Showing posts with label John Edwards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Edwards. Show all posts

Thursday, May 01, 2008

Joe Trippi: What I Should Have Told Edwards



Joe Trippi, who was senior adviser to the John Edwards 2008 campaign, confesses in a recent article [Campaigns and Elections] that he has regrets that he didn't tell former Presidential candidate John Edwards, before Edwards left the primary race, that he had the feeling that Edwards staying in the race would mean perhaps winning 300 or so delegates by Super Tuesday. He may have then had perhaps "a one-in-five chance of forcing a brokered convention." Mr. Trippi says that the path ahead would likely have been extremely painful, but could very well have put Edwards and his causes at the top of the Democratic agenda.
"I should have told him emphatically that he should stay in. My regret that I did not do so-that I let John Edwards down-grows with every day that the fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama continues."
The honesty, the soul-searching, and his support for Edwards' agenda shows clearly through Mr. Trippi's words. He knew that "grinding out delegates only to be in a position to cut a deal at the convention for his own gain" wasn't why Edwards had gotten into the race for president. Still, he's wishing he'd pushed the idea of Edwards continuing to campaign despite all the hard realities. Mr. Trippi says:
"[John Edwards] had entered it to push causes like ending poverty, championing health care for every American and fighting for working people, and it just wasn't him to turn it into a selfish quest. I really respect that, and it helps explain why I so fervently wanted John Edwards to become president. The man cared deeply about those causes, and he did not want to see them tarnished because of a string of embarrassing losses.

My mistake was not seeing more clearly then what is so obvious to me now: He could have kept his agenda in the forefront by staying in the race and forcing Obama and Clinton to focus on those issues because he, John Edwards, would hold the key to the convention deadlock. And maybe, just maybe, a brokered convention would have stunned the political world and led to an Edwards nomination.

If I had expressed these thoughts to the senator, it's possible that he would still be in the fight and leading Obama and Clinton on the issues....."
I think this is a gutsy statement on Joe Trippi's part. I don't fault him for anything that occurred and I concur with him about his reasons for having supported John Edwards all along. I feel much the same as he feels about the state of the Democratic race today. I wish there could've been more pressure put on the two remaining candidates to make and take the case for ending poverty to the American people. I agree with Elizabeth Edwards that Senator Clinton's Universal healthcare agenda is the most needed and effective plan of the two between the remaining Democratic candidates.

Monday, April 28, 2008

Jericho Road by Steve Earle



I love this song..thought I'd share it with you. I recently saw Steve Earle perform it in concert at the McGlohon Theater in Charlotte, N.C. I've been a fan for a long time...over 20 years.

Since I blog politics, I won't fail to mention that Mr. Earle told the audience that he'd been a supporter of presidential candidate John Edwards and didn't have another candidate that he chose to endorse at this time. He admitted to being more progressive than most in today's Democratic party.



Thursday, March 13, 2008

Olbermann Goes Too Far



I have to agree with Kate Stone's assessment of last night's dreadfully melodramatic performance by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann where he compared Hillary Clinton to David Duke. [While divisive garbage like this is being thrown at the American public by MSNBC's rival corporate MSM contender..and we Democratic chumps wind up taking all the damage from their ratings battle]. I happen to think Mr. Olbermann's trying very hard to please and promote himself with what he seems to think is an objective progressive crowd at Daily Kos, where he ran to post his comments from last night's Hillary-bashing segment. The tone of those comments rivaled a Sarah Bernhardt high-drama soliloquy. The deliverer of the bitter content of those comments stabbed wantonly at a Presidential candidate with a faux-rage that would've been laughable if It wasn't so careless. What Mr. Olbermann fails to realize is that there is virtually very little objectivity at the Daily Kos website as things stand in this primary race. I know. I've been a participant there for five years. Democrats are fighting there all the time now. He's catering to one side of a broken party. Isn't that kind of like Jerry Springer exploiting dysfunctional families for entertainment's sake?

Speaking of the drama diva herself..while performing in La Tosca in Rio de Janeiro circa 1905, Sarah Bernhardt received an injury to her right knee during the final scene that eventually, due to untreatable infection, resulted in her entire right leg being amputated. With his corny and Democrat-dividing performance, I think Keith Olbermann, by breaking trust with many progressives last night, may well have caused an infection that could wind up amputating his career as a credible political pundit.

Too bad. For a while he was hitting some home runs. He was the last talk-show host on MSNBC to whom I'd been giving an open-minded listen. He polluted my open mind last night.

________________


* This is from me... a longtime blogger...a consistently objective John Edwards supporter who's hoping for the two remaining candidates to come together for the party's sake and take on some of Sen Edwards' issues instead of making me remember that he was the only grown-up on the room most of the time. This week I saw a powerful Democrat go down for spending God-knows-how much on hookers while the candidate I supported caught shit in the idiot MSM for getting a $400 haircut. I'm no longer in the mood to tolerate anyone willing to divide our party...that includes the remaining candidates and well-paid self-promoting pundits like Mr. Olbermann.

