Home » Blog » Who Is Francine Torge?
Blog for America
Who Is Francine Torge?
Linked to groups: Rockingham/Strafford DFA
Although it's been widely reported that a comment by Francine Torge in introducing Senator Clinton at an event in Dover, N.H. on January 7, 2008 is the origin of a significant amount of controversy, and ultimately led to the endorsement of Senator Obama by Senator Kennedy and other members of the Kennedy clan, it struck me as a bit peculiar that this person kept being identified as a former John Edwards supporter.
Why did it strike me as peculiar? Because Google didn't return a Dover listing for Ms. Torge, who, it turns out, is actually a Durham resident, information the reporter might have found out, if she'd actually interviewed Ms. Torge. Which raises the further question, if the reporter didn't interview her, how did Ms. Torge's prior support for John Edwards, make into the lead of Ms. Wheaton's report.January 7, 2008, 8:57 pm
Clinton's Civil Rights Lesson
By Sarah Wheaton
DOVER, N.H. - As they barnstorm through New Hampshire, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband are often introduced by supporters who once backed another candidate but converted to her cause.
Today, in Dover, Francine Torge, a former John Edwards supporter, said this while introducing Mrs. Clinton: "Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated. And Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who actually" passed the civil rights legislation.
Because, the person about whom the Clinton campaign asserted:
"We were not aware that this person was going to make those comments and disapprove of them completely. They were totally inappropriate."
was a John Edwards supporter back in 2003 and was actually announced as an educator supporting Hillary Clinton in a press release as long ago as October 13, 2007.
Forgive me if the reference to this person is reminiscent of that woman, who was, at least, recognized by her name, Miss Lewinski.
One might conclude that it was just an inconsequential comment by an inconsequential person to which the Kennedys are totally over-reacting, as the Clinton campaign suggested, except for the fact that later in the day Senator Clinton shared her own opinion with a reporter for FOX:
Clinton also said Obama and Edwards have acted like hypocrites during the race and (she) appeared to diminish the role Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. played in the civil rights movements, saying it wasn't hope that King inspired that made the difference but President Lyndon Johnson's decision to fight for and sign the Civil Rights Act into law.
and then amplified:
"You know, today Senator Obama used President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to criticize me. He basically compared himself to our greatest heroes because they gave great speeches.
"President Kennedy was in Congress for 14 years. He was a war hero. He was a man of great accomplishments and readiness to be president. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. led a movement. He was gassed. He was beaten. He was jailed. And he gave a speech that was one of the most beautifully, profoundly important speeches ever written in America, the "I have a dream" speech.
"And then he worked with President Johnson to get the civil rights laws passed, because the dream couldn't be realized until finally it was legally permissible for people of all colors and backgrounds and races and ethnicities to be accepted as citizens.
"I'm running for president because I believe that there is not a contradiction between experience and change."
So, it was a two-fer at the start and then morphed into an "I knew Jack Kennedy and you're no Jack Kennedy" attack.
Which makes it hard for this person to credit that the Clinton campaign didn't know what was up when Ms. Torge made her unfortunate remark.
Be that as it may, it's the Senator's explanation of the meaning of the civil rights acts that blows my mind.
it was legally permissible for people of all colors and backgrounds and races and ethnicities to be accepted as citizens.
Being accepted as full members of society is not a matter of legislative permission. The law, as it relates to individual persons, PROHIBITS certain obnoxious and harmful behaviors (assault, rape, fraud, murder, to name just a few). As it relates to the agents of government the law mandates some behaviors (what government agents must do) and permits others (what government agents may do). But even the latter are not, as Justice Kennedy has pointed out in his discussion of the rule of law, a matter of discretion. When behavior is subject to a permitting process, if the conditions for issuing the permit have been met, the permit must be issued.
Why is this a big deal? Because the matter of whether or not people can be excluded from this country is a matter of current concern.
Citizenship, as Senator Clinton should know, invests additional rights on an individual (to take part in the governance of the nation), which the agents of government may not deny to a native born adult. (A foreign born adult may be denied holding the office of President). It isn't a ticket to additional privilege or benefits, regardless of how loudly some people may argue that it is.
It's true that there has been a relentless effort on the part of the current administration to assert that the role of the agents of government is to pass laws and regulations and the role of the people is to obey. That's not what government BY the people means. It means that the people govern; they are not clients as A.G. Mukasey suggested yesterday; nor are they customers.
