What's Happened to John Edwards

[Plaid Adder]

I have not been around the primaries much because, as I said in my last post here, I find the whole thing depressing. I am particularly annoyed by the minute attention being paid by the media to the Clinton and Obama campaigns' interactions, and who said what about whom and who needs to apologize. If these people think that by dissecting a comment Bill Clinton made about Jesse Jackson for evidence of possible racial bias they are in any way furthering the cause of racial equality, they are more deluded than I thought they were. Racial inequality is perpetuated in this country by a number of bedrock economic injustices that neither Obama nor Clinton is talking about addressing, and although it would be nice if we could train everyone to be polite to each other, that by itself will never eradicate racial inequality.

Strangely, the only candidate coming at all close to addressing these issues is John Edwards--because he's taking on class, and not just race or gender. But since the MSM is really giving him no air time whatsoever, and since I no longer have the time to go digging through LBN like I used to, I really don't know too much about the specifics he's proposing. But let me tell you what, from my point of view, is really wrong with this country, the electorate, and in particular this primary race:

We can talk about race, we can talk about gender. But in general, as a society, we cannot talk about money or class. We do not have the vocabulary, the concepts, or--and here I'm talking about the Democratic party elite and their two front-runners--the courage.

The first problem you encounter when you try to talk about class is that most of the people you try to talk to will tell you it doesn't exist--at least not in America. The second problem is that to the extent that people know and use the term "class," it is to describe themselves as "middle class." If you listen to Americans on the subject you would get the idea that they live in a country that's 100% middle class, with no upper or lower. All politicians ever talk about is doing things for the middle class. The closest anyone ever gets to uttering the words "working class" is "working families," as if the work "worker" is so scary it cannot be uttered unless it is immediately domesticated by the word "family." And of course a lot of things are actually done to benefit the rich; but no politician ever admits in public that they work for "the rich." All this capital-gains stuff somehow benefits "the middle class," even though large chunks of "the middle class" have never come near a stock portfolio.

But class divisions in this country are deep, and they are harder to bridge than any other kind. Their causes are not obvious and their remedies are neither clear nor easy. But I'll tell you, when you start raising a kid for the first time, you start to notice these things a lot more.

It starts before birth, really--not just in terms of prenatal medical care, which of course the un- or under-insured often cannot afford, but basic things like prenatal nutrition. It's no good telling people what they have to eat to help their babies develop if they can't afford it or can't get to a store that sells it. Then once the baby's born, the divisions deepen. The American medical establishment--finally--agrees that breastfeeding is better for infants under 6 months than feeding them on formula. (Outside of America, it's usually recommended to breastfeed exclusively for a year, but that's a rant I'm not going into right now.) It is also far cheaper. And yet, the way things are now, breastfeeding is a realistic option mainly for the children of women who don't work outside the home, or women who work in the professions. My partner, for instance, took her 12 weeks of FMLA leave, and thereafter took her $350 breastpump to work where she pumped 3 times a day in the privacy of her own office which has a door that closes. She still only made it through 5 months. Most working-class women cannot afford to take the 12 weeks of *unpaid* leave guaranteed by the FMLA; they'll maybe have two weeks right after the delivery and then they're back on the job, or more likely the jobs, since more and more working-class women are having to work two or three jobs. That's not long enough to establish breastfeeding in the first place; and if you are working, say, as cook at Burger King or a housekeeper in an office building, where are you going to pump? No, you're probably going to wind up having to switch to formula, which will cost you an arm and a leg. So, because you do not work the kind of job that pays well enough to allow you to take a real maternity leave, you *also* get stuck paying more for baby food than your better-off fellow-working women do. And this is how the poor get poorer; and it's also why, in our neighborhood, all the drug stores that sell infant formula put it in locked cases. Because otherwise, people steal it. And really, I cannot blame them.

Anyway. So even before these kids can walk or talk they are at a disadvantage; and then we get to the school system. With all the talk about 'education reform,' I don't know why we can't get anyone to revisit the way we fund our public schools, which guarantees that the more your kids *need* a good education, the less likely they are to have it. No, I take it back, I do know why; it's because ever since the Reagan revolution, "education reform" has really been about breaking public education rather than fixing it. School vouchers and school choice siphoned off the kids of privileged families to special magnet schools or to parochial schools while everyone else was left to flounder in the struggling public schools. Then came the push for "standards" to the exclusion of everything else, with the result that public school kids were not so much educated as trained to take exams; then on top of that came No Child Left Behind, which imposed an unholy bureaucratic burden on schools while also enabling the withdrawal of money from schools that were already in trouble, thus ensuring that they would never recover. And why? Because providing anything good free of charge to the public at large in equal measure is obnoxious to conservative ideology; but also because families in the middle and upper classes want to preserve economic privilege for their own kids and not to share it with everyone else. This dovetails with racism, which is an unacknowledged motivation for a lot of white parents who don't want their kids in the (now integrated, at least on paper) public school system; and the result is that when the public system fails, it fails primarily for minority students. At least in Chicago, most of the white students in the public system are concentrated in the magnet schools, which are always going to make out all right.

Anyway. These basic injustices, and the divisions that grow out of them, are silently accepted and smoothed over by our entire political establishment and by the mainstream media. As Americans, we are discouraged from paying attention to class, from understanding it, or from listening to anyone who wants to talk about it. The last time class consciousness was really part of the American experience was in the 1930s and 1940s. The Cold War killed that, and now we're left with identity politics. Talking about race without talking about class limits the kind of change we can contemplate--let alone actually accomplishing it--just as talking about class without talking about race would.

John Edwards is the only candidate I've sent money to because he's the only candidate who seems to me to have any understanding of class or how it connects to our society's other problems. Sure, he's personally rich; but so are all prominent politicians. And I was really hoping he would win South Carolina; but he hasn't. I will hold out hope for Super Tuesday; but I don't think it's realistic. By all means I encourage all the Edwardsians to continue standing by him to the bitter end; when it's my turn, I intend to vote for him. But I do not think he is going to win.

That is partly, certainly, because the media simply refuses to cover his campaign; and I don't think that's accidental, or that it can be attributed purely to the horse-race frenzy generated by the Clinton/Obama back and forthing. But there is also the problem that Edwards, charismatic speaker that he is, is speaking a language that this generation of Americans has forgotten, and is only going to pick up again slowly and painfully. Ultimately, he is promising a remedy for a disease that most Americans do not believe exists in this country. The fact that they are manifestly wrong about that doesn't necessarily mean that Edwards is bound to win through in the end. The process of getting America ready to vote for a president who wants to do something about *economic* inequality is going to take much longer than this election cycle.

Discussing the primaries with me a couple months ago, my mother's response to my mention of John Edwards was, "Did you see that video of him getting his hair done?" I am afraid I kind of went ballistic. The substance of my response, minus the ranting, was, "That is an unbelievably stupid reason for making a decision about who you want as President of the United States." But then we live in the country of stupid reasons that produce stupid decisions. Nevertheless, the media picture of Edwards has now broadened somewhat, at least judging by my mother, who now says she doesn't like Edwards because he promotes "class warfare" and is "divisive." So, either he's a featherweight pretty boy who cares only for his blow-dried coif, or he's a dangerous radical menace inciting the dispossessed to rise up in revolution. Because the only two modes in which our media can deal with someone talking about class are trivialization and demonization.

Ah well,

The Plaid Adder

[Armstead]

1. BEST POST IN A LOOOOONG TIME

You hit the nail exactly on the head.

No more to add, but IMO this deserves a permanent place on the Greatest Page, and should be required reading for anyone who is on DU.

[SammyWinstonJack]

42. "Should be required reading for anyone who is on DU."

Yes, Indeed! Should also be required reading for every American!

[Xipe Totec]

128. Seconded!

[ooglymoogly]

157. Thirded!!!!

[Roland99]

190. 235th!

[mconvente]

201. And another!

Agreed, best post in a LOOOOOOOOOOONG time!!

[Armstead]

225. From yesterday -- But seems more appropriate today

[Fresh_Start]

2. Edwards is the only Presidential candidate I'm supporting financially

I don't think that the issue is exactly class though

I think the issue is more corporate influence over government policies
Corporate influence is the problem underlying years of bad government policies
healthcare, environment, infrastructure, education, regulation

Of course, corporate influence is related to the 'monied class'. And I think thats why it seems to frame as a class war.

[Armstead]

10. Corporatism and Class are the same issue ultimately

When a handful of Big Corporations control all of the levers of society, there is a built-in disincentive to encourage upward mobility.

You pay one lower wage worker a bit more to enable them to join the middle class, and pretty soon all of them other damn workers are going to expect a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.

That dynamic is why economic issues of wealth and power are synomous with class. We need a counterbalance in society to at least check the complete dominance of the corporate elite and the erosion of social values for the sake of economic profit.

[Gonnuts]

94. But will, or can it happen?

There is no doubt that our entire election process is a farce. A huge Dog & Pony Show with no dog, no pony and little to show. We've been regulated down to having a whole campaign consisting of 3 years worth of 30 second commercials and pundits who focus on the trivial as they spoon feed us who's ahead in skewed polling, and where those that speak to our needs and resonate with us the most are ignored, ridiculed and marginalized and finally Diebold finishes off the rest.

Those that become our so-called front-runners typically are the ones with the least in common with those they're supposed to represent. The ones with the most money, not the most commonsense. Those that can recite pretty sounding phrases produced by otherwise carnival barkers that have no real meaning but induce a false inspiration. The word "change" being the one of choice now, when the change we need is for them to hold those accountable for screwing-up the past. And we, as good little lemmings nod our heads in unison as we are lead to forget what got us into this situation and blindly accept those that will do nothing to really change anything. For if any of you think that the powers that be will allow true change to take place, I have a Timeshare I would like to sell you in beautiful downtown Baghdad.

Mark these words - we may not even have an election. Between the collapsing economy, and the very good probability that Bush will attack Iran and our lives could be turned into greater turmoil than we've ever experienced, Marshall Law could be exercised, for national security reasons, and elections postponed indefinitely. And/or another false-flag attack could propel one of the war-mongering rethugs into office and we continue on our path to Hell.

For those who say it can't happen, I've watched two presidential elections stolen, the murder of 3,000 citizens, the murder of Sen. Paul Wellstone, Anthrax sent to those that would dare question authority, the outing of and destruction of a covert operation that was working on stopping proliferation of WMD's, gagging of Sibel Edmonds, destruction of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, illegal wire-tapping, torture, kidnapping, illegal invasion of a two countries, no-bid contracts giving to war-profiteers, destruction of an American city, gutting of our treasury, phony investigations that produce nothing after it's evident crimes were committed, ignoring of subpoenas, destruction of evidence and much more WITH NO ONE BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE!

And not only are they getting away with said crimes these so-called candidates for the people don't even mention any of the above. It's as though we're suppose to forget all that and focus on the future. Well, let me inform you - there will be NO future if we don't rectify the past.

[Andrea]

97. Great summary of why I am scared out of my wits!

I cannot begin to fathom why so few people are concerned about the actual destruction of our country as we know it. This has been a freaking nightmare since December of 2000.

[Wednesdays]

140. The nightmare has actually been slowly unfolding since 1980

this country has been the proverbial frog getting slowly boiled to death. :cry:

[Gonnuts]

141. I would go back further ...

to December 18, 1913, the day the Federal Reserve Bank was created.