I realize that my opinion isn't the popular one, but it comes from an unbiased heart and mind. Fairness, in this case, was not given to Sen Clinton, who was delivering a heartfelt public apology as Olbermann was impulsively skewing her.. before he gave it one news cycle to see what Clinton would do. I didn't subscribe to the notion that some other bloggers have been expressing about Olbermann being "Obama's newscaster"...until last night. My party's been voting for more than just one candidate. Neither of the campaigns' surrogates have been innocent of the charge of damaging negativity.


Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Speaker Pelosi Can't Say "Unity" Now, But....



Some Obama supporters in my party are hanging their proverbial hats against the idea of a party unity ticket based on what they read from Politico's Ben Smith, who, at the end of the day, is not participating in his professional endeavours in order to create arguments that will win for Democrats .. and is making a living in a business that showcases the most controversial issues of the day for an optimal amount of eyeballs looking at a money-making website. I think it's wrong to hang your hat on just one temporal quote from Speaker Pelosi bluntly dismissing a unity Democratic ticket [sparked by her current displeasure with a compliment Clinton paid to McCain at the expense of Obama].

At Real Clear Politics there's a brief analysis by Blake Dvorak that I found to be astute:


I'm going to call Pelosi on inconsistency here. She says the differences between Obama and Clinton are nothing compared to the chasm between Democrats and Republicans. But later on she dismisses a "dream ticket" as impossible because the Clinton campaign has said McCain would make a better commander in chief than Obama. Well, assuming the need to beat the Republicans in November outweighs the differences between Obama and Hillary, which is what I think Pelosi is getting at, then a dream ticket is not only possible, but preferable.

But we also know why Pelosi is being inconsistent. Endorsing in any way a joint ticket is a nod to Clinton right now, given the campaigns' difference of opinion on the idea. And Pelosi needs to appear "uncommitted."


Speaker Pelosi's playing the part she imagines she needs to play while remaining uncommitted to either candidate. Perhaps she knows what time can do, if both candidates' campaigns are listening, to erase the memory of bold albeit temporal statements like this one.

But everyone knows there's no such thing as "impossible". Using the word creates an easily-breakable frame. A worry for me, though, is created by such an unimaginative and hopeless-sounding statement from a party leader. Absent of vision at a difficult time for the party, it emits a sad signal to already-conflicted Democratic voters who, unlike some party extremists defending Obama or Clinton, genuinely like both Obama and Clinton. I can't blame Nancy Pelosi, though.I blame the lack of harmonious spirit betwen two extremely (and equally) popular party luminaries who are running for the highest office of the land.

It will soon be time for them both to grow up and start coming together for the sake of their party and for the change they both say they wish to bring to our country.

It's no wonder Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Bill Richardson, and John Edwards have remained uncommitted.

Monday, February 25, 2008

Iraq/Recession Campaign



At the MoveOn.org website today, you'll see this:

As long as we keep pouring that money down the drain in Iraq, we’ll never solve our economic woes. We won’t have the money to take care of people hurt by the economic downturn, or to invest in making our economy more competitive.

That’s a message that pundits and politicians need to hear.


A polling by USAction.org has shown that, 69-to-25, U.S. swing voters have expressed their strong support for ending spending for the Iraq war.

This morning, former U.S. Senator and presidential candidate John Edwards and his wife Elizabeth Edwards joined top anti-Iraq war leaders to announce the launch of a new nationwide, multimillion dollar campaign aimed at shining a light on the cost of war in Iraq. The new Iraq/Recession Campaign was launched with a teleconference. Along with the Edwardses on the teleconference were John Podesta, CEO of the Center for American Progress, Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org; Brad Woodhouse, president of Americans United for Change, Jon Soltz of VoteVets.org, among others.

As economic concerns weigh heavily on the minds of Americans, opposition to President Bush's reckless war in Iraq continues to grow. The massive cost of the war in Iraq- hurtling toward one trillion dollars - has increased demand for a strategy to bring U.S. troops home. The Iraq/Recession Campaign will highlight the majority of Americans who want to see leadership on investing in critical priorities at home and establishing real security throughout the world.

Speaking from her home in North Carolina, Elizabeth Edwards gave a reason why she was lending her name to this campaign. She said that it's important for the American people to understand, if they feel that the economy is their 'Number One issue,' that ending the war in Iraq should be their 'Number One issue.' Her husband, 2008 presidential candidate John Edwards agreed, saying that, wherever he went in this country over the course of his now-suspended campaign, there was great angst expressed among voters about their personal economic security. Issues like gasoline costs, healthcare costs and availability, rising college costs, and mortgage foreclosure crises loomed heavily on voter's minds. Former Senator Edwards stressed that voters will have a clear choice this Fall, the choice being between a Democrat who will end the war and focus on the economic anxiety that exists and a Republican - which will likely be John McCain - who will continue the Iraq war and the failed foreign policy of the Bush administration. [See Ryan Teague Beckwith's Edwards: Iraq, economy tied, NewsObserver.com]


Incidentally, John McCain said, just today, that to win the White House he must convince a war-weary country that U.S. policy in Iraq is succeeding. If he can't, he said... "Then I lose. I lose." [AP]


John Podesta of the Center for American Progress cited the falling dollar, the price of oil at times exceeding over $100 per barrel, the staggering federal IOU's due to the need to restore a nearly broken military and to take proper care of our nation's veterans, huge deficits, and stagflation the likes of which have not been seen since the 1970s as reasons for voter anxiety and deep concern about the millions the taxpayers are forced to spend each and every day that we remain occupying Iraq.

