Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

John Edwards: 'Poverty Is Personal'

By Peter Dreier and John Atlas, AlterNet. Posted May 8, 2006.


The former vice-presidential candidate has resurrected his 'two Americas' platform for a possible bid for the White House in 2008.

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:
Hard to Believe: 73 U.S. Kids Sentenced to Life Without Parole at 14 or Younger, and All 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 Peter Dreier John Atlas

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

In a walnut-paneled conference room in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, John Edwards sat in the same chair at a small round table for two days taking copious notes, as panels of policy wonks expounded on new approaches to fight poverty.

In the age of George W., Wal-Mart, and free market ideology, few public officials or candidates for office have much to say about the persistence of poverty in the world's wealthiest nation. Yet here was the 52-year-old Edwards, calculating whether and how to run for president, at a two-day seminar on poverty that, while attracting 200 people, really had only one student.

The March conference was sponsored by the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina, a research institute Edwards founded last year after his defeat as the Democratic vice presidential candidate in November 2004.

Edwards told the conferees, "When I spoke on the campaign trail about the two Americas, people called it a downer." The former Senator from North Carolina had anchored his 2004 presidential campaign with the "two Americas" theme about the nation's widening economic divide. Once Kerry invited him to join his ticket as his running mate, Edwards had to downplay what some pundits called his "class war" rhetoric, but which he insisted was more about reconciliation and reform.

Now Edwards has not only resurrected the rhetoric, but has pinned his hopes for the White House on a strategy of connecting to the nation's grassroots activists. Since January 2005, he has visited 34 states and three foreign countries talking about the two Americas. In key swing states like Ohio, Iowa, Arizona, Michigan, and Nevada, Edwards has joined Maud Hurd, president of the activist group ACORN, to promote grassroots campaigns to raise the minimum wage. At each stop Edwards said, "I am strongly committed to moving people out of poverty and into the middle class," and "One of most important things we can do is help families earn more money at work."

He has fired up crowds at union rallies in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago and Boston as part of a campaign to raise wages and benefits for hotel workers. At a union rally in Chicago, he said, "The best anti-poverty strategy is a strong labor movement."

He has joined a campaign by Unite Here, the union of hotel, restaurant and apparel workers, to pressure hotels around the nation to improve wages for not just 90,000 unionized hotel workers, but also for more than a million nonunion hotel workers. "Can we still really call America the land of opportunity when hotel workers who work full time for profitable hotel companies cannot afford to make ends meet?" Edwards said. "This is not just unjust. It is immoral, and we need to do something about it."

In a speech in Baton Rouge, La., he said Hurricane Katrina made the poor "impossible to ignore."

Rebuilding Society

As Edward honed his stump speech, a main theme has become, "We must keep America's promise of opportunity for all. We must build a working society -- an America where everyone who works hard finally has the rewards to show for it."

Edwards' riff echoes Bill Clinton's campaign theme that, "Any American willing to work hard and play by the rules should have a chance to get ahead." But Edwards' willingness to work alongside unions and groups like ACORN puts him closer to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. It also connects him to the kind of politics that Bobby Kennedy embraced when he built a campaign coalition that included civil rights groups, labor unions, and the poor, and would have catapulted him to the White House, had he not been killed in 1968.

Work is at the core of Edwards' vision. Work should lead to personal and tangible assets including home ownership, savings for retirement, and a college education for one's children. Work must pay fairly. And it should strengthen families, a proposition that Edwards' hopes will make it harder to label him a knee-jerk liberal.

"It is wrong when boys and young men father children, but don't care for them. It is wrong when girls and young women bear children that they aren't ready to care for," Edwards says, "And it is wrong when all Americans see this happening and do nothing to stop it."

Edwards is still figuring out how to frame his poverty message. On the one hand, he wants to make poverty a moral issue and appeal to the conscience of middle-class America.

