New Obama endorsement: Gary & Meg Hirshberg

I'm inclined to think that this is a big deal. (4.00 / 1)

And that the two who lose the most from this are Edwards and Gore, the two who seem most in line with Hirshberg's eco-progressivism.

Whatever one thinks of Hirshberg's future in politics (and I think his potential is very significant), he along with maybe a handful of others worldwide have managed to take organic food from a cottage industry into a major player that can compete against non-organic giants. 

While some organic enthusiasts don't approve of leaving the "grow local only" approach, I am wholeheartedly in favor of Hirshberg's global market approach with Stonyfield.  In a relatively short amount of time he has managed to create an organic product that is widely available to consumers for a price that is not much higher than non-organic.  And it seems as if every year organic prices come closer and closer in line with non-organic.

Some day soon there will be a critical mass price equivalence, at which time buying organic will not hurt the wallet.  And on that day we can mark the beginning of the end of pesticides plaguing our environment and wreaking God knows what havoc on our ecosystem.  We'll have folks like Hirshberg to thank for that.

He strikes me as the realization of what Gore envisions an environmentally sensitive yet economically successful economy looks like.

Well done, Senator Obama.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 22:27:06 PM UTC

The Difference Between This and the Dean Endorsement (0.00 / 0)

In both cases Gary and Meg's candidate was the frontrunner in money raising, and the one who's best defined as selling hope. For Dean, the endorsement carried more weight than it does for Obama. The largely unknown Governor from Vermont was a fledging and poorly funded. The Hirshberg name and money primed the well for the myriad donors who followed. It gave Dean cred on the money, on a national stage. In the primary he did well given the result, running the DNC. That Obama is the best funded candidate, ever, and is already well known, I am inclined to agree with you Dean. It can't be bad.

Does he have the set to take Hillary down ?
That's the question, and it's a big deal.

Next time, there may be no next time.

---

by: Jon Bresler @ Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 22:54:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, I should have added, (0.00 / 0)

in putting on a more strategic hat, I half wonder whether the endorsement springs also from a pragmatic approach to picking the declared candidate who is closest to defeating the frontrunner.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 23:13:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Apparently, the pragmatic reason was correct : (0.00 / 0)

The Hirshbergs made it clear that their choice would be a tactical one. Their main concern? Finding someone who can defeat Sen. Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary.

"It would be hard enough for any woman," Meg Hirshberg explained. "But she has higher negatives than anyone on either side of the aisle. I don't believe we can start out with someone who, at the starting gate, is disliked by so many people. I'm not justifying their dislike. I think a lot of it is unfair, but I can't make it go away and neither can she."

And on the earlier senate rumblings:

Today Stonyfield's plant has become a destination for Democratic candidates, and the Hirshberg home a coveted spot for fundraising and outreach. Earlier this year after very publicly prepping for a run against Sen. John Sununu, Gary backed off.

"In some respects not running for Senate was probably better politically," Gary said. "I am obviously politically active without having to go to Washington. Here I'm able to meet with politicians and directly address the issues I care about."

Neat article, and presumably also in WaPo.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 12:51:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I find that reason slightly icky (0.00 / 0)

But maybe they're just refreshingly honest.

I think people who like Hillary are more willing to believe she can overcome the negatives. Are they right? I really have no idea, but I will say this: every candidate in our field has something that will rally the other side, even if it's just the D after their name.

---

by: JimC @ Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 13:37:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pragmatism (0.00 / 0)

I think it's a GOOD thing that the Hirshbergs are thinking pragmatically.  Yes, some of the other candidates may have better environmental stances than Obama, who is still essentially formulating his platform (and who, if he gets the nomination, will, in all likelihood, absorb some of those environmental policy ideas from the other candidates into his own agenda,) is the most likely to knock Hillary out of the running (at least until Gore enters the race . . . MAY IT HAPPEN!!!!)  All the positive change that could be affected by a Democratic administration will be mere pie in the sky unless we win.  And the Hirshbergs know as well as anyone that Hillary stands no chance of winning.  Yes, every candidate has negatives, but Hillary arrives with so many ALREADY IN PLACE, and that's before the national Republican slime machine starts slinging its toxicity at her.  People across this country, quite frankly, hate her.  I'd love to see a woman become president, and I hope it happens within my lifetime (I'm 28, so it just might,) but the first female president of the United States will not be Hillary Rodham Clinton.  She is just too polarizing.  With that, I agree with the Hirshbergs' reasoning in endorsing Obama.  But I do hope they'll switch their endorsement if Gore jumps in!

---

by: The Caped Composer @ Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 16:53:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Gary made a point of saying (4.00 / 1)

that his original support of Governor Vilsack was because Vilsack understood the significance of organic farming more than any of the other candidates.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 22:56:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Isn't it odd that we are living in an era (0.00 / 0)

where organic food is treated like some kind of niche market (though blessedly, that is changing)?

Since the dawn of agriculture people have been eating organically, until we got this bright idea roughly a century ago to throw toxins at our food to maximize the yield.


birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 23:16:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Grist compares (0.00 / 0)

the candidates on the environment, and Obama comes up short.

As I expected, Dodd and Edwards, and to a lesser degree Richardson, come out on top.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 00:24:07 AM UTC

"John Edwards is running left." (0.00 / 0)

You gotta love that !
Dean, you listed them alphabetically to be fair, but its clear who's got the best, most detailed, achievable plan.

Grist says,

"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."

Next time, there may be no next time.

---

by: Jon Bresler @ Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 04:13:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]