_____________




On other media websites, the word is.....

The Hill puts an Obama-spin on the new Iraq Recession campaign, but not one spokeperson involved on the campaign has said this morning that the Iraq/Recession campaign is about Obama or Clinton or even strictly about Democrats. It's about the American people and their economic priorities. See: Edwards joins Obama supporters in new anti-war effort by Walter Alarkon, The Hill


John Nichols at the Nation is still wondering if Edwards will endorse either Democratic candidate and he also talks about how Edwards is defintely not waiting around for inspiration to strike, but is instead "endorsing" an approach to the 2008 race.

CBS' Vaughn Ververs provides us with: Edwards Joins Effort To Link Iraq, Economy

The Guardian's Elana Schor tells us that Edwards speaks out against Iraq war spending, calling the group of anti-Iraq-occupation campaigners "natural allies for either Clinton or Obama during a general election race against McCain."


The Swamp at the ChiTrib has more. (and this philosophically relates to the quote I use from MoveOn's Eli Pariser at the very end of this blogpost.)






Send a Letter to the Editor

At MoveOn.org, you can easily send a Letter to the Editor: The cost of the war and urgent needs at home



Questions for John McCain

During the January 24, 2008 Republican presidential debate, a question taken from an audience-member summarized what some are calling the Iraq recession -- the connection between the US's presence in Iraq and recession back home.





VoteVets.org has a question for Senator and likely Republican presidential nominee John McCain:




CNN's Political Ticker Showcases the VoteVets.org ad today.
See: Votevets.org targets McCain on Iraq

The Caucus [Leslie Wayne,NYT Political Blog] talks about the ad.

Marc Ambinder on McCain's "100 Years" in Iraq. Listen to Senator McCain trying to clarify '100 years' here.



______________



Recession and Iraq

Some will likely debate and perhaps dispute the connection between economic recession and the war in Iraq. This posting by NYT columnist Paul Krugman isn't directly related to the new Iraq-Recession campaign, but he gave an opinion in late January about the talk of economic recession and how the Iraq War relates (and doesn't relate) directly to U.S. economic woes. One very important point Mr. Krugman makes is that Iraq would be exporting more oil now if we hadn’t invaded — a million barrels a day, perhaps — and that would have kept today's high oil prices down somewhat.




Have You Heard About the Bush-Legacy Bus?

One new bit of information I got this morning (and what I thought to be rather amusing for some reason) is Brad Woodhouse's explanation of the "Bush Legacy Bus" project. The Washington Post has explained the project, virtually a rolling museum, as only part of an ever-growing effort for critics to chip away studiously at the legacy of the President who has said, time and time again, that he believes history will judge him ever-so-kindly when the smoke of the many unnecessary fires he's created has dissipated to somehow magically reveal a transformed Middle East.
A negative verdict on Bush also animates the work of the Bush Legacy Project, launched recently by the liberal advocacy group Americans United for Change, which announced plans to spend $8.5 million over the next year to keep the public focused on what it considers the administration's many failures. [WaPo, Michael Abramowitz, February 4, 2008]

I guess it's the name "Bush Legacy Bus" that's caused me to mentally visualize a short yellow bus carting around all of the simpleton-like Bushisms and pathetic misleadings that have passed from the President's clumsy lips over the past eight years.


The Wall Street Journal's Susan Davis says,
Americans United for Change will spend an estimated $8-$9 million on their Bush Legacy Project, a "national multi-faceted effort to define President George Bush’s legacy," and seeks to define McCain as an extension of that. Additionally, USAction said they will spend $10 million on their campaign that includes Iraq, health care, the budget and education. Jeff Blum, executive director of the group, discussed a recent USAction-commissioned poll that showed 74% of respondents stating the country is on the wrong track and that the war and the economy are top issues of concern. "The results show people are angry. They want to get out of Iraq to invest in America’s future," he said.

_____________




Progressive Voters Give John and Elizabeth Edwards Credit and Thanks

NCDem blogs about the new campaign at the website Daily Kos. See: Edwards and Obama Endorsers, MoveOn & SEIU, Launch "Iraq/Recession" Campaign





FOOD FOR THOUGHT
A February 19, 2008 quote from Eli Pariser, MoveOn.org:


As of today, we've spent over $495 billion in Iraq.

With the economy in the tank, think about what that money could do here at home: Cover millions of kids who don't have insurance, or help folks who're losing their jobs and homes. Instead, it's supporting a failed occupation in Iraq. More and more Americans are making the connection between the billions we've spent over there and the crumbling economy here at home. In fact, a new AP poll shows that most Americans think ending the war is the best way to help the economy.

But pundits still talk about the war and the economy as two unrelated things. That's why we're launching our "Iraq/Recession" campaign—our push to make sure that politicians and pundits understand what voters already know: As long as we keep pouring that money down the drain in Iraq, we won't have the money we need to solve our economic woes.


Monday, October 22, 2007

Edwards & Gore on Iraq at Current.com (Current comes to Converge South)



Former VP Al Gore and 2008 presidential candidate John Edwards have made videos for Current.com where they've expressed their opinions about the Iraq War.