"Whether it's a poverty event, a political event, a fundraising event, whatever, my purpose for being there is trying to raise awareness and get people engaged in what is a great moral issue," Edwards says. He says poverty has also become a "very personal" issue. "It's what I care most about besides my family." On the other hand, he recognizes that a growing number of middle-class Americans face economic insecurity and are worried about their jobs, their pensions and their health insurance. Any road to the White House must address those concerns and fears.

Questions and Answers

The North Carolina conference was not a political event. No one even hinted that the experts assembled for the two-day wonk-fest were there to help Edwards refine his stump speech or develop a policy agenda for a White House run. Indeed, Edwards peppered the scholars and practitioners with questions that revealed that he was already familiar with most of their statistics and policy suggestions.

He was looking for ways of communicating those ideas to a broad public and opinion leaders who might be skeptical of his populist platform. At the end of a panel on the privatization of household-level financial risk, for example, Edwards asked, "When you propose broad-based social policy programs, critics say all you're doing is putting a burden on the American economy and making it like Europe's welfare state that is presently having great difficulty. How would you respond to that? On the issue of the privatization of risk, could you comment specifically on the privatization of social security and health savings accounts?"

Edwards is positioning himself to the left of Senator Hillary Clinton, fellow southerner Mark Warner (former governor of Virginia), and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. Edwards shares many qualities with Bill Clinton -- his Southern charm, his firm grasp of policy details, his wide-ranging intellect, his up-from-poverty personal story, and his law degree. But he wants to avoid the political and policy traps that ensnared Clinton from almost the day he entered the White House.

After the Democratic-controlled Congress failed to support his plan for a major public works plan and universal health insurance, Bill Clinton redefined his party's center by claiming that "the era of big government is over." Clinton presided over an unprecedented period of economic growth, which -- along with policies such as an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit and a raise in the minimum wage -- helped reduce the poverty rate in the 1990s to its lowest in a generation. By the end of the decade, the economy had generated enough jobs to provide work for most women who had been pushed off public assistance by Clinton's controversial welfare reform.

But the Bush era has reversed those positive trends. The working families who embraced Clinton's new covenant of "personal opportunity and responsibility," got more responsibility and less opportunity. The Bush recession and the jobless recovery exacerbated poverty and hardship. In 2004, according to the most recent figures, 37 million American lived below the official poverty line, an increase of 5 million since Bush took office. But the new economy has also put a growing number of middle-class families in jeopardy, as workers at Delphi, GM, and other companies are now feeling.

At the Chapel Hill conference, Edwards and the speakers explored policy ideas to "make work pay," promote child care, job creation, job training, affordable health care, and decent housing, and repair social insurance that protect people through retirement and sickness. They discussed the impact of increasing the minimum wage and strengthening union organizing rights. They examined specific policies that would not only increase poor families' incomes, but also their assets and future prospects. They suggested ideas to help low-income people buy homes, and use tax credits to encourage savings accounts.

Edwards heard a number of policy experts note that US poverty definition (currently about $20,000 for a family of four) does not take into account widely different costs of living in different parts of the US, primarily due to variations in housing costs. A family of four living on that income in Boston is much worse off than a family with the same income living in Boise. One suggestion for addressing these geographic disparities was to add a housing component to the popular Earned Income Tax Credit -- the nation's most effective antipoverty program, which provides an income supplement for working poor families. The housing component would vary based on local housing costs -- higher in Seattle than in St. Louis, for example.

Several scholars bolstered Edward's themes by pointing to racial and class disparities in family assets, including home equity and other savings, a topic that receives less attention than those disparities in income. Several speakers used the phase, "Income is used to get by, but assets provide the means to climb ahead."

Caring About the Poor

It has always been safe for politicians to care about the poor in America, so long they confine it to the noblesse oblige of the George Bushes and the rich who support volunteers at homeless shelters and soup kitchens. Now here comes Edwards, searching to define the next New Deal in an era of globalization. He supports an increase the national minimum wage, local living wage laws that impose even higher wages on companies that receive government subsidies, strong labor laws that level the playing field between business and unions, and protections for middle class families from the insecurities of corporate downsizing and outsourcing. In his stump speech, Edwards lashes out against the greed of big tobacco, big pharmaceutical companies, big insurance companies, big broadcasters and Big Oil.

