Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Cornbread and Roses

By Bob Moser, The Nation. Posted November 29, 2005.


With his campaign to end poverty, John Edwards has shed his Clinton Lite image. But he still faces an uphill battle to win back the presidency for the Dems.
112905_story
Cornbread and Roses

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Ugly Truth: Almost All U.S. Kids Sentenced to Die In Prison For Non-Homicide Crimes Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by Bob Moser

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

On a soft gray Monday in mid-October, the Interfaith Council shelter in downtown Chapel Hill has a brand-new volunteer, brimming with enthusiasm that's almost annoying at 10:15 in the morning. "How're you all doing back there?" John Edwards calls out to the kitchen crew as he beams into the dining room, trailed by a clutch of staffers, University of North Carolina antipoverty activists and TV cameras. While he chats up the shelter volunteers and residents, alternately squinting his perma-tanned face with concern and flashing the yard-wide smile that almost won Iowa, two white-haired women on the kitchen crew, both named Jane, are nudged toward him for a souvenir shot.

"I want this picture for me," Edwards says with his best Sunday school charm, hugging the women under his arms. After a bit more chatting and hugging, there's a momentary lull. Hands on hips, with mock impatience, Edwards tilts toward the kitchen and hollers out, "So am I supposed to do something or what?"

"Well, we've got some unloading," offers Paul Eberhardt, the day shelter coordinator. Quick as a flash, last year's Democratic nominee for Vice President is back in the pantry, tearing cans of generic lima beans and tomatoes out of their plastic-wrapped cardboard while Eberhardt feeds him an earful of insights from the front lines of poverty-fighting. "Lately we're getting hospital workers, construction workers, here at lunchtime," Eberhardt says, talking fast. "It's low employment now, not just unemployment." Edwards purses his lips, furrows his brow, gives every sign of listening, even as he briskly moves on to filling up water pitchers, smiling on cue for the local affiliates until it's time to clap his hands and cry out to his staff, "What's next?"

Around this time last year, a lot of people were asking that very same question about Edwards. After his cometlike ascent from first-term senator to the national Democratic ticket, Edwards crashed to earth when he failed to persuade running mate John Kerry to contest George W. Bush's questionable victory in Ohio. Suddenly, Edwards's giddy three-year campaign to lift himself into the political stratosphere -- and knit together the "two Americas" he dearly loved to preach about -- was over. His wife, Elizabeth, had been diagnosed with breast cancer. His Senate seat, which Edwards had abandoned to focus on the national race, would return to Republican hands in January, leaving him without a built-in mechanism for staying in the national spotlight. For the first time in his adult life, this blue-skies optimist was staring straight into a blank horizon. Friends and admirers offered advice and speculated: Would he return to his law practice? Start a foreign-policy think tank to shore up his presidential résumé? Run for governor? Cash in on his connections with some Dan Quayle-style consultancies?

In February Edwards surprised them all, announcing a campaign to "eradicate poverty in America." With a $40,000 annual salary paid by private funds, Edwards became the first director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at UNC, Chapel Hill's law school, largely a think tank designed to bring antipoverty scholars, activists, journalists and politicians together to cook up innovative ways to tackle economic and racial inequities.Edwards is also putting some of his ideas into action, including the College for Everyone program he promised in 2004. In low-income Greene County Edwards this summer announced a pilot program to pay for the first year of college for local high school graduates willing to work at least ten hours a week.

Since launching the center, Edwards has returned to perpetual motion, taking his antipoverty crusade to more than thirty states. Between visits to shelters and job-training centers and delivering his new stump speech, full of ringing challenges to view poverty as "the great moral cause of our time," Edwards has raised more than $4 million for Democratic legislative candidates in mostly red states, trying, as he says, "to build the party back from the ground up." He's teaming with unlikely partners on the left -- including local AFL-CIO, ACORN and NAACP chapters -- in campaigns to raise the minimum wage in Ohio, Arizona and Michigan. He's praising Big Labor's historic role in "lifting millions of Americans out of poverty." And he's floating serious -- and surprisingly liberal -- proposals to put his high-flown rhetoric into action.

He's touting a controversial "cultural integration" plan to give low-income families housing vouchers to move into better neighborhoods. He's calling for expansions to Bill Clinton's earned-income tax credits, for concerted crackdowns on predatory lenders, and for "work bonds" to help low-income workers build savings and assets. He wants not only to repeal Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent but also to raise capital-gains taxes for those on the top rungs. After Hurricane Katrina he spoke pointedly about how "the face of poverty in America is the face of color" and promoted an ambitious Gulf Coast recovery program modeled on FDR's Works Progress Administration -- a touchstone for the kind of big-government liberalism that the old Edwards (like most Democratic leaders today) wouldn't have touched with a ten-foot pole.

All of which raises a question: Who is this guy -- and what has he done with the centrist New Democrat who once had Karl Rove quaking in his boots? While he clearly hasn't lost his all-too-palpable lust for the White House, Edwards has largely left behind the Clintonian emphasis on "personal responsibility" and "fiscal restraint" that often struck a hollow note in his campaign speeches -- particularly in contrast to his heartfelt cry of "two Americas." The metamorphosis began during the last campaign, when Edwards gradually found his voice as an economic populist. Less than a decade into his political career, he remains a work in progress.

"We might be seeing the kind of transformation Bobby Kennedy underwent," says Pete MacDowell, a veteran grassroots organizer and staunch Edwards critic ("a political Ken doll with a populist streak" is how MacDowell describes him) who runs the NC Progressive Democrats PAC. "After he initially supported Vietnam and went slow on civil rights, Kennedy developed a moral core and turned into the kind of Democrat we haven't seen since. I never thought I'd say this, but maybe that's what we're now seeing with Edwards. Maybe this is his core."

