Sign in to follow this  
TJ Phaserman

Ben & Jerry's founders endorse Obama

Recommended Posts

BURLINGTON, Vt. - The founders of Ben & Jerry's endorsed Barack Obama on Monday, and lent his Vermont campaign two "ObamaMobiles" that will tour the state and give away scoops of "Cherries for Change" ice cream.

 

"If there was ever a need for real change, and if there ever was a candidate to inspire us and make that happen, it's now," said Ben Cohen.

 

Added Jerry Greenfield: "Barack is showing that when you lead with your values and follow what you have inside that good things will happen."

 

Echoing Obama, Greenfield said he and Cohen succeeded when they opened their ice cream shop 30 years ago in Burlington by doing things differently, instead of copying the "tired ways" of doing business.

 

"What we saw is that when you want real change it's not a marketing slogan. You have to do things differently. And that is not going to be done by someone who's been involved in the system for years and years," Greenfield said. "It needs to come from inside and Barack Obama has it."

 

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and his wife joined the ice cream duo to announce their radio campaign backing the Illinois senator.

 

Cohen initially supported John Edwards, who dropped out of the race earlier this month.

 

Rob Hill, director of the Vermonters for Obama campaign, said he looked forward to getting behind the wheel of one of the two ObamaMobiles — retrofitted Honda Elements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait... Now ice-cream makers are getting into the presidential race??? Great, it's going to be a rocky road from now until November.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, now I am in a dilemma. I love Ben & Jerry's ice cream but not the philosophies of the founders. In the past they have supported issues I am not really against per se, just not very high on my priority list. It was also their money, not mine.

 

But now they are supporting a candidate I am against. Some of the money I spend on ice cream will be spent on a candidate I am against. Again this is their right to do, but I don't have to like it. I'm just wondering if I dislike it more than I like of their ice cream.

 

It also seems inconsistent to me. I know Ben & Jerry are against special interests and lobbying, but aren't they establishing their company as a special interest lobby by making a donation to a political campaign?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben & Jerry's has always had a political agenda but that isn't why I don't eat their ice cream. One of the local super market brands has really great ice cream and it's a lot cheaper per ounce than Ben & Jerry's.

 

One thing I don't get is why they keep referring to Obama as "change" - he's part of the system - his platform is pretty standard - how is that change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I don't get is why they keep referring to Obama as "change" - he's part of the system - his platform is pretty standard - how is that change?

Because change is all we will have after he raises taxes to pay for what he talks about.

 

Actually, his positions are identical to Hilary's. The only exception is Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, now I am in a dilemma. I love Ben & Jerry's ice cream but not the philosophies of the founders. In the past they have supported issues I am not really against per se, just not very high on my priority list. It was also their money, not mine.

 

But now they are supporting a candidate I am against. Some of the money I spend on ice cream will be spent on a candidate I am against. Again this is their right to do, but I don't have to like it. I'm just wondering if I dislike it more than I like of their ice cream.

 

It also seems inconsistent to me. I know Ben & Jerry are against special interests and lobbying, but aren't they establishing their company as a special interest lobby by making a donation to a political campaign?

There is a candidate in Illinois that caused me to stop eating one of my favorite ice creams - Jim Oberweis. He is very conservative, and ran an awful commercial against immigration during his Senate campaign, talking about Soldier Field being full of immigrants. Right then I stopped buying his ice cream. He's currently running for Denny Hastert's (former Speaker of the House) Congressional seat. He has an obnoxious commercial about running up the white flag now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben & Jerry can talk ice cream to me all they want. But when it comes to politics, I prefer making my own decisions. I'm a little concerned with everyone treating Obama like the second coming when he has had so little political experience. I still only have the most basic understanding of where he stands on most of the important issues of the day (because he never elaborates), so I'm reserving my final decision on which candidate I'll vote for in November.

