartedly trying to reignite the labor movement in this country. Edwards has also proposed Work Bonds, which would match savings up to $500 a year for a low income worker. Lastly, and maybe most importantly his Universal Health Care Plan will be a welcome relief to single mom's who can't afford insurance, or even if they can afford it, it will be cheaper monthly and help them financially in a big way. Insurance is expensive, and if a single mom cannot afford to pay a dime, her insurance and her children's will be covered through subsidies.

Helping Women by way of Taxes

Edwards will also expand the EITC, and triple it for low income workers without children. Edwards will also reduce the marriage penalty for families struggling to make ends meet.

Reining in on Predatory Lending, Credit Card Co. & Mortgage Company Abuses

Women make up a large portion of the population who end up being victims of predatory lending, and all too often, they are elderly women on fixed incomes. These three industries need more regulation, and with Edwards that's exactly what you will get. Whether it's his proposal for a Home Rescue Fund to help women facing foreclosure, or enacting a national law against predatory lending or reinstating the 10 day grace period on credit card bills to give people relief from high late fees, he's got our back.

Protecting a Woman's Right to Choose

Here's a statement by Edwards on a woman's right to choose:

"I strongly support a woman's right to privacy & reproductive choices. It is essential to the full equality and dignity of women, and today it is under attack. I will guarantee this right."

Edwards is for a Federal Freedom of Choice Act which would ensure that a woman's right be protected no matter who gets elected to SCOTUS. This is a biggie for me, because we never know who can and will be elected to SCOTUS in the future, and Roe will always be threatened. This is a way to protect Roe from a conservative President and a conservative court.

Edwards opposes the Child Custody Protection Act, because it puts a woman's health in danger and burden's a woman's right to choose. Edwards opposes Gag Rules and Global Gag Rules that prevent organizations from getting funding if they perform abortions or counsel women about abortions. Edwards opposes a ban on partial birth abortion as well.

Preventing Unwanted Pregnancies

Edwards supports sex education for kids of the appropriate age, and Title X family planning services. He is for forcing insurance companies to cover contraceptives. He is also for improving access to emergency contraceptives.

The Supreme Court

Edwards will nominate judges who have demonstrated a commitment to full range of constitutional protections. This is also a biggie for me, I don't want the next Democratic President to nominate a moderate who could end up voting conservatively later in life.

Just briefly, here's a few more things that Edwards will do to help women:

Expand the Family and Medical Leave Act

Strongly Support the Paycheck Fairness Act

Expand Resources for Women Entrepreneurs through his REACH Fund

Edwards Pledges to Protect Davis Bacon Act

Edwards will create a Families Savings and Credit Commission to protect families

There are plenty more proposals on the table that will directly affect women, whether it's his College For Everyone Initiative which would help over 2 million students go to college, or his plans to create second chance schools for high school dropouts. I'm sure there are plenty of single moms out there who could use a helping hand sending their kid to college. Even though Edwards is incredibly strong on a woman's right to choose, that's not the biggest issue affecting women in our country. It's a sad fact that 50% of women headed households are renting and not owning their homes. It's a sad fact that 18 million women in America do not have health insurance, or that women only make 77 cents to every dollar a man makes. It shows that we need to do something about women living in poverty, we need to do something to equal the playing field, and we need to lend a helping hand to single mom's by providing Universal Health Care. That said, this is my reasoning for why Edwards is a great advocate for women in America. He will protect our rights, and will make sure to lift millions of American woman up out of poverty. That's why, as a woman I choose to support Edwards for President of the United States!

I'll leave you with a statement by Kate Michelman, the former head of NARAL....

"I believe in John's deep and profound commitment to the issues that matter most in women's lives. From health care, to Iraq, to poverty, to our environment, I know John is the most effective national messenger for the values we share and I have complete confidence that—with our help—he will win the White House and improve the lives of women everywhere."

Iowa Caucus Polling

A rundown of 2008 Iowa caucus polling is listed below. It will be updated every time a new Iowa poll is released. Only the last 3 months will appear in bold. Because many people prefer poll averages we will update our average of the last 5 polls every time a new one is released. You can verify all of these numbers at...

Pollster
http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Because of questions regarding the methodology surrounding the recent University of Iowa poll (raised by Pollster) it will not be included. It is worth noting that the poll showed Edwards leading among the likeliest caucus goers.

The recent Washington Post poll is not included, because every 1st time Iowa poll showing anyone other than Edwards leading (though the Washington Post poll showed him only trailing by 1%, a statistical tie) always ends up being over-ruled by more respected pollsters. With the release of the new Hart poll, the Washington Post joins Mason-Dixon, and R2K in the "questionable" pile.