[mother earth]

106. What's happened to this country should be causing all of us to

realize nothing but a revolution is going to change things for the better. The past two stolen elections, countless lies and crimes by the illegitimate regime with nat'l security carte blanche says it all....there is no rule of law. Is it any surprise that MSM is trash or worst?

We should all be Vermont....every last one of us needs to send congratulations to that state for show true patriotism and standing up for themselves, they've got it right. I'm fed up and I'm not going to take it any more...one by one each state should do just as Vermont has done.

[Gonnuts]

133. Two things ...

We know our elections mean nothing and those in office will not change course unless threatened by a greater force than is currently compelling them to act the way they do, so what we need to do is take away what they desire most.

I would start with a massive General Strike. Not for a day, but for as long as we can hold out or they give in. Every non-essential person needs to simply stay home. Buy as little as absolutely needed. Bring business to a standstill. Bring the country to a standstill. This is the most important thing the powers that be would be effect by. Without our participation in the continuing criminal capitalistic enterprise their foundation is undermined. They either listen to our demands or suffer along with us. And I wouldn't worry about loss of job or income because the way things are going you're going to loss that anyway - if you haven't already.

Tax Revolt would be next. Why in the world we give our money to people who work against our interests is beyond me. This April simply send your tax form back blank with a fake bloody hand-print on it. Create our own tax cut. Again I wouldn't worry about repercussions, it's not like they have the means to arrest X millions of people for a tax revolt.

The above of course are peaceful means to taking back our government. If they fail we follow Thomas Jefferson's advice, "The tree of liberty must from time to time be nourished with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

[mother earth]

155. I have an awful, awful feeling you are right. We have the illusion

of democracy.

[Gonnuts]

169. Of this I have no doubt.

If we had actual true representation we'd have universal health care, far less prisons and far more schools that actually educated someone, a military that protected us instead of trying to dominate the whole world, no homeless. we'd be leaders in renewable energy, and many more things that are blocked because the so-called representatives don't listen to the people once they get in. They're listening to someone - but its not us!

Last week I caught Pelosi answering questions about putting impeachment "back on the table", she said she was inundated with petitions and was amassed at how many impeachment pins she sees on lapels as she passes through the airport - and then she LAUGHED!!! - the bitch laughed ... then she went on to tell us how wrong WE ARE!!!

I rest my case.

[N4457S]

235. This Isn't Sweden...

...guys.

I hate to tell ya, but she'll laugh all day long and get away with it. She has a safe district. That's why she's Speaker.

Here's the real Golden Rule. The guy who has the jet wins.

It's always been that way in the United States. Even Roosevelt was picked as Wall Street's candidate in 1932 to keep us from going socialist or communist. The business community elected one of its own.

There's not a dime's worth of difference among any of the top candidates. That's by design.

[amborin]

215. C. Wright Mills

[zalinda]

166. We are too poor to strike

No one has enough on hand to not work for a day, much less a week. The only way that I can see that it could possibly change is to get Edwards into office.

zalinda

[Gonnuts]

177. Edwards won't make it ... sorry

Edwards is not the powers-that-be choice. So start making plans to pin your hopes somewhere else.

There is a good chance that what is being played out is rigging the election to get a rethug as POTUS.

Clinton would drive republicons to the polls in mass and leave many democrats to stay home. And Obama, even with all the media "pop-star" attention is no match for the ingrained bigotry in this country. Every closeted red-neck would come out to defeat him.

So even though Edwards is my choice too, after Kucinich, like DK, he's not going to get there.

But if you can't do the strike - you can help promote it.

[zalinda]

189. Then I'll work to get Edwards in office

that would probably be more doable.

zalinda

[Gonnuts]

200. true ...

but either proposal won't be easy. If anything were easy it would have been done already. And we have about as much chance of getting positive results out of organizing a general strike as we have getting Kucinich president, let alone, Edwards.

But what else is there to do? Yeah, Edwards being our next best choice, evening though we know he was selected to be Kerry's VP because of his appearance at Bilderberg meeting of 03' praising the wonderful virtues that NAFTA has given the rich and powerful that prompted Henry Kissinger to call Mr. Kerry personally of this "choice", and can only pray he lied to them then instead of lying to us now. Someone might want to be asking these kind of questions, or we can just hope that maybe because of Mrs. Edwards brush with her travails of life that John might have had an epiphany and an enlightenment true leaders should have to become truly great leaders. I'll give him the benefit of doubt. But than one has to ask why Kucinich backed Obama over him?

You don't get to national level of politics this day and age without being allowed to. For whatever reason you are going to be played. You either know who is playing you and how and use that against them or you're being played for a fool, extremist, "fringe" has always been a popular word, villain or even hero (mostly posthumorously) but those that control all this do it when they want to. They use us out like so many disposable tools. If we let them.

But I haven't even heard Kucinich go public about Sibel Edmonds, let alone Edwards, and that knowledge is something one would think they'd be aware of. Why wouldn't these influential candidates be the first out of the box with showing how much they care about justice and American values by exposing treason in high government? I don't see any body with those kind of balls anywhere. Let's not even start with 9/11.

Look, I'll be optimistic here - something I'm not often being accused of - we'll continue to do what each of us think is right and most of the time we'll be right just doing that ... but, we seriously don't have any time at all to be wasting any more of it ... if you catch my drift. Ah, see ... shit ... and I said I was going to be optimistic ... damn.

Anyway, good luck with all that ...

[Virginian]

229. ...and getting poorer

I was hoping for Edwards because I know he would help the economy by attempting to end the Two Americas.
Obama doesn't believe there are Two Americas.
Hillery is for doubling the H-1b visa quota which brings offshoring onshore. In other words, it is the same as sending the high tech, well paying jobs to South Asia. No matter how many new jobs are created, if you fill them with foreign employees, it doesn't help unemployed or under-employed Americans. It only helps corporations.

[NOLALady]

168. Good points.

But where and how do we start?

Anyone with suggestions on how to get a Nation wide strike going?

[Gonnuts]

174. Petition major blogs ...

Contact major and minor bloggers and progressive sites to co-ordinate with there members to spread the word, get colleges involved. Existing anti-war sites. MoveOn alone has I think 3 million members. Place signs, take out ads. Have people use their sick days, if you're a business owner give your employees a "vacation", spread the word.

Above all, pick a cause. Out of Iraq and impeachment would be good, or uniform, verifiable, paper trail voting. But don't dilute the strike with too many "causes". Once it achieves it's purpose just the threat of another strike could accomplish other causes.

Set a date - July 4th would be a good day to start - it's a holiday so most will be off anyway, but instead of celebrating, an organized march on Washington would be good, followed by the strike to last as long as you can hold out. If you can't - you can't, but remember any sacrifice you make now will pale in comparison to what will happen to you if we don't stop this madness now.

[Norrin Radd]

214. Smart post. Thank you.

[tblue]

143. Me, too! And I am black and a woman. It ain't about race and it ain't about gender. nt

[LaPera]

210. Cheers to Jonh Edwards!

[havocmom]

3. Glad to see Plaid!

:thumbsup:

[soleft]

14. Glad to see and glad to read!

[KansDem]

4. He came in second in Iowa...

...but you didn't hear about it in the US media.

[sam sarrha]

8. i saw CNN report who came in 1st and 3rd, didn't even mention Edwards

[KansDem]

11. NPR didn't mention him either.

It was all Barack & Hillary.

And I listened quite a bit that Wednesday morning...

[sam sarrha]

60. that shows how deep the maggots have burrowed into NPR..

[Lugnut]

134. Nor did the Associated Press.

Mylocal paper published an article about the Iowa results and did not mention John Edwards at all.

[bvar22]

139. Even BILL MOYERS.

I never miss his Fri night show.
Bill Moyers and guest did a 20 minute analysis of the Democratic Caucus in Iowa, and NEVER ONCE mentioned Edwards name!

I am a huge fan of Moyers, but this was inexcusable.

[Plaid Adder]

31. You're right! I forgot that!

My partner rants about it every time a new state's results are announced, though. I have changed the OP title to reflect that.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[OneGrassRoot]

5. I can't wait to come back to this later and read....

I can tell you're talkin' my kinda talk here, though. I thank you in advance!

K&R

:hi:

[Myrina]

6. Breathtaking essay, thank you!

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[sam sarrha]

7. Recomended,... never forget, that the Media is stealing this election in the primaries..

[avaistheone1]

9. Edwards is the only candidate I have ever donated to.

I am not in the bet financial shape right now, but I feel so strongly about John Edward's messages I can not afford not to donate to this effort.

Note sign in photograph: "HELP US...You're Our Only Hope"

[EnviroBat]

73. Me too friend...

Good for us.

[liberal N proud]

12. The media attention to the Bill Clinton remark isn't delusional

It is more calculated for effect than anyone cares to think.
They want to feed on any thing they can to drive a wedge between Clinton and Obama and their supporters thus dividing the Democratic Party coupled with their complete disregard for Edwards.
They know that they can refuel the race issue in this nation all too easy and will use it.

Other than that, I agree with you 100%

[tblue]

144. Good point. Hadn't thought of it that way. But I think you are right on it.

[phantom power]

13. the plutocracy has learned to neutralize class warfare early.

They didn't always have such expertise. They had to assassinate MLK. Much more humane, and less messy, to neutralize them early, like Edwards.

[Armstead]

15. Edwards didn't shake hands with Hillary once I think

sigh :kick:

[jojo54]

16. Hallef*ckinglujah!!

Somebody finally got it exactly right. Thanks for the great post Adder. K & R!!

[balantz]

17. You know that head of the nail thingy?

You hit it!

Required reading for D.U.ers who want to continue a real education on the facts of the state their nation.

[catnhatnh]

18. Great Post....

For proof of the existence of classes in America, take a look at the book "Class" by Paul Fussell which is both hilarious and insightful.His basic test for middle-classness was that if you cared what your neighbors thought of you, you were middle class. The poor couldn't afford to care and the upper class didn't have to bother....The book was a riot until I realized just HOW far down the scale I rated...Incidentally, he posits nine distinct and easily identifiable classes in the US.

[Divernan]

129. Middle class travel delusions of grandeur.

"The middle is the class that makes cruise ships a profitable enterprise, for it fancies that the upper-middle class is to be mixed with on them, without realizing that that class is either peering at the minarets of Istanbul or hiding out in a valley in Nepal, or staying home in Old Lyme, Connecticut, playing backgammon and reading Town and Country. Tourism is popular with the middle class because it allows them to "buy the feeling," as C. Wright Mills says, "if only for a short time, of higher status." And as he points out, both cruise (or resort) staffs and their clientele cooperate in playing out the charade that really quite an upper-middle-class (or even upper class) operation is going forward: lots of 'served meals,' white napery, 'sparkling wine,' mock caviar. If you'll notice how often, in tourist advertising, the term luxury appears (as well as the word gourmet), you'll see what I mean."
--Paul Fussell, Class: A Guide Through the American Status System (1983)

[asdjrocky]

19. Bravo! K&R

[frogmarch]

20. You nailed it, Plaid

and how! Thanks for your great post. :thumbsup:

[THUNDER HANDS]

21. i'd say the majority of poor people think they're middle class

I think if people felt they were lower class, they'd embrace talk of class status and how it affects americans more.