Selling Kids on Fighting Poverty

However implausible the RFK comparison might sound, it's hard to deny it on this mid-October Monday in Chapel Hill, when Edwards -- fresh from the shelter -- shimmers onto the stage of UNC's Great Hall at lunchtime, soaking up Beatles-esque roars of adulation from an overflow crowd of students. It's the first stop on a ten-campus national tour, Opportunity Rocks, where Edwards will urge thousands of students to fight poverty. Even with an unsexy message, the messenger will draw crowds that surprise even his organizers -- 1,500 at the University of California, Berkeley, more than 2,000 at the University of Michigan.

Edwards doesn't disappoint his young fans. Like his hero, Kennedy, he has a knack for talking about life-and-death struggles, laying bare the challenges of blue-collar folks struggling to make ends meet but leaving his audience more challenged and inspired than depressed. Reminding students of their forebears' campaigns against the Vietnam War and South African apartheid, Edwards throws down the gauntlet: "These folks need a champion -- and not just me. They need you. You can make ending poverty in America the cause of your generation. It's the right thing to do. This is not about charity -- it's about justice!"

"I never thought I'd see this many kids coming to listen to a speech about poverty," UNC senior Josh Glasser gushed in the glowing wake left by Edwards as he jetted off to his next gig. Last year Glasser co-founded SPROUT, a campus group helping low-income locals apply for earned-income tax credits. Edwards's speech at UNC, where Glasser and co-founder James Jolley handed out SPROUT fliers, brought sixty-five new students to the group's listserv in just the first day. "We met with the senator and his staff and they really listened, really wanted to help," Glasser says. "It wasn't some top-down thing -- they wanted to hear our ideas. I know some people are cynical about him using this to position himself for President. But come on: We all know poverty's not exactly a get-'em-to-the-polls kind of issue. He's convinced me, at least, that he means it." For Edwards, that's one down -- and just a few dozen million more skeptics to go.

A Rising Star, Moving Left

Johnny Reid Edwards shot onto the national political stage in 2001, at a moment when Democrats were still gagging on the bitter dregs of Al Gore's defeat -- and dreaming fond dreams of the next Bill Clinton. And here, by God, he seemed to be: a jovial moderate, even handsomer than Clinton, saying smart, empathetic things about "regular people" in a soft Dixie drawl. Like Clinton, Edwards had risen to glory from practically nothing, the kind of rags-to-riches legend that has made voters swoon since the days of Andy Jackson. Best of all, he came without Clinton's personal baggage. Even the notorious smear campaigners at the North Carolina Republican Party could dredge up nothing damning on Edwards during his upset of Republican Senator Lauch Faircloth in 1998 -- nothing beyond the indisputable fact that he had, for twenty years, been successfully suing big corporations on behalf of those "regular people," piling up millions in the process as one of America's top trial attorneys.

In his three years as a senator, Edwards had hardly had time to knock anybody's socks off. He'd impressed hard-bitten Washingtonians when he deposed key witnesses in Clinton's impeachment trial and delivered a closing defense argument -- and again when he led a winning fight, joining Senators McCain and Kennedy, for the Patients' Bill of Rights. But there were whispers of shallowness, callowness, naked opportunism. And almost as soon as he'd kindled the hopes of forlorn Democrats, more serious doubts began to surface.

Democrats had seen both Clinton and Jimmy Carter campaign as power-to-the-people populists and then govern more like Nixon than Roosevelt. Edwards's affiliation with the Democratic Leadership Council, founded in the mid-1980s to demolish the party's old "liberal fundamentalism," reinforced the suspicion that he was just another big talker from Dixie with a conservative core. It didn't help when Clinton, the old snake-oil master himself, admiringly commented that Edwards could "charm an owl out of a tree." Worse, throughout 2002 and 2003 Edwards gave policy speeches -- crafted in part by DLC policy guru Bruce Reed -- that made him sound exactly like what cynics had taken to calling him: Clinton Lite. "The American people don't want us to tear down America's corporations," he declared in a talk called "Putting Responsibility First." In one healthcare speech Edwards repeated the word "responsibility" twenty-eight times. Outlining his tax-policy proposals Edwards came off like a Clinton puppet, mouthing the mantra "opportunity, responsibility, hard work."

Out of the other side of his mouth, however, Edwards talked with candor and gut-level understanding about economic, racial and class inequities. "How long had it been since you heard a Democrat utter the word poverty?'' says Chris Kromm, executive director of the progressive Institute for Southern Studies. "And who would have thought they'd hear a Democrat from the South making workers' rights a central campaign theme?" Edwards's refusal to speak ill of his Democratic opponents also struck a fresh tone. Progressives remained skeptical, but they couldn't completely tune Edwards out -- except for one not-so-little thing.

"I can give you the exact date," says Kromm. "September 19, 2002." In that day's Washington Post Edwards wrote an op-ed headlined "Congress Must Be Clear," staking himself out as the Democrat most gung-ho to sic the troops on Saddam Hussein. Swallowing the WMD story hook, line and sinker, Edwards commanded his fellow senators to "send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." Though he made obligatory noises about "an effort to rally the international community" and "real steps to win the peace" before invading, Edwards threw himself fully behind the Congressional resolution to authorize Bush's go-it-alone invasion of Iraq.

"Either he was a hawk, or he didn't know what he was talking about, or he was guilty of the worst kind of political pandering," Kromm says. "I thought, 'You're trying to appeal to progressives, but you've already lost them.' I'm not sure he ever recovered from that."

In an interview after the UNC speech, Edwards finally utters the words he'd assiduously avoided during the last campaign: "I voted for the resolution," he says. "It was a mistake." So far, so good. But he goes on, "The hard question is, What do you do now? Looking back, it's easy to say that it was wrong and based on false information. Anybody who doesn't admit that isn't honest, and that's the truth." So what now? "I myself feel conflicted about it," Edwards replies. "But we have to find ways -- and I don't mean just yanking all the troops tomorrow -- but we have to find ways to start bringing our troops home. Our presence there is clearly contributing to the problem." So does he agree with Senator Russ Feingold that Washington should set a withdrawal deadline? "No. Even if we're going to say that internally, that we're gonna have our troops out by X date, there's no reason to announce that to the world. I think that's probably a mistake." He doesn't agree, either, with Senator Clinton's call for more U.S. troops to finish the job? "No sir!" Edwards says, sitting straight up in his chair. "Did she really say that?"