In other words, the answer to the question, "Who's the boss?" is us. If Senator Clinton doesn't understand that, if she thinks that being a citizen is a matter of aceptance, then she needs to spend more time practicing being an agent, representing the interests of the people, and not trying to define them.
Show: Expand All Reply
You helped build a movement for fundamental change that will unite together Democrats, Independents, and even Republicans who believe that now is the time for unity and reconciliation.
Making calls is easy and fun, and it can have a tremendous impact on this election. Take a few minutes over the next 6 days to help Barack do well on February 5th.
Reach out to North Dakota caucusgoers and encourage them to get out and caucus for change:
Yes, Denise, they sure are.
Big debate party tonight in our neighborhood. I'm helping out so I'll be back when I can. It's going to be a lot of fun.
And I want to say a personal word to those I've seen literally in the last few days – those I saw in Oklahoma yesterday, in Missouri, last night in Minnesota – who came to me and said don't forget us. Speak for us. We need your voice. I want you to know that you almost changed my mind, because I hear your voice, I feel you, and your cause is our cause. Your country needs you – every single one of you.
All of you who have been involved in this campaign and this movement for change and this cause, we need you. It is in our hour of need that your country needs you. Don't turn away, because we have not just a city of New Orleans to rebuild. We have an American house to rebuild.
This work goes on. It goes on right here in Musicians' Village. There are homes to build here, and in neighborhoods all along the Gulf. The work goes on for the students in crumbling schools just yearning for a chance to get ahead. It goes on for day care workers, for steel workers risking their lives in cities all across this country. And the work goes on for two hundred thousand men and women who wore the uniform of the United States of America, proud veterans, who go to sleep every night under bridges, or in shelters, or on grates, just as the people we saw on the way here today. Their cause is our cause.
Their struggle is our struggle. Their dreams are our dreams.
Do not turn away from these great struggles before us. Do not give up on the causes that we have fought for. Do not walk away from what's possible, because it's time for all of us, all of us together, to make the two Americas one.
Thank you. God bless you, and let's go to work. Thank you all very much.
In the meantime, Elizabeth and my family join me in thanking all of you for your support and for working so hard on my behalf. We are truly blessed to have such friends.
Thank you.
John Edwards
January 30, 2008
The voters and the grassroots are so excited in California. This election is the first time in a very very long time we get a voice choosing a candidate. Normally we're only the ATM for the campaigns in the early states. We moved up our primary but played by the rules. We're going to get to seat our voting delegates at the DNC Convention.
Because Edwards has just opened up one out of six voters to a second look I doubt there has ever been a higher stakes debate than the one tonight.
I hope if Edwards endorses that he doesn't choose Hillary. That would seem to go against everything he's been talking about. He always referred to himself and Barack as representing change.
Monica can you link to Justice Kennedy's speech?
Transportation Workers Union backing Obama now.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2...
Obama has a chance tonight to make his case to Edwards supporters directly. Let him define what it is he thinks those supporters were looking for.
The Nation has endorsed Barack. I think katrina vanden hueval had a big hand in this. JMO.
I'm going to sneak out of our BNE (big name entertainment) concert tonight to watch the debate. I'm off to check on rehearsals and soundcheck.
Oh I did want to mention something about. I found out from our Senior VP of Commercial (sales and marketing) that we only spend 10% on promo and 30% (of our profits) on R&D. We are the only pharma company that spends less on promo and more on R&D. I was real happy to hear that.
Lots of new stuff in the pipeline for cancer as well as MS.
Toodles!
As far as progressives and Edwards.
The two most progressive candidates were Kucinich and Edwards.
I don't think most Dems want to stray too far from the center. Don't blame the press. Straw polls are next to useless.
Edwards and Kucinich have had since 2002 to get their points across and haven't. Kucinich never worked very hard at getting elected. Edwards was heard and ignored. The flaw is with a voting public that is more centered then we like. There is not that much different between HC and BO. HC wants to win on policy points while BO is pushing vision and values with the same policy points.
I'll be watching to see who now has the most progressive agenda. So far, people are saying it's HC. In fact, I heard this months ago. So tonight BO will have to convince me that he's the most progressive and HC will have to convince me that she's not.
Womens' rights, for instance.
They are both going to say what they think we want to hear. They've been doing that all along.