Related:

Current.com comes to Greensboro, N.C.



Saskia Wilson Brown of Current.com




Current's Brandon Gross (on right) with co-panelist Jason McHugh (CrapTV)


Saskia Wilson-Brown and Brandon Gross of Current.com appeared at the 2007 Converge South conference held at North Carolina A & T University in Greensboro this past weekend. Photo by Jude Nagurney Camwell (Iddybud).




My set of photos from Converge South
Go to the link to see larger versions of the photos below.


conv1 (18)conv1 (19)conv1 (20)conv1 (22)conv1 (26)conv1 (28)conv1 (31)conv1 (32)barbqBen and His Shadowconv2 (1)1conv2 (2)1conv2 (3)1conv2 (4)1conv2 (5)1conv2 (8)1conv2 (9)1conv2 (10)1Robert ReddickElisa CamahortSonia Pitts, Ruby SinreichConverge South 2007Jason, Brandon Gross, Converge South 2007Saskia Wilson-Brown, Converge South 2007conv2 (17)1conv2 (18)1conv2 (21)1David Beckwith at Converge SouthScott and DaveConverge South 2007conv3 (1)1conv3 (2)1conv3 (4)1conv3 (5)1conv3 (6)1conv31Sue Polinsky and Will Bunch



ConvergeSouth 2007 Flickr Group
Technorati Results for ConvergeSouth2007
Anthology of Converge South postings [by David Beckwith]
Posted at Current.com by Saskia Wilson-Brown

Thursday, September 13, 2007

John Edwards' Response to President Bush





The ONLY Way: Bush Must Change Course in Iraq





Immediately following George W. Bush's speech tonight, tune in to MSNBC.

John Edwards has something to say that he thinks is so important for you to hear that his campaign has purchased air time on MSNBC to say it.


From TPM Election Central:

John Edwards isn't going to use the usual method — a dry press release, followed by speeches at campaign rallies the next day — to rebut President Bush's speech tonight about Iraq. Instead, Edwards will run a two-minute ad tonight on MSNBC, set to air right after Bush's speech.

"Unfortunately, the president is pressing on with the only strategy he's ever had — more time, more troops, and more war," Edwards says in the ad, regarding Bush's expected plan to withdraw 30,000 troops from Iraq, conditioned on progress in the country.

"Tell Congress you know the truth," Edwards says. "They have the power to end this war and you expect them to use it. When the president asks for more money and more time, Congress needs to tell him he only gets one choice — a firm timeline for withdrawal."


Here's a preview of what Senator Edwards will say this evening (tip of the hat to TPM):



Listen at MSNBC directly after the President's speech tonight to hear John Edwards' message in its entirety.


Friday, September 07, 2007

Edwards' New Strategy Against Terrorism




"We've got to throw away the failed George Bush policies of the past, and move in a bold new direction..."

"Some politicians, like Rudolph Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain have responded to the shortcomings and backfires of the Administration's approach by essentially doubling-down. They have closed their eyes to the facts and asked us to accept, on faith, more of the Bush approach. Some running for the Democratic nomination have even argued that the Bush-Cheney approach has made us safer. It has not."

- John Edwards today at Pace University
LINK TO SPEECH




The following are highlight from a speech given by presidential candidate John Edwards at Pace University in New York City (of which blogger Matthew Yglesias called "brilliant"):




...instead of leading a truly visionary campaign against global terrorism, our president led America down a garden path.


...President Bush, like the Republicans following him today and even some Democrats, was stuck in the past, and he still is.


...George Bush literally gave us his father's war—but without his father's allies or his father's sense of decency.

...Tragically for America and the world, George Bush's "war on terror" approach walked directly into the trap the terrorists set for us. Islamic extremists wanted to frame the conflict with the U.S. as a war of civilizations, and the Bush Administration, stuck in a Cold War mentality, happily complied.

...We need a counterterrorism policy that will actually counter terrorism.

...George Bush has used 20th century tools to attack 21st century problems. The Bush approach has failed not only because of the shameless political manipulations and reckless decisions of the president and his aides. It has failed because the president is using an antiquated set of weapons against a modern target, and he's misfiring.

...As president, I will launch a comprehensive new counterterrorism policy that will be defined by two principles—strength and cooperation.

...The centerpiece of this policy will be a new multilateral organization called the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization (CITO).

...Organizations are only as strong as the people who help make them run, and so we must also improve the quality of our human intelligence—agents better able to understand local culture and make local connections in countries with active terrorist cells. As president, I will lead efforts to improve human intelligence through 1,000 new annual scholarships to improve language skills for students who pursue careers in intelligence and diplomacy.

...Diplomacy is key to progress against nuclear weapons.

...As president, I will create a Global Nuclear Compact to strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would support peaceful nuclear programs, improve security for existing stocks of nuclear materials, and ensure more frequent verification that materials are not being diverted and facilities are not being misused. And I will lead an international effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

...We must encourage American Muslim participation in public life. I will put new resources toward engaging American Muslims, empowering local mosques to counter extremist ideas, and working hand-in-hand with Muslim communities to identify and isolate threats.

...we must achieve energy independence. If we reduce our reliance on oil from instable parts of the world, Middle Eastern regimes will finally diversify their economies and modernize their societies.

