WP: Edwards Builds New Platform

[kskiska]

U.S. Poverty Called Great Moral Issue

DES MOINES, June 14 -- John Edwards may formally deny he is a candidate for president, but it's awfully hard to tell. After a speech, last year's Democratic vice presidential nominee pulled into Iowa -- whose caucuses gave Edwards his biggest victory -- Tuesday with former campaign aides to talk about poverty and moral values. He began at a housing conference, met with Maytag workers and wrapped up the day at a Democratic fundraiser.

Along the way, he criticized President Bush for a "failure of leadership" in Iraq and a refusal to deal with a growing national health care problem. Edwards said he may not speak with the same voice as Democratic Chairman Howard Dean, under fire for sharp attacks on Republicans, but the former North Carolina senator said he shares Dean's goal of putting the Democrats "back in power."

Seven months after he and Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) lost their bid for the White House, Edwards is emerging with undiminished ambition and a fresh cause. The campaign he publicly admits to waging is one against poverty. In a new round of speeches across the country, he calls poverty "one of the great moral issues in America today."

Edwards, who won a following with his two Americas (rich and poor) campaign speech, accepted a faculty job at the University of North Carolina, designed as a platform on the issue. He signed a deal to put together a book on first homes and what they meant to the people who lived in them. And he has begun working with college students on more than 10 campuses to build anti-poverty activism.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/14/AR2005061401435.html

[Triana]

1. Need to clone this man...

...I want one for myself! Edwards rocks.

[Iowa]

2. I don't know...

Yeah, poverty is certainly a moral issue - and I spent my life working with people who were in poverty - but I don't much care for this business of splitting people into demographic groups and focusing on a few. True, there has been a huge assault on the poor. But war has been declared on the middle class, and if the middle class goes down (and it is going down) life as we know it will cease to exist in the US.

Another example: my DINO governor, Tom Vilsack, likes to tout health insurance for children. All well and good, but it always leaves me cold that he pretty much ignores the fact that many of the parents who are raising these children don't have access to health care themselves.

So I guess what I'm saying is these piecemeal approaches set the bar far, far too low. I'm always left with the impression that they think the existing system is fixable (or insurmountable) and we just need to tweak it a little. I can't get excited about someone unless they're bold as hell.

[PeaceProgProsp]

7. Healthcare for children is a pathway drug to get people hooked on Nat'l HC

As a society, we're always willing to make sacrifices for kids. We finance a huge free school system because nobody disputes that kids need education and society should provide it.

The strategy is that if Iowa gets all kids state-provided care, they'll grow up to be adults who ask why they don't get the same benefits they got as kids. They'll know the social value and will ask that it continue.

I think it's smart to start with this small step, especially since starting with a big step (Hillary in '92-3) showed that it's almost impossible to get anything done with such a powerful, rich, high profit-margin opposition.

Vlassic is on the right track.

As for you anxiety about dividing people into demographic groups, George Lakoff points out in Moral Politics that Republicans are the party that always tries to PRETEND that there are no class divisions in America. Given that Republicans are creating such dramatic class divisions, I think it's the moral obligation of Democrats to point them out where they see them and do what's necessary to stop the misery created by Republicans strategy to transfer all wealth to the already wealthy.

And just because the focus is on poverty, doesn't mean this isn't about the middle class. In fact, much of this discussion is about the working poor -- about how people are working to make other people (capital, not labor) rich. These are the people who would have been middle class if they had lived in America between 1950 and 1973, but are now working poor because America now rewards wealth with more wealth rather than work with wealth.

[Iowa]

14. Oh, I understand the rationale...

I just have zero enthusiasm for some of these half-baked DINO approaches that postpone fixes until far into the future. Way too passive in my book. We can do better. There's nothing to stop us from at least trying to take big bites like FDR's generation did. Nipping around the edges has produced nothing but an accelerating backward slide.

[PeaceProgProsp]

15. We tried the big bite with Health Care. Dems owe it to US to do something.

The big bite didn't work, so rather than bang heads against the wall (or, more accurately, against the richest, most profitable industry in the history of the world, and the largest segment of the US marketplace, and one that makes actual life and death decisions for people who are little more than dollar signs) I think the Democrats should look at small steps that will lead to a big step down the road.

What do you think will be any different ten or twenty years from now that will allow a big step to work when it didn't work in '92? If anything, it's going to get harder to do something big. Which is why your governor is on the right track.

[Iowa]

23. Nah... '92 didn't work for many reasons:

--- Clinton botched it. Rather than regroup and attack differently (and smarter) our gutless DINO politicians simply accept defeat and take whatever little scraps they can get. They make one charge up the hill, get slapped down, and then walk away from the battle for going on 15 years now. There's no courage in that - no dedication - no passion - no sense of urgency. Of course this is all one big academic exercise for those of us who get decent health care, but its life and death for those who don't.

--- Health insurance didn't cost ~$1,200 per month for a family plan in '92. People are dropping coverage every day because they can't afford the premiums.

--- More employers offered decent coverage in '92. Many more simply don't provide it now (or provide worthless coverage).

--- The percentage of people without access to health care was far less in '92.

So the time to address this crisis is now; not 10 to 20 years from now. At the rate we're going, only the wealthy will be able to afford health care in 10-20 years.