I have no second choice after JE. I went from Gore to Kucinich to Dodd to Edwards. I'm done.
Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate for 2007.
Yes, Audrey, there will be buyer's remorse IMO.
We shall see.
Phil, every time you post that speech, or parts thereof.....
Al's and JE's silence speaks volumns. Let's hope they stay that way rather than compromise everything they're working for.
As for me, I'm becoming more detached every day. Would you rather die a slow horrible death or be knocked off painlessly and quickly? This country is dying a slow horrific death and I don't see any candidate running who can and will change that.
Strangled by the corporations, who strangled our only hope.
This is who we've become. A nation that rallies behind rock stars.
"Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate for 2007."
I believe you're wrong. Show me the proof, please. Their records are almost identical. And then there are the war votes they both cast.....altho I don't think he voted for Kyl-Lieberman so that's a plus. I'll have to check on that.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/31/17523/5625/320/447154
Will fetch Kennedy link as requested.
I haven't had a chance to look but it seems no one beats Russ Feingold. Kerry hasn't been too bad either.
Unless voting to continue the war funding and the other bush enablers is a good thing?
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voterating...
voting record.
Their (Clinton and Obama) aren't *almost* identical.
IMO the votes they differed on matter most.
Gotta dash.
Please vote for Roy Carter!
http://www.DemocracyforAmerica.com/AllSt...
Thank you.
---Susan
"Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10."
I can't find which 10 those are. Anyone know? Kyl-L is one I think.
In their yearlong race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Clinton have had strikingly similar voting records. Of the 267 measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on only 10. "The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are so slight they are almost nonexistent to the average voter," said Richard Lau, a Rutgers University political scientist.
For seashell,
OBAMA TRIES TO TAKE UP EDWARDS MANTLE
LOS ANGELES, Calif. -- Forget Camelot. The latest mantle that Obama is trying to claim as his own's is former Sen. John Edwards' who left the race yesterday with a request to the two remaining candidates for the Democratic nomination to make poverty an issue in their campaigns.
Obama obliged, sounding positively Edwards-esque in a town hall at Los Angeles Trade Technical College, told the crowd that the system wasn't "designed for us."
And if anyone was unclear about the intention of his message, Obama made a direct link to John Edwards and the issue of poverty.
"This is our country. That's why we have to address the issue of poverty. I congratulate John Edwards for his outstanding race and the way in which he identified the forgotten America," he said.
And then positioned himself as a natural candidate to pick up where Edwards left off: "That forgotten American America I worked in as a community organizer, that forgotten America I represented as a civil rights attorney, that forgotten America I fought for as a state legislature," he added.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/31/626624.aspx
Transportation Workers to Back Obama
The 200,000-member Transportation Workers Union will move from Edwards to Obama tomorrow, according to sources close to the union. The union would be the first national AFL-CIO union to endorse Obama. Is this the first of several former Edwards-backed unions to go to Obama now that Edwards has pulled out of the race?
The TWU represents New York City subway workers, Philadelphia bus drivers, Southwest Airlines flight attendants, baggage handlers and others. The largest union is in New York -- a Feb. 5 state -- and could play an active role there. In other Feb. 5 states, there are members in California and New Jersey.
I just don't like silly excuses for his failure to connect with voters in two elections. As soon people stop speaking nonsense about him, I'll stop correcting it.
the poll from Arizona showed him tied with Obama two weeks ago
That supports my contention that Edwards got a fair shake.
CLINTON vs. OBAMA....THE RECORD....In the Guardian today, Elana Schor reports that although Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have almost identical voting records in the Senate, they aren't quite identical. Here's a nickel summary:
Cheney energy bill: Obama for, Clinton against.
Cluster bomb ban: Obama for, Clinton against.
Pat Leahy's refugee amendment: Obama for, Clinton against.
Gun confiscation during emergencies: Obama against, Clinton for.
Confirmation of interior secretary Dirk Kempthorne: Obama for, Clinton against.
Confirmation of Army chief of staff George Casey: Obama for, Clinton against.
Lobbying reform: Obama for, Clinton against.
In terms of supporting conventional liberal policies, I suppose you'd give Clinton the advantage on 1, 4, 5, and 6. Obama gets the nod on 2, 3, and 7. It's pretty thin gruel, though. Aside from the energy bill, their other differences are fairly modest. Still, your mileage may vary depending on which issues matter most to you. Read the whole thing here.