He says the US should be embarrassed at being ranked first in poverty. Whether or not Edwards wins his party's nomination, his presence in the campaign will help shift the debate to a stronger focus on social injustice. No doubt he is already hearing from political consultants, editorial writers and many of the Democratic Party's corporate funders who say that resurrecting the moral idealism of Bobby Kennedy is no way to win the White House.

But with a fire in his belly that seems genuine, Edwards hopes to prove that promoting an agenda of prosperity, opportunity and compassion can win the hearts and minds of America's affluent, its beleaguered middle class, and the working poor. If he's correct, the son of a mill worker might become the next president of the United States.

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

Peter Dreier, professor of politics at Occidental College, is coauthor of "The Next Los Angeles: The Struggle for a Livable City" and "Place Matters: Metropolitics for the 21st Century." John Atlas is a legal services attorney and president of the National Housing Institute.

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:
Worst article ever
Posted by: nbrown on May 8, 2006 12:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry to be a downer, but this article sucks.

It focuses almost solely on what John Edwards says, giving no attention to what he does.

And his record is virtually indistinguishable from Bush's. Since I don't like their policies, I don't like the politicians.

Seriously, why is alternet printing this garbage?

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

» RE: Worst article ever Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Worst article ever Posted by: nbrown
» RE: Worst article ever Posted by: JNC
» nbrown garbage Posted by: monkopotamus
» Lincoln fan is a stroke Posted by: monkopotamus
» RE: Lincoln fan is a stroke Posted by: gonzoskismet
» RE: Lincoln fan is a stroke Posted by: nbrown
» RE: Worst article ever Posted by: nbrown
good article (despite previous comment entirely)
Posted by: LeDiablePlaisant on May 8, 2006 12:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rhetoric & the run-away

In a speech in Baton Rouge, La., he said Hurricane Katrina made the poor "impossible to ignore."

-proposes that people were ignoring them
-accuses the american public of a violence of the soul
-that they are accustomed to
-in a bad way
-from the democratic party

-Bill Clinton
-Robert F. Kennedy

"It is wrong when boys and young men father children, but don't care for them. It is wrong when girls and young women bear children that they aren't ready to care for," Edwards says, "And it is wrong when all Americans see this happening and do nothing to stop it."

-thy neighbor as thyself is always a touchy issue.
-morality is about difference. noone can deny this.
-it is divisive.

"Whether it's a poverty event, a political event, a fundraising event, whatever, my purpose for being there is trying to raise awareness and get people engaged in what is a great moral issue," Edwards says. He says poverty has also become a "very personal" issue. "It's what I care most about besides my family." On the other hand, he recognizes that a growing number of middle-class Americans face economic insecurity and are worried about their jobs, their pensions and their health insurance. Any road to the White House must address those concerns and fears.

-you let the question arise
-albeit it admirably
-as to whether you have experienced poverty 'personally'
-and so your detractors will inevitably
-say that you are trying to assume 'credit'
-where 'credit' is not due.
-this undermines your credibility
-while demonstrating your proper intent
-to the constituency
-there remains always the question "well what does poverty mean to him?"
-it gets people to think and it raises awareness, but
-it is seen as divisive
-and does not speak to
-THE VOTING PUBLIC AT-LARGE

*

-The tenets of Populism are based on privacy and security
-at the same time.

-Terrorism has brilliantly undermined this.

-it's a dicey issue in that they've made a name for it
-but you might as well make it a point to speak to everyone
-if you're going to run on morality and not comprehensiveness

-i.e. Al Gore with any charm (charisma) at all would have won.

*

i guess basically what i'm saying is anybody that knows John Edwards please forward this to him and tell him to change his slogan to "Which America?" so that people don't have to foggify about what half of america they are FROM and can think about which america they WANT, and can focus on the future?

please?

populism and whatnot. fossil fuels sadly sagging. 75 bucks to fill up a gasoline hearse. more than a symbol now.