[hfojvt]

52. nobody wants to admit to being poor

because that makes you a looser. On the other side, Ted Rall has quoted a poll that says 17% of Americans think they are in the top 1%. Now that I think about that, though, it may not reflect excessive optimism, but may actually be true - if you looked at their standing in their own town or city. The top 1% in my county of 73,000 is not gonna be top 1% in the nation, but their vision does not reach that far.

[iamjoy]

74. That's The Problem With Edwards

or should I say his message. No one wants to think they are poor, it's like there's this stigma attached to it. No one wants to think they are "lower class"

So, surely Edwards isn't talking about THEM.

Too many people don't see how the decisions made in the boardrooms and the decisions made in Congress (and the alliance between the two) affects their daily life.

[Demeter]

87. Another 12 Months of BushCo and They WILL Be Poor

and for a long time. Purely preventable, too.

[lyonn]

185. As was said recently either here or on msm, the poor vote rich

You gotta wonder why. Best I can figure out is they have no idea how rich the rich are.

What I think people fail to realize is that being rich isn't always the answer to happiness. Hell yes we all need money and we don't feel we have near enough, but, it's a mindset that causes happiness. Having your health, good friends that don't value you for your wealth but can laugh and communicate without hostility, and jealousy, etc. Again, a person must have the ability to have shelter, food, heath care and feel that we are not owned by the COMPANY.

A few nights ago I watched the History chanel about oil and then how the earth was formed. Talk about putting things in perspective! It's like our life is mist in the forest. So, screw the rich, I am just dumb enough to pretty much enjoy life. What is happening to our country, like the OP stated, Plaid Adder, is truly frightening, we the middle class have been dissed by the powers that be. And this site is very helpful informing us who is really oaring the boat and it damn sure isn't any of us on this site that I am aware of. They wouldn't waste their time with we little people.

[waiting for hope]

22. K&R!!

Well thought out and written - but it isn't over yet.

[Triana]

23. Edwards is "too angry"...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4264878

[Mark Twain Girl]

24. I've come to believe that the MSM quickly "frames" candidates

and once they are framed, it becomes hard to break out of that mold. I think it hurts many good candidates, actually. It never ceases to amaze me when I run into someome parroting some pundit line about a candidate (good or bad), as if it were truth handed down on stone tablets.

This has also led me to believe that no change in this country, no change whatsoever, is possible unless it includes media reform. How we receive information has become a poison on the political culture. Even the problem of class, and how it's an untouchable in this country -- that very problem is one of framing. Class is an off-limits issue. Why? Why on earth would it be? It's part of the teetering structure of the current house of cards, so the fact that it has been erased from public conversation says a great deal indeed.

Thanks for the OP.

[caseycoon]

25. K&R! Excellent post! n/t

[pansypoo53219]

26. more simple

a LOT OF PEOPLE just do not think. simple reasons. i am a woman, i am going to vote for hillary! I'm black, i am gonna vote for OBAMA! black women may have to think more. same as who is pro fetus.
some people actually follow what is being said. but not many.
go edwards! yay?

[Wednesdays]

142. "What good fortune for governments that the people do not think."

--Adolf Hitler

[DeanDem10]

27. California Dems

are being treated to a list of falsehoods about Edwards, including the false charge that he wants to offer national healthcare to undocumented immigrants (the manufacturers of this lie make sure to use the word "illegal" rather than undocumented). One family member bought this hook-line-and-sinker. I could not get through... Makes one real confident about Californians' ability to sift through the rubbish. Ah, well from me too.

[SammyWinstonJack]

47. Really, they are? Well I think Edwards has planned some media events for Feb. 5th?

I hope I got that right?

[Andrea]

101. I hate that

And I hate that people fall for it. Why don't they watch the debates and listen to the candidates themselves? He addressed that very clearly and directly in the last debate.

Even those who listen a little bit then say they "don't trust" what politicians say, and yet they will forward every stupid email that says Bill Gates is going to pay people thousands to test his "email beta". What is wrong with people?

I blame both those that fall for these things and those that take advantage of the public's folly. We need people that operate with honor and refuse to lie and cheat.

This is why I'm so unhappy. I'm too much of a dreamer.

[NoFederales]

28. I am very appreciative of your post; thank you. nt

NoFederales

[Yael]

29. Wow. What an excellent post.

Bookmarking.

Just wow.

[smokey nj]

30. Fantastic post, Plaid Adder. Thank you!!!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

32. Right on!

I'm going to go see Edwards this evening. He's the only candidate I've contributed to this time, and the only one I think addresses the important issues. I will cast my vote for him next Tuesday as well. I don't have any realistic hope he will be nominated, but maybe he can get enough delegates to have an impact on the others.

Great post, as usual. Thanks.

[Bread and Circus]

33. You say all this but don't even know the specifics Edwards is proposing?

"I really don't know too much about the specifics he's proposing."

I think in order to make any sort of an informed decision you should take the time to look at their records and their policy proposals.

What you seem to buy into is the rhetoric but not really the practical details how Edward's approach would play out in the GE and in governing.

Edwards is preaching the gospel to the already converted. There's nothing amazing, new, visionary, or even courageous about that. Furthermore, it's typical Joe Trippi boilerplate campaigning round 3.

I wouldn't take you to task so harshly but you preface your long winded statement with not taking the time to "know too much about the specifics". Those are you words, not mine.

[bread_and_roses]

36. All we really need to know is who is paying for his campaign - people, not Corporations

that means that he would owe a win to.....the people. That's what clean money, clean elections is all about. Because nearly all politics are about who is owed what. Beside that, Senate records, promises, plans, and "hope" are meaningless.

[Bread and Circus]

49. I used to think Edwards supporters were being naive...

but there's being naive and willfully naive. I think the later is a well fitting shoe.

Edwards is just trying to get elected, and really they all are and his populist rhetoric is part of Joe Trippi's playbook. Don't get me wrong, it's gospel, we all like hearing that stuff. It's red meat. It's "we are going to lower your taxes" to Republicans.

Support him all you want and for as long as you want. Overall, he's a good guy. But if you want anyone outside of the bubble to take you seriously quite deifying him and actually read up on the comparitive records, proposals, as well as bills authored, sponsored, and cosponsored.


It's just downright ignorant for people to castigate Clinton and Obama as the "corporate" candidates and Edwards as the "man of the people" when the record doesn't support that argument.

For Plaid to come in here and use her cache on DU to formulate her argument while admitting she hasn't taken the time to know specifics, is reprehensible.

[LiberalEsto]

83. If Edwards really wanted to get elected

above anything else, he would drop the anti-corporate talk and become a corp-bot like the other candidates in both parties. Then the media would embrace him as the "white Southern male alternative".

However, I strongly believe John Edwards is sincere in what he says, and I will support his candidacy until the bitter end.

Go, Johnny, go!

[Bread and Circus]

116. corp-bot... hmmm

you know, that kind of talk means little

[bread_and_roses]

135. recognizing that it's about who's owed what is naive?

I would say that thinking that candidates can take funding from Corporate interests to spend a gazillion $$ on getting elected and then not "pay back" is beyond naive - I would call it delusional. As for deifying, how is it deifying to say that like any other politician, who he owes will matter more than promises or records?

The best thing we could do for our democracy would be to get Corporate special interest money out of the picture - through public funding of elections. Until then, we'll always end up with the scraps and bones from the tables of the Oligarchs. Yet the only candidate still in the race taking public funding is ignored - why do you think that is? It's because public funding of elections is the REAL danger to our Corporate Owners - and they know it. Everything else is show and window dressing.

[Two Americas]

152. this is just silly

Specifics have been provided on demand many times on many threads. We aren't talking about specifics right now. You picked on sentence out of the essay as an excuse to make a stink and to start insulting all Edwards supporters here.

What Edwards is saying is not "red meat" unless one is looking from an upper class point of view at the issue - it is more like the kiss of death. Only a defender of the interests of the upper class would see talk about class as "red meat that those stupid poor people always fall for." But I can't help noticing that you admit that Edwards is saying something different. That is a start, and that start is what people are responding to.

The notion that talking about poverty is some cheap trick to play to the crowd is patently absurd. If what you were saying were true, why don't we hear it all the time?

Where Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Franklin Roosevelt and so many others merely playing to the crowd and using cheap tricks to advance themselves?

[Armstead]

38. That's a bum steer

>>>>Edwards is preaching the gospel to the already converted. There's nothing amazing, new, visionary, or even courageous about that.<<<

It is new, courageous and visionary to speak of this. If Edwards wanted to be a weenie, he would have run a much more cautious campaign, and limited himself to a safe cerntrist "I'm the southern white male" campaign as an alternative to Hillary and Obama.

Instead, Edwards is sticking with an important message about an uncomfortable be necessary fact that the other major candidates refuse to acknowledge.

[Bread and Circus]

53. This is one point where you are wrong...

and something you apparently don't get.

By and large, Dems think we have a lock come this November (actually we don't but that's another debate) and a lot have figured it's high time to take the opportunity to give the spot to a woman and others it would be great to break the black barrier is well. Being
a white southern male this time doesn't carry any weight because "electibility" in that sense is seen as passe and not necessary.

When John Edwards says he's the only guy who can win in the South (and he does often) and no one gives two hoots it goes to prove my point.

The only way John was to set himself apart was to "outliberal" the woman and "outliberal" the black guy. It didn't hurt that he had Joe Trippi, who is known for these sorts of campaigns

I'm sure John's sentiment is heartfelt as I think we all recognize how shitty it is for the middle, working, and impoverished classes. I don't think what he's saying is a total ruse. However, I think Clinton and Obama have a heart and empathy for the same classes and they have similar policy proposals as John, which is what really matters.

The difference is Clinton has made experience her thing, Obama has made change,unity, and uplift his thing, and Edwards has made the angry class warfare his thing. They are all different packages of very similar candidates.

I can argue all day with you guys but until you folks actually take the time to read about the candidates no one will relieve you of your ignorance.

[SammyWinstonJack]

54. ...

:boring:

[Bread and Circus]

58. sorry to bore you with facts... I know school is boring to children as well

[Armstead]

62. You could have left out that last little zinger

Don't assume that people don't understand the meat behind whatever candidate they are supporting.

I am well aware that in a blind "taste test" Edwards' stated polcies are not that far from Clinton or Obama.

However, what IS an important difference is that Edwards has a different reference point. He may well end up negotiating and compromising once in office. BUT he would start with the premise of what is best for the majority -- NOT how many concessions he might be able to wring out of his friends on Wall St.

Hillary Clinton may have the most well-meaning and liberal soul in the world. But she has become a creature of the status quo -- she sees through the eyes of the elite, and her upper level supporters do not have the best interests of the majority at heart.

It would be the ultimate irony that if Hillary were to run against McCain or Romney, THEY would be perceived as the actual "change" candidates.

[Bread and Circus]

95. At least you are vaguely recognizing reality...

but you seem to be the exception to the rule when it comes to Edwards supporters here.

All I see is that he is saying exactly what they want to hear and that is apparently good enough for them, no questions asked.

[OneGrassRoot]

163. It seems you are the one who hears/sees what you want to hear/see...

As Armstead said, while all three are similar, the reference point for many who choose Edwards is that he is stating loud and clear what he sees as the root cause of many of the ills facing this country: Corporate America.