Three Lessons for Victory

Edwards steadfastly declines to revisit the last campaign. "If you don't mind," he says, "I'd rather talk about the future." But as he touts his antipoverty crusade and dissects the morass Democrats find themselves mired in, it is clear that Edwards has done some hard thinking about the lessons of 2004 -- and about the political opportunity that presented itself in the terrible wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Lesson One: Stop thinking small. "I think in our effort to be elected, we've become minimalists, tinkering around the edges -- Our tax cut is better than yours, or, We'll give you smaller class sizes," he says. "That's not what the country wants. We've got to give the American people something big and important to be unified by. Republicans use big things to divide America. I think we can use big things to unite America."

Chief among those "big things," clearly, is an all-out effort to conquer poverty. "Both sides bear responsibility for what's happened," he says. "During the Great Depression with Franklin Roosevelt, during the 1960s with Lyndon Johnson's great War on Poverty and Bobby Kennedy going through Appalachia -- we were the party that led the fight against poverty in this country. We've got to show some backbone and stand up for the folks who are struggling. We've done it in the past, but it's been a while."

Which brings us to Lesson Two: Democrats can't afford to keep ceding the "values vote." Here again, Edwards sees his antipoverty crusade as a step in the right direction. "In a country of our wealth, to have 37 million people living in poverty? It's a huge moral issue," he says. "There's a hunger in this country for a sense of national community, that we're not in this thing by ourselves. There's been a long period of selfish thinking. I think there's a great opportunity for us to be about a big, moral cause that's bigger than people's own self-interest."

But will that message fly among the evangelical voters who've twice put George W. Bush over the top? "Shoot," says Edwards. "I could go right now to just about any church in Alabama or Georgia and speak about poverty, and I know people will respond." Ferrel Guillory, a longtime political reporter who now runs the UNC Program on Southern Politics, Media and Public Life, says that might be -- in typical Edwards fashion -- a bit too optimistic. "Edwards is not going to appeal to the religious right," Guillory says. "But he could make a strong appeal to 'values voters' who are not hard-core conservatives."

Steve Jarding, the rural strategist who set fundraising records running Edwards's PAC in 2002 before leaving the campaign in frustration, thinks his moral spin on the "two Americas" message has real potential in Middle America. "Let's face it: There are millions of families sitting down at the table tonight, parents working two or three jobs and struggling to survive. Are they sitting there saying, Thank God two gay people aren't getting married? or, I'm so glad the girl down the street can't get an abortion? That's not what's tearing their families apart. If Edwards will stand up and tell them that, he could change the turf."

Lesson Three is also about changing the turf: Democrats, who've now lost every state in the nation's largest region in two straight elections, have to take their message south. "Look," Edwards says, "the fact is, if you lose the whole South, you've got almost no margin of error in the rest of the country. But it's more than that. We have to make it clear we've got a vision for the whole country, not just blue states."

Edwards won't criticize his 2004 running mate, Kerry, who declared even before the Democratic primaries that he believed a Democrat could win without going south -- and then tried to make good on that belief, pulling Democratic national money, along with the Southerner he tapped for Vice President, out of every Southern state but Florida. Bush ended up winning every Southern state -- except Edwards's North Carolina -- by a larger margin than in 2000. "If you were in a state like Alabama last year," Edwards acknowledges, "you didn't hardly know we were running."

Conventional wisdom says that an antipoverty, pro-labor campaign would be approximately as popular in the South as William Tecumseh Sherman (or Senator Kerry). But the new-model John Edwards is all about flouting conventional Democratic thinking. And Guillory, for one, believes economic populism can work in Dixie as textile mills and furniture factories continue to close down. "There's a heightened awareness of economic peril and dislocation in the South, resulting from shifts in the job market," he says. "There's a greater awareness that the affluence and growth has not been evenly distributed, that it's been a kind of creative destruction -- creating and destroying at the same time."

But Edwards has to broaden his focus beyond poverty to make his populist message a winner at the polls. "It's not just about the poor," says Pete MacDowell. "Where is he on healthcare, jobs policy, urban policy, immigration, creating jobs with alternative energy sources -- all these issues where the Democrats have just been saying and doing zero?"

Edwards says his New America Initiative will address the middle-class squeeze as well as poverty. But he thinks the key to Southern votes involves something that transcends policy positions. "These are the kinds of people that respond to strength and leadership," he says. "They want leaders who have the backbone to stand up for something. We're not Republicans. When we try to be some lighter version of what we are, which is what happens over and over, it's devastating to Democrats. Why would they choose us?"

Tough Questions, and the Next Challenge

For Democrats looking to 2008, of course, the question is somewhat different: Why choose Edwards? For all the cogency of his diagnosis of what ails the Democrats, and all the undeniable passion of his antipoverty campaign, even Edwards's admirers wonder whether he's chosen the right pilot program for "thinking big again." And even as he drowns those "insincerity" and "shallowness" whispers in a sea of noble intentions and bright proposals, Edwards still manages to revive the old, stubborn doubts.

Just before the Opportunity Rocks tour took flight, BusinessWeek Online broke the news that Edwards, who had been vowing to "pour everything I've got into this cause," had been hired as a "global consultant" for Fortress Investment Group, a global asset-management firm. So while he set out to inspire college students, Edwards found himself answering a fresh batch of hard questions. "This is another thing that I'm doing that'll take a relatively small amount of time," he protested after the UNC speech. "It's an opportunity for me to explore sort of what's happening with the global economy." Asked another hard question -- Is it realistic to talk about "eradicating" poverty? -- Edwards resorts to pie-in-the-sky. "Of course it's realistic," he says, flashing an incredulous look. "It's completely realistic. I don't see the eradication of poverty here in this country as this huge, mammoth thing."