...we also should have a broader, deeper goal—to prevent terrorism from taking root in the first place.


...[If] they see us as the light, the country they want to be like, the country that's creating hope and opportunity, it will pull them to us like a magnet. We have to be that light again. We need to do everything we can to prevent this generation of potential friends from becoming a generation of enemies.

... during my first year in office, I will establish a "Marshall Corps," patterned after the military reserves, that will include at least 10,000 civilian experts. Its members will be deployed abroad to serve on reconstruction, stabilization, and humanitarian missions.


ON IRAQ

...George Bush's failed management of the war in Iraq has made the problem of terrorism worse. The war provided Al Qaeda with a powerful tool for recruiting terrorists. It gave them a battlefield for training. It gave them an attractive target, in American troops. And it diverted the resources of the U.S. military, weakening our force structure in the process. Even though the presence of U.S. troops has served as an attractive target for terrorists, our eventual withdrawal will not remove the threat. As president, I will redeploy troops into Quick Reaction Forces outside of Iraq, to perform targeted missions against Al Qaeda cells and to prevent a genocide or regional spillover of a civil war.


ON AFGHANISTAN


...We can neglect the crisis in Afghanistan no longer. The Taliban is re-taking territory in southern Afghanistan and kidnapping foreigners. As president, I will work with the other members of NATO to ensure that our forces and rules of engagement are robust enough to defeat the Taliban and protect the democratic government in Afghanistan. As part of this effort, I will commit additional American Special Forces to root out and shut down Taliban cells.

ON PAKISTAN'S COOPERATION

In Pakistan, the recent National Intelligence Estimate found that Al Qaeda has established a safe haven in the northwest tribal areas. We have given the Musharraf government billions of dollars of aid in the last several years, yet they have done far too little to get control over these areas. As president, I will condition future American aid on progress by Pakistan, including strengthening the reach of police forces and working more effectively with tribal leaders and their members to ensure their acceptance of the government. But I want to be clear about one thing: if we have actionable intelligence about imminent terrorist activity and the Pakistan government refuses to act, we will.

ON SAUDI ARABIA

...Saudi Arabia is a country we have given too much in return for too little. We must require the Saudis to do more to stop the flow of terrorists to Iraq. As president, I will condition future arms packages on Saudi Arabia's actions against terrorists.



Wednesday, August 29, 2007

The Compassion of Elizabeth Edwards



This YouTube video will show you just one of the many reasons why Elizabeth Edwards is a personal heroine of mine. I believe you'll also see how much her husband John cares about the issue of universal healthcare.




Wednesday, August 01, 2007

David Brooks Flip-Flops on Cultural Integration



In the most recent David Brooks column at the NYT website, I see a distinct flip-flop on the cultural integration that Mr. Brooks has exalted and even supported in the past.

Brooks compares the Poverty platforms of Barack Obama and John Edwards and frames the difference this way (and I won't even go into the ways that he short-shrifts both candidates' overall ideas):
As Alec MacGillis of The Washington Post observed, Edwards emphasizes programs that help people escape from concentrated poverty. Obama emphasizes programs that fix inner-city neighborhoods. One helps people find better environments, the other seeks to strengthen the environment they are already in.

Note that Brooks references Alec MacGillis' poorly informed May Washington Post column as if it was a fair and balanced article. In this forementioned article, Mr. MacGillis had hyperfocused on the portion of John Edwards' Poverty platform involving the use of housing vouchers.

Brooks says he's swayed by Barack Obama's platform on poverty reduction because he thinks that "Obama seems to have a more developed view of social capital." Brooks says,
Edwards offers vouchers, job training and vows to create a million temporary public-sector jobs. Obama agrees, but takes fuller advantage of home visits, parental counseling, mentoring programs and other relationship-building efforts....The Obama policy provides more face-to-face contact with people who can offer praise or disapproval.
Brooks categorizes a neighborhood as a "moral ecosystem". What he distinctly moves away from are his own opinions of the past about the ways that he believed the "moral ecosystem" in these neighborhoods (the ones he now apparently prefers the poor to be locked into) are not progressing because of a failure to break up zones of concentrated poverty.


Go back to September 25, 2005 when Mr. Brooks begins to bemoan social stratification that he claims is due to economic stratification. He chooses to point to education as the reason for the default line:
....economic stratification is translating into social stratification. Only 28 percent of American adults have a college degree, but most of us in this group find ourselves in workplaces in social milieus where almost everybody has been to college. A social chasm is opening up between those in educated society and those in noneducated society, and you are beginning to see vast behavioral differences between the two groups.......Educated parents not only pass down economic resources to their children, they pass down expectations, habits, knowledge and cognitive abilities. Pretty soon you end up with a hereditary meritocratic class that reinforces itself generation after generation....
We realize that inner-city schools, to this day and despite all the lip service, are producing horrific results and do not provide the average inner-city student with an adequate education. Is it any coincidence that wealthier school districts are producing better results? Brooks is quick to blame "the educational system" and loathe to seek other answers as to why these neighborhoods aren't progressing.