But what it really comes down to is this: I believe that access to decent health care is a basic human right for everyone - not just kids. I simply don't believe that it's moral to expect millions of people, who don't have access to health care, to sit tight and bear it because MAYBE things will be better for the next generation. That's tantamount to asking many of them to sacrifice their health and maybe even their lives, because the politicians are afraid to take on (as you say) "the richest, most profitable industry in the history of the world, and the largest segment of the US marketplace". I don't respect politicians, like my DINO governor, who are willing to settle for so little on behalf of so many, just because he doesn't believe it's doable. Playing it safe... preserving the status quo... taking tiny steps... it's all just more Republican light.

[alfredo]

3. I saw him a few months ago. I have no doubt he is

running. He even had the cyst on his lip removed.

[high density]

5. Yeah, plus his PR machine is still running full force

(as evidenced by this article and many others.)

I think he could do more about poverty if he was Vice President instead of working as former one-term senator, though. Unfortunately I seem to remember that the VP thing didn't quite work out last year.

[PeaceProgProsp]

11. If this is what his PR machine is like now

I look forward to seeing what it can do against Frist, McCain, J. Bush, or whomever the Republicans throw up.

[alfredo]

12. I think "Throw up" is an apt description. n/t

[DURHAM D]

4. Can't help it - he puts me to sleep. Now Elizabeth on the other

hand - she kicks ass. Run her not him. She is not inclined to kiss ass, takes no prisoners, much stronger person. Oops - she is a woman. Won't work.

[AmericanDream]

26. I think John Edwards is better *shrugs*

[Carla in Ca]

6. The story from a few days ago

regarding the widening gap between rich and poor will become bigger as long as r's are in the lead. His message will surely resonate even more than it did last year.

[Darkamber]

16. I'd agree with you on that....

give it another 2 years...assuming we are still in Iraq and I wouldn't be surprised if we are still there. People will be up in arms about it and want to deal with domestic issues and be tired of pouring billions and billions down the dark hole of that war.

Edwards message directed at the problems at home, will be heard far more clearly this time.

By the way, Edwards was in Britain recently talking to Blair about poverty before Bush did his meeting. I could see Blair and Edwards seeing eye to eye on that issue.

[KoKo]

17. Blair and Edwards seeing "eye to eye." Well we already been there and

done that one. Didn't Chimp say Blair used the same toothpaste he did at that first visit when Blair came to Camp David and they both "plotted us into Iraq?" AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE OF BOTH COUNTRIES???

Yeah..it's good that Edwards and Blair chummed it up. Nice......

[PeaceProgProsp]

21. Blair and Edwards see eye to eye on baby bonds and making middle class

something to which someone can reasonably aspire.

[AmericanDream]

27. Eye to eye on progressive policies, not foreign policy

[kentuck]

8. Edwards is a star.

He's definitely in the top echelon.

[KoKo]

18. a "dark star." n/t

[Catchawave]

9. He'll have my vote.....

....I love this man! :bounce: <----me, jumping on couch!

[ChiciB1]

10. My Guy! My Guy! & My Guy!

I've Never Gone Out On A Limb For Anyone This Way!

Well, maybe for Kerry! And I was REALLY BIG for McGovern! But they were Liberals, my type! Edwards is much more moderate, but I just think he can WIN! He has several big PLUSES...not the least of which is ELIZABETH! She amazes me!

And just for those who think JEB will be running, he says NO, but he has one BIG down side. HIS WIFE!!!! She doesn't even live in the Governors Mansion here in Florida. That could have changed, but the last I heard she lives elsewhere. How great is that????

[Darkamber]

13. Elizabeth is great!

I can't agree with you more. There's not a negative word that could be used against Elizabeth. And as a moderate, I'm thrilled to know that there is someone out there who can attract liberals as well.

That is what Edwards is all about...bringing people together and lifting them up. Glad to know that he is keeping up the fight.

[KoKo]

19. Elizabeth is Great....if she would run...she'd have my vote..n/t

[Digit]

20. Edwards is my choice, all the way!

He has what it takes to win.
You can make your lists as to who has which qualifications, but Edwards is able to "connect" with people. I saw the snowball effect in his run for President.
I don't know what it is, but I wish I had "it", or could at least bottle it!
I have heard people remark after hearing him for the first time that they BELIEVED him...and believed IN him.
This gut reaction is powerful stuff....don't underestimate it.
We MUST appeal to the masses...and we all know there are people out there who think soap operas are REAL. Scary, I know.
I truly believe Edwards appeals to MOST people, and even the ones out there who don't know or could care less about politics.
Mark my words,...they will just say they LIKE him for some reason.
That is all it takes to win.
Crazy, but true.

[tishaLA]

22. I'm happy to see a national Democrat...

talking about poverty. He's right that it's a moral issue and I love that he is dedicating so much time to it in his Center for Poverty at UNC. From what I've seen, it's a great project.

[VOX]

24. Edwards is a fine man, and will be a force to be reckoned with...

He is articulate, thoughtful, passionate, and relates incredibly well to most people.

I don't have blinders on, and I'll proudly support and work for *any* Democratic presidential candidate. However, I'm convinced that Edwards represents the best chance to take back the White House in 2008. :thumbsup:

[AmericanDream]

25. Edwards does the best against ALL potential Republicans!

John Edwards is probably and possibly the best chance for democrats to win back the white house. With the exception of McCain, he will easily outshine and outsmart any potential republican from Allen to Frist to anyone else. The election is more than three years away... but Edwards looks great.