Edwards is far more persuasive when asked whether his antipoverty campaign is just a political tool. "Look, to be honest, it's all very personal for me. I've seen everything, been everything, from poor to lower middle class, then regular middle class and then just skyrocketing, you know, when I was a lawyer. What happened to me is that I started thinking as I got older about this. I saw some of the people I'd grown up with going the other way, getting in trouble, having a really terrible time getting by. These were my friends when I was growing up and here I was, doing great. It was no great policy revelation, just a sense that something was wrong, that, Why am I the one who's gotten the good luck and they didn't?"

While Edwards insists that his latest campaign "ought to be nonpartisan," its success in keeping him in the national limelight will determine whether he can make a viable charge at Hillary Clinton in 2008. In one recent poll Clinton led the likely pack of Democratic contenders with 42 percent; Edwards was a distant second at 14. "I wouldn't put much stock in that, though," says Ferrel Guillory. "For all you read about Hillary Clinton, she's not scaring away contenders. She's going to lead in the polls right up till the primaries start, because she's the celebrity. But the people making her out to be inevitable are Republicans. They'd love nothing better, especially in the South."

Edwards has a leg up in a survey that may mean more. According to a Pew Center poll released in late October, his favorability rating among Democrats not only bests Hillary's, 68 to 59 percent, but even that of the original Clinton, Bill, who stands at 64. And while John Kerry's unfavorable rating is a sad 48 percent among the Democrats who just last year nominated him for President, Edwards's "unfavorable" is easily the lowest, at 32 -- and the survey showed he's the best liked, and least loathed, among Republicans and independents, too.

Up against Clinton II's New Democratic moderation, Edwards might end up grappling with a once-unthinkable perception of him as -- ye gods! -- an old-style liberal, more worried about the plight of poor black folk than struggling white folk. "His message has to make sense to middle-class voters," says Guillory. "He has to have the 'moral values' component, but he also has to be hardheaded. To be effective in terms of politics and poverty, you have to come at it counterintuitively. Clinton did that."

The time could be ripe for an economic populism that goes beyond Clinton's piecemeal approach. "Circumstances beyond John's control may have elevated his central issue of poverty to where it can catapult him politically," says Steve Jarding. "Those images from New Orleans, not unlike when the planes hit the towers in New York -- they'll be seared into people's minds for a while. America was embarrassed by it. We've been told for so long that the government is the enemy. Now people see that we need it; it's just not working."

Edwards's great challenge, finally, may be convincing the skeptical millions that he's the one who can make things work. "He's raised poverty to a presidential-level conversation for the first time in forty years," says Guillory. "You've got to give him credit for that. And given the shallowness of his experience in politics, the way he vaulted right over the lower rungs of the ladder -- it's an amazing story. But now that he's there, he's got to do more than make us laugh and make us cry. He's got to paint a clearer picture of where he's going to take the country."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Bob Moser, a former John S. Knight Fellow at Stanford University, is interim senior editor at The Nation.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
An excellent artical that asks good questions
Posted by: ShaSpirit on Nov 29, 2005 1:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I liked John Edwards when he ran for president and actually sent him money I really did not have. I still find him to be an honest man who cares about people. Maybe he has that same charisma that Bill Clinton does, but he lacks Bill's sexual baggage. When he speaks of being poor you know he was poor at one time. He is proving that he cares about poor people and trying to find ways to help them get ahead.

Some cynical people will say he is just doing this so he can run for president again. But he does not have the hang-ups many that many politicians have today. He is a Christian and can speak of his religion without appearing to be uncomfortable with it. The last two democratic Presidents have been from the South. It is amazing how people who care, put their money were their mouth is. I like this man and I would work hard for his election.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What I see here...
Posted by: Samantha Vimes on Nov 29, 2005 3:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is that he's *great* on domestic issues, on economics and social issues that both his personal and professional experiences inform him on. However, on global issues, he's inexperienced and underinformed. WIth a good team to help him, though, he could get past that and be a damn good president. It's a pity he didn't get made VP, because that would have been a great education on foreign affairs.

However, out of office, he seems to be finding his way quickly. I'd trust him to get it right more than most other politicians.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What I see here... Posted by: Pepper
» RE: What I see here... Posted by: Maryanne
» RE: What I see here... Posted by: simplisticton
A 21st Century R.F.K.?
Posted by: placid on Nov 29, 2005 4:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I entitled this 'A 21 century R.F.K." I'm certain the percentage of readership actually remembers R.F.K. Most certainly there was criticism for gaining a Senate seat the same seat Hillary Clinton hold today, This man, John Edwards, with his bursts of sunshine and anger at those in this administration who have left the people out of their plan. It feels as if they be fine if we disappeared. They certainly are not pro people. John Edwards is.While RFK came from privledge nevertheless he was able to reach the people.John Edwards does not come from privledge yet made a name for himself and endeared himself ,though second, on the ticket . He has the near boyish charm of RFK and both learned about politics not in the boardroms but by pressing the flesh. John Edwards for this era stands for a man who can appeal north and south. The country is tiring (with 3 years to go) of a secretive, corrupt,les than straight shooting cowboys the try to emulate. I know John Edwards is for the people ,will place jobs and true freedom first.If you were old enough to remember RFK they(Those who opposed him called him ruthless.) As te Attorney general he indeed go after the corruption. Certainly different eras but a winner is just that.John Edwards is going rally us.He has my vote in the primary and then lets move on to the convention and win there. Yes,clearly Edwards in 'O8.Watch.This is the candidate for we the people. Doubt me,o.k. But listen. Mary Basombrio aka Placid