Whether or not a candidate would, if elected, come through on campaign promises is part of the research, gut check, and selection process. But, many of us want to hear our concerns clearly addressed, unequivocally, during this campaign stage. We don't want nuance or hope that he/she has the same passionate concerns we have; we want them to SAY IT CLEARLY AND BE ON RECORD ABOUT IT. For those who don't see corporatism as a legitimate threat to our democracy, I personally believe they are naive. If they see it as a threat but feel another candidate can deal with it more effectively, that's what this is all about.

John is certainly not the celebrity candidate, having had so little attention given to him this election cycle, so the "deity" thing really doesn't fly here.

Many came to choose him based on researching his current stance on issues. We've also certainly learned what others see as negatives, including his record, as they are posted any time there is a thread about Edwards. That's fine, there should be discussion here. None of them are perfect and we're certainly seeing all their warts here at DU.

[zalinda]

175. Yes, of course, every Edwards supporter has blinders on

We can't possibly think for ourselves. But, I want to ask you, in all the years that a Clinton was in the White House, did anything REALLY fundamentally change for the poor and middle class? No, it did not. We were able to have jobs that lasted longer, that's it. The economy was good because of the Internet revolution, so there was more money to pass around. But, nothing really changed. But, looking at it from a distance does not give one the reality of what is going on on the ground. Neither Obama or Clinton really have much reality when it comes to the poor, working man, Edwards does. If you want you can watch Glover talk about his week spent with Edwards, not talking to CEO's but to kitchen workers. http://youtube.com/watch?v=nqdY1K0m0BA There is a better video out there about it, but I don't know where it is.

We are not the head in the sky type of people. A lot of us just recognize that being in the trenches suck, and unless a miracle happens, we and our descendents will stay in the trench our entire lives. Obama and Clinton do not know what it's like, they did not work their way through school doing physical labor to pay for school. Edwards did. He knows what it's like. He is one of us that had a miracle happen, and he wants to make it easier for us to get out of the trench. Sitting at a table and negotiating from the middle will not get us there. Edwards will start from the left and get us to the middle, that is the difference.

zalinda

[judaspriestess]

205. oh puhleaze

"but you seem to be the exception to the rule when it comes to Edwards supporters here.

All I see is that he is saying exactly what they want to hear and that is apparently good enough for them, no questions asked."


and the same can't be said for lets say Obama supporters? Obama farts and his supporters think thats the greatest fart they ever heard or smelled.

puhleaze.........

[Andrea]

107. the reference point

You have hit the nail square on the head. In the end, this reference point is extremely influential in how a candidate will preform once in office. Currently, a man who sees regular people as less than human, as pawns, as little creatures meant to serve his pleasure, is in office, and you see what you get. With Edwards, we have a man who sees regular people as he sees himself. He is rich now, but he knows where he came from and he doesn't think he is better than me. There you go. That's the bottom line.

[Ninga]

69. The words Rev. Martin Luther King, III used in praising Edwards are the most important

of this entire primary season. Absent from your opinion is that John has spent countless days and months working quietly, with out being followed by the press and the media, to better the lives of the working class, and minimum wage workers.

Flying in and dropping right wing talking points does not work with me. You know not, of what you speak. Get informed.



http://www.johnedwards.com/news/20080121-mlk-iii-letter.pdf

[Bread and Circus]

93. Speaking of "flying in" here is but one example..

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/us/politics/22edwards.html?hp

snip

Mr. Edwards, who reported this year that he had assets of nearly $30 million, came up with a novel solution, creating a nonprofit organization with the stated mission of fighting poverty. The organization, the Center for Promise and Opportunity, raised $1.3 million in 2005, and — unlike a sister charity he created to raise scholarship money for poor students — the main beneficiary of the center’s fund-raising was Mr. Edwards himself, tax filings show.

A spokesman for Mr. Edwards defended the center yesterday as a legitimate tool against poverty.

The organization became a big part of a shadow political apparatus for Mr. Edwards after his defeat as the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004 and before the start of his presidential bid this time around. Its officers were members of his political staff, and it helped pay for his nearly constant travel, including to early primary states.

end snip

Flying in indeed.

[Ninga]

118. Your selected paragraphs do not tell the whole story. Did you even read the whole

article???

At the end of the day, and the end of the story, it was a creative way for Edwards to give scholarships, travel to walk picket lines, to continue to elevate the cause for justice and the end of poverty.

He started the foundations with his own money, nearly $100,000, which in turn was able to raise money for more good than not.

And yes, it paid for his travel, his hotels, all while he was raising awareness and doing the work of foundations.

Rather clever? Yes. A good plan? Yes. Did it work to help the poor? Absolutely,

Why wouldn't you want a creative, thoughtful, and hard working president like Edwards????

[mdmc]

172. If we had 2008 Edwards back in 2003 we would have the white house

:shrug:

[calmblueocean]

162. So important.

I wish Edwards supporters would take a moment to stop swooning to his rhetoric to take a look at his record. He votes just don't match up to his progressive populist speeches. I don't see how someone so concerned about poor people sleeping on grates could vote for a new bill that makes the protections of bankruptcy even harder to obtain, for example.

I wish someone would tell me HOW YOU DO THAT. What process does your brain go through to get from "I'm concerned about poor folks" to "I'm going to make bankruptcy harder for them." I've never heard a convincing story from anyone that would explain that, and I've never heard an example of why I shouldn't believe that someone who consistently voted to make the protection of bankruptcy harder to obtain and now says he would do the opposite isn't just pandering to get my vote.

I do think Edwards is a fundamentally decent guy, and if he's our nominee, I'll vote him gladly, but I think it's pretty haughty of Edwards supporters to hold themselves so far above everyone else when they can't explain choices like this.

[lyonn]

187. What do you "really know" about your candidate?

We all go by what they say and do. Biden made statements that the other candidates adopted. Now they are adopting Edwards views, except they don't mention corps to any extent, just token comments since Edwards has made them an issue.

[Raster]

34. I miss you Plaid Adder. Throughout my five + years here at DU, your words are the ones that usually

resounded loudest to me. This latest endeavor, is as usual, well written with no ulterior motives or designs other than to share your thoughts and observations. Your writing conveys a level of empathy we rarely see here. As far as I am concerned, you pretty much set the DU standard. I wish you posted more. Thank you.

Wake up America!:kick:

[2rth2pwr]

35. He's a featherweight pretty boy and a phony

You fell for his rhetoric, most others can see right through him.

Sorry

[Plucketeer]

39. Wow!

And you with the moniker of 2rht2prw. When did you change your views?

[zabet]

41. Great post by the OP.

Your response however...:eyes:

[Ninga]

70. Let's see now...you are a better judge than Rev. Martin Luther King, III ??? NOT !!

You fight like a coward....like a school yard bully, calling names and not offering substance.

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/20080121-mlk-iii-letter.pdf

[The Wizard]

76. Those who resort

to name calling start off in the wrong direction.

[desertflamingo]

84. boo on you.

EDWARDS '08

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[krabigirl]

89. pretty boy?

[2rth2pwr]

103. He's cute, isn't he?

He seems to place some importance on his appearance.

[saracat]

120. And this is a bad thing? Perhaps if he didn't bathe or brush his teeth

he would be a better candidate? Isn't it just as bigoted to hold a candidate's good looks against them as it is to hold race or gender aginst them? What a really stupid post!

[2rth2pwr]

130. Not his looks, his grooming habits are a bit odd. nt

[Binka]

159. Been Showering With John Again?

You know about his grooming habits how exactly? Don't respond you are tedious and annoying. Ignore for you Grooming Man.

[Two Americas]

154. oh come on

What person in the public eye does not "place some importance on their appearance?"

You have got to be kidding.

And then you go on to talk about "his grooming habits??"

[racaulk]

151. Did you forget the sarcasm smiley?

:wow:

[saltpoint]

191. Tell us what you find pretty about him.

[Tatiana]

37. I wish I could give this a thousand recs. Outstanding commentary.

Who wants to talk about class?

The haves want to continue having more; the have-somes want to continue pretending that one day they'll be have-mores; the have-nots are too damn busy (as you so eloquently described) trying to pay the rent, half-fill the gas tank, keep the lights on, and feed the kids. They don't have time for this handshake, snubbing, bull$hit.

The bottom line is that you are correct. John Edwards will not win the presidential nomination. But Edwards can still win and we, who are in a daily struggle for our lives, can still win. Obama already has incorporated aspects of Edwards' policy into his platform and he is selling them better than Edwards is, truth be told. If both Edwards and Obama are smart, they will work something out for the well-being off the majority of Americans that WISH they were in the middle-class.

[Plaid Adder]

45. That's basically what I see happening.

Whoever wins will adopt the most easily marketable aspects of Edwards's message and thereby maybe some good will be done. That's why it's worth supporting his campaign even if there will be no actual victory.

Ah well,

The Plaid Adder

[Hutzpa]

77. The problem with Edwards is,

people see him as aggressive, too power hungry, he needs to disguise it a bit,
mix it up. People seem not to trust what he is says, maybe, because they've
heard it all before, maybe its because of few hiccups he had while in the Senate,
its hard to pin-point exactly why Edwards message is not getting through.

One of the reason for me was his donations, since 2004 I felt he should have had this
thing sealed way before we get to Iowa, but then in Iowa, it looks like his campaign
completely disintegrate, what happens....beats me, only Edwards can explain that.

Personally, he focused on the wrong approach, his campaign wasn't organized enough,
and that affected him greatly.

He has the message, but the wrong people around him

edit: mistype

[Tatiana]

108. There is definitely a trust factor with Edwards.

For whatever reason, there are those who feel he isn't sincere or genuine.

I think he is, but I have been following his gradual evolution. Those who haven't been following his career might look at his Senate record and current rhetoric and think, "is he for real?"

That's one of the biggest hurdle his campaign has to overcome.

[Wednesdays]

146. Power hungry?

Let's see--

Edwards -- seeks to be President of the United States.
Clinton -- -- seeks to be President of the United States.
Obama -- seeks to be President of the United States.
Kucinich -- seeks to be President of the United States.
Giuliani -- seeks to be President of the United States.
Paul -- seeks to be President of the United States.
McCain -- seeks to be President of the United States.
Romney -- seeks to be President of the United States.

Yet, Edwards is the one seen as "power hungry?"
Is there some additional position he's trying for that we don't know about?
:shrug:

[bread_and_roses]

40. Oh, Right On, right on, right on! Right on target!

thank you. Another K&R from here.

[Jankyn]

43. Bravo!

I'm kicking, and I'd rec if I knew how...

[balantz]

80. You can recommend by clicking on the little recommend button on the bottom left

corner of the original post.

Welcome to D.U. :hi:

[Time for change]

44. Very well said -- I fully agree

3-person debates are very good for Edwards, because it focuses on his differences with the other candidates, which helps him greatly. If the media covered the issues and pointed out the real differences between the candidates, Edwards would win.

[Seabiscuit]

46. First good read on DU in a looooooong time!

[Plucketeer]

48. Fantastically Stated!

What an irony that the same sort of "Democracy" that our president purports to be planting abroad, has decomposed to the laughable mockery we have here at home. Corporate Amerika has bought and groomed our choices for us (and they've cost a hell of alot more than $400 bucks!). The bold experiment that John & Dennis represented (the silly idea that this place belongs to it's residents!)has crashed and burned for less-than-mysterious reasons. "Move along folks. Nothing to see here - go back to your TV sets and play along.