-lpd

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

The Internet Is Being Compromised
Posted by: bodo on May 8, 2006 1:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The last refuge of free speech is on its way out, both covertly and legislatively. Google and Yahoo can not be trusted. If we don't all come together on this one, we will permanently lose our ability to come together on anything else in the future.

AlterNet, it is your responsibility as well as that of every other aspiring free citizen of the modern world to devote focused attention to what is happening here.

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

Congratulations to Edwards
Posted by: kgs1947 on May 8, 2006 3:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Congratulations to Edwards to taking such a powerful stance. However, all the Democratic and Independent candidates are going to have to fess up to why they have not spoken out during this current administration's horrific domestic and foreign policies.

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

It's their job...
Posted by: AlanSmithee on May 8, 2006 3:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...to pimp democrat candidates. And certainly Alternet wouldn't want to draw attention to what these candidates actually do! Rhetoric is far more important than actions.

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

» RE: It's their job... Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: It's their job... Posted by: chere
» Do VS Say Posted by: AlanSmithee
» RE: Do VS Say Posted by: zvirgil2
» RE: Do VS Say Posted by: AlanSmithee
» What he does Posted by: DataDoc
Hillary lovers
Posted by: rsaxto on May 8, 2006 4:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Hillary Clinton continues stuck on the Republican right wing of the Democrat spectrum all of us former Hillary lovers need to dump her and push real Democrats like Edwards and Feingold for only they and those like them still believe in democracy. And we need to impeach the dumb, goofy and criminal elements in the White House.

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

A Great Opportunity
Posted by: Lincoln fan on May 8, 2006 4:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whether or not Edwards wins his party's nomination, his presence in the campaign will help shift the debate to a stronger focus on social injustice.

This is the false hope that third parties are based on. That is, that even though they lose they have an influence. The truth is that if they don't win their influence is negative. If a third party doesn't win, its platform is put on the list of "losing strategies".

No doubt he is already hearing from political consultants, editorial writers and many of the Democratic Party's corporate funders who say that resurrecting the moral idealism of Bobby Kennedy is no way to win the White House.

This should alert one and all that the Democratic Party and the editors of the powerful mainstream media are firmly in the camp of corporate funders. The political consultants are expressing a belief that the establishment can't be beaten. They are advising the Party to once again campaign as "Republican Lite: The Lesser of the Evils"

Just as our government is supposed to work for all of the citizens, the platforms of both parties should reflect the issues of the people. If they don't, the people shouldn't vote for them. What good is your vote if the choice is between the lesser of the evils?

Join The Lincoln Initiative; make "government of the people, by the people and for the people" a reality. Click on Join us today

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

He could do it.
Posted by: Longdream on May 8, 2006 5:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We could do it.

In 1929 the bottom fell out of this country's economy. In the years following, midwestern farm families, made destitute by drought, took to the roads to survive as the original migrant workers, and swelled the ranks of the the 25% urban unemployment.

When he was elected in 1932, FDR, an American aristocrat, assembled from the four corners a vigorous group of creative populist minds to advise him about how to create jobs, take care of the destitute and re-invigorate the country. His legislation was challenged at every step, but the people were solidly behind him.

That's the image that this vignette about Edwards evokes for me. Never mind Bill Clinton. And let's not discuss RFK.

There's a famous photograph of JFK and his brother, the Attorney General. It was in Life magazine. They're sitting watching a television, and on it is supposedly images of a violent struggle in which black students are beset by a fire hose. I remember my father looking at it and saying in disgust, "Look at this. Do they think they're watching the Hallmark Hall of Fame?"

The big civil-rights-advocating-stand-up-for-your-brother Attorney General stood up for his brother, all right. He didn't send the National Guard until he was shamed into it, because he and JFK didn't want to offend the southern base.