Average of last 5 credible Iowa polls - August 16, 2007

John Edwards - 30.0%
Hillary Clinton - 19.5%
Barack Obama - 19.4%
Bill Richardon - 11.2%

Peter D. Hart Research Associates & McLaughlin and Associates for the "ONE" campaign - August 3rd 2007

The "ONE Poll--Iowa" was conducted on August 2 and 3, 2007, and has an overall margin of error of ±4.3%.

John Edwards - 30%
Hillary Clinton - 22%
Barack Obama - 18%
Bill Richardson - 13%
Joe Biden - 5%
Dennis Kucinich - 0%
Chris Dodd - 0%
Mike Gravel - 0%
Undecided - 11%


Average of 5 most recent credible Iowa polls - June 29, 2007


John Edwards - 29.8%
Barack Obama - 20.4%
Hillary Clinton - 19.6%
Bill Richardson - 10.6%



Strategic Vision - June 26, 2007

John Edwards - 26%
Barack Obama - 21%
Hillary Clinton - 20%
Bill Richardson - 11%



Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin and Associates - June 20, 2007

Likely caucus-goers

John Edwards - 34%
Hillary Clinton - 24%
Barack Obama - 17%
Bill Richardson - 13%


"Likeliest" caucus-goers

John Edwards - 31%
Hillary Clinton - 23%
Bill Richardson - 18%
Barack Obama - 16%



Public Policy Polling - June 04, 2007

John Edwards - 31%
Hillary Clinton - 17%
Barack Obama - 17%
Bill Richardson - 10%



Strategic Vision - May 20, 2007

John Edwards - 29%
Barack Obama - 24%
Hillary Clinton - 16%
Bill Richardson - 9%



Selzer and Co. / Des Moines Register - May 16, 2007

John Edwards - 29%
Hillary Clinton - 21%
Barack Obama - 23%



Zogby - May, 07, 2007


John Edwards - 26%
Hillary Clinton - 24%
Barack Obama - 22%



University of Iowa - April 03, 2007

John Edwards - 34.2%
Hillary Clinton - 28.5%
Barack Obama - 19.3%



Strategic Vision - April 01, 2007


John Edwards - 27 %
Barack Obama - 20%
Hillary Clinton - 19%



Zogby - March 26, 2007


John Edwards - 27%
Hillary Clinton - 25%
Barack Obama - 23%



University of Iowa


Before Elizabeth Edwards' announcement - March 19, 2007

John Edwards - 30.2%
Hillary Clinton - 24.4%
Barack Obama - 22.1%


After Elizabeth Edwards' announcement - March 25, 2007

John Edwards - 36.4%
Hillary Clinton - 33.9%
Barack Obama - 14.4%



Strategic Vision - February 18, 2007


John Edwards - 24%
Hillary Clinton - 18%
Barack Obama - 18%



Strategic Vision - January 21, 2007


John Edwards - 25%
Hillary Clinton - 17%
Barack Obama - 15%



Zogby - January 16, 2007


John Edwards - 27%
Barack Obama - 17%
Hillary Clinton - 16%


Harstad Strategic Research - October 19, 2006


John Edwards - 36%
Hillary Clinton - 16%
Barack Obama - 13%



Des Moines Register - June 2006


John Edwards - 30%
Hillary Clinton - 26%



I realize that caucuses are hard to poll. But when one candidate goes for 14 months (and counting) leading without credible interruption it's pretty safe to say that they have a solid lead.

Explanation for why every Iowa poll Edwards "lost" is not credible...

7 out of 8 ARG polls show Hillary leading. ARG is a joke. On the GOP side they had McCain leading for a long time even though everyone else has Romney leading.

Research 2000 has released 3 Iowa polls. The first was the only Iowa poll to include Al Gore. It showed Edwards and Obama tied for first. The second showed Clinton leading by 2%. The third shows Edwards up by 5%.

Like ARG, R2K also had McCain up on the GOP side when everyone else showed Romney in the lead.

Mason-Dixon has released only 1 Iowa poll. It showed Hillary with a 2% lead.

There is one credible Iowa poll in which Edwards tied for first.

Zogby - 2/07 - 2/09/07

Edwards - 24%
Clinton - 24%
Obama - 18%

All of them except for the Zogby poll in which he ties for first with Senator Clinton are virtually discredited, and even the most consistent series of polls (and these polls are pretty consistent, as far as polls go) has its"outliers". I've written a lot about the ARG (American Research Group) Polls, mainly because, they were often sited by the media as the reason why "Iowa polls are all over the place".

So here's the story in short form.

The first group of Iowa polls are released, they show Edwards in the lead.