Forward just a bit to October 6, 2005, when Brooks again attacks the education establishment as the chief blame for inequality.
...The main problem is not that poor students can't afford college....Nor is the main problem that these poorer students don't have access to college....The problem is that students who enter college often find they are unable to thrive there....The new inequality is different from the old inequality. Today, the rich don't exploit the poor, they just outcompete them. Their crucial advantage is not that they possess financial capital, it's that they possess more cultural capital....The forces driving cultural inequality are powerful, and maybe insurmountable. But each generation of Americans seems to be challenged in its own way to provide its children with an open field and a fair chance.....

This time it's an inequality of opportunity to compete and, again, it's the educational system to blame. So how do these neo-underpriveleged people gain cultural capital?


Forward to October 9, 2005, when Brooks exuberantly offers his solutions,
I believe that social mobility is the core of the American experience. I believe that society should be structured so that as many boys and girls as possible can work, and rise the way young Hamilton and Lincoln did....If something is going to make American society more fluid and dynamic, then I am for that thing. That's why I love globalization, even while I am aware of its costs.....I can't believe people want to shield America behind the walls of "fair trade agreements."....I hated the old welfare system, which pushed its victims away from work. I love welfare reform, which encourages work. I hate government that directs ever more money to the affluent elderly, but I would love a government that gave poor children savings accounts at birth, which would encourage them to think about the future and understand that their destiny is in their own hands.....I love the charter schools and the forces of reform.........
Wow. So Brooks is gung-ho for outsourcing jobs so that poor people in foreign lands can compete, but try to get him to support John Edwards' idea to have our nation - the richest on the face of the earth - create temporary opportunities for the poor to make work work for them and the community of their reasonable choosing....to get themselves and their own American children out of neighborhoods that are clearly not woking as a "moral ecosystem" should? What's good for the developing world is not good for the poor of Mr. Brooks' own nation.

In the same October 9 piece, Mr. Brooks chose to heap more blame on America's educational establishment for inequality in our communities.
I hate the forces of the education establishment, which protects its system even though after years and billions spent, African-American students still graduate from high schools at academic levels four years behind their white peers.
Wow. He really hates the educational establishment. To him, it seems like education in America is the root of all evil. Trouble is, I don't believe that for a minute. Do you?


I saved the best and oldest reference for last.


September 8, 2005, just after Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans.



Katrina was a natural disaster that interrupted a social disaster. It separated tens of thousands of poor people from the run-down, isolated neighborhoods in which they were trapped. It disrupted the patterns that have led one generation to follow another into poverty.

It has created as close to a blank slate as we get in human affairs, and given us a chance to rebuild a city that wasn't working. We need to be realistic about how much we can actually change human behavior, but it would be a double tragedy if we didn't take advantage of these unique circumstances to do something that could serve as a spur to antipoverty programs nationwide.

The first rule of the rebuilding effort should be: Nothing Like Before. Most of the ambitious and organized people abandoned the inner-city areas of New Orleans long ago, leaving neighborhoods where roughly three-quarters of the people were poor.

In those cultural zones, many people dropped out of high school, so it seemed normal to drop out of high school. Many teenage girls had babies, so it seemed normal to become a teenage mother. It was hard for men to get stable jobs, so it was not abnormal for them to commit crimes and hop from one relationship to another. Many people lacked marketable social skills, so it was hard for young people to learn these skills from parents, neighbors and peers.

If we just put up new buildings and allow the same people to move back into their old neighborhoods, then urban New Orleans will become just as rundown and dysfunctional as before.

That's why the second rule of rebuilding should be: Culturally Integrate. Culturally Integrate. Culturally Integrate. The only chance we have to break the cycle of poverty is to integrate people who lack middle-class skills into neighborhoods with people who possess these skills and who insist on certain standards of behavior.

The most famous example of cultural integration is the Gautreaux program, in which poor families from Chicago were given the chance to move into suburban middle-class areas. The adults in these families did only slightly better than the adults left behind, but the children in the relocated families did much better.

These kids suddenly found themselves surrounded by peers who expected to graduate from high school and go to college. After the shock of adapting to the more demanding suburban schools, they were more likely to go to college, too.

The Clinton administration built on Gautreaux by creating the Moving to Opportunity program, dispersing poor families to middle-class neighborhoods in five other metropolitan areas. This time the results weren't as striking, but were still generally positive. The relocated parents weren't more likely to have jobs or increase their earnings (being close to job opportunities is not enough -- you need the skills and habits to get the jobs and do the work), but their children did better, especially the girls.

The lesson is that you can't expect miracles, but if you break up zones of concentrated poverty, you can see progress over time.

In the post-Katrina world, that means we ought to give people who don't want to move back to New Orleans the means to disperse into middle-class areas nationwide. (That's the kind of thing Houston is beginning to do right now.)

There may be local resistance to the new arrivals -- in Baton Rouge there were three-hour lines at gun shops as locals armed themselves against the hurricane victims moving to their area -- but if there has ever been a moment when people may open their hearts, this is it.

For New Orleans, the key will be luring middle-class families into the rebuilt city, making it so attractive to them that they will move in, even knowing that their blocks will include a certain number of poor people.

As people move in, the rebuilding effort could provide jobs for those able to work. Churches, the police, charter schools and social welfare agencies could be mobilized to weave the social networks vital to resurgent communities. The feds could increase earned-income tax credits so people who are working can rise out of poverty. Tax laws could encourage business development.