[hfojvt]

50. very good essay but not totally fair to say Clinton and Obama don't have courage

Much of the coverage of the campaign is from the debates, and the debates are controlled by the M$M which does not want to talk about poor people. They direct the debates into Iraq/Iran/Pakistan/terror/the campaign itself and then various gotcha questions about UFOs and such or Clinton presidential records.

Clinton is striking populists notes in her ads here in Missouri, and Obama hits that theme in the second page of the flier he sent to me. "Putting the needs of Working Americans First" is the title and it starts "Barack Obama chose to work as a church-based community organizer in an impoverished Chicago neighborhood devastated by steel plant lay-offs...."

I think Edwards is driving some of that, forcing them to move that way just to compete with his message. Universal health care is a working class issue as well. Plus, sometimes it seems like the lower middle class needs the attention. As in your feeding example, a poor woman collecting TANF does not have the FMLA or job difficulties. Talking about the middle class sells better in the electorate since the poor do not vote as much as the upper middle class does.

[Armstead]

51. The issue is systemic control of resources and the economy by Corporations

Clinton and Obama do not address this core issue. They do everything to talk around it, while sounding vaguely kinder and gentler.

The pure raw fact is that our economy and society have been handed over to a small handful of powerful interests to an extent that they overshadow politics, social values and basic morality.

Until that fact is recognized within the political process nothing will ever change.

The Clintons had 8 friggin years to rectify the damage of the 80's and they did NOTHING of importance. The "boom" of the 90's was just Reagonomics on Steroids.

[hfojvt]

72. Obama does speak to that in this flier

if not in his typical stump speech or in the debates.

page 16 - "Taking on corporate lobbyists who crowd out ordinary Americans."

page 8 - "Challenging the ways of Washington: Elected to the US Senate in 2004, Barack Obama challenged leaders in both parties by passing the most sweeping ethics reforms in a generation, forcing lobbyists to fully disclose the sources of campaign money they funnel to elected officials."

page 4 - "The Courage to Speak Out, Even When It's Difficult: ... It's why he went to Wall Street to tell executives that they had to do what was right for America, not just what's right for their business and that improving the lives of their workers was right for America."


Worse than doing nothing, Clinton continued deregulating, especially media, passed NAFTA, traded more with China, ended welfare as we know it and cut other social spending, and continued anti-tax and anti-government rhetoric.

Personally, I kinda like big government. I fought with the phone company for two years and finally they went to a collection agency. So I wrote the Wisconsin attorney general and stated my case. He wrote them a letter and they suddenly dropped everything and sent me a check instead. Government needs to be big enough to stand up to big corporations.

[Liberal Dose]

55. This went straight to the printer

THANK YOU! :applause:

:kick:

[LiberalHeart]

56. K&R ... Edwards is as far ahead of curve on domestic issues as Gore has been on climate warming.

[lisainmilo]

57. Don't let the media drive this election! K&R n/t

[femrap]

59. Thx for the post....

I am sick over the 'Divide and Conquer' tactics being used by the Extremely Wealthy Elite (EWE) who control our Media. They have pitted the women against the blacks...and watching us fight each other is pure entertainment to them. The EWEs are laughing their asses at us...while keeping the one candidate who SCARES THE HELL OUT OF THEM....begging for attention.

We are stupid, selfish, and so easily manipulated. I am just sick over this.

All we, as Democrats, should want is the candidate who has the best chance of beating McCain or Romney. We should set aside our individual wants and pettiness and look what would be best for our nation. If we don't get a Dem in the WH this November, I don't think our party will survive.

To me, the Corporations are not only ruining our country, they are destroying the entire world. They have to be stopped. The only one talking about this is Edwards. Too bad he isn't a Black Woman!!!

[RestoreGore]

61. Excellent. So many Americans have blinders on regarding poverty

Hurricane Katrina proved that.

[Midwest Progressive]

63. Gee, I thought it was because he was getting so few votes

Silly me.

[readmoreoften]

66. Welcome! Great that DU has helped you realize how silly your thinking has been already!

Imagine how knowledgeable you'll be if you stick around! :hi:

[Midwest Progressive]

75. Thanks for the welcome, friend

I just don't buy into the Edwards worship. I think he's a fine candidate and would be happy to support him in the general. But the notion he's so preferable or so much to the left of Clinton or Obama is unfounded, IMO.

[BeyondGeography]

81. Only Edwards has ideas; the other candidates are empty suits

you'll catch on.

Welcome aboard.

[Midwest Progressive]

109. Honestly, I think it has more to do with him being the underdog

I've lurked for some time. Thanks for the welcome.

[Wednesdays]

149. Compare the media attention given Edwards vs. that to Giuliani

Then, compare the percentage of the vote they received in their party's caucuses and primaries.

:hi:

[Midwest Progressive]

186. Giuliani was the frontrunner

His fall has been spectacular.

Are you suggesting a media bias against Edwards?

[Wednesdays]

198. "Then, compare the percentage of the vote they received in their party's caucuses and primaries."

Hmm...there seems to be an answer missing.

[readmoreoften]

64. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you...

thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you... (rinse, repeat)

[Cleita]

65. Unfortunately he's been eclipsed by a a silver tongued BSer

Barack Obama in the mode of Ronald Reagan or John Kennedy. When I go behind the pie in the sky inspirational speech, I see a man who although preaching change seems to be surrounding himself with advisors who are retreads from previous administrations and campaigns, all Washington insiders. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of change there to me.

Hillary Clinton by inserting herself in arguing with Obama and ignoring Edwards isn't helping the matter. The media only sees Clinton and Obama, who are very much alike in issues so they can't debate issues because they agree with each other so must lower themselves to personal attacks instead and the press loves that, even DU as you can read on the many posts here.

I'm afraid unless there are more smart voters out there on super Tuesday than have been exhibited so far who are not buying into the personality cult of Obama, we might be doomed to President McCain, who looks like he might become the Republican nominee. I can't see Barack or Hillary, or Barack and Hillary beating him.

I do hope that I am wrong and that things aren't as doomy and gloomy as they seem to me.

[Hutzpa]

67. Sup Plaid,

long time since we heard from you, good post by the way. Like the new DU lately
we have become a close neath family.

There are frequent pillow fights, everyone wants to sleep on the top
bunker.

:D B-) :eyes:

[Shine]

68. Great post, Excellent points, thank you. Media coverage of Edwards is SUCKING!!

:grr:

[pfezziwig]

132. What do you expect, he's a white man

Of course he will recieve less coverage, the media loves the racial and gender divides the other candidates bring up and they will stoke the flames of controversy for better ratings. A white man proposing universal healthcare and suporting the middle class lacks controvesy and isn't sexy enough for CNN, great policies don't win ratings wars, they just make the country better..

[Shine]

136. Welcome to DU, pfezziwig!

:toast: nice to have ya aboard...

and I agree w/ your comments, btw. :D

[peacock]

71. Thank you, Plaid Adder

[LiberalEsto]

78. Well said, Plaid

When I was in grade school in the early 1960s, we were taught the U.S. had three classes: Upper, middle and working class. I think the poor were considered to be below working class, but we never talked about them in grade school. Working class in those days was defined as the people who more or less worked with their hands: police, firefighters, factory workers, construction workers, laborers and nurses.

Back in those days, these working class jobs paid a living wage. It was not considered a disgrace for your dad to be a cop or a factory worker, at least not in my neighborhood. A few kids' moms were nurses, teachers or garment workers, but most moms stayed home. A few made extra money selling Avon or cutting hair and giving perms. I think my mom sometimes did ironing for other people before she became ill.

My dad was a bookkeeper in a soap factory. He didn't earn much, but this and a couple of years of college qualified him as a member of the lower middle class.

[Plaid Adder]

105. It's a major problem, and one that no one seems able to address,

that decent working-class jobs that pay a living wage (like the ones you described) are getting rarer and rarer because almost nothing's made here any more. Instead, unless you're in the white-collar world, you usually have to put together two or three low-paid jobs in the service industry to make things work, and as a result you have no time for anything else.

Ah well,

The Plaid Adder

[Redbear]

79. Awesome!

Thansk, PA!

[Demeter]

82. Thank You, Plaid Adder, For Telling It LIke It Is

You don't even want to know the consequences of having a child who is disabled in any way....

[lumberjack_jeff]

86. Damn we've missed you girl. *sniff*

Best post I've read here in literally months.

[The Wizard]

88. Work is a four letter word

ending in K.
Edwards is the candidate who said it's time for the media to stop picking the candidates. Is it any wonder why he can't get coverage. The corporate media is the handmaiden of the Republican party. It behooves them to promote the candidates least likely to defeat Republicans. Should either Hillary or Barack get elected, they will have to compromise their principles to satisfy a media machine ready to slime anyone who doesn't surrender to corporate power. John Edwards has already stated his opposition to corporate media influence on the democratic process. Corporate control of the government is fascism, at least according to fascism's creator, Benito Mussolini.

[mzmolly]

90. K and R

Thanks Plaid Adder.

[truedelphi]

91. Breath of Fresh Air, Adder. Way to go. n/t

[LongTomH]

92. Edwards is the only candidate I'm donating to or working for!

K&R :kick:

[Lindsey]

98. Excellent post Plaid Adder and very true......

I am trying not to be "devastated" regarding what has happend to John Edwards. I too have donated money and am currently phone banking for him.

[xxqqqzme]

96. Why I'm supporting Edwards.

He 'gets it'. The working class have been so screwed in this country

I remember, about 12 years ago, right after my dad retired, we were talking about his retirement benefits (cuz he is a union member). I observed that not one of his 4 children would enjoy any of those benefits when we retired. After thinking it over (this rong wing publican voting man)responded 'Well, I guess you're right.' I've got to tell you the lack of compassion in his voice chilled me.

[druidity33]

99. wow, just wow

we missed you Plaid!

k+r, of course...

[rosesaylavee]

100. Most cogent rant I have read here

maybe ever. I really miss your contribution here. This was great to read and I am right there with you. I think Edwards has added topics into this campaign, as Kucinich did before him that need to be addressed.

Wish Obama and Clinton's camps could look up long enough from the tit for tat day to day battles to recognize there are larger issues effecting us other than their manners or lack thereof.

Damn good rant. Thank you so much for this.

[onehandle]

102. All Unpledged, Edwards Underground has got your back...

[ChiciB1]

104. I've Said It Before... Wish I COULD FIND The Video Of David Gregory &

Chuck Todd after one of the Democratic Debates where they were talking to TWEETY, giving commentary on who one/lost!! Said Edwards DID great, but that D.C. Elites HATE Edwards and THEY won't let him win!

IT WAS said, IT DID come over National TV and I wish there was SOME WAY I could find the clip!! But it's THE POWER BROKERS and THE MEDIA... I don't give a rat's ASS who believes me, but THEY are doing everything they can to keep him "down and out!" AND Congressmen AND Senators know all about it too! MANY, man of them are involved... and if ANYONE thinks it's REPUKES, IT'S NOT! It's Democrats who don't want the apple cart upset!

OUR DEMOCRACY in Action!! How DOTH THEE SUCK!!

I dare say, if we DIDN'T have the Primary System and we just held a popular vote election for the nominee, I'd bet Edwards would win. Leave the endorsements and BIG MONEY out of it and I truly believe he would make it! BUT, it is what it is, and since we are being "controlled" whether anyone thinks so or not... we pay in the end! 2006 seems like SUCH A LONG TIME AGO, and tell me? What has been done??