First ARG Poll is released - 12/23/07

Clinton - 31%
Edwards - 20%
Obama -10%

Compare this poll to the others around it and Senator Clinton went from down by 10 - 20% to up by 11%. Pretty big jump for no reason. Non ARG polls released after this poll (shown in the first group) return the lead to Edwards. At this point ARG Iowa polling becomes suspect to those of us paying attention.

Second ARG Poll - 2/01/06

Clinton - 35%
Edwards - 18%
Obama -14%

This is when the backlash began. It started when James Carville went on CNN and claimed that after one visit to Iowa (Senator Clinton had just announced she was running) Senator Clinton went from down by around 10% to up by around 20%. He uses some interesting methodology for this "Carville poll". He took her position in the last non-ARG (down by 10%) poll and added to it her position in the second ARG poll (up by 20%) to claim she had moved up 30%.

This was interesting because the Clinton camp had been claiming that the only reason why Edwards was ahead of Clinton in Iowa was because Iowa voters were somehow more familiar with him as a public figure. I guess they had a point, it's not like Senator Clinton is one of the most famous people in the world or anything.

After Carville tried to discount all previous Iowa polling by claiming that one visit can cause a 30% bump for Senator Clinton significant attention was brought to ARG's methodology.

Since the "Carville" poll ARG has continued to be way off. Their polling is laughable at best.

The most respected Iowa polls are done by The Des Moines Register and Selzer. They give Edwards some of his largest leads. Edwards' large lead is backed up by polling done by the Richardson campaign, Peter Hart, PPP, Harstad Strategic Research and Strategic Vision. Zogby polls often, also shows Edwards with the lead).

Advocates of other campaigns have used ARG polling to try to claim that Edwards is "losing his lead" in Iowa. They are trying to make their claim a self-fulfilling prophecy. They want Edwards to be perceived as losing his lead so his supporters abandon him. These claims are not based in reality.

The Heat Is On!

http://www.heatison.org/content/blank/candidate_chart

This is taken from the The League of Conservation Voters' chart that describes where the candidates currently stand.

CANDIDATE: Hillary Clinton
CARBON CAP AND TARGETS: Supports 80% reductions by 2050
FUEL EFFICIENCY: Supports 35 mpg fleetwide standard by 2020
RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARD: Supports 20% standard by 2020
EFFICIENCY TARGETS: Suppors 10% reduction in energy consumption by 2020
NEW COAL PLANTS AND LIQUID COAL: Supports investing in liquid coal if it reduces carbon pollution by 20%


CANDIDATE: Barack Obama
CARBON CAP AND TARGETS: Supports 80% reductions by 2050
FUEL EFFICIENCY: Supports 45 mpg standard by 2020
RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARD: Supports 20% standard by 2020
EFFICIENCY TARGETS: Supports 10% reduction in energy consumption by 2020
NEW COAL PLANTS AND LIQUID COAL: Supports investing in liquid coal if it reduces carbon pollution by 20%


CANDIDATE: John Edwards
CARBON CAP AND TARGETS: Supports at least 80% reductions by 2050
FUEL EFFICIENCY: Supports 40 mpg fleetwide standard by 2016
RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARD: Supports 25% standard by 2025%
EFFICIENCY TARGETS: Supports 15% decrease in electricity consumption by 2018
NEW COAL PLANTS AND LIQUID COAL: Supports ban on new coal plants unless they capture and store carbon emissions


CANDIDATE: Bill Richardson
CARBON CAP AND TARGETS: Supports 90% reductions by 2050
FUEL EFFICIENCY: Supports 50 mpg fleetwide standard
RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARD: Supports 30% standard by 2020 and 50% by 2050
EFFICIENCY TARGETS: Supports 20% increase in energy productivity by 2020
NEW COAL PLANTS AND LIQUID COAL: Opposes liquid coal. Supports ban on new coal plants unless they capture and store emissions


CANDIDATE: Joe Biden
CARBON CAP AND TARGETS: Supports 80% reductions by 2050
FUEL EFFICIENCY: Supports 40 mpg fleetwide standard by 2020
RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARD: Supports 20% standard by 2020
EFFICIENCY TARGETS: Supports 10% reduction in energy consumption by 2020
NEW COAL PLANTS AND LIQUID COAL: Opposes investment in liquid coal


CANDIDATE: Chris Dodd
CARBON CAP AND TARGETS: Supports 80% reductions by 2050
FUEL EFFICIENCY: Supports 50 mpg for cars by 2017
RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARD: Supports 20% standard by 2020
EFFICIENCY TARGETS: Supports 15% decrease in electricity consumption by 2018
NEW COAL PLANTS AND LIQUID COAL: New coal plants must capture and store carbon emissions

CANDIDATE: Dennis Kucinich
CARBON CAP AND TARGETS: Supports 80% reductions by 2050
FUEL EFFICIENCY: Supported 33 mpg in 2005
RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARD: Supports 20% standard by 2010
EFFICIENCY TARGETS: General support for efficiency; no target specified
NEW COAL PLANTS AND LIQUID COAL: No articulated position

Grist Magazine's How Green Is Your Candidate?