 

Right now I'm leaning toward McCain, because I see him as the most moderate of the four candidates remaining and the one best suited to dealing with either a Democratic-led or GOP-led Congress. McCain's not perfect, I have some issues with him in some areas. But overall, he's more palatable to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, it comes down to the lesser of two evils. I'm going with McCain because I think he can keep us more safe than Obama can. A lot of people are talking about Obama's lack of experience as a positive thing. Two recent examples come to mind:

 

1) Jesse Ventura - Governor of Minnesota = 1 term disaster

 

2) Jimmy Carter - need we say more?.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Jesse Ventura - Governor of Minnesota = 1 term disaster

Ventura only ran for one term. That was part of his platform. It also isn't accurate to say he had no political experience. He was Mayor of Brooklyn Park in 1992-1996. Remember that he also ran under what was then the Reform Party. At one time his approval rating was 73%, the highest of any Governor in Minnesota history.

 

Why do I know all this? Because I had to put up with a friend of mine from Minn-Ness-SOUGH-Da always saying his Governor could beat up my Governor. Now my Governor can beat up his - and yours!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is interesting about this election is whenever a President has approval ratings as low as ours is his party tends to loose seats in Congress. However, Congress's approval rating is even lower than Bush's is. Republicans might gain seats because of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is interesting about this election is whenever a President has approval ratings as low as ours is his party tends to loose seats in Congress. However, Congress's approval rating is even lower than Bush's is. Republicans might gain seats because of this.

 

 

 

One can only hope you are right. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At one time his approval rating was 73%, the highest of any Governor in Minnesota history.

That was right after he got elected. It soon plummeted after he found out he was way in over his head and couldn't get anything done. He even had to buy a book that explained what the Governor's duties were.

 

Why do I know all this? Because I had to put up with a friend of mine from Minn-Ness-SOUGH-Da always saying his Governor could beat up my Governor.

 

I have that shirt! I have two sisters that live in Minnesota and they both sent me one!... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is interesting about this election is whenever a President has approval ratings as low as ours is his party tends to loose seats in Congress. However, Congress's approval rating is even lower than Bush's is. Republicans might gain seats because of this.

But for six years the Republican majority congress generally rubber stamped Bush's agenda and he refused to veto almost anything they approved. I feel they are linked and just as we're through with W on January 2009, we should jetison most of Congress but particularly almost ALL of the Republicans that let Bush do whatever he wanted to - particularly in running up such an awful deficit. It's supposed to be a system of checks and balances and the Republican controlled Congress did not try to check him much at all imo.

Edited by trekz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

of all the candidates I like Obama the best, I am a republican too, but if Hillary becomes President I will move to Canada

 

to me Obama as President is cool, 1st black man as president, but his name is similar sounding to Osama Bin Ladin, I wonder if that will hurt him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But for six years the Republican majority congress generally rubber stamped Bush's agenda and he refused to veto almost anything they approved. I feel they are linked and just as we're through with W on January 2009, we should jetison most of Congress but particularly almost ALL of the Republicans that let Bush do whatever he wanted to - particularly in running up such an awful deficit. It's supposed to be a system of checks and balances and the Republican controlled Congress did not try to check him much at all imo.

 

Actually, we have had a Democrat majority in Congress for some time now. Bush is a Republican. Psrt of the reason people are dissatisfied with Congress is because the checks and balances you would think would be natural with one party controlling Congress and another party the President haven't occurred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....

to me Obama as President is cool, 1st black man as president, but his name is similar sounding to Osama Bin Ladin, I wonder if that will hurt him?

But what about his platform or voting record - which isn't all that different than Hillary's. I mean if you like what he stands for that's one thing - but to vote for someone because they're black and that's cool or they're a woman and that will make history etc. That's when voters annoy me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But for six years the Republican majority congress generally rubber stamped Bush's agenda and he refused to veto almost anything they approved. I feel they are linked and just as we're through with W on January 2009, we should jetison most of Congress but particularly almost ALL of the Republicans that let Bush do whatever he wanted to - particularly in running up such an awful deficit. It's supposed to be a system of checks and balances and the Republican controlled Congress did not try to check him much at all imo.

 

Actually, we have had a Democrat majority in Congress for some time now. Bush is a Republican. Psrt of the reason people are dissatisfied with Congress is because the checks and balances you would think would be natural with one party controlling Congress and another party the President haven't occurred.