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about Iraq?
Posted by: citizenjoe on Nov 29, 2005 4:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards is a very attractive person in many ways, but what about the war in Iraq? Both Clintons are supremacist nationalists. Both believe that there is no equality at all between the needs and interests of the American Republic and any other nation in the world, hence the rest of them can be raped and dominated and occupied in the name of the American national interest. Does Edwards reject this hidden form of racism or does he believe in the equality of nations as well as of individual human beings? That is a very big question to ask John Edwards

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What about Iraq? Posted by: earthmom11
» RE: What about Iraq? Posted by: Pepper
» RE: What about Iraq? Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: What about Iraq? Posted by: citizenjoe
» RE: What about Iraq? Posted by: Gma1
» RE: What about Iraq? Posted by: Gma1
» RE: What about Iraq? Posted by: citizenjoe
Edwards is our best hope
Posted by: reason on Nov 29, 2005 6:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards needs to address the middle class and blue collar workers as well as those in poverty. He needs to talk about the psychotic situation we are in. Business wants to charge the max for everything but expect the middle class to live on low wages.

The Republicans seem to think we can compete with those who earn $2 an hour and have a low cost of living.

If the layoffs continue, wonder who business think they will sell to? All these jobless, overcharged people?

I remember when a doctors office visit charge was a sixth of what it is now, without insurance. Most prescribed medicines were a lot less than the co-pays now.

The middle class is expected to pay the high college costs of their children (check them out) plus pay for these high priced homes and save for retirement. Plus they are enticed and requested to buy enough products with profits high enough to support the stock market. Cars costs more than homes used to.

If something is bought overseas at a low price, it is expensive by the time we get a shot at buying it. We don't stand a chance.

John Edwards is a winner. Choose Howard Dean as vice-president and the Republicans may as well stay home.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Edwards is our best hope Posted by: goldennugget
» RE: dwards is our best hope Posted by: crusty
Cornbread and Roses?
Posted by: rbohan on Nov 29, 2005 6:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the article was about an African-American man, would it be entitled, "Watermelon and Roses"? If it were about a Latino man, would it be entitled "Tacos and Roses"? If it were about a Jewish man, would it be entitled "Potato Knishes and Roses"?

I'm guessing not. Here's a tip from a Southern white male liberal to the rest of you liberals: It's not OK to stereotype us, just as it's not OK to stereotype any other group.

Condescension like that displayed by this article's title is why most Southerners don't like liberals. As much as we deny it, we tend to be elitist when it suits us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I like cornbread Posted by: sausage
» RE: I like cornbread Posted by: Safro
» RE: I like cornbread Posted by: mombot
» RE: Cornbread and Roses? Posted by: redfrog
» RE: Cornbread and Roses? Posted by: Snoopy Brown
» BREAD AND ROSES Posted by: BKLN
» RE: BREAD AND ROSES Posted by: mark24
» RE: BREAD AND ROSES Posted by: rbohan
» RE: BREAD AND ROSES Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: BREAD AND ROSES Posted by: rbohan
» RE: BREAD AND ROSES Posted by: fullavit@hotmail.com
» RE: Cornbread and Roses? Posted by: liberalibrarian
John, old man - ITES.
Posted by: gar on Nov 29, 2005 6:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ITES: "IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID." I admit, I think if I met John Edwards I would like him but I have flip-flopped on supporting him for president at least a dozen times now.

First of all, I don't like single issue candidates. Secondly, even though I feel he is sincere in what he says about eradicating poverty, I just can't shake the feeling that he wouldn't be nearly as interested in the cause if he weren't using it as a means to his own political ends. And finally, what is he offering the rest of us?

The middle-class is the backbone of this nation. In the last five years, the Republicans have piled up so much debt on our backs that our backbones are breaking. This is the issue Democrats should be addressing. If they don't, we won't be able to fight a war on poverty because we won't be able to afford amunition.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: John, old man - ITES. Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: John, old man - ITES. Posted by: Basenjis
» Edwards may be the Man. Posted by: grizzlytwolegs2
I saw Edwards at Sen. Tom Harkin's Steak Fry
Posted by: sausage on Nov 29, 2005 6:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And I must say I was pleasantly surprised by his "Two Americas" speech. I've attended Harkin's annual event in Indianola, IA for nearly twenty years. But I was reluctant to go this year, disappointed as I was in the Democratic Party's hand-wringing following yet another drubbing at the hands of the morally, ethically and ideologically bankrupt reactionary Republican Party in '04.

I did not support Edwards in his presidential bid because I perceived him to be another DLC pretty-boy. That speech on that hot September afternoon changed my thinking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We alll can help
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Nov 29, 2005 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He's got to paint a clearer picture of where he's going to take the country."
Besides "painting a clearer picture", he has to make sure that "where he is going to take the country" is where the majority wants to go. We, who are interested in the course our leadership will take us, can help to set this course for both parties. We shouldn't just wait until a politician guesses where we want to go, and then say yes or no with our votes. We should tell both parties before the election just what we think is important. And make them take a stand on these issues. Instead of voting for candidates that we support; we will vote for candidates who support us. Make a difference