It's been so long since I've seen anyone connected with the Presidency of the United States steep himself or herself deeply in the thinking on an issue that I forgot it could be done. It's a long road to the White House in these interesting times. God help him.

And in news from another part of the forest, John Kerry was in Grinnell, Iowa yesterday. ::shudder::

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

» RE: He could do it. Posted by: gonzoskismet
What Could Be...
Posted by: Stonecutter on May 8, 2006 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I met Edwards for 30 seconds last year at the end of his speech at the Campaign for America's Future Conference in DC. I had a chance to look into his face close up, into his eyes, and see if he was the real deal, in comparison to his well-crafted populist rhetoric. Aside from his obvious charisma, I came away believing that he just might be the real deal, a truly committed, genuine guy whose own background and experiences are fueling his political journey.

Of course, I could be dead wrong, just as many of us were about Kerry. I thought Kerry was the guy I saw in 1971, instead of the pompous windbag and dissembler he bacame in 2004, not to mention his excruciating capitulation on election day. So I'm very skeptical, but Edwards at least holds up the possibility that in an era of profound artifice, slick propoganda and cynical corruption, there might be a guy who's running because he actually believes in transforming things from the bottom up.

The last time this happened was in 1968 with RFK, and before that with LBJ in 1964, and of course 70 years ago during FDR's New Deal. For the past 25 years, the GOP has been trying every tactic to dismantle that New Deal and every one of it's components...the past 5 years have been the absolute worst example of a strategy to "starve the beast" through titanic deficit spending, trade deficits and shrinking entitlements, and it has been working. Now along comes Edwards in the 2004 campaign, in which he did surprisingly well with his consistent message of "Two Americas", and again in his current incarnation as a poverty guru and union advocate.

It would be sweet justice if a guy like him could begin to actually transform the collective conscience and moral compass of the nation through his message of social justice and fairness, and "lifting all boats". One thorny issue he will have to face is the cancer of illegal immigration, in the context of it's demonstrable drain on the tax base and it's immense social cost.

If estimates of a $70 billion annual tax drain from the absence of taxation of these immigrants and their consumption of taxpayer-funded social services is not addressed, than Edward's rhetoric will have a hole in it the size of the Grand Canyon. Nevertheless, I'd like to see him out there speaking truth to power, and giving the empty Democratic suits a run for their money. To me, he's the anti-Hillary, which already gives him a leg up.

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

» RE: What Could Be... Posted by: Longdream
» RE: What Could Be... Posted by: mrexcellerator
really?
Posted by: daniel1982 on May 8, 2006 7:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John Edwards: 'Poverty Is Personal'

So says the obscenely rich man.

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

» RE: really? Posted by: Wacre
» RE: really? Posted by: zvirgil2
» RE: really? Posted by: Wacre
» RE: really? Posted by: nbrown
» RE: really? Posted by: JNC
But FDR was no EVD either
Posted by: SufiLizard on May 8, 2006 7:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have had some serious concerns in the past about the apparent diconnect between Edwards' populist rhetoric and his actual voting record, but if he's hopping on the progressive populist bandwagon then more power to him.

FDR was hardly Eugene Debs, but he ended up doing a lot of good because of the political pressure of "real" progressives of his time.

If Edwards keeps stumping on these issues, we should at least give him a lot of positive feedback and perhaps others will see that and adopt some genuine progressive stances again.

And who knows, maybe Mr. Edwards really believes this stuff but it took a while for both his testicles to finally descend.

Either way, I view this as a positive development.

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

» RE: But FDR was no EVD either Posted by: zvirgil2
» And Edwards is no FDR Posted by: AlanSmithee
Edwards also prescient on FEMA funding to prevent flood damage,
Posted by: plantland on May 8, 2006 9:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/4/233718/2082

Backing "Project Impact" funding for FEMA in the Senate on March 6, 2001, Edwards spke of the erosion of coastal Louisiana and the need to put money into prevention. He also pointed out that it would be less expensive by far to do what was necessary rather than risk disaster. North Carolina also has sustained hurricane damage at times. Nonetheless, in such contrast to nearly all politicians following the glamour of the moment, Edwards chose an important issue to focus on but lost. Then other Democrats had the nerve to say that he was not a Senate leader.
I would rather compare him to Senator McCarthy than to RFK, however, both because he is that bright, and because I supported the late Eugene.