I checked and I was off by two years: the Republicans had a majority in the Senate from Jan. 2003 until January 2007. The Republicans had a majority in the House of Representatives from Jan. 1995 to Jan. 2007. So the Democrats have had a majority in both houses of Congress for 13 months, while Bush enjoyed a Republican majority Congress (both Houses) for 4 years of his term and a House Republican majority for his first 6 years. The Democrats promised a lot and have not delivered but they have also contended with a Republican minority that has prevented them from having a veto proof majority and a President that suddenly realized he had veto power after almost never using in his first six years in office. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked and I was off by two years: the Republicans had a majority in the Senate from Jan. 2003 until January 2007. The Republicans had a majority in the House of Representatives from Jan. 1995 to Jan. 2007. So the Democrats have had a majority in both houses of Congress for 13 months, while Bush enjoyed a Republican majority Congress (both Houses) for 4 years of his term and a House Republican majority for his first 6 years. The Democrats promised a lot and have not delivered but they have also contended with a Republican minority that has prevented them from having a veto proof majority and a President that suddenly realized he had veto power after almost never using in his first six years in office. :P

You're probably right on these figures and dates. However, since Americans distrust Congress they are unlikely to give them more tools. I think the body politic is not sophisticated enough to know the difference between a supermajority and a simple majority with a sizable minority. I think the voters will simply see it as "Bush is bad, and Congress isn't stopping him." Even when the situation was reversed and Republicans had a simple majority with a sizable Democrat minority that minority generally went along with Bush on most things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to the chagrin of many here, I plan to vote for Hillary in the May primary. I would have voted for a Biden or Dodd had they stayed in the race. I do not believe a woman can win the office of President, but I do think Hillary knows how to handle pressure of the office and she is the more qualified Democrat. I won't vote for Obama at the moment because I have received one too many bullying e-mails telling me what is wrong with me if I don't vote for him. Nothing is wrong with me. Black people do not have to all get in the same line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to the chagrin of many here, I plan to vote for Hillary in the May primary. I would have voted for a Biden or Dodd had they stayed in the race. I do not believe a woman can win the office of President, but I do think Hillary knows how to handle pressure of the office and she is the more qualified Democrat. I won't vote for Obama at the moment because I have received one too many bullying e-mails telling me what is wrong with me if I don't vote for him. Nothing is wrong with me. Black people do not have to all get in the same line.

Bullying e-mails can certainly have the opposite effect they hoped for. I too wish Biden or Dodd had stayed in the race longer. I agree with you that Hillary is more tested under pressure and the more qualified Democrat currently in the race. I have a number of questions about Obama, a candidate who talks about change but who has watched his supporter Mayor Daley raise taxes in his city of Chicago, and who campaigned for a County Board President who wants to have the highest county taxes in the country, plus who cut union jobs in his last budget. Obama has had connections for over 15 years with Tony Rezko, who is currently on trial for influence peddling. He was soundedly defeated in his campaign for the House of Representative against a strong incumbant. I have lived in Chicago for over 25 years and I have seem no garden of hope produced by Mr. Obama. I also see a great potential for dirty tactics to be unleashed on this first Black candiate for President resulting in four more years of Republican rule.

I want to see change in this country and don't see how it can be produced by Obama.

 

Change will take a great deal of work and I see no organization that will support Obama. If most of the same representatives and Senators are returned to Congress I don't see how the dramatic change Obama trumpets about can be fulfilled.

 

It also bothers me that Hillary seems to be the victim of a double standard. There continue to be snide coments about her clothing, her coldness, etc. that seem gender based and that are not being made against Obama. I fully understand that Hillary has "baggage" and many can't stand her, but if you look at the candidates logically, she imo is the more experience choice, and who understands how the currrent system works, and truly wants to improve things in this country. If a female Senator in her second term, who is a former First Lady and a former First Lady of a governor, who is acknowledged to be intelligent, and has devoted much of her life to working for causes such as improving the lives of children, is not considered worthy to be President of the United States, what woman with equal or greater qualifications would be acceptable? I am highly disappointed that prejudice against women imo still exists in this country to the extent it seems to be, as evidinced imo in this primary campaign. :nono:

Edited by trekz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this