Or, as the article notes, how most of the Democratic candidates wouldn't help the poor. I guess that's understandable, inasmuch as proposing to help the poor pushes one closer to being "unelectable" (ie, one would have to fight for the nomination without lots of corporate cash and the blessings of Tim Russert). I excerpted a couple of profiles, but if you click on the link, you can find profiles for all the candidates.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=382_0_1_0_CDennis KucinichThe man who declared “poverty’s a weapon of mass destruction” is the only candidate to address the problems of welfare reform in his campaign statements. (He takes note of plunging college enrollment among welfare recipients, for example.) Like many congressional Democrats, he has called for expanded education and training opportunities for people receiving welfare, saying “education is the only solution proven to reduce poverty levels.” Unlike most of his Democratic colleagues, he believes home childcare should count as an allowable work activity. He supports single-payer health care.
Howard DeanThe Vermont governor’s credentials as poverty-fighter rest almost entirely on his plan to expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program—effectively creating a federal expanded Medicaid program to benefit the near-poor—covering everyone at or below 185 percent of the poverty level and all children and young adults at or below 300 percent of poverty. On other matters, there’s less evidence of a crusader for the poor: Dean’s Vermont was an early pioneer of workfare, and the governor has bragged of being one of the “pioneers of welfare reform,” which he thinks “has been an incredibly positive force.” Like most Democrats (and many Republicans), he opposes the 40-hour work week requirement and lack of childcare funding in Bush’s welfare bill, but that’s been the extent of his criticism.
more...