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

Edwards shows guts and soul with this message.
Posted by: zvirgil2 on May 8, 2006 9:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards is right about poverty being a major issue in America, if not the major issue. The Country that made free enterprize a worldwide goal should admit that this economic model has a major flaw, selfishness leading to greed. This flaw has to be addressed in a real time manner, or it bares the seeds of its own distruction.
zvirgil2

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

Here's to you Ralph!
Posted by: Baranga on May 8, 2006 9:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We all know that we are well past the point in time when we can count on a Washington insider to make things right. America needs radical thinkers - men and women of action; anyone willing to believe that any democrat is a more viable option is deluding himself. Ralph Nader was America's last chance to elect a person with real integrity who also came complete with a healthy resepct for the environment and a goddam brain in his head. We just don't F'ing get it do we? Raise minimum wages, fix social security - yeah do all those things but it won't mean shit when we are all wearing SPF 500 and sporting welding visors watching the oceans rise 3 feet . . .

Another lawyer in Washington - F'ING fantastic. That's just what America needs!! I've got an idea. How about we throw all the damn men out on their asses and elect housewives?? I'm not kidding either. I know many who would make better presidents than Bush, Edwards or Hillary Clinton. These people are indoctrinated and nothing is going to surmount that ultimate obstacle. Men have had enough time running the show and we have very little to show for it. I would love to see a female president other than Hillary or GOD FORBID Rice. Maybe we could could start focusing on domestic issues instead of invading sovereign countries. How about healthcare for one?

This is what kind of disgrace America's healthcare system is. You can fly down here to Buenos Aires for major dental surgery (for example), pay out of pocket and including the plane ticket, hotel and prescriptions, it would be less than what you would pay in the US if you are uninsured, and that is a lot. My wife and I pay $50 each per month for medical insurance that covers EVERYTHING!!!! I have a 3$ copay. Medications are 70% off the already rock bottom prices and I can get a CT scan for $3. America is a disgrace to the world. Poor Argentina does a better job taking care of its people and their economy melted down about 6 years ago. I am not the exception either. I happen to have a good insurance plan (not even the best actually) but most countries in South America have good public hospitals that are free. Edwards, Hillary, Condie, McCain - the net effect is the same. More insiders and more of the status quo. I don't hold out much hope for change though considering how few people actually saw Nader as a viable candidate. Sad!

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

» RE: Here's to you Ralph! Posted by: Baranga
» RE: Here's to you Ralph! Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Well, it's like this... Posted by: AlanSmithee
DIEbolt
Posted by: WitchyNy on May 8, 2006 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we don't do something about the voting machines -and election reform...none of this will matter anyway.

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

» RE: DIEbolt Posted by: Bluecat
» RE: DIEbolt Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: DIEbolt Posted by: JNC
You Are So Correct!
Posted by: mstenger on May 8, 2006 9:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I,too, am a former Hillary supporter. It makes me sick how she has sold out to become a Repukelican Lite. Russ Feingold is the only candidate with any guts. He actually came out in support of marriage rights for all consenting adults--not just the heteros! We need to put our support behind brave candidates like Feingold who will bravely stand up for what is correct (not right) :)

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

» RE: You Are So Correct! Posted by: Lincoln fan
Then There Are His Imperial Positions on Iraq, Russia, Iran, Israel
Posted by: fairleft on May 8, 2006 10:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He's taking the lead on threatening Russia for its sovereignty, is to the right of Bush on Iran, wants to make Israel a member of NATO so it can 'help out' an interventionist Middle East policy, loves what we've done in Afghanistan, and thinks the Western empire can still be 'successful' in Iraq with a little more Euro help. All in his recent Brussels speech.

