From the Los Angeles Times
Candidates fuel hopes of party liberals
The Democratic left's power is in evidence as
presidential contenders endorse its agenda.
By Janet Hook and Peter
Nicholas
Times Staff Writers
June 20, 2007
WASHINGTON — Two
powerful blocs among Democrats — organized labor and liberal activists — heard
several of the party's presidential contenders pledge allegiance Thursday to a
progressive agenda more sweeping than would have seemed politically palatable
not long ago.
The candidates' liberal chorus about the war in Iraq, gay
rights, healthcare and labor issues was a testament to the Democratic left
wing's growing strength since the Republican rout in the 2006 midterm
election.
The White House hopefuls called for broad healthcare reform.
All embraced allowing gays to serve in the military, a step to the left of
President Clinton's policy of "don't ask, don't tell."
The rival
candidates also paid homage to their party's deep antiwar sentiment by competing
for the mantle of being the most strongly opposed to the war in
Iraq.
Speaking to a labor group in Washington were Sens. Hillary Rodham
Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, former Sen. John Edwards of
North Carolina, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of
Ohio.
The forum of liberal groups, which convened a few blocks away,
heard Edwards, Obama and Richardson, along with Mike Gravel, a former senator
from Alaska. Clinton and Kucinich are scheduled to address that group
today.
At a time when many Republicans are dissatisfied with their
presidential candidates, the mood at the twin forums illustrated the energy and
high hopes coursing through liberal ranks.
"There's enthusiasm and
optimism that someone in this room will be elected president," said Wayne
Holland Jr., head of the Utah Democratic Party who attended the conference of
liberal activists organized by the Campaign for America's Future. "There's a
confidence I've never seen."
However, by pushing their nominee to the
left during the primary contests, Democrats risk not being able to win over more
conservative voters in a general election. But for now, progressives see the
field of candidates catering to liberal interests as an embarrassment of
riches.
"I was impressed with all of them," said Allan Winey, an
accountant in Pennsylvania who attended the day's first gathering, a meeting of
the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union. "They
are all headed in the right direction."
The crowd at the union convention
numbered about 2,000. More than 3,000 people were at the more boisterous
conference of liberals.
A large contingent of Obama supporters packed one
side of the hotel ballroom, hoisting blue signs and chanting his name before he
spoke.
Edwards and Obama were each interrupted during their speeches by a
band of activists chanting, "Beat the GOP. Beat the GOP."
Obama delivered
his signature call for changing the nation's political culture from one driven
by money, special interests and partisanship to one that makes room for a more
civil, substantive and hopeful debate.
"Politics in this town is no
longer a mission — it's a business," he said. "If you want a new kind of
politics it's time to turn the page."
Edwards focused on the campaign
promises that have helped cast him as the major candidate with the most liberal
platform — with his calls to curb poverty, provide universal healthcare, combat
AIDS in Africa and commit the U.S. to working more assertively to end genocide
in Darfur.
Obama and Edwards sought to burnish their anti-Iraq war
credentials.
Obama reminded the audience that, while serving in the
Illinois state Senate, he opposed the invasion of Iraq from the outset while
Edwards and Clinton voted for the Senate resolution authorizing the
war.
Edwards stressed that, unlike Clinton, he has termed his vote for
the war a mistake. He also chided Congress for not moving more aggressively to
force an end to the U.S. military involvement in Iraq.
Earlier in the
day, Richardson argued that he had the clearest plan to end the war — by
removing all U.S. troops by the end of the year without leaving residual forces,
as Clinton has suggested.
Clinton's address to the liberal activists will
be closely watched; last year, she drew boos for refusing to back a firm
deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. soldiers from Iraq. She has since changed
her view.
At the union meeting, she risked alienating members by giving
an equivocal answer about the North American Free Trade Agreement — the
controversial pact that her husband, during his presidency, pushed through
Congress.
Labor leaders charge that the accord was an unfair deal that
has cost Americans jobs.
"Like anything, NAFTA had some positives, but
unfortunately had a lot of downside," she said. "We see that especially in the
loss of jobs going south to Mexicoc. But we're also now seeing it with the loss
of jobs going north."
Clinton's campaign rhetoric increasingly has echoed
union concerns about trade agreements. But it remains a tricky issue for
her.
Much of her brain trust for domestic policy is dominated by former
members of President Clinton's administration who strongly supported free trade
policies.
All the candidates highlighted their support for labor's agenda
— especially a bill pending in the Senate that would make it easier for unions
to organize workplaces and counter union-busting tactics.
--
janet.hook@latimes.com
peter.nicholas@latimes.com
Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times