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/07/06/candidates/index.html

How Green Is Your Candidate?
Where the presidential candidates stand on climate and energy issues
By David Roberts
06 Jul 2007

All of the Democratic presidential candidates put energy independence and climate change among their top-tier issues. They all support carbon cap-and-trade systems of varying strengths. They all at least gesture at renewable energy and hybrid cars. Most support ethanol and "clean coal." The aggressiveness of their climate and energy plans rises inversely with their chances of winning -- the better the chances, the weaker the plan. Here's a quick and dirty rundown of some of the Democratic contenders' stances. These descriptions of candidates' positions are not and should not be perceived as endorsements. Grist does not endorse political candidates.

Hillary Clinton dutifully toes the Democratic line on climate change and energy independence, seeing the former as a way to reach young people and the latter as a way to sound tough. She's been somewhat vague on the details. Her distinctive contribution is the notion of a "Strategic Energy Fund" financed by repealed tax breaks and royalties from oil companies. Where she mentions specific solutions, she tends to focus on "clean coal" and ethanol. She signed on to the Sanders-Boxer climate bill, the most ambitious climate bill in the Senate, but only in May, after Edwards had endorsed bold emissions targets. On these issues, Clinton is studious and solid, but not out front.

Barack Obama's take on energy and climate is, well, Obaman: the rhetoric is soaring and high-minded, the policy proposals consensus-seeking and incremental. With the exception of showy gimmicks like his "Healthcare for Hybrids" bill, he's largely been a follower, signing on to multiple cap-and-trade bills and copping Schwarzenegger's low-carbon fuel standard. His main splash in the energy world happened when he came out cheerleading for liquified coal, which coal barons (especially in his home state of Illinois) loved but plenty of other folks hated; he later "clarified" his way back to safety. On these issues, Obama is largely platitudinous and reserved.

John Edwards is running left. What mixture of genuine sentiment and political calculation is behind that strategy only he and Elizabeth know, but it's translated into far and away the strongest, most comprehensive climate and energy plan among the three front-runners. He's stumping for 80 percent cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050, and fleshing that goal out with detailed proposals for a renewable portfolio standard, big boosts in fuel efficiency, changes to the energy grid and efficiency standards (the only front-runner to emphasize these), a green-jobs program, and more. On these issues, Edwards has done his homework and he's not trimming his sails.

Bill Richardson wants to be the "energy president" and the plan he's put forward is a humdinger. He wants to cut oil demand 50 percent by 2020, cut greenhouse-gas emissions 80 percent by 2040, and generate 50 percent of U.S. energy from renewables by 2040. Though he kisses ethanol butt in speeches like all the candidates, there's next to nothing about ethanol in his plan, nor about nuclear power (a subject with which he has a complicated history). At least on paper, his plan calls for straight-up renewables and efficiency, aggressively pursued. On these issues, Richardson has an appropriate sense of urgency.

Chris Dodd's climate and energy plan has largely been overlooked, much like, um, Chris Dodd. But if anything, it's more ambitious than even Richardson's. It's got similar aggressive targets, plus an item only Dodd has had the stones (or lack of anything to lose) to endorse: a corporate carbon tax. The revenue from the tax would be put in a fund devoted to renewables and efficiency. There's also a ban on new coal plants with no carbon sequestration (a bold plank he shares with Edwards), good stuff about public transit, hybrid cars, and green buildings, and much more. On these issues, Dodd is forward-thinking and aggressive.

Dennis Kucinich has long supported restructuring the electric power industry, and he backs instituting a 20-percent-by-2020 renewable portfolio standard. He would institute a Global Green Deal to share cheap renewable-energy technology with developing countries, cut off subsidies to dirty energy companies, vastly increase public investment in clean energy, and institute a Works Green Administration (modeled on FDR's WPA) that would put young people to work retrofitting buildings for wind, solar, and efficiency. Despite -- or perhaps because of -- these ambitious plans, he is not taken seriously as a viable presidential candidate by anyone but his core band of supporters, who take him very, very seriously indeed.

