Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • 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.

War on Iraq

John Edwards Steps into Big Shoes in Crusade Against Poverty

By Bill Boyarsky, Truthdig. Posted August 17, 2007.


Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King loudly voiced the connection between the Vietnam War and poverty at home. Is John Edwards the next to take up their work?
Advertisement

They're closing a hospital in my city, but I'm sure nobody in the rest of the country gives a damn.

If Robert F. Kennedy were alive and running for president, he'd tell America about the demise of Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital in South Los Angeles and what it means to America. He'd make Americans give a damn.

If Martin Luther King Jr. were alive, he'd be speaking at the hospital. After hearing his words, people across the country would realize Los Angeles' loss was also their own. Dr. King would make them give a damn.

One of the most important, now forgotten, aspects of the tragic year of 1968 was the way Sen. Kennedy and Dr. King saw the relationship between the Vietnam War and poverty at home. If the war continued, poverty would too.

They carried this message throughout the country. It was not popular. Even some of those who loved him thought Dr. King should stick to his subject: civil rights. And too many opponents of the war thought Kennedy was muddying up the antiwar campaign by diving into the complexities of poor brown and black America.

But the two persisted, and if Kennedy had been elected in 1968, more Americans would have been persuaded to care. Assassination -- King in April and then Kennedy in June -- silenced them.

Martin Luther King Jr.-Harbor Hospital is located around 120th Street and Wilmington Avenue in the heart of South Los Angeles, where the population, once almost all African American, now is also heavily Latino.

The hospital was built after the 1965 Watts riot. Watts is a relatively small community near the hospital, but its name became attached to a riot that raged widely through South Los Angeles.

In those days, Los Angeles, which liked to consider itself enlightened, had many of the attributes of the Old South: a brutal, heavily white police department, a rotten public transportation system that did not serve poor areas, and segregated housing and public schools. There was no hospital for miles around. That's what sparked and fed the riot.

King was built by the county to remedy the situation. But over the years, it became a victim of the dysfunctional politics of poor areas. The hospital offered jobs and was a boon to the then-dominant black population. After a time, jobs became more important than standards.

First in the 1980s and then in 2004, the Los Angeles Times exposed bad conditions in a hospital that had become known as "Killer King." An incompetent county Board of Supervisors did nothing. Federal authorities investigated. Last week they cut off federal aid, and now the hospital is closing.

This is the kind of issue that John Edwards is talking about in his presidential campaign, just as Robert Kennedy did in 1968.

Edwards speaks out more strongly than any of the other Democratic presidential candidates on the direct link between the Iraq war and the increasingly desperate plight of the poor, as well as the growing financial troubles of the middle class.

In July Edwards replicated a tour Kennedy took in 1968 through an Appalachia that remains impoverished. The national political reporters and commentators greeted him with the cynicism, scorn and irony so popular in a mainstream media trying desperately to sound up to date.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election08, poverty, john edwards, martin luther king, robert kennedy, heath care

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


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:
Of course war profit for some is poverty for many.
Posted by: richholland on Aug 17, 2007 3:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the first world war made some people very rich and left many crippled and the country poor.
the second world war made some more rich and england nearly bankrupt.
Thanks to the Marshalplan europe became prosperious
Thank you USA
The afghan war ended the Sovjetunion and the communists.
So if you spent billions in the Warmachine there is no money for the community.
But donot forget the Americans are hardworking people, so untill they die they will work for less money, because many believe that everything can be solved by working hard and "free market""

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

Before the War Poverty Existed Too
Posted by: edith on Aug 17, 2007 3:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"the direct link between the Iraq war and the increasingly desperate plight of the poor, as well as the growing financial troubles of the middle class."

Sorry. Iraq War is objectionable but poverty and the rotten health care in LA existed before Iraq. What's the author's excuse for that situation?

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

Is Edwards your favorite, Alternet?
Posted by: american on Aug 17, 2007 3:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How 'bout Kucinich, Democrat for president?

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

» what's so bad about that? Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: what's so bad about that? Posted by: mercianomad
The operative word is "electability"
Posted by: dustinblythe on Aug 17, 2007 4:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I heard Dennis Kucinich speak at Greenfest in Chicago a few months ago. Environmentally conscious, dedicated to peaceful coexistence, a diehard liberal. I like him. But for some reason, maybe all of the above, he has not caught on with more than 1% of the Democratic base. This is his second, or maybe his third, run at the Presidency but his name recognition is not putting him over with the voters in the early primary states. Maybe in a perfect world he would win the nomination and even beat a Romney, Giuliani or a Thompson. This is not that world. Sad but true.

Poverty is an issue that has been swept under the rug since LBJ's "Great Society" and RFK's trip through Appalachia. Sure, the current Iraqi war and even the Vietnam war did not create poverty, but they have kept us from addressing the issue. I would even go a step farther and say that the space program has contributed to our inability to address the issue. I hate to see us spend billions of dollars on trips to outer space and the middle east when there are people in almost every town in America that could be fed, clothed, treated and educated with a fraction of that money. Take a look at True Majority's proposal to use a fraction of the Pentagon's budget, the portion allotted toward "Cold War Era" weapons, to fund things like Head Start, funding the EPA and providing child health care. Again, this is using a fraction of the budget.