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Dems are part of the problem
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Nov 29, 2005 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democrats are just as much to blame for this fiasco as the Republicans. Not one of them stood against giving the power to wage war fullly to the President under the guise of
terrorist attack. The Dems started a war on poverty back in the 60's. What looked good in the press,in reality was'nt.
Folks that lived in the poor districts saw their neighborhoods raised to make room for shopping malls that the former residents could'nt even shop at. Where were they sent? Into projects that were poorly maintained and were more like 'cells' for the poor than a home. 100 million people did not vote in the last election. They are the 'True Patriots'. They saw
the offer and realized it was'nt any good. They showed the courage of non-support for a corrupt system. They also
represent the largest potiental for real honest change.
If you swallow the crap 'If you don't vote,you can't complain' and walk lockstep with the two most corrupt
organizations on the Planet, Then my friend you are part of the problem. The solution is 100 million strong and counting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Edwards is a thin record upstart, not a president
Posted by: lamar on Nov 29, 2005 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John Edwards is not the guy the Democratic party needs. He comes in the senate and less than one term later thinks he's ready for the presidency. He made a fortune in the ambulance chasing business. Yeah, I know, he only took cases where babies were hurt by Bush-supporting doctors and crusaded against evil madmen. Those of us who are lawyers know how medical malpractice really works. If Edwards were ugly, nobody would be talking about him because his record kind of stinks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Please elucidate... Posted by: sausage
» RE: Please elucidate... Posted by: lamar
» RE: Some specifics Posted by: duck-lady
» RE: Some specifics Posted by: lamar
People Won't Buy This Millionaire's Act
Posted by: fairleft on Nov 29, 2005 10:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America is hardened and angry, primarily about Iraq (where were you, Mr. Edwards?) but also about the impoverishment of vast percentages of our society, the health care system disgrace and the pearl-necklace wearing don't care Democrat and Republican parties who've done nothing but fatten their bank accounts and make things worse over the last 25 years.

We don't need a kinder gentler Republican-lite. We need honest righteous anger and someone who comes over as honest, real, and gritty. And yeah, not so pretty, and... NO MORE MILLIONAIRES!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Creepy, But Probably A Good Candidate
Posted by: Snoopy Brown on Nov 29, 2005 11:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
During the elections, I found Edwards to be, frankly, kind of creepy. The "all-Americanness", the "wholesomeness", the "down home folksiness" was all so exaggerated that it made me squirm with embarrassment. His little homilies about when he was a child had leapt out of the homespun end of the pool into the deep end of saccharine sentimentality. My teeth ached.

But, damn it, if he gets changes made that positively affect peoples' lives, if he pushes them to re-examine their politics and consciences, and if he is prepared to stand up for what's honest and decent when it comes to the crunch, I'll back him to the hilt regardless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He Does Listen
Posted by: Sandra on Nov 29, 2005 11:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am from North Carolina and I had a chance to visit Edwards in Washington DC when he was our senator. He held regular meetings for his constituents from North Carolina. You could ask any question and he or his staff would answer you. I was impressed. He thinks quickly on his feet. He showed real interest and empathy to varied concerns and issues. There was a real mix of people at this particular meeting. His staff were courteous and very knowledgeable. I was interested in environmental issues and was impressed with the thoughtful responses to everyone's questions. I do believe that he cares about people. I do believe that he has the ability to be a great president. He just needs to be able to get to the people to hear their concerns. I fear that the Democratic establishment will do everything they can to undermine him. I place far greater trust in a man who has been poor and grown up in the real world, than I do the privileged people who try to understand issues for real people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: He Does Listen Posted by: maxpayne
Economic populism
Posted by: BKLN on Nov 29, 2005 1:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article. Opportunity Rocks? THAT rocks! If Dem Party leaders read this, it offers them a challenge to get it right in 2008. Hillary? Please God help us, no. What a mistake that would be. I hope she understands that early on in the process and refuses to run. Personally, the Democrats I've enjoyed listening to lately are Gore, Dean, Edwards and Hackett. Solid earth Dems who have some smarts about them. More of that please!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: conomic populism Posted by: Basenjis
Here's an Idea, John: Massive Tax Increase on the Rich
Posted by: fairleft on Nov 29, 2005 1:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to reverse the Reagan-Clinton-Bush tax breaks and redistribute income to the middle and bottom of our society. Look up the numbers: the way we taxed and distributed income from the 30s till the mid-70s was better for the economy and equality. So what's the problem, let's get those 70% income tax rates on the rich again.

Not holding my breath waiting for anything like this from Edwards. Till we do, I'll see his 'good listener/I care' routine as just an act to rope in the gullible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thomas Frank does mention a bit about Edwards in the 2005 paperback edition of
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 29, 2005 1:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"What's the Matter with Kansas?" Interesting how he puts it in perspective that even the slightest hint of economic populism was silenced from Edwards by the "establishment" Democrats. Then again, even if he were the nominee, much of the same would have happened to him though we wouldn't be forced to listen to Kerry's Vietnam and Swift Boat Scumbugs in a presidential election.

P.S.: Thomas Frank on C-SPAN said he chose John Edwards during the presidential primaries though he admired Dean and reluctantly voted for Kerry by Nov 2004.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And by the way, don't forget the presidential voting results in Edwards's home state:
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 29, 2005 1:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From uselectionatlas.org

2004:

Democrat 1,525,849 43.6%
Republican 1,961,166 56.0%
Other 13,992 0.4%

2000:

Democrat 1,257,692 43.2%
Republican 1,631,163 56.0%
Independent 0 0.0%
Other 22,407 0.8%

Now I will say that even after writing off NC, John Kerry did get more votes than Gore but unfortunately never crossed Bush's 2000 number. Edwards may very well do better in 2008 but it's truly hard to say that he'd win his home state. He's only slightly better than Kerry on framing the issues and the debate and being able to hold on to his ideas and not drop them no matter what his adversaries try to make of them through a phony poll or the rightwing media in general.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iced Tea and Shade Trees
Posted by: reason on Nov 29, 2005 2:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iced Tea and Shade Trees. How is that for a heading? It reminds me of the South. So do front porches and porch swings. I spent many happy hours visiting with friends and family under the shade trees sipping iced tea, before we were enticed into going to work and leave our babies. ha (Actually, it was air conditioning that changed that, but the other was more dramatic!)