Georgie gets his way no matter what!! He SHOULD have been IMPEACHED and done away with, but pray tell, what was one of the VERY FIRST STATEMENTS out of Polis's mouth?? Impeachment is OFF THE TABLE!! That was our "head-ups" folks, and we are STILL buying the crap!

Good luck, that's all I can say. Bad for me because I have to live here and watch this crap all over again!! At least I'll know in my heart that THIS TIME I didn't get sucked in. I may have to pay the price, but it's Edwards and NOBODY else!

[defendandprotect]

110. ? ... The same thing that happened to Kucinich ---

We are now worse off with Kucinich gone ...
It's now easier for them to exclude Edwards ---
And that will begin as quickly as possible so they can get down to
weakening Obama and Hillary so that even their idiotic GOP candidates look good!!

At some point, people at DU will figure this out --
but it will be too late and we'll have another great struggle to get a Democrat in the
White House --- but it will be a DLC Democrat wearing the corporate mantle.

Edwards and Kucinich had a populist message --- anti-elite and anti-corporate ---
and those kinds of messages are very dangerous for the predatory capitalists/corporatists
in control of America --- and seeking total world domination.

If people began to have a real insight into capitalism and the wealth of the elite, they may begin to
rethink other issues --- like national single-payer health care and how much they need Social Security Insurance -- etal!!

And begin asking questions like WHY America has spent 30-40% of her income on the Pentagon?
Right now, we're spending 18% more on "terrorism" than we spent on the Cold War --- !!!

[Raster]

111. I'd recommend again and again if I could. I can KICK it though!

Come on, peeps--let's see how high we can recommend this!
:kick:

[Beregond2]

112. Edwards

Bingo. In people's defense, I have to say that I myself didn't realize the reality of class issues in this country until I hit my forties, and lived in NYC for a while. It is so much more obvious when you see all levels of society crammed together in one small area.

The truth is, American's are not ready to hear this truth, and so I can't blame candidates for not speaking about it directly. That does not necessarily mean they don't understand it though, and won't address it if elected. I am hoping that if Obama is elected, he will choose Edwards as Attorney General, which would be a very powerful position for him to be able to attack some of the corporate corruption and undue influence they have.

[zalinda]

180. I seriously doubt he would take AG

He is a defender, not a prosecutor. Two different sides of the coin. And he takes direction from the White House, he can't go willy-nilly and prosecute people. Maybe Obama should be AG, he's a lawyer too.

zalinda

[bullwinkle428]

113. This is absolutely up to your usual standard of brilliance, PA!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Highly recommended!!

[tom_paine]

114. K & R

[Missy Vixen]

115. Plaid, this is outstanding

You hit the nail on the head as to why I continue to support Edwards, and will support him as long as he chooses to stay in the race.

Julie

[rhett o rick]

117. Excellent post, thank you. One of the reasons I am supporting Edwards is that the media

that is owned and run by the "ruling class" are shunning him. I figure a good rule of thumb is to vote opposite as Bush and the "ruling class".

And I so agree with you about our failure to address the class issue. Even here on DU, the class issue isn't addressed very often.

Rec

[vanboggie]

119. A most excellent analysis, Plain Adder

I really don't understand why more Democrats don't get it. Edwards is getting my money and any volunteer efforts I'll put forth this time around. I feel so strongly about this that I just cancelled my subscription to Ted Kennedy's email list when I got his endorsement email on the other guy. That's just me - I have to believe in my candidate, and John Edwards is truly a candidate for the common folk, and isn't that what being a Democrat is all about?

Outstanding post! :kick: Kicking for common sense.

[Dudley_DUright]

121. Just voted for Edwards today,

but since I live in the dysfunctional state of Florida, my vote unfortunately won't count for much. :-(

[surfermaw]

122. Edwards all the way to the White House.

[Generator]

123. Canary in the Democracy mine

Edwards is the last one. I wish I thought differently. Clinton will kowtow to everything the Republicon/Corporatist/Military wants. So will Obama, he just doesn't know it yet. Hillary at least knows she has to sell her very soul-she watched hubby do that and she has Mark Penn whispering in her ear all day long, "just be more like them-and it will all be okay."

If I believed differently I would be supporting them.

One of the big Edwards detractors on here actually used the words-***angry class warfare***. Oh yes-that's just his stickt. That's a BIG vote getter. Actually even talking about the truth to the American people seems to get you less votes.

Edwards says some truth-America is OWNED by corporations. (he leaves out the military but Americans are centuries away from getting to that truth) And what's with the head shaking-the dollar worth nothing-no jobs that pay anything-oh NAFTA wouldn't have nuthing to do with that! Thank you Bill Clinton-meet the new boss-shit she's MARRIED to the old boss. Oh and maybe those trillions-and a billion just lost here or there might be contributing to our economic downfall. But we can't talk about THAT.

Shut up and vote for the woman or the Black guy-here's your $600 check now everything is FINE. That should pay a months health care premium- whooo hoo!!!!!!!

The America everyone once believed in is gone. I'm just watching the show.

Edwards believes though. I love a believer. So of course I will stay with him at least he speaks some truth-the others give me pablum. I'm tired of THAT stickt.

[debbierlus]

148. LOVE your point. Americans NEED to get angry, GOOD AND

Angry class warfare....

YES! Let's have at it! Those fuckers have robbed us blind. They charged a debt on our KIDS & grandkids.

You damn better believe I am mad. I am PISSED.

Not a thing wrong with it. Channel it for change.

[erebusman]

124. I wont lie...

Its posts like this, and people like Plaid Adder that keep me lurking at DU.

peace and keep up the good work

[yardwork]

125. Where have you been??!! DU desperately needs you

and your voice of reason.

[zulchzulu]

126. Nicely stated, but...

...why didn't Edwards do as Senator what he says he would do now?

He fullthroatedly voted and co-sponsored the Iraq War resolution with Joe Lieberman while he was aware of bogus intelligence reports while on the Senate Intelligence Committee. In 2004, he had said fervently that he would stick up for his vote to give Bush authorization to invade Iraq because it would otherwise look like a weakness.

He must have known that going to Iraq and especially giving Bush a free pass to invade Iraq unilaterally was going to affect untold lives, put troops in harm's way and have Americans spend what will be trillions of dollars.

Here he is talking about the need to invade Iraq:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY6BZgkI0kI

Yes, he had the candor to apologize after 2005. I think that's a little too late and shows to me his judgment when under fire. Was he a progressive then or a slightly more attractive Zell Miller... his words and voting record are what people look at, not what he says from the sidelines after the fact.

How are we to know that Edwards will be honest with the American people. He had to know that Americans and his colleagues in the Congress were being lied to about the impending war. He followed along with the hawks and is complicit in helping start the Iraq war.

There's the China free trade bill that he voted for that caused many jobs and industry to leave this country. Yes, he apologized for those votes...again.

There's the Bankruptcy bill that Edwards voted for in 2000 as well as in 2001, which was directly hitting the Middle Class that he says he would fight for now.

I like was Edwards says from a populist standpoint now, but I have a lot of trouble actually believing his rhetoric versus his record as Senator, which is pretty much the opposite.

All the best in your support for Edwards. He's my second choice.

[zalinda]

183. When you are in the Senate you have your hands tied

According to his whole record, he is quite a bit more liberal than he should have been while representing a red state. We also know that every one was lied to, but he has been the only one with guts to apologize, even if he shouldn't apologize for trusting the President. And the China vote was from Bill Clinton, it was a dem project, he went along with the dems. And as far as the bankruptcy bill goes, I don't know, it may have turned out differently coming out than going in, which is what sometimes happens. He has been a populist from the beginning. Here is a link to an article http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/interviews/articles/2007/06/david_mudcat_saunders that may explain a little bit more about him. Plus here's another link about his "conversion" http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2967 Maybe this will put him back in your first position.

zalinda

[lyonn]

192. The article is Mens Vogue was good.

Thats for posting it. Verifies some of my opinions of Edwards. He is more real than some want to admit. We have been duped too many times to feel comfy "believing".

[trackfan]

127. Great post.

[Dream On]

131. I'm going nowhere

Well, I'm certainly not bailing out. I vote for the candidate I prefer - Edwards. Events are happening so fast with regard to the imploding economy, and I never forget the Bush Administration's rabid penchant for war. I worry that Obama is peaking with his hype campaign, and that the US is rushing through the primaries in all the wrong uninformed shallow ways. I do not want the Clintons back in the White House. So a brokered convention (don't forget the Florida/Michigan "unseated delegates" issue)seems more than possible. I still do not have a feel for who Barrack Obama is, and fear some nasty disappointing surprises. So the idea of a brokered convention - a second chance, and one much closer to the general election - seems a good and exciting one.

I will be voting for John Edwards on the Feb. 9th Washington State caucus, and again in the advisory primary on the 19th.

[Gloria]

137. Thank you. KICK!

[Phred42]

138. K & R

:kick:

[Digital Press]

145. Edwards recieves media bias

John Edwards receives a huge bias from the old media as well as the new media. He has never "had to win a state" in order to stay in. There are not any questions about why he is staying in or why he should get out because he hasn't won a state. He is pathetic not even able to carry his own state, ever. He has never been finished, never been a looser, and has enough money to make it through the race. All BS the old media spews, this candidate never got off the ground, the greatest candidate that never was, not even his running mate would endorse him. This is a good article about how the old media pushes candidates http://digitalartpress.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/old-media-pushing-candadites-clinton-and-mccain-that-are-not-leading-in-the-deligate-count/

[lyonn]

193. From what I heard the kerry people kept the noose around his neck

Edwards was not allowed to step out of their lines. He wanted to object to the votes in certain States like Ohio and was told Kerry was against it.

[debbierlus]

147. Excellent post. The irony is that America is PRETENDING, living on credit

As long as THEY (each individual) are not foreclosured upon...

As long as THEY still have the illusion of health insurance (heaven help those who need to actually use it, it is a coin toss, if the company will actually pay)...

As long as THEY still can pretend....

Actually, it won't take much longer for Americans to be ready. The Bush chickens are coming home to roost. Depression starts next November.

[racaulk]

150. 173 recommendations in less than 6 hours!!!

Glad to make it 174. I wish I could read posts like this every day on DU. Thank you for posting this!

K&R

:kick:

[pamela]

153. K&R

Thank you for this wonderful post. I have missed your voice here on DU.

[iris5426]

156. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

Cause dammit it's that good...

[ooglymoogly]

158. Again I regret that I have only one Rec to give! KR

[AikidoSoul]

160. I voted for Edwards today

in the Florida primary. So did my spouse.

Good post PlaidAdder. Kicked and recommended.

[SalmonChantedEvening]

161. PlaidAdderAtion K&R!!

:hi: :yourock: :loveya:


:kick:

[theaocp]

164. i agree with everything, but...

this: "And this is how the poor get poorer; and it's also why, in our neighborhood, all the drug stores that sell infant formula put it in locked cases. Because otherwise, people steal it. And really, I cannot blame them."

Just to be clear, who are you relieving of blame? The store or the thieves? All the empathy i have does not clear the way for allowing people to steal. Maybe it allows me to feel bad for their situation, but they still chose to have sex, have the kid, etc. Perhaps that's still all part of the socio-economic puzzle, but i would still blame them for being thieves. Good parents, but still thieves.