Joe Biden has a fairly reliable Democratic voting record on environmental issues, but hasn't shown much indication that climate and energy are animating passions. His tough talk on energy security manifests, for the most part, in lamentably enthusiastic support for biofuels. Like Clinton and Obama, he signed on to the Sanders-Boxer cap-and-trade bill when it became the safe thing to do. He also supports a new round of international negotiations on climate change. He's not an obstruction on climate and energy, but he's not particularly distinguished either.

The John Edwards "First and Often Only" List

1st candidate to respond to DFA (Democracy For America) with a clear plan for ending the war in Iraq.

1st candidate to respond to DFA with a clear, detailed plan for environmental action on issues like energy independence and global warming.

1st and only of the "big 3" candidates to publicly support the 2006 Kerry - Feingold amendment to set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. When asked about the amendemnt on ABC News' This Week Edwards said that he supported the amendment. Both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton voted against it.

1st and only of the "big 3" candidates to support stopping the escalation of the war in Iraq by cutting of the funding for the "surge". Both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton stopped short.

1st and only of the "big 3" candidates to make it clear from the outset where he stood on the recent vote on the recent Senate funding bill, also known as the "Capitulation Bill". Edwards made it clear from the start that he opposed any bill without timetables. Meanwhile Senators Obama and Clinton did not indicate which way they were going to vote. They engaged each other in a cheap game of "chicken" instead of showing leadership. In the end they were among the last to vote. Senator Obama voted first and the Senator Clinton, in typical fashion, followed.

1st major candidate to support Jim Webb's important Iran legislation.

Only one of the "big 3" who chose not to endorse Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Connecticut Senate primary.

1st major candidate to endorse and campaign for Ned Lamont against Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Senate race. Edwards was also one of the first candidates to call for Lieberman to drop out of the race. Both John and Elizabeth Edwards said that because Lieberman had just run in the Democratic primary and lost to Lamont, Lieberman should honor the result of the primary.

Only major candidate to spend no money on polling in the first quarter of 2007.

1st and only major candidate to release a truly Universal Health Care plan.

1st candidate to release a comprehensive plan for Energy Independence / to combat Global Warming.

1st and only candidate to release a plan for Rural Recovery.

1st candidate to release a detailed and specific national security doctrine ("Smart Power") as well as a comprehensive plan specifically to stop terrorism (often referred to as "Cast Fear Aside").

1st candidate to say no to debate on FOX News. This happened not once but twice. Both times FOX news was scheduled to host a Democratic debate John Edwards was the first candidate to say no. He was also the only one to make it clear that he did so because FOX News is bias and he did not want to legitimize a Republican spin machine.

1st candidate to call for the resignation of Alberto Gonzales.

1st candidate to call for the resignation of Paul Wolfowitz.

1st candidate to accept the offer from the SEIU to work a union job for a day. He is also the only candidate to actually work the job of a union worker. The other candidates gave an interview to union workers.

1st candidate to appear on Meet the Press’ hour long interview series Meet the Candidate. Edwards has made it clear throughout the campaign that he wants every American to know where he stands on the issues and what he would do as president. While other candidates have shied away from hard questions Edwards has made it clear that he believes that it is his duty to answer them.

1st and only candidate to mention the passing of the late great Molly Ivins during his speech to the DNC's Winter Meeting. You cannot knock the other candidates for not mentioning her. They stick closely to their prepared remarks and just because they didn't mention her doesn't mean that they don't respect her. But in brining attention to her passing John Edwards displayed an important respect for powerful progressive voices.

1st and only major candidate who was no support from K Street and is doing nothing to change that. Edwards is not accepting lobbyist money while other candidates, like Senator Obama, pledge to take no lobbyist money but their finance team contacts the spouses of lobbyists and urge them to give money to the campaign.

Welcome to Edwards Supporter Information Central!

Welcome to Edwars Supporter Information Central!

My name is Michael Conrad. I am the General Director of Edwards Supporter Central. This new blog is a project that I hope will give Edwards supporters all the information that they need to engage other Democrats and potential supporters about supporting John Edwards.

The original ideal was to put together an "information packet" that could be sent out to supporters via e-mail. We instead decided to go this route and provide the information via this blog so that you can decide what you want to include in the "packet" that you distribute.

Edwards Supporter Central is meant to update supporters on what is going on in the campaign as well as provide them with information and resources they can use when engaging other Democrats.

This project is dedicated solely to providing those who support John Edwards with information that they can distribute to potential supporters.

The case for nominating and electing John Edwards is a very powerful one. Both values and electability based arguments are on our side. What we need now is dedicated supporters who will talk to every Democrat/potential supporter that they know. We hope that this information allows you to do just that.

Sincerely,

Michael Conrad