Senator Boxer so gets it. Now this is what I call a "Stimulus Package".
http://boxer.senate.gov/news/outreach/20...
Senator Boxer on Improving the Stimulus Package
January 25, 2008
Honorable Harry Reid
Majority Leader
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC
Honorable Max Baucus
Chairman
Senate Finance Committee
Washington, DC
Dear Senators Reid and Baucus:
I am very supportive of Congress's efforts to address the economic downturn by moving quickly on a stimulus package. As the Senate moves forward, I would like to outline the following recommendations which I believe will make the economic stimulus package more effective and longer lasting for California and the country.
Rebate Checks for Seniors: I applaud the decision to include rebate checks for an additional 35 million low-income earners most in need of economic relief and most likely to spend the money quickly, but we need to do more. I hope the Committee will also consider helping low-income seniors who do not pay taxes. California is home to 3.9 million people age 65 and older, many of whom live on fixed incomes and are particularly hard hit by rising prices.
Foreclosure Crisis Relief: I strongly support raising the loan limits for the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac up to $729,750, as included in the preliminary House bill. In my own state of California, the median home price is over $530,000 and some urban areas in the state have median home prices of over $800,000, making these higher loan limits essential.
CDBG Funding: A new $10 billion Community Development Block Grant initiative is needed to help communities combat the rising tide of vacant houses caused by the foreclosure crisis. Funds should go to local governments in the most affected areas and could be used to help maintain vacant properties, fight vandalism and crime, and purchase foreclosed homes.
Unemployment Insurance: California faces a particularly high unemployment rate of 6.1 percent -- the sixth highest nationwide. Job creation has also been very slow in our state, with a mere average of 6,900 jobs a month having been created since 2001. Extending unemployment insurance, which provides highly targeted economic relief to those most in need, must be included in any stimulus legislation.
Hunger Relief: I encourage you to include a significant increase in Food Stamp benefits for current recipients. There are currently two million Californians receiving food stamps, with another two million – and growing – eligible. Increasing food stamps provides a high per-dollar benefit to the economy and helps the neediest Americans.
Furthermore, there has been a drastic decline in emergency food provided to California by the USDA. In 2002 USDA provided nearly 100 million pounds of food to our state’s food banks, but by 2007, less than 40 million pounds of food were delivered.
Medicaid Assistance: State budget deficits are growing – in California we are now facing a $14.5 billion shortfall – and increasing the share of Medicaid paid by the federal government (the Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentages or FMAP) is essential. California’s Medicaid program, MediCal, provides health and long-term care coverage to over 10 million people who are most in need of medical coverage and least able to afford it.
Job Creation Through Renewable Energy Incentives: Extending tax incentives for renewable energy production will immediately encourage the production of clean energy, and will also help create long-term and sustainable “green jobs” – already an important part of California’s economy and the future of America’s economy.
Job Creation Through Infrastructure Investment: There are a significant number of highway and wastewater infrastructure projects that are ready to proceed within 90 days. Since each $1 billion of infrastructure spending creates an estimated 47,500 jobs, investment in those projects will help address the current construction unemployment rate of 9.5 percent.
I thank you for considering these requests and look forward to working with you to ensure the Senate economic stimulus package helps California and the nation.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer, US Senator, California
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
BO is unbelievable. He's peeing on JE's grave in a way that makes it actually look flattering. One down for him. Why wasn't he talking this way months ago? He wants my vote, does he?
I'd respect him more if he'd stayed on his own message of holding hands and sing-alongs with corporations.
So now BO is JE. Is everybody happy? Kumbaya. This is a rubic cube for Sitka. LOL
The thing that is really phony is Hillary getting points for experience when she has less then Obama. The many years as a first lady doesn't matter at all.
Obama has more years in the tough Illinois Senate (where Chicago is hated) and the Senate then Hillary has in the Senate. If anything, Hillary is the newbee.
Will BO tomorrow be a son of a millworker? I can't wait to get up and read all about it. LOL
Gun confiscation during emergencies: Obama against, Clinton for.
What the heck does this mean? What consitututes an emergency?
Confirmation of Army chief of staff George Casey: Obama for, Clinton against.
- Yes, I forgot he voted for Casey.
seashell please calm down.