I think we take words much too seriously. I am all for putting Christ back into Christmas and I refuse to take the blame as a Democrat for taking it out. I like the nativity scenes and I want them back. The way I remember, it was businesses that didn't want to offend the muslims and the jewish and others who don't believe that Jesus is our savior. Businesses decided to eliminate Chistmas and use holidays instead. I think Christmas is too commercial, but it is supposed to be for celebrating the birth of Christ.

My Sunday school teacher taught us that we shouldn't write Xmas, because we are leaving Christ out. I think of that when I hear of holiday trees and happy holidays. I am more spiritual than religious and am pretty laid back. I don't want to intrude on anyone else's beliefs, but I want the right to have mine and celebrate them.

Now, they are not teaching about the American Revolution or the Civil War in school. They aren't in some of the history books. I think they want this country to be generic and be Bushes dream of "A great country to do business".

Instead of raising the standards for those in other counties, we are having our standards lowered. What a mess these know-it- all, strutting, republicans and republican lites have made of everything. We need to put some grownups in the White house and the halls of power. People with common sense.

They are saying that no American will do the work that the immigrants do. Offer a decent wage and see how many apply. Roofing used to be a decent job in our area, but now they hire illegal immigrants for lower wages.

We have many hills to climb to straighten out these messes, but it can be done. Anyway, there are great postings and great people on here. Merry Christmas

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Iced Tea and Shade Trees Posted by: Snoopy Brown
ARE YOU ALL OUT OF YOUR HEADS?
Posted by: magistre on Nov 29, 2005 2:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The people that run this country will (most probably) keep "their boy" in office "in perpetuity". And if they don't, they will be behind whoever is "elected". Everyone in this country needs to understand: There is no free ride! There never was. To have a truly free country you've got to get off your backsides,put the gameboy down, put the cellphone down and actually get out there and work at getting an honest goevernment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Votes against 2002 Iraq resolution
Posted by: reason on Nov 29, 2005 2:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A lot of Democrats voted yes to give Bush more leverage to push Saddam into cooperating. They say they didn't think Bush would actually go to war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Re: edwards better than what we have now...
Posted by: lamar on Nov 29, 2005 2:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
True, Edwards beats what we have now, heck, Lassie beats what we have now. And as to Pepper: I see your point. John Kerry was almost inhumane with how vetted he was. BTW: I don't talk about GW Bush because we all know he's a complete incompetent.
We need a moderate progressive with a McCain "no bullshit" style, and a record which assures people of his ideals. Who is this person? I dunno....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Correct me if I am wrong
Posted by: reason on Nov 29, 2005 2:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....the income levels for food stamps and medicaide are at the same levels they were in 1965.

If you mean the same amount of money and no cost of living increases, then if you figure 3% a year for inflation, that makes it worth 120% less. Plus, the buying power of the dollar has went down in other ways, so that should be figured into it, too.

If you spend the same amount of money but something costs more, then you can't buy as much of it. Get my drift?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lawyers
Posted by: reason on Nov 29, 2005 3:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lawyers are wonderful to see when you are setting in a courtroom and the prosecution has a case against you, I have heard. We need lawyers.

The last account I had, the lawyer gets one third in cases like Edwards does. Most of us could not afford to pay a lawyer by the hour or upfront. The lawyer takes the risk of not earning a penny, because if you lose, you don’t pay him. If you win, you pay him one third of your compensation. It is a good deal for those who want justice and aren't wealthy.

I have always thought the McDonald’s spilled coffee was staged by the insurance companies. It shouldn’t have gotten in court, unless there was more to it than I heard. People need a way to get justice if a drunk doctor causes the death of their child or an idiot doctor cuts off the good leg. Autistic children will need extra care all their life and need to be compensated for by those who kept putting mercury in shots. (doctors are wonderful too, but some of them can ruin your life)

I am glad we have lawyers like John Edwards. The lawsuits are designed to make the Doctors be more careful too. It is a pure form of justice for all. Business hate malpractice suits, but they make the world a lot safer because they don't want to be sued for faulty products.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lawyers Posted by: Basenjis
I'll support him again!
Posted by: the republic on Nov 29, 2005 6:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've had the pleasure of dealing with Edwards when he was our senator. I found him to be genuine and well informed.
I want someone with working class sensibilities in the White House - look at where the spoiled frat boy now has us! John Edwards has risen to the top by being gifted and working hard, but I know he never forgets where he came from.
In 2004, Rove was not the only person who feared Edwards. The Clintonista's funded Clark to take the wind out of Edwards sails in the South, to secure Hillary's shot in 2008.
Tellingly, very few Dem mainstays (unions, teachers, etc.) supported Edwards - they went Kerry early on.
Perhaps because Edward's vision would require country club Dems to actually deliver, for a change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"lust for the twithouse"
Posted by: jzito45 on Nov 29, 2005 6:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article was very informative, but...all this guy wants to do is become the next president. I would respect him more if he was up front about it, rather than using philanthopy to mask his dirty little secret (lust for the "Whitehouse")

Fighting poverty seems like a great way to mobilize "lower income voters." But if John Edwards really cared about poverty, he'd be somewhere in South America building houses...etc. This is not about poverty, its about some guys bullshit act that has brought him lots of money, but hasnt satified his desire to become powerful.

No shit sherlock

Ever hear the saying "never tell a lie when you can bullshit your way through it?" Edwards must have grown up on that principle, it's the reason this appealing candidate's record is so clean. He's not really lying to America, he's just bullshiting. Fine.

But I would respect him more if he lied. It takes more balls to lie, because you must acknowledge the truth (in your mind) and utter something that you know to be false, with the intention of decieving. A real man steps up and faces the truth, whether or not he perptuates it decides if he's a good or a bad man.