[zalinda]

184. Where do they get the money for birth control

or should they be celibate? They steal to feed their children. And those who are making the formulas are making a fortune on the formula.

zalinda

[theaocp]

222. i didn't say they were bad parents...

just thieves. I don't approve of larceny, sorry. Sex is a choice. Having a child is a choice. Stealing is also a choice. Stealing to feed their children may be a gray choice, but they made it and should live with whatever consequences come their way. I'd be all for government aid and i'd happily pay the taxes to help folks in such situations. However, they don't get a free pass to break the law just because they decided to have sex and the child that came with the whole package.

[7horses]

165. A lot of the 'middle class' are what I call 'working poor'...

As an ad that Hillary is running in Tennessee says, "People are one missed paycheck, one missed mortgage payment, one medical catastrophe, from economic disaster.
The middle class including the working poor are in a class war, and are losing, and most don't even know it. By the way, a lot of Republicans I know, fit into this working poor class, but again do not realize it, or will not admit it.

I wish they would at least get a chance to hear John Edwards' message and make up their own minds, but it is not happening so far in this primary.

Go John go!!!

[AnotherMother4Peace]

171. and putting kids through college is making the squeeze tighter. n/t

[TexasBushwhacker]

178. Exactly!!!

12% of Americans live in poverty. That's 36 Million people. The poverty line is $20K for a family of 4 and $10K for a single person under 65. 40% of households in America have incomes less than $40K. 60% make less than $60K.

The median income for all US households is $48K. The mean is slightly higher at $66.5K, but what difference does that make when the median cost of a home is $240K - FIVE TIMES the median income of all US households. Who will buy those houses? Sure there are parts of the country that are more affordable than others, but still the numbers just don't add up. There are some communities with so many foreclosures that they have a 2 year supply of homes, and it will get worse before it gets better!

[Richard Steele]

167. Another K&R

[onehandle]

170. 202 Recs! Edwards Underground is Awesome! nt

[judaspriestess]

173. Thank you so much for posting

John Edwards is my candidate!!

on edit: I just donated another $25

[Sarah Ibarruri]

176. OH MY GOSH what a wonderful post! May I distribute this post among my family members? nt

[LuckyLib]

179. Bravo! Your points about education are right on target. Edwards has been marginalized

by the MSM. Even my 84 year old mother is angry about it!

[eridani]

181. The ignore and deride policy of the MSM was applied to Kucinich first

--Kucinich has been for workers' rights and against "free" trade for much longer than Edwards; therefore Kucinich disappeared first.

[tomp]

211. nor did the demacratic party or any of the big three...

...come to kucinich's defense. edwards was perfectly happy to have kucinich elbowed out by the media. what goes around comes around.

[eridani]

213. Edwards was pretty stupid to sharpen the guillotine blade that the MSM

--clearly intended to apply to his neck after they were done with Kucinich.

[Skittles]

182. look how many DUers fell for the MSM-appointed frontrunners

it is disgusting

[medeak]

188. see the following:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/edwards-eyes-a-brokered-convention-2008-01-29.html

[Krashkopf]

194. I'm caucusing for Edwards in Colorado on Super Duper Tuesday . . .

despite the long odds, here. Thanks for reminding me why! Proud to be Rec. #241! WOW!

[Greylyn58]

195. OMG...You nailed it!

Thank you for one of the best posts ever on DU. You have just cut through the smoke and mirrors that the MSM continues to toss in front of Edwards with every step of his campaign. You have gone right to the very heart and soul of what he talks about. It is all about class. Trying to pull everyone in this country up to an equal level--where we should be anyway. No one should be in a position that is better than anyone else. Everyone should have the same rights and privileges this country offers--no matter their status in life.

No matter what anyone says, Obama and Clinton are just presenting watered-down versions of his message. He was first and continues to spread it to anyone who wants to hear it.

Thank you for telling it like it is. :applause:

[scarletwoman]

196. Thank you, PA. No war but the class war. (nt)

[feistydem]

197. Good post. I hope he stays in it!

Olbermann is the only one I've heard give Edwards air time. Sadly, I think he too has jumped on the Obama/Clinton frenzied bandwagon.

My spouse flew to Iowa to campaign for Edwards before the caucus and said his supporters were immovable, while Obama's and Clinton's were pretty loosely committed and could be swayed with hard facts and clear distinctions. That's probably changed now with the MSM beating the drums for their favorite match-up.

I'll keep giving Edwards money until he wins or drops out. I'm voting with my dollars and my brain. It's good to know that so many others on DU are behind him too!

Thanks for the post.

[Starfury]

199. Thank you for taking the time to write this!

This was one of the best posts I've read here or anywhere in a long time. Well done!

[Iwillnevergiveup]

202. REC #276

Excellent post - I heartily agree with you about the funneling of (mostly minority) kids into inferior public schools and how lost they become in their school years. And drop out at horrendous rates. 7% of L.A.'s kids are now in charter schools, and the number is rising, thanks to a $200 million plus donation by Eli Broad. Cripes - most of us are above average ability - wasn't public education good enough for us? Standards, schmanders.

Count me in with John Edwards - his message resonates with me.

[Divine Discontent]

204. Recommend 280 & KICK for honesty!

John resonates with me also, because he IS talking about the issues that I too have said Americans should be talking about, but will slowly realize they should have been talking about in 04 and 08, but appear to not heed.

John is...

Ready.
To.
Lead.

[SalviaBlue]

203. K&R

[2hip]

206. Edwards is our last chance to accomplish the unrealized goals of the 60's

Back then we wanted peace and an end to social inequities. Forty years later and it hasn't come to pass as we had hoped. John remembers those lost dreams and hope and wants to see them finally come to pass. I'm with him heart and soul to the end. Like he says "It's personal!"


KEEP THE MOMENTUM GOING!

New Grassroots Fund Drive—Donate NOW!
(Please give the above link a kick for John!)

[Yuugal]

207. Best Post Ever!

Thank you for that.

[tomp]

208. "he's the only candidate who seems...to have any understanding...

...of class or how it connects to our society's other problems."

really?! i guess you really haven't been paying attention. have you heard of this guy kucinich? he also, opposed the war when edwards was co-authoring the iwr.

yeah, john knows about class. all those rich guys he sent to iraq really hate him.

[GreenTea]

209. Edwards won't quit & we do need a PROGRESSIVE voice, Edwards is a fighter, The republicans

know this well and do NOT want to face him in the general election.The republicans have done everything in their media from trashing him and ignoring his great progressive platform, to ensure Edwards isn't a factor...

However, no MSM coverage also means less donations, the republicans know this as well...Considering everything Edwards is doing great...He just needs ALL of our support right up to the convention.

We can't let Edwards' progressive voice be silenced by the republicans & moderates.

I'm proud to support Edwards!

SUPPORT JOHN EDWARDS!

http://www.johnedwards.com/

[BobTheSubgenius]

212. What an terrific post!

As long and comprehensive as it is - it takes time to hit all the bases - it's still very succinct. You cover a LOT of ground. WELL DONE!!!

[kiteinthewind]

216. Without a doubt-Best Post Ever!!

:yourock: :applause:

[StrictlyRockers]

217. Very excellent post, adder. INSPIRATIONAL. YAY! Rec #300!

:toast: :toast: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :toast:

[StrictlyRockers]

218. YAY!! Rec #300!!

Super post, Adder! Right on target with one of our biggest problems. How can we solve the problems if we can't even discuss them??

You rock!!



:toast: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :toast: :toast: :yourock:

[OneBlueSky]

219. great post, Adder . . . even better than your usual excellent stuff . . . kudos . . n/t

.

[Apollo11]

220. What's to prevent members of Congress from demanding paid maternity leave?

In many European countries, women get 6 to 12 months paid maternity leave each time they have a baby.

Often the government pays the monthers, so employers aren't put off hiring young women.

I would think that Democratic Senators and Members of Congress should be leading this fight.

Not just women - but also men who believe in giving all kids the best possible start in life.

I would expect that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would also be aware of these issues.

I don't think John Edwards has a unique understanding of the problems facing America.

I think that his strategy for the primaries is to run to the left of Hillary and Obama.

But it doesn't necessarily mean that he would make a better or more progressive President.

We should stop pretending that changing the President will by itself solve all our problems.

It takes political pressure coming from the bottom up. Edwards also talks about this.

I kind of agree with your general point about class and wealth and power.

The problem is that most people don't like to think of themselves as poor or working class.

So that's why most people, and most voters, prefer to call themselves middle class.

Especially swing voters in swing states think of themselves as middle class.

So that's why political candidates, including Edwards, talk about "fighting for the middle class".

[pamela]

221. Great thread.

Thanks Plaid Adder. I've missed your voice on DU lately.

[MissDeeds]

223. K&R #313

Supporters of the other candidates can talk all they want, I support John Edwards and he will get my vote. It is important not only that we stand behind the candidate who best represents our values and ideals, but that we also, by our votes, send a message that politics as usual will not feed, clothe, educate, and provide health care. We need a candidate who will fight for the people. All of the people.

[raccoon]

224. K&R. nt

[dembotoz]

226. so where to now

obama does not interest me
and I do not thing I can hold my nose tight enough to support clinton

[saltpoint]

227. Kick. For a damned good man.

[MrsBrady]

228. thank you for this post, I agree n/t

[redqueen]

230. Who's afraid of John Edwards?

:wtf:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4285825

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4286520


:banghead:

[colorado_ufo]

231. Amen!

"But then we live in the country of stupid reasons that produce stupid decisions."

Keep it coming, Plaid Adder!

[Orwellian_Ghost]

232. K&R n/t

[Virginian]

233. Last night we were push polled.

They asked for my spouse by name, then told him it was a random call.

How likely are you to vote - who are you voting for: Very - Edwards.

She told him good stuff about Obama, asked how he felt about it and then asked who he was going to vote for: Edwards.

She told him bad stuff about Clinton, asked how he felt about it and then asked who he was going to vote for: Edwards.

Then she asked for some demographic info. Never once did she mention Edwards.
I wonder if she is really keeping data on the replies and if so, how we skewed her statistics.

She did not say at the end that she was part of, paid by, or endorsed by any campaign.

[gorfle]

234. I'm going to have to disagree.

It starts before birth, really--not just in terms of prenatal medical care, which of course the un- or under-insured often cannot afford, but basic things like prenatal nutrition. It's no good telling people what they have to eat to help their babies develop if they can't afford it or can't get to a store that sells it. Then once the baby's born, the divisions deepen. The American medical establishment--finally--agrees that breastfeeding is better for infants under 6 months than feeding them on formula. (Outside of America, it's usually recommended to breastfeed exclusively for a year, but that's a rant I'm not going into right now.) It is also far cheaper. And yet, the way things are now, breastfeeding is a realistic option mainly for the children of women who don't work outside the home, or women who work in the professions. My partner, for instance, took her 12 weeks of FMLA leave, and thereafter took her $350 breastpump to work where she pumped 3 times a day in the privacy of her own office which has a door that closes. She still only made it through 5 months. Most working-class women cannot afford to take the 12 weeks of *unpaid* leave guaranteed by the FMLA; they'll maybe have two weeks right after the delivery and then they're back on the job, or more likely the jobs, since more and more working-class women are having to work two or three jobs. That's not long enough to establish breastfeeding in the first place; and if you are working, say, as cook at Burger King or a housekeeper in an office building, where are you going to pump? No, you're probably going to wind up having to switch to formula, which will cost you an arm and a leg. So, because you do not work the kind of job that pays well enough to allow you to take a real maternity leave, you *also* get stuck paying more for baby food than your better-off fellow-working women do. And this is how the poor get poorer; and it's also why, in our neighborhood, all the drug stores that sell infant formula put it in locked cases. Because otherwise, people steal it. And really, I cannot blame them.