Obama has always been for the common man, look at his work in Chicago. Obama is a good man. He cares about us.
The thing that is really phony is Hillary getting points for experience when she has less then Obama. The many years as a first lady doesn't matter at all.
Dick Cheney alone has proven that experience is vastly overrated. But for reason people keep regurgitating that debunked talking point.
Here's part of the energy bill that BO voted on:
2007 Energy Bill: Look Before You Leap!December 13, 2007
Help STOP Subsidies to the Ethanol, Coal, Landfill, Incinerator and Nuclear Industries!
WE LOST. Late in the day on 12/13/2007, the Senate passed the bill in an 86-8 vote. It'll soon coast through the House and be signed by resident Bush. The bill passed without the tax section and without the renewable electricity standard. These omissions gutted some of the best aspects of the bill as well as some of the bad parts we highlight below. However, the ethanol mandate passed, representing a major tragedy for all of the communities that will be impacted by this.
Many hundreds of additional communities are now going to become targets for ethanol biorefineries, including "advanced" biofuels, which will include even more use of biotechnology and which will clear our forests and crop lands to liquidate them to fuel vehicles. Even more troubling is that much of this will create a demand to try to turn trash, sewage sludge and other contaminated waste streams into liquid fuels. We're already busy enough trying to help communities fight these things and our work is going to get FAR bigger. The more we succeed in stopping these insane "biofuel" schemes in the U.S., the more we'll end up importing it and contributing to deforestation and global hunger in other countries.
...and on the CAFE standard, it is NOT worth it. 35 mpg by 2020 is a joke. Without doing anything, the sustained high price of oil alone would do more to change the fleet of what (or IF) people choose to drive 12 years from now. Take one look at the price trend on oil and this should be self-evident. 35 mpg was a good idea for the 1970s. Any serious goal for 2020 needs to be more around 60 mpg (or rather zero mpg, since we shouldn't be burning gallons of anything, but should be using clean electricity for the reduced amount of vehicles we should have by then).
Go to the Source: HR6 - Version Passed by Senate on 12/13/2007
House Resolution 6
(text of the bill passed by the House on 12/6/2007)
House Vote (12/6/2007)
Senate Vote (12/7/2007)
For more details, search by Bill Number for "HR6" here: http://thomas.loc.gov
See the Energy Action Coalition's Energy Bill Toolkit for sample letters, scripts and actions you can do to influence your U.S. Congressperson and Senators.
See the latest Google news on the energy bill.
For info on the Energy Policy Act of 2005, click here.
The energy billIt's not too late to write in Edwards, since a BO/JE or JE/BO ticket would be a great one.
Actually, rae, I'm enjoying this.
So now BO is JE.
Ridiculous. Obama can't go back in time and vote for the worst of Bush's agenda as Edwards did.
Kumbaya.
Over-used, GOP smear alert.
This is a rubic cube for Sitka. LOL
Actually, a chinese finger trap for you. LOL.
I've said this before about BO. He's trying way too hard to please everybody all the time and that's why he says almost nothing ever. Now at least he can co-opt JE's message. Oh this is good, very good. We'll get what we deserve.
We shall see what that is.
Popcorn for the debate and taping for posterity. LOL
rae, I'm just bringing ya'll the facts.
You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the ass.
Isn't it time for you to watch Lou Dobbs to do his daily rant about Mexicans?
I hope if Edwards endorses that he doesn't choose Hillary.
I might good for a few dozen votes.
That would seem to go against everything he's been talking about.
<>It depends on which election you're talking about. In 2004 He WAS Hillary.If it's all about voting records - JE should be a huge concern.
United Healthcare Workers endorse Obama
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1...
Breaking: Clinton co-chair Received funds from Rezko
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1...
Friend in Phoenix, you're cracking me up so much
Don't forget Keithie's special comment coming up. :-)
Obama and Clinton debate on CNN
Show time folks
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/31/d...
Obama has always been for the common man, look at his work in Chicago. Obama is a good man. He cares about us.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
rae,
Are you new to American politicians? Seriously............this is almost getting to be nauseating on this blog..............a little reality please...................
Are you new to American politicians? Seriously............this is almost getting to be nauseating on this blog.......
Look on the bright side. There's a lot less of it since Edwards quit.
-
By Denise in San Mateo County on Jan 31, 2008 5:43 PMHoward and the DNC 50 state strategy is first!!