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

» He's a SHOE-IN! Posted by: AlanSmithee
Yeah! What the hell?
Posted by: popsicle67 on May 8, 2006 12:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John Edwards Cares!! There is a fine campaign slogan. To tell the truth it might even work with all the idiots out there ready for any kind of change. I gotta say though that the sentiment
rings hollow when he decries the plight of the poor. All of the crying over the lack of opportunity and help and good medical care could really suck a person in if A.you forget he is a scum of the earth ambulance chasing hack of a lawyer who rode on the back of some very questionable research to fleece millions out of insurance companies and B. you forget that he kept a good portion of those millions for himself even though he was supposedly fighting for justice. I just get sick every time I hear this bastard go on about the poor, he is such a lizard. If that is the best guy the democrats can put up
in 2008 the republicans could win with Jeb Bush on the ticket.

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

Bonus points for Anti-NAFTA vote
Posted by: CatDad on May 8, 2006 1:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards’ vote against NAFTA brings massive credibility with me when taking about economic and poverty issues. So many Dem's like Kerry tarnished their records on this vote. I think he has an important national role in the Democratic Party. As to his running for president...I can’t see him surviving the right wing smear machine. If they can’t find anything in his background they can always fall back on questioning his sexuality: any pretty male over 40 and not fat must be gay.

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

Check Out this Video
Posted by: JNC on May 8, 2006 1:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sing For One America

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

If you can fake sincerity .....
Posted by: Oryoki on May 8, 2006 2:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our experience with John Edwards and his staff when he was Senator from North Carolina was a dismal one.

We in Eastern NC are organized to stop the Navy from building a practice field in our poor rural community. The purpose of this OLF was to appease wealthy land owners in Chesapeake and Virginia Beach. They decided they liked the money the Navy brought, but not the noise, so they were looking for a way to export the noise into one of the poorest communities in North Carolina.

His office staff gave us every political platitude known to human kind. They were always months behind the events and of no help at all.

Finally, after a year of lobbying on our own behalf Edwards made a public statement supporting our cause and claimed to have sent a letter to Senator Warner of VA, Chair of the Armed Services Committee, affirming that support and endorsing an effort to urge the Navy to seek alternatives to the current plan.

When we asked for a copy of this communication to post on our website, albemarlecommunity.net, we were told it would take a week to find it. Later after a second request, that Edwards's press release would serve as that Letter. We subsequently learned that the bally-hooed letter was never wriitten. It was a pure fabrication.

During the brief period when this man was our Senator he spent his tax- payer- funded time running for President. He referred to us, his constituents, as his "Little People" . He gave us the condescending smile, but his actions showed his true priorities. He was too busy campaigning to attend Congressional sessions where his vote could represent us.

In our opinion, Edwards is a man who has listened to that old adage: If you want to gain the people's trust, you have to be sincere. But he subscribes especially to its correlary, If you can fake sincerity, you have it made.

If his past is indicative of his future, God help all of us "little people" if he ever becomes President.

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

» RE: If you can fake sincerity ..... Posted by: gonzoskismet
JRE
Posted by: susannunes on May 8, 2006 5:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anybody who actually believes there's no difference between Edwards and Bush is either ignorant or a liar.

I hate to break it to you, but the Green Party isn't going to be running the government anytime soon.

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

» RE: JRE Posted by: CatDad
Instead, How 'bout Thom Hartmann for Prez?
Posted by: fairleft on May 9, 2006 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He's popular (until the 'left' throws him off their radio stations and websites?), he's focused on the key issues, and he has the right position on the hot-button illegal immigration issue (he's against it, and would solve the problem by throwing employers in jail for hiring illegals). He also doesn't overstate the illegal immigration problem in comparison to the overall corporate globalization crisis.