We can't win a grandiose war on poverty. But after the tragedy comes the opportunity. This is the post-Katrina moment. Let's not blow it.



Now it seems that Mr. Brooks chooses to turn away from that post-Katrina moment and prefer to keep the poor with limits as to choices about where their children will live and be educated - even after all of his exuberant talk about how education is key to opportunity and how cultural integration is such a worthy idea and how he values work over welfare.

He is seemingly convinced by the older, more romantic notion that big federal government will accomodate the social policy funding with wide bipartisan support, as in the 1960s-era War on Poverty. The federal government significantly retrenched from its prior position of dominance in funding and directing community development activities decades ago. I cannot imagine hearing David Brooks advocating for bigger government when Obama would actually come looking for the dollars for failing inner city neighborhoods. Who is he trying to kid?

The fellow is all over the place on his philiosophy.
It sounds like a lot of flip-flop to me.



Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Who Will Labor Endorse for 2008?



David Sirota, in a diary about the future of a populist momentum on the Democratic 2008 campaign trail that's "building like he hasn't seen in his lifetime".

He wonders what Labor will do about their endorsement of a Democratic candate in 2008. I think that he was spot-on when he said that John Edwards simply believes in the Labor agenda and isn't out there supporting them only for their endorsement.

I believe that the way that we citizens tend to view Labor is influenced by the way our leaders support Labor. If the leader's support seems genuine to us, we are more likely to get out more activism to more fully support Labor's causes. I am impressed not only with his level of longstanding support for and commitment to Labor, but also with the fact that Edwards, of all 2008 candidates, doesn't speak of Labor as something retrograde or static. I think that this was Dick Gephardt's problem. Edwards is new-school Labor - he sees the face of its successful future. He envisions a wider future with the Labor movement adapting to progress, globalization, outsourcing, et al. Dean had done much the same early in 2003, promoting foreign labor unions and saying that fair trade could deter terrorism. He was right then as Edwards is now.

Labor can endorse any candidate they choose, but why would they want to endorse a political power structure that has failed them in this new Century? Do they not realize that they can shape their future by being the big change that I'm assuming they seek?

To me, it seems that they are faced with a choice similar to that of which they faced in 2004, as you have mentioned. They were courageous (at first) and went with an endorsement for Howard Dean, as did Al Gore. Later, Dean's campaign was sabotaged by the powers that be when the droning dullards of mainstream media, the right blogosphere, and the DLC trounced Dean's campaign but for one innocuous scream. Labor lost a champion and a troubled AFSCME leader Gerald McEntee abandoned the Howard Dean campaign just before the 2004 Wisconsin primary. He made the dreadful mistake of classifying Howard Dean as "nuts." This is precisely how Labor has sabotaged itself in the past - by allowing the old power structure to come in and do their damage and then say that they agreed with them all along when, in reality, Labor knew they had a real friend in Howard Dean.

Labor has learned some lessons from 2004, but I'm not quite sure what the result of the education will be yet. As a citizen who supports them with my heart and mind, I hope they won't cut off their own collective nose to spite their collective face.


UPDATE: Steve Greenhouse of the NY Times says that Labor may sit back and wait before endorsing any Democrat. However,
...“If our board voted today, it would be leaning toward Edwards,” Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, said. “He showed up at a Goodyear picket line. He just called and said, ‘I’ll be there.’ That kind of stuff really rings home with our members.”


* While at Working Assets, don't miss Mr. Sirota's juicy piece: More Rocky Mountain Republicans Rejecting Grover Norquist-ism

Union Leader (NH) Editors - You MUST Be Joking!



I could hardly believe that the slanted screwballs at the Union Leader in Manchester, N.H. had the guts to actually say:
Here's the truth: John Edwards is spouting populist nonsense to try to scare people into voting for him.
Here's the real truth, people. These dorks endorsed George W. Bush in 2004. Yes, the Union Leader endorsed the biggest fear-mongerer of them all (except perhaps Rudy "Everything's 9/11-Connected and You're All Gonna Die Unless I'm Elected" Giuliani].... and the Union Leader tried to scare YOU into voting for the misleading "decider" Bush who not only regularly scared the heck out of you to get you to vote for him, but the inept mule messed his war up royally (the deliberate monarchical reference has deeper meaning).

The Union Leader is just an awful and loose-talking mess of a newspaper, endorsing Pat Buchanan in '96...then Bush in '04. Who do these chuckleheads think they're kidding?

Here you go, Union Leader. Listen, watch, and weep. Part of the change we Americans all need - reagrdless of party affiliation or ideology - is to see newspaper owners and editors in our communities called out for their blatant errors in good professional judgement.

You're one of the worst, Union Leader. You may think it's maverick, but I see your blatant bias as rash irresponsibility to your readers.



Monday, July 30, 2007

What we've lost in the course of two generations



From a post where Open Left's Chris Bowers worries because he says that the Clinton camp has "twice, in the last week, inaccurately gauged public opinion on a topic as being further to the right than it actually is":

Perhaps I would feel differently if I was from a different generation, but my formative political experiences have largely been about the failure of Democratic and progressive elites in stopping the conservative movement from continuing to rise. We never seem to win, even when we are in elected office. As such, one of the things I am looking for in the Democratic primaries is not only a candidate who can win, but who can reverse that pattern of defeat in governance.