John Edwards sees the inequity. Love them or hate them, he was a trial lawyer and he fought against multi-billion dollar entrenched interests like tobacco and insurance companies and he sees how they treat those who are helpless or need help. He was a Senator and you do not have to serve as long as Robert Byrd to see that there is waste and inefficiency in the federal government where there could be greater equality, efficiency and more of a helpful culture. I believe in John Edwards' compassion, sincerity and his electability. Obama has caught the imagination of many with his message of hope, "Clinton nostalgia" has Hillary at the front, but I believe that by the time the ballots are cast in January many Democratic voters will return to John Edwards. Perhaps not because he is committed to eliminating poverty but because he sees the interconnection between poverty and healthcare, education, war, the environment and a better America.

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

» RE: The operative word is "electability" Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» "Turn off your televisions"? Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: "Turn off your televisions"? Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» An old story, perhaps apocryphal... Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
Edwards is a Great Candidate. Polls show he is less electable than others. He's no rock star.
Posted by: yellow on Aug 17, 2007 5:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards has better politics than the two main Democratic Party front runners who got more funding. His issues are the ones that matter most in the long term, the declining middle class, rapidly increasing social inequality and the US standard of living for working families. This is what you build a long term platform and agenda on and where your future visions of the country should cause you to place the main part of your political focus. I really like guys like Sherrod Brown and Dennis Kucinich. I also like Edwards for the very same reasons. Let's get a political movement going on an issue that hasn't existed in the national discourse since the Progressive Era, the national distribution of wealth and income!!

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

John Edwards at the Googleplex
Posted by: wmGreybeard on Aug 17, 2007 6:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe this visit to the Googleplex on Utube is one of the best ways to know what John stands for..

Obama has the charisma, and Hillary has my admiration for a strong push for universal health care as first lady. Dennis Kucinich has his priorities in line. I think Dennis would make a great president or VP.

As an Independent, I would vote for any of the democratic candidates over any of the republicans presently seeking the nominations.

I would like to see John's ideas on public campaign financing.

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

Edwards is great!
Posted by: adjwilli on Aug 17, 2007 6:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think Edwards is by far my top pick for President.

I like Kucinich's stances more but don't think he would make a very effective leader. While Obama might be more effective than Kucinich, some of his more recent statements - namely in regards to Pakistan - have shown me he's not ready for the Oval Office. With that said though, I think Obama would make the best running mate Edwards could hope for.

Edwards is like Jimmy Carter, but more pragmatic and more clever. I realize for some that's not a favorable comparison, but Jimmy Carter continues to be highly influential and had some of the best policies from a progressive perspective of any modern president. He failures were in his ability to manage effectively. I think Obama or Kucinich would share those flaws, but Edwards would be able to combine the progressive policies with Bill Clinton-like leadership.

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

» Carter Posted by: Iconoclast421
Why doesn't the media play up Edwards? Because he could win!
Posted by: warrior woman on Aug 17, 2007 8:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We must ask ourselves why the media downplays Edwards so much? The answer? His appeal to the lower and middle economic classes is dangerous to the Republicans. He is by far the most electable of the candidates with a wide appeal, however, the media and the Republican decision makers are keeping his message down and out of the mainstream. If this is then true, we should all be hopping on the Edwards bandwagon for nothing better than electing a man the Republicans are afraid of. Remember, he who makes sense is not a Republican!

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

Dangerous work!
Posted by: Doggycuny on Aug 17, 2007 10:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh dear. It's dangerous business messing with the forces of darkness. King and Kennedy (and Princess Diana) were killed because they represent a threat to the money making demons in this world. You mess with their profit - you get killed. If Edwards actually does make any headway is this venture, the Illuminati (we) will have him killed. Wait and see.

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

Kucinich and Edwards
Posted by: badkitty on Aug 17, 2007 12:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, I voted for Kucinich in the last primary and had his bumper sticker on my car. He's never voted for the war and he's brought up a resolution to impeach Cheney. He's my guy. But, Edwards is my guy too. He's said he's sorry he voted for the war, he has a view of the US that matches mine (two Americas) and I think he looks at the long term view. Also, I love his wife! Last time my husband and son voted for Edwards in the primary. This time, maybe I will too, just for that electability thing. It's a tough choice between the two for me, but I love what Edwards says. The primaries are our chance to show how we really feel (as opposed to the general election), so I don't know, maybe Kucinich again...

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

» RE: Kucinich and Edwards Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
Bad Edwards is still better
Posted by: YogiBear on Aug 17, 2007 9:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've met Edwards some years back and had an immediate visceral dislike to him. I know a libertarian who worked in his office more recently. Our perceptions of him are the same -- he's a egomaniac. And you know what? Both of us would rather have him as president than Clinton, Obama or nearly any of the Repubs -- because hypocrite or no, I think he'd actually do something about the poor and working class.

I don't trust anyone else. Come primary time, Edwards will probably get my support.

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

War on poverty instead war on Iraq
Posted by: Jimbo33 on Aug 18, 2007 10:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately the right wingers checked in hotel Madness. For them a war is always a tool to gain support among conservatives.

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

Edwards' Selective Compassion
Posted by: opeluboy on Aug 20, 2007 4:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah boy, Johnny Edwards can see poverty all right, and man does it get him fighting mad.

Of course, he still supports the utter deprivation of the Palestinians, on the most densely packed, poorest chunk of earth on the planet, and has no problem with collective punishment on an already beaten down, starving people. No electricity? No water? No jobs? Living on 2 bucks a day? Malnutrition? Death?

Can't see that poverty apparently.

I only wish his lovely wife Elizabeth had to wait 4 or 5 hours at a check point, taunted by arrogant pricks from Brooklyn, trying to get to a hospital for her cancer treatment, and maybe not making it there and maybe not having treatment available on arrival. That's poverty.

And it's entirely of our own making, Johnny, you blow-dried fraud. You support it. You defend it.

You make me sick.

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