Before my wife and I had our daughter, we thought long and hard about the financial and other implications of having a baby. We decided that she would quit work to raise our child, and we would make due without her income, as we felt this was the best thing for our child. And if you can't afford to feed yourself properly before the child is born, is it any surprise that after the baby is born divisions deepen due to the challenges that only grow harder?

The good news is that I think more and more people understand this because teen pregnancy rates continue to decline, as do abortion rates. This tells me that people are figuring out it's unwise to have children you can't afford.

How do you provide social benefits to people who irresponsibly have children they are unable to afford without encouraging that behavior?

With all the talk about 'education reform,' I don't know why we can't get anyone to revisit the way we fund our public schools, which guarantees that the more your kids *need* a good education, the less likely they are to have it. No, I take it back, I do know why; it's because ever since the Reagan revolution, "education reform" has really been about breaking public education rather than fixing it. School vouchers and school choice siphoned off the kids of privileged families to special magnet schools or to parochial schools while everyone else was left to flounder in the struggling public schools. Then came the push for "standards" to the exclusion of everything else, with the result that public school kids were not so much educated as trained to take exams; then on top of that came No Child Left Behind, which imposed an unholy bureaucratic burden on schools while also enabling the withdrawal of money from schools that were already in trouble, thus ensuring that they would never recover. And why? Because providing anything good free of charge to the public at large in equal measure is obnoxious to conservative ideology; but also because families in the middle and upper classes want to preserve economic privilege for their own kids and not to share it with everyone else. This dovetails with racism, which is an unacknowledged motivation for a lot of white parents who don't want their kids in the (now integrated, at least on paper) public school system; and the result is that when the public system fails, it fails primarily for minority students. At least in Chicago, most of the white students in the public system are concentrated in the magnet schools, which are always going to make out all right.

I am all for "standards" in schools. You have to have some kind of metric that you can use to rate how effective a school is at providing a learning environment for its students. Now we can debate all over the place on exactly what that standard is going to be, but no matter what someone won't be happy with the metric. Regardless, the alternative - to have no metric, is, to me, to just bury one's head in the sand, all the while tossing more money at the problem in hopes that something gets better.

I also don't understand why people lament that kids are being "trained to take exams". Well, so? As long as the exams effectively measure the skill sets we have decided it is important for them to master, so what? I went to public school as a child, and I have been going to school off and on most of my adult life. Guess what? Going to school is all about passing exams.

I am also all for vouchers to allow people to flee schools that are failing. I know that if my child was at a school that was demonstratably inferior I would not want my child to attend school there if there were other options available. Why would you deny anyone the opportunity to leave a bad school for a better school? I know - your intent is to force everyone to stay in the failing school in the hopes that people would instead put their effort into making the school better, rather than fleeing. While this sounds good in theory, what you are asking people to do is leave their kids in a desperate situation while they fight to bail water out of the sinking ship, hoping to save it. I know that I would not want to leave my child in such a situation while fighting to make it better - I would want to yank my child off of the sinking ship and onto better things if I could.

The bottom line is, people with the means are always going to vote with their feet and go somewhere better if they can. At least vouchers should increase the number of people with the means to do that.

In any case, I feel that the biggest contributor to a student's academic success does not lie with the schools, but rather with parent involvement. I used to be all for "holding teachers accountable" until I had a long talk with a teacher friend of mine. She convinced me of the (now) obvious - it does not matter how good a teacher you are if the child is not motivated to learn. You could have Albert Einstein crossed with Mother Theresa - if the student is not motiviated to learn it won't matter a bit. And for most children, the motivation to learn comes from their parents. Some very few are self-motivated, out of desperation or determination. But most kids, I know I certainly was one, require the demands of a parent to spur us on to succeed. Unfortunately, for many school has become a place where you simply "send" your kids to "be educated", and then they disconnect from the process. I strongly suspect that most "failing schools" are failing not from a lack of money or teaching expertise but more likely from a lack of expectation to succeed at home, which in turn creates a culture of expectation to fail in a school. And I believe this is the most pressing reason to flee such schools - to flee the culture of failure that has pervaded it. Because I suspect that teachers in one place are pretty much going to be the same as teachers anywhere else. It's not the teachers that make the learning environment, it's the cultural expectations. And once a school has been poisoned and is in a tailspin of low expectation to succeed, it's very hard to pull out of that - and I wouldn't want my child hanging around trying to fight it when instead I could just put them into a new, fresh environment.

I'm also against "bussing" or other methods aimed at forcing integration. I'm all for integration, but I remember being caught up in the first attempts at it growing up in Charlotte in the 70's. Instead of attending a school local to my community I was bussed across town over an hour away to a run-down, beat-up school. This tool over 2 hours of my day and blew it on commuting me back and forth to a school across town in the name of integration. Also, as I heard on NPR not too long ago, such bussing of children all over creation also lead to the death of PTAs - parents are not going to work all day and then drive an hour or more across town for an hour-plus PTA meeting followed by another hour home again. This simply encourages parents to be even less involved in their child's education.

[krispos42]

237. The problem with vouchers....

Is that it only partially covers the cost of private schooling. The comfortable get to send their kids to a private school at a steep discount, perhaps 30% or so, while sucking money away from those darn "socialized" public school. Which, incidently, the conservatives that set up the system in the first place (for their own benefit), really do think should be set up to train poor kids to be working drones, educated enough to read instructions and make reports, and subservient and obedient to their employers. Their version of "social mobility" is a scholarship program so that if a poor kid is truly a talented and energetic person there is an escape route to the good, private schools.

I agree, people vote with their feet. And if they want their kids to go someplace with better schools, they should move. Get out of the area which, if it has bad schools, also probably has poverty and crime.




The real cause of all of this is the destruction of the single-income family. With families having to sustain on at least one job per parent, their kids suffer because parents are less involved in raising the kids at all levels. This is how capitalism trumps the family-values republicans.

The best way to raise out kids is to have both parents fully involved. Unfortunately, since very few people can afford to to do this, as a practical matter we have to accept that at least one person has to work full-time to bring in the money. If our society was organized so that most single-income families were able to at least reach the lower middle class, we'd be doing a great thing. But it's not, and it won't be, not as long as we refuse to tax the rich more so we can tax the middle-class and poor less. And it won't be as long as we burden the non-wealthy with outragious medical bills instead of universal single-payer healthcare.

[gorfle]

238. I can agree with that.

Is that it only partially covers the cost of private schooling. The comfortable get to send their kids to a private school at a steep discount, perhaps 30% or so, while sucking money away from those darn "socialized" public school.

The voucher system then should only apply to people below a certain income, and should completely subsidize their ability to switch schools. There is no reason to subsidize the school choice for the comfortable who could send their children to a better school without the 30% discount.

But the current voucher system does at least help those for whom the 30% discount makes or breaks their ability to go elsewhere.


The real cause of all of this is the destruction of the single-income family. With families having to sustain on at least one job per parent, their kids suffer because parents are less involved in raising the kids at all levels. This is how capitalism trumps the family-values republicans.

I agree entirely. Unfortunately, I also think, though, that a lot of families have simply grown accustomed to two incomes rather than actually needing two incomes to survive. We went from making $90K a year with my wife and I both working down to $50 when she quit so we could raise a child. We make a lot of sacrifices - we drive old, paid-for cars, we have one old, 1997-vintage 27" hooked up to a cheap-o Walmart stereo and DVD player. I think too many families are convinced that they have to have two incomes or they are missing out on the "American Dream". I'm sure a lot of families really are scraping by with two incomes but then, as I said, you really ought to assess whether or not you need the extra financial burden of children if you are in that boat.

If our society was organized so that most single-income families were able to at least reach the lower middle class,

You are implying that most single-income families are not at least lower-middle class. I find this hard to believe. I would think that you would have to be at least lower-middle class to be able to afford to raise a family on only one income. Do you have any data to cite to support your claim?

Also, what income range constitutes "middle class"?

[krispos42]

241. Middle class...

Read all about it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class


With the decline of union blue-collar jobs, a lot of security has disappeared, as well as things like collective wage bargining, a guarenteed pension, health care, and the ability to educate and advance yourself through the union.

My dad is a union man, an operating engineer, and the union took care of him. He gets a damn good wage when he works because he's taken a bunch of classes to expand his ability to operate heavy machinery and such.

But this is going away.




The system is always biased to some degree for or against a certain economic class. Currently it's biased for the top five percent or so because the top five percent earn most of the income in the country. And since the Supreme Court has ruled that money is free speech, that means that the top five percent has more free speech than the bottom 95%. And that, in turn, means that the "majority" view that the government hears is from that top 5%. And lookie lookie, our government reflects that.

[gorfle]

242. Comments....

With the decline of union blue-collar jobs, a lot of security has disappeared, as well as things like collective wage bargining, a guarenteed pension, health care, and the ability to educate and advance yourself through the union.

My dad is a union man, an operating engineer, and the union took care of him. He gets a damn good wage when he works because he's taken a bunch of classes to expand his ability to operate heavy machinery and such.

But this is going away.

Except when I was a teenager working at a burger joint, I've always worked as a white collar worker, and never belonged to a union. I had my B.S. in Computer Science paid for by taking advantage of employer's tuition-reimbursement programs at all the employers I have worked for over the years. So you can still get an education, and subsequently good wages, by taking advantage of such programs, even if you aren't in a union.

I've never felt the need to engage in collective wage bargaining, because thanks to my education and skill sets I have been able to bargain for them by myself. I also am afraid that collective bargaining tends to drive employers to seek out employees who aren't in the collective - like other countries.

Job security is definitely on the decline, thanks to globalization. Corporations now have options to seek labor elsewhere whereas in years gone by they were more or less restricted to local labor pools. This is why unions had some power then over corporations, since they controlled the local labor pool. Now that the labor pool is global Unions find themselves in a more and more precarious situation as the harder they turn the screws to corporations the more attractive other labor pools begin to seem. This is one of the reasons I abandoned the Republican party - they continue to pander to and subsidize mega-corporations, but those corporations - and the people who lead them - are now so rich that they can live anywhere and are no longer beholden to the interests of the United States.

I have never missed not having a "pension" as I have never worked anyplace long enough to have gotten much from one anyway. I learned early on from my father that it does not pay to work for the same employer very long with measly cost-of-living wage increases every year. The only way to make bank is to jump to a new employer with new skills, jacking your pay up by at least 15% with each jump. The trade-off for this is I've had to save for my own retirement, which I have been doing.

I have not read through the extensive Wikipedia articles yet on the Middle Class, but thanks for the reference. I never thought to check Wikipedia for that kind of information.

[Orsino]

236. Kucinich was there first, but these are the best reasons to praise Edwards...

...who has quite a bit in common with Dennis, and is more eloquent.

[BrklynLiberal]

239. I am disappoointed that I did not see this in time to Recommend it!!! Superb post!!

[onehandle]

240. 336 Recs. Best. Post. Ever. nt