The following is an example of another Hartmann position, on corporations being treated legally as people. It's an obscure but incredibly important problem if we're gonna dig ourselves out from our big-corporation-induced mess:

"The main engine of corporatism - the chink in governmental law that makes it possible for corporations to so corrupt governmental processes - is an obscure legal doctrine first embraced in 1886 by the Reporter of the U.S. Supreme Court called 'corporate personhood.' This doctrine suggests that non-living, non-breathing entities called corporations should have the same rights the Founders of democracy defined (in the US in the 'Bill of Rights') first for white men, and were extended after the U.S. Civil War to freed slaves, and to women and more fully to people of color in the 1960s via several different anti-discrimination laws.

"... in the decades following 1886, corporations have seized so many 'human rights' that they can now prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from performing inspections of their factories by claiming 4th Amendment 'privacy rights.' They claim they can give unlimited money to politicians - a process that before 1886 was called bribery and was criminal behavior for corporations in virtually all states - by claiming that they are entitled to 1st Amendment free speech rights. They claim that if the majority of the citizens of a local community do not want them to do business in that community, then they are the victims of "discrimination" and can sue that community and its elected officials." http://www.commondreams.org/
views06/0427-26.htm

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

Why trust him?
Posted by: Longdream on May 9, 2006 11:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So says the obscenely rich man.

I can relate to this, in that I instinctually view everything in a personal way.

John Edwards is a very successful medical malpractice litigator --one of those lawyers that big business, other lawyers, the general public and the birds in the trees love to hate. That particular breed of trial lawyer has a steel-trap mind, controls his emotions, and uses his demeanor as his most important tool.

So I've just said that he probably should take the part of the rich, and that he's got the equipment to convice us otherwise. His voting record isn't great. Why trust him?

I was just reading a paper about about how we process decisions with incomplete information. It turns out that when we aren't experts in a subject, we will sometimes even ignore empirical data we're given to make the decision that appeals to our emotions and inner logic.

I came out of my mother a misanthropic cynic with the world's first case of ADHD, but I've steeped and mellowed for half a century so I don't really hate everything anymore. Not that much, anyway. But the Clinton Assassination just about did me in with the waste of it all, and these last six years living under the Twilight Zone Administration have gradually separated me from my best self. I'm an iconographer, and over the 'aught' years, The Hosts of Heaven climbing Jacob's Ladder have begun to look sinister under my hand.

I would simply like to let myself go with this man who is saying words I've wanted to hear from someone with power my whole life. It's better than the en garde position I've adopted while I watch the principles of basic humanity be spat upon by cheap trade.

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

» RE: Why trust him? Posted by: fairleft
» RE: Why trust him? Posted by: Longdream
Edwards, et al can't do it
Posted by: NotNeoCon on May 11, 2006 10:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gore, Edwards, Lieberman - all appear to be mere armatures when compared to Hillary. Consider Gore in 2000 - barf! Rabi Lieberman in the debate with Cheney - the man purposeful threw the debate and should be expelled from the Democratic Party. And Edwards - missed 90% of Senate votes and then couldn't instantly recall that he sat beside Cheney at the swearing in ceremony.

Gore couldn’t decide if he was a screamer, a ghost, or a dumb ass. Lieberman remarked that Cheney did pretty well in the private sector. Cheney replied that he did AND without any help from the government. Lieberman just grinned like a Cheshire Cat eating s***, when he should have replied that maybe the American people would not agree if they knew that he (Cheney) visited his friends in the Pentagon within the first two weeks of becoming CEO of Halliburton and walked out with $6 billion in service contracts! And then there was Edwards when Cheney said during their debate, “I serve as the President of the Senate Senator, and go there a couple time a week, and this is the first time I’ve ever seen you. I’m told that you have missed 90% of the Senate votes which should not be too pleasing to the people of North Carolina.” What did the Lawyer do – grinned and tried to BS, when he should have said, “Look Mr. Vice President – I sat beside you at the Senate swearing-in Ceremony and we discussed bla, bla, bla. Maybe one of the problems that you are having recalling facts concerning the Iraq War is due to bad memory – or as the people where I come from might day – maybe you’re just lying!”

Hillary puts ‘em all behind the Eight Ball!!!

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

  • 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