But John Edward and his bullshit act are neither. And untill he confesses his dirty little secret to us and the rest of the people he's supposedly trying to help, he'll remain what he so clearly is (like most politicians) to the eyes and ears of the american public....just another pile of poo.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "lust for the twithouse" Posted by: jzito45
» RE: "lust for the twithouse" Posted by: iamdazey
» RE: "lust for the twithouse" Posted by: jzito45
» RE: "lust for the twithouse" Posted by: jzito45
» RE: "lust for the twithouse" Posted by: iamdazey
» RE: "lust for the twithouse" Posted by: iamdazey
» RE: "lust for the twithouse" Posted by: A. James
» RE: "lust for the twithouse" Posted by: jzito45
» RE: "lust for the twithouse" Posted by: A. James
How About No More Kerry-Lite?
Posted by: janfairchild on Nov 29, 2005 7:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John Kerry was never my idea of a representative Democratic candidate in the first place! John Kerry is better, but I want Howard Dean for President in 2008!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TRC
Posted by: TRC on Nov 29, 2005 8:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Beside the concern about whether Edwards can pull the Democratic Party to the left to become a truely progressive party again, in our current corrupt money buys power campain system, is the very, very, very, real problem of unvarifiable electronic voting machines. Those of us paying attention are aware of massive voter fraud in 2000, 2002, and 2004 relating to these abominations. There is no doubt (as exit polls have shown) that it does matter what the true vote is - its how its counted. That the Republicans slid in these machines (created by companies allied with the GOP) to subvert the last vestige of American democracy - the vote - should inspire no less than rebellion!
So, excuse me for not getting excited about Edwards' real or imagined lean to the left.
I recommend that Alternet readers do a web search for Black Box Voting or check out Mark Crispin Miller's newest book, or many of the writtings of Greg Palast (blogger) to learn more about the greatest obstruction to democracy in the US.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TRC
Posted by: TRC on Nov 29, 2005 8:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Beside the concern about whether Edwards can pull the Democratic Party to the left to become a truely progressive party again, in our current corrupt money buys power campain system, is the very, very, very, real problem of unvarifiable electronic voting machines. Those of us paying attention are aware of massive voter fraud in 2000, 2002, and 2004 relating to these abominations. There is no doubt (as exit polls have shown) that it does matter what the true vote is - its how its counted. That the Republicans slid in these machines (created by companies allied with the GOP) to subvert the last vestige of American democracy - the vote - should inspire no less than rebellion!
So, excuse me for not getting excited about Edwards' real or imagined lean to the left.
I recommend that Alternet readers do a web search for Black Box Voting or check out Mark Crispin Miller's newest book, or many of the writtings of Greg Palast (blogger) to learn more about the greatest obstruction to democracy in the US.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you think I'm being too senstitive about the stereotyping of Southerners...
Posted by: rbohan on Nov 30, 2005 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read this column in today's Cleveland Plain Dealer. (May require registration.)

http://www.cleveland.com/search/
index.ssf?/base/opinion/
1133343239258910.xml?ocbre&coll=2&thispage=1

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Netroots doing an injustice
Posted by: Marjorie G on Dec 3, 2005 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kerry's supposed negatives, which the Nation seems to write in every story, are a result of our huber-lefty netroots and and alternative media holding back approval during the campaign when it counted in a very uphill fight in time of war, impacting the popular vote. Maybe even the electoral vote, of those not lost electronically. The not liking him for losing.

Kind of like deconstructing Kerry, and then not liking their creation. He was presenting as anti-war and progressive face he could and still get elected in a campaign of fear by the other side, and still may have won. Wish our new media educated more big picture, rather than use emotion to sway, just like the other side.

I like Edwards and wish him well on the issue of poverty. I've been collecting everything written about Katrina and its aftermath, and how our priorities and policies were supposed to change. Then all the stories about mishandling, unkept promises, and business as usual.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kerry known for integrity
Posted by: Marjorie G on Dec 3, 2005 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Known for integrity and decades of good works, his Kerry-Wellstone amendment on camapign-finance reform was a lot tougher than the watered down McCain-Feingold. There was a lot of misinformation about our candidates in the last election, most sown during the primary fight which continues today. A national win during those circumstances took a lot more playing the marghins than Kerry, or any us, would have wanted. But getting the presidency is for the tough and realistic, and we need a grassroots base as savvy and tough as the challenge.

Kerry has fought against corporate media consolidation, and that had a lot to do with the view and what happened in the last election. Viacom's Redstone admitted he wanted Bush in the aftermath of the CBS National Guard story.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I do not understand
Posted by: Hamdiyah on Dec 3, 2005 11:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What about the title makes this a Southern, white stereotype? Is cornbread a part of the Southern, white culture alone, did it start there? Isn't cornmeal made from corn? Who introduced corn to the early settlers?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Edwards may be just what the Doctor offered!
Posted by: grizzlytwolegs2 on Dec 3, 2005 2:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John Edwards may be a drank horse candidate, but he is the first candidate that talks and sounds like a real Democrat running for President in 2008.
The American Community as a whole is the central issue of this next Presidential contest, and starting with poverty is the right first step at this time. John Edwards is showing real leadership skills and good judgement.
I'm going to stay in tuned to John Edwards and hope lots of folks do the same.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A wistful thought...
Posted by: porgygirl on Dec 3, 2005 3:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm of mixed feelings about Edwards, but I appreciate that he's articulate. It blows my mind that our current president can't form a coherent sentence on the fly, or even read a damn speech without sounding like he's not sure what the words mean.

Anyway, I'm more than ready to vote for somebody who can speak intelligently and persuasively about issues I care about. And I'm not sure who the people who criticize Edwards for being cravenly ambitious are planning to vote for instead... Chauncey Gardener? Who runs for President (or VP) without being an ambition hound?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All I know is
Posted by: popsicle67 on Dec 3, 2005 7:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John Edwards is a lawyer. He made his money by getting his first after he took some doctor for everything. He only cares about billable hours and as with all lawyers he confuses having negotiable morals with pragmatism. He is another in a long line of politicians that is better off in prison. I say search harder for competent leadership.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: All I know is Posted by: GreenDemocrat
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement