Insulting

Photo: Luke N. Vargas.

I remember lingering around a half-empty ballroom at a Des Moines hotel this past January after John Edwards left the stage and many of his supporters had filed out of the room. It was obvious that Edwards' second place finish would damage his chances of winning future states and becoming the Democratic nominee, but I felt like I had witnessed an amazing moment in election history. For someone who's listened to every candidate's stump speech numerous times, I felt like Edwards had broken from the mold and was speaking fromt the heart.

As the Democratic field narrowed down to Obama, Clinton, and Edwards through January, it seemed only a matter of time before Edwards would have to drop out, but I still loved seeing him on debate stages and delivering his talking points on television. Up until yesterday I wished Edwards had been the nominee instead of Obama; I thought he had a better chance of winning this November.

Now, after meeting Edwards twice (once privately for an interview), publicly voicing my support for him, and arguing on his behalf to friends and colleagues, I can't help but feel outraged that Edwards would hide such important information for so long.

As every Democrat is aware, the most important criteria in choosing a nominee for the party this year is electability--finding someone who can beat John McCain and put a Democrat back in the White House. That a major presidential candidate would withold a scandal (while maintaining innocence and touting his amazing family values) that would have destroyed his campaign and elected John McCain overnight, shows John Edwards' true motives: being elected President was more important for him than having a Democrat elected in 2008.

I (still) love Edwards' 2004 and 2008 political platforms, but he will never be the same in my eyes.

A Profile Update and the Edwards Endorsement

A day and a half late already, I've just moved on to the editing phase of this week's profile.

I'll pick up the process early tomorrow morning and look to wrap things up before noon.

Meanwhile, the week's news is the Edwards endorsement of Obama. Before I head off to bed I have three brief thoughts about the move:

1) Obama's campaign should rightfully be celebrating the support of Edwards, but Edwards' waiting until this late in the nomination process to chose a candidate is not necessarily a good thing. Some said this of Governor Richardson's endorsement a few months back, but deciding to endorse in May is by no means gutsy.

2) It is said that Edwards made the decision to back Obama following the West Virginia Primary because Edwards was worried the margin of Clinton's victory coupled with the perception that Obama is a weak candidate among working class white voters would damage his credibility and the Democratic party. My problem with this...if Obama really is weak among this demographic, shouldn't we acknowledge that fact instead of trying to mount a PR push to cover it up?

3) I have always admire John Edwards a great deal, and in covering Edwards in Des Moines on caucus day this past January I was never at a loss for good things to say about him and his campaign (read HERE and HERE). Presuming Obama is the Democratic nominee, Edwards deserves a cabinet position in recognition of his fight to end poverty in America, provide greater access to higher education for students in North Carolina, and for his tireless fight to provide health care for all Americans. Though Edwards' delay in endorsing Obama indicates that he may have simply been looking for a way into a Democratic administration, Obama and America would be lucky to have him.

One Morning with John

I wrote about it on January 3 from Iowa, and I'm putting up this video I took of John Edwards' Iowa caucus morning rally in Des Moines in light of his withdrawal from the presidential campaign today.

As always, Edwards was on his game and drove home his points clearly and with the passion I'll always remember him for.


Enjoy.

Two Americas Came Together

IMG_3554.JPG, originally uploaded by vargas2040.

Truly a great man and one of the strongest candidates the Democrats have had in years, John Edwards is out.

One could make the argument Edwards was the only Democrat capable of beating the Republicans (John McCain) in the general election, but one thing I'm certain of is that Edwards' message penetrated deeper into his base of support more than any other candidate. More than Hillary Clinton and more than Barack Obama, once Edwards' message of two Americas and a moral obligation to fight for those without a voice was first broadcast he picked up one of the most tried and true 15% this country has seen in a long time.

Through Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, and Florida that 15% turned out for John Edwards, and they would have voted for him on Super Tuesday around this country.

In one of the most upbeat and passionate withdrawals from a campaign I've seen in a while, Edwards formally ended his quest for the presidency, but in his year on the trail he did bring two Americas together, and that 15% has the potential to continue what Edwards first inspired.

We'll miss you, John.

A State I Know NOTHING About

South Carolina.

But what I do know is that whatever momentum still exists for the Democrats has been moving towards John Edwards. If it's not clear, Edwards is that little red line at the bottom of the graph above.

So does Edwards have much of a chance to win today? I'd guess not—the real battle is between Clinton and Obama. The stronger than expected finish for Edwards does mean his message resonated in South Carolina, and it will be interesting to see how many former Obama and Clinton supporters moved towards his camp after the recent mudslinging between the frontrunners.

I see the Democratic race being about Super Tuesday; South Carolina is only a momentum shifter leading into the 22-state contest. If Obama does win tonight, what kind of bounce can he expect in states like California or New Jersey?

One New Jersey poll released this past week by Quinnipiac University showed that 74% of Clinton supporters were "not likely at all" or "not too likely" to change their minds before February 5. Compare that to 32% of Obama supporters who are either "somewhat likely" or "very likely" to change their minds and today's outcome in South Carolina may not matter too much.

Watch the bounce.

Wow.

CNN's Democratic Debate live RIGHT NOW is hands-down the most earth-shattering event of the '08 campaign thus far.

Hillary = Smart attacks on Obama so far — present votes, health care plan— but it seems unnecessary, doesn't it? She's winning in the majority of February 5th states and had the momentum going into tonight.

Obama = Having his political record criticized publicly for the first time, and it could either hurt or help him. Obama can no longer claim a perfect political record and skip to how to implement things as President, but with Edwards and Hillary pushing on him so hard there's a chance that voters might sympathize with him tonight.

Edwards = Fantastic. Watch for a 5% jump in S.C. polls overnight.


Keep it up, Dems.

Behind Poor Numbers

John Edwards' distant third-place finish in Nevada says two things: First, televising these caucuses live from the Strip, as CNN did, really hurt the public image of Senator Edwards' campaign. Why? With 166 voters at Caesar's Palace only 2 voted for Edwards. Two of 166 is barely more than 1% support. Across the state, the 5% Edwards pulled isn't much better.

Second, Edwards' showing exposed one of the biggest and most obvious flaws of the caucus system itself. Recent polls leading into today's voting showed John Edwards with between 12 and 18% of the vote. On a caucus by caucus basis, a portion of Edwards' supporters could have survived the 15% viability test and avoided having to throw their support behind another candidate. Just as Iowa's caucus system cut down the combined support of Richardson, Biden, and Dodd from ~16% to 2%, Edwards was effectively squeezed out of the final results in Nevada because his support hovered around the viability mark.

A candidate with a message that doesn't resonate with voters, or a voting system that doesn't fairly represent all voters and candidates?

You decide.




(photo credit: © 2008 by Luke N. Vargas. All Rights Reserved.)

"A Messenger of Determination"

I can only imagine what would have happened if John Edwards had given this speech to Barack Obama's young and cheering crowd at Hoover High School two nights ago.

According to CNN's extensive entrance polling for last night's Iowa Caucus, 52% of voters made up their mind based on which candidate they thought could "bring about change." Of that group, 51% chose Barack Obama; Clinton and Edwards pulled 22% and 20% from that crowed respectively.


As I went to sleep last night I wondered if the Iowa Caucus changed my opinions about Barack Obama. Specifically, after a (big) win for Obama here it looks like he's going to have tremendous, perhaps unstoppable, momentum going into New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. Because of the secret ballot format of Iowa Republicans in the caucus process, candidates like Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter, and Fred Thompson are still able to continue campaigning after mixed to poor results last night. On the Democratic side, candidates like Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd pulled only 3% of the vote last night despite having a 16% share of the Iowa vote in polls before the caucus. The unfortunate result of the Iowa preference squeeze is the withdrawal of Dodd and Biden, as well as what seems a deathblow to Richardson's campaign.


What Edwards did last night in his post-caucus speech was to redefine his campaign—recommitting himself to working class Americans, providing an unparalleled health care system for all, and fighting to end corporate greed and abuse. They were points he's made for months, but Edwards delivered a ten minute confirmation of purpose for both his campaign and his life, and did more than tout his will to 'change,' he touched the crowd by laying out specifics about the problems that he saw and what he wanted to change.

What besides his frequent mentioning of the word makes Obama any more capable of being an agent for change? Doesn't Edwards have the conviction, the personal and political experience, and the unsurpassed proposals for economic and social change in America?.

You decide.


(all photos: © 2008 by Luke N. Vargas. All Rights Reserved.)

At Edwards HQ

Over the past ten minutes the main ballroom at John Edwards' Des Moines campaign reception complex has filled up. Sam Adams in hand, the mood here is mixed, yet propelled by Edwards campaign manager, Joe Trippi, who is spinning the Senator's finish as a triumph over Clinton's excessive spending in the state.

Trippi's "Edwards>Clinton" point #2 is that Clinton doubleteamed Edwards by bringing President Clinton out to stump for her on his own.

The media's point that Clinton would have rather lost to Edwards than Obama is valid. Obama's win shows that voters (by a sizeable 7% margin here) bought the head to head strategy of Obama over Clinton. That is, dollar for dollar and ad for ad Iowa voters (by a sizeable 7% margin) didn't tire of Obama like they (or so it seems) tired of Clinton.


(photo credit: © 2008 by Luke N. Vargas. All Rights Reserved.)

One Word

Authentic.


The best word I can think of to describe John Edwards this morning. Here's a guy who's stayed awake for days, crisscrossing this state on dozens of campaign events spreading a message much more fiercely than he did in 2004: corporate greed, lobbying, unfair tax breaks, and handouts to big business must end.

Where better to show up at 8:00 AM on caucus day than the blue collar neighborhood of east Des Moines. Only blocks away from the event were towering industrial plants and warehouses. Kevin Cooper, a steelworker and supporter of John Edwards, joined fellow union members on stage behind Senator Edwards and held a sign whose simple words sow the true, core strength of Edwards' campaign—the support of union labor.


I've seen Hillary's crowds, the thousands of young supporters and families that show up for Barack Obama, and the smattering of folks that show up for Biden, Richardson, and Dodd, but John Edwards has been the only candidate that has consistently had audiences packed with union laborers and blue collar workers so often talked about in this campaign. As I drove along the winding roads that snaked between smoke stacks, stone quarries, and water treatment plants after Edwards departed I realized the candidate of choice for the working class people of America, and more specifically today in Iowa, means a great deal to me. These are people who are deeply affected when their interests are slighted by our 'corporate-American' government in Washington, and these are people who take offense when a politician doesn't follow through on a promise to help them out.


It's comforting to drive through the industrial areas of Iowa because it's here where America's heart beats. No matter how much voters in New York and Florida complain about not having an influence in selecting the presidential nominees, there's just something about Iowa on caucus day that feels right.

Edwards spoke for barely ten minutes. In and out and onwards. As soon as the Senator left, however, I was surprised that the room didn't empty. Instead, a campaign staffer took to the stage and began arranging the crowd into sections. I realized then that the hundred or so people in attendance were not just onlookers, but volunteers preparing to canvass around the city.


John Edwards comes from a family of laborers and is by far the hardest working candidate on the trail in Iowa. If his support around the state is as strong, passionate, and authentic as the handfuls of canvassers this morning in Des Moines, you better watch Edwards' results start coming in this evening.



(all photos: © 2008 by Luke N. Vargas. All Rights Reserved.)

Edward's Increasing Irrelevance

Hat tip to The Atlantic Monthly for their remarkable profile of Barack Obama this month.

Andrew Sullivan says it all:

"At its best, the Obama candidacy is about ending a war--not so much the war in Iraq, which now has a momentum that will propel the occupation into the next decade--but the war within America that has prevailed since Vietnam and that shows dangerous signs of intensifying, a nonviolent civil war that has crippled America at the very time the world needs it most. It is a war about war--and about culture and about religion and about race. And in that war, Obama--and Obama alone--offers the possibility of a truce."

Wasn't ending that war John Edwards' goal for so long?

It still is, but it sometimes seems as if Edwards has only seen from the outside what Obama was involved with in Chicago for over a decade, and he only seeks to end the conflict through his politics of ending poverty and strengthening middle class families.


There are reasons to admire Edwards, but Obama is running a more complete campaign now. Not only is the junior Senator in his 40's inspiring a generation of young political activists, but he's establishing credibility for himself by showing that a wide set of reforms (energy independence, education, health care, Social Security reform, etc.) can add up to fixing the economic and social problems in this country.

Is Obama the best out there? Who knows. But is John Edwards increasingly irrelevant? Yes. Sadly.


(photo credit: © 2007 by Luke N. Vargas. All Rights Reserved.)

Only a Wife in Name

Yes, Elizabeth Edwards is THAT good.

Ms. Edwards' first words in Concord, NH on Sunday were that she was going to focus the event on health care. With a husband as invested in health care as John Edwards is, it's not hard to know where her knowledge of the issue comes from. Blowing my expectations away, however, Ms. Edwards knew about more than health care; she eloquently answered questions about Darfur and other topics, took tremendous effort to address specific questions tried to clarify what she was being asked if it wasn't clear (it seems easy, but most politicians use those opportunities to jump to their talking points), and spoke and connected with people from the heart.


Some have criticized the campaign tactics of John and Elizabeth of late, but the one story I never jumped on was the $400 haircut fiasco. Why? Because I've never doubted the honest intentions of the Edwards family. I know that John is dedicated to the issue of poverty in America and I can feel the compassion and caring of Elizabeth when she speaks with voters, especially those afflicted by serious illness. "Hope" means one thing from Barack Obama, but it means something else from John and Elizabeth Edwards.


I can't help but think that I ended up at Elizabeth's event by accident--a spur of the moment New Hampshire stop after showing up a week early for an environmental conference in Manchester. John Edwards is one of the only candidates I haven't spend much time covering in New Hampshire, and I certainly won't avoid him the next time he's in the state. And that's all because of his wife--only Bill Clinton plays at this level.

People often tout Bill Richardson's name around as a potentially-successful Senator, and while his home state of New Mexico is of more importance to the Democrats than North Caroline, Elizabeth Edwards sure seems like she'd make an exceptional politician herself. Ms. Edwards is only a wife by name--too often the word in politics comes to symbolize the Stepford spouses that hold their husband's hand and visit preschools--she's a terrific orator and public servant.


Though she may not have the businesswoman look of Michelle Obama, the riches of Cindy McCain, and the convenient phone-calling of Judith Giuliani, Elizabeth Edwards brings to her husband's campaign even more of what it thrives off of--honesty, compassion, intelligence, and the aura of a best friend. Whether speaking on increasing nursing education, the importance of personal diagnosis from local doctors, or the courage shown by one man at the event who had learned the complex processes involved in caring for a loved one, Elizabeth Edwards confides in her audiences rather than pontificate to them.


The media is quick to announce that Ms. Edwards is breaking campaign convention by maintaining such a high profile and hitting the trail herself, but on the ground her presence is so welcomed and refreshing that it seems strange anyone would need to make a big deal of it. The atmosphere at Sunday's event was so comfortable that Elizabeth would, in an unembarrassed manner, blow her nose when she needed and accept an offer of a small pack of tissues from one man in the audience. Maybe that only happened because she's not a big-shot politician who relies on a pack of eager staffers to give her whatever she needs a moment's notice, but as long as she keeps doing what she's been doing, she'll be one of the greatest factors working to the advantage of John Edwards in the coming months.



(all photos: © 2007 by Luke N. Vargas. All Rights Reserved.)

"Desperate for Bipartisan Success" sounds a lot better

So here I sit--sick for the fifth straight day, stuck inside the house for 48 consecutive hours, repeatedly hearing the "ping" of new emails as midnight approaches.

"Update from HQ: 10 hrs. left!"
"Big news"
"Tonight at Midnight"
"Less Than 5 Hours"
"A Special Request"
"Closing in on Our Goal"


God forbid an email asking for money should brag about something other than staggering campaign donations by people richer than me, how selfish I am for not wanting to save our country, or how Hillary's $1000/plate dinners are so terrible compared to the contributions from every millionaire trial lawyer.

Of all of these URGENT REMINDERS, only one message managed to stay out of my trash folder.


Joe Biden's campaign has been touting the Senator's recent Iraq amendment calling for U.S. policy to encourage a new federal system in Iraq. It would divide the country up into regions according to religious affiliation instead of pursuing a plan of uniting the whole country under a central government. In recent months Biden hasn't been all over the airwaves promoting whichever Iraq policy seems most popular at the time, instead he's been working behind the scenes to pull together a plan that would eventually get the kind of bipartisan support that Nancy Pelosi can only dream about: a 75-23 vote of approval.


What's most encouraging is that Biden co-authored the bill with Republican presidential nominee Sam Brownback. Isn't it nice when a Democrat and Republican can rally support around the same thing without having to attack anyone else?

I can't help but noticing that one of Biden's Democratic competitors, Governor Bill Richardson, seems to like Biden's proposal a great deal. Richardson says, "I would also study Senator Biden's federation [proposal]. I think that may be ultimately the right solution." [Christian Science Monitor, 9/27/06]

Funny that Richardson's official Iraq strategy is summed up in three headings on his website: "Remove ALL Troops," "Withdraw as Quickly as Possible," and "A Diplomatic Surge."

Shows that taking time to develop a viable strategy works a lot better than rushing on the scene with some clever, yet naive bullet points.....

Two Democrats Show Where Their Priorities Are

Some representative from the Edwards campaign was on Hardball this evening trying to defend the former Senator's criticism of Hillary Clinton's cozy relationship with Washington lobbyists and $1,000 luncheons--the Carolina Senator's latest reason for attacking the frontrunner. I use the word "trying to defend" instead of "successfully defending" because even the liberal-friendly Chris Matthews was able to poke some pretty serious holes in the campaign's distinction between the millions of dollars Edwards has received from trial lawyers and Clinton's soft money.


To be honest, I don't consider myself anti-John Edwards, but I'm not pleased he and his wife have chosen to divert much of the energy of their grassroots press organization towards attacks on Hillary Clinton's fundraising, and most recently her health care plan. It is truly unfortunate if Clinton's proposal is just a more highly-publicized copy of what Edwards has been saying for months, but instead of playing the "imitation is the highest for of praise" card, John and Elizabeth have tried to paint Clinton's actions as somehow wrong.


On the other side of it all, waging that pleasant kind of "from the ground up" political activism network around supporting the Habeaus Corpus Restoration Act are Senators Chris Dodd and Patrick Leahy. Sure, Dodd is a current member of the Senate, while Edwards stepped down a few years back, but the fact he is engaging in some productive measures during the work week and campaigning as hard as he can on the weekend says a lot about his character. The strategy of balancing the two tasks could hurt Dodd's chances of coming out on top this primary season, but it is comforting to know where his true priorities lie--in serving the people. While Dodd and Leahy aren't competing for the same job, their ability to stand on common ground on an important issue make you wonder why Hillary's unveiling of a very comprehensive health care proposal is worth Edward's criticism.

Am I right in thinking Edward's focus isn't on campaigning on the weekends only, but taking every opportunity to get an edge over the competition.

The Highest Grade; John Edwards at NEA 2007

Eight presidential candidates (from the Clintons and Obamas to the Dodds, Bidens, Kucinichs, and a lone Republican, Mike Hukabee) spoke at the annual National Educational Association meeting in Philadelphia this past week. It's comforting to hear the eight speeches delivered, as it seems nearly every politician at the conference understands one of the most obvious problems in education: No Child Left Behind doesn't work at the current levels of funding and support it has received under President Bush.


As you can imagine, so many candidates talking about one topic ensures the repetition of a handful of talking points. One candidate stood out, however.

Senator John Edwards connected a wide range of issues with the problems facing American education today. Among these was the continuing problem of poverty in America (a cause that Edwards has devoted years of his professional and political career to solving), an issue that effects the lives of children both in and outside of school.

Edwards stressed that poverty's impact in education could be reduced through measures that would draw skilled teachers to the most needy schools across the country as well as a proposal that would fund new early-education programs. The idea of promoting early-education ties in with Edward's theory of how students from poorer and less fortunate families will slowly fall behind in school because they entered the system with a disadvantage. Putting an emphasis on early-education and making it available to every American child would allow millions of children to have a better chance of experiencing higher education.

Furthermore, Edwards said that if a student were to enter the education system with lower ability than his or her fellow classmates, but was able to achieve a great deal of progress over the course of his or her time in school, that standardized achievement tests such as those so prominent in No Child Left Behind would not reward individual student's progression over time. When a system only looks at the end result of a school career it doesn't see people as people, it sees people as numbers and test scores.

Edward's quote of the night emphasized that point, "A test does not tell us what we need to do help our children to learn. A child is more than a test score."

With a number of candidates saying the right thing, it's hard to pick winner. But Edwards, despite criticism of his own personal spending and actions, is able to connect the issues of the less fortunate to the policies he understands so well. A+

Despite criticisms, Edwards still sets a higher standard

Here's what we know:

John Edward's campaign recently paid for two $400 haircuts, as well as $250 at an Iowa spa, and $225 from an upscale New Hampshire boutique.

Here's what we're told to believe:

John Edwards is the supreme embodiment of a Washington Hypocrite--indulging himself on lavish personal treats while publicly preaching a policy of helping the middle class, eliminating poverty, and providing universal healthcare for the uninsured.

Hmm...

Instead of rushing to one side or the other on this topic, I would encourage everyone to consider not only Mr. Edward's recent expenditures, but the merit of his politics and the sincerity of his message.

To those who claim that Edward's personal (as in the kind of things that I know we all buy but don't tell anyone else about) spending shows how he cares more about his own interests than those of others, I have only one thing to say. In order to read this blog you have to be in front of a computer. Anyone reading this blog probably has a facebook, myspace, or photo album somewhere that lots of people look at. In order to make yourself look good in your photos I'm sure there are at least $100 worth of cosmetic products in your bathroom.

Since you believe in eliminating poverty, why don't you lay off buying so many personal products and put the money to better use?

The trap we fall into when we start criticizing the economic status of politicians is that we fail to realize who in fact these individuals are. John Edwards was a successful lawyer for almost 20 years, and is estimated to be worth more than $60 million. Except in extremely rare cases, anyone who has worked to accumulate such a fortune isn't likely to give it all away. The fact that Mr. Edwards even thinks about those of a lower economic tier than himself sets him apart from those with $60 million.

In closing, John Edwards isn't saying that we should all donate all our money to charity and create a society that has no economic differences. Instead, what he is doing is the "practical+just" thing: finding a way to deal with America's problems while still understanding that we can't be perfect, or at least we won't wake up to see millionaires giving up all their money.


Mr. Edwards, I'd rather not pay for your barber bill, but you've got some good ideas under that pricey cut, so keep it up.

Two Things I Don't Really Like

The Supporting Our Troops and Veterans' Health Care Act seems like a pretty straightforward bill. The name is in fact so explicit that the image of stubbornly-precise Congressmen crafting trite names for bills rushes to mind. The bill, however, had attached to it a number of additional provisions, including:

- $140 million in aid for farmers and ranchers affected by Hurricane Katrina.
- $450 million in food assistance to Sudan, Afghanistan, and Southern Africa
- $1 billion to purchase pandemic flu vaccines
- $140 million for security aid to Liberia and Jordan
- $3.7 billion for agricultural disaster assistance

While many of the extra additions to this bill address important issues that are very much in need of funding, the reality is that over $12.4 billion in the Act do not focus on "Supporting Our Troops" or addressing "Veterans' Health Care." This way of doing business is commonplace in Washington, DC, but it still surprises. If a friend were to ask me for money for a taxi, but they used a large part of the money to also buy a "Stop the Genocide" t-shit, I certainly wouldn't be angry, but I would have expected them to let me know what they were doing with my money. As well-intentioned as these actions might be, American taxpayers deserve to know that supplemental aid is being provided to Gulf Coast fisherman when a "Support Our Troops" bill is passed.

The whole culture of under-the-table changes to bills and laws is widespread, but you don't need to only look at money appropriations to see people taking advantage of certain circumstances in order to further individual agendas. Recently, in light of both the Alberto Gonzales scandal and the comments by Ann Coulter at CPAC, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have both attempted to capitalize on these events in order to raise money for their campaigns. Clinton's website is currently running the advertisement above, conveniently located near the donate button on the page. Perhaps Clinton really cares the most about getting people to her site in order to sign the petition, but you can tell that she loves the potential for publicity and increased contributions that the current scandal offters her. John Edwards also ran a advertisement online last week; his making the connection between being angry at Ann Coulter and donating money.

I worry that politicians now, instead of looking straight in the eyes of the problems that face them instead turn around and plead for support and funds to advance their causes. New York and North Carolina voters elected Clinton and Edwards to use the connections they have to pass meaningful reforms and get things done, not to try and get caught up in the exploitation of headline news stories. Similarly, let's make sure that voters know what exactly is getting passed by their leaders.