I am from a generation that saw the rise of prominent social figures and political luminaries such as JFK, Rev.MLK Jr., and Bobby Kennedy. And I saw what happened to them and how far their idealism carried them in a hateful, divided nation. Later, I watched my mother as she exuberantly supported Hubert H. Humphrey and how she cried when he lost to Nixon. Still too young to join them, I saw the intelligence, the heart, and the nerve of the flower children in their generation's cause to end another unjust war. I saw college students at Kent State gunned down by our own countrymen for their idealism. I remember the awful images of Vietnam in black and white on my parents' television screen. I remember watching the Watergate hearings with my grandfather during the summer I was about to become a senior in high school and how he, while disgusted yet too intrigued to turn his head away, took the time to explain what was happening to me. In 1976, at the age of 18, I voted for Jimmy Carter in my first election. I saw Ronald Reagan come to power with a new Conservative movement with misled neo-idealists and their leaders who kissed, corrupted, and co-opted Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority.

Where Bobby Kennedy and MLK Jr. were remembered for their risk-filled fight for equality and civil rights of all Men and Women, Ronald Reagan is remembered for smaller government... being at the helm at the end of crumbling communism (with JFK, Carter, and others who set up the whole fall getting little to no credit). Sitting in the Oval Office on a Sunday morning, October 23, 1983 when 241 Americans, most of them U.S. Marines, were killed by a terrorist truck bomb. Still President when Pan Am flight 103 went down because of a terrorist's bomb over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 35 Syracuse University students whose families never saw justice for the deaths of their children - and later were horrified to see George W. Bush make nice with devious Lybian leader Moammer Gahdafhi.


For all of this they wanted to put Reagan's likeness on the American dime.
Go figure.


You know the story from the post-Reagan years. Not too many brilliant profiles in courage-in-leadership, especially not from the Right. I think idealism and vision - the kind of vision that brings real, lasting, and necessary progress and not the kind lobbyists prefer to make - began to die off when they (whoever they may have been if you're a conspiracy theorist) began to literally kill off our most promising visionaries in this nation.


What passed for greatness after that was far from the vision of inspired men and women of the 60s Liberal era. What happened to the vision? Did it die with the murder-tainted innocence of a hopeful era? Do we teach our children to assimilate and not rock the boat because we're afraid for their well-being - - perhaps their very lives?

We think division in this country's something new, but it's not. I just think it's a lot more apparent today because of the expanded news media and the blogosphere.

What I think is particularly damaging is the people who complain about partisanship and label it as the disease that ails America. I believe the pattern of defeat in the Democratic party (pre 2006) was the tendency of Democrats to fall into the false framing of bipartisanship, traditional collegiality, and MSM-pleasing "centrism" (in parentheses because the media hasn't been shooting toward true American center on Iraq if you believe the polls). I use Senator Joe Lieberman's rise, thanks to being voted in by a majority of Connecticut Republicans and who now pushes the Iraq surge and gives lip service to a war in Iran that the majority of Americans say they do not want, as an example of how bipartisanship, by name alone, can be assigned a totally false value over common sense. I regret to see that our leaders (and the MSM who cover the horserace) seem to be regressing after winning a promising 2006 election. They have been far less than visionary and generally get a poor grade on action on ways they've chosen to try to end the Iraq war. "Going right", the direction that Glen Greenwald has caught Hillary Clinton's camp going (and they're not the only ones), is not going to help us bloggers, when MSM gets a hold of it, to convince anyone that our position is not heading toward the left fringe. This gives mouthpieces for the Right like Bill O'Reilly an opportunity to take so many undue potshots at us.

Hunter at Daily Kos can hardly wrap his mind around the audacity of O'Reilly and Fox News calling themselves a news network. I believe that the failure of our own Democrats to be strong in their vision these past five years have emboldened the owners of this new breed of media to think they can "destroy" real people out here on the blogs (like me):
Can you imagine any other news network mounting a multi-pundit jihad against a group of grassroots Americans, merely because they have the audacity to not support the Republicans? Can you imagine any other news network getting themselves into a bitter televised fight with a political community website?

Of course not. Because Fox News isn't "news" at all, and this is yet another example of why they should not be considered a legitimate news network, or even an "opinionated" news network. Actual news networks do not fabricate stories -- Fox News does. Actual news networks do not send pundits out in attempts to punish and/or sabotage grassroots political events of the opposing party -- it would be absurd. Only at Fox News, where a spectacular lack of ethics is after all the cornerstone of the efforts to manipulate the very news itself in order to prop up Republicans, would such things not get you immediately fired.


- Hunter

Nothing will change until our leaders change the tone and stop worrying about MSM's version of "partisanship" and "division".

In this country, it seems that we've always been divided on the things that matter. We're supposed to be a country that can withstand division and diversity of opinion and, out of it, create something that's actually healthy for our democracy. All we've seen these past twenty years are toxic results, a decided lack of vision, and unsatisfactory progress.

I came from a different generation, the one just before Chris Bowers' generation. After all I've seen, I have to ask many of our leaders: Why are we afraid of idealism and leading with bold vision these days? Why is our media money-jaded and controlled by private owners to the point where investigation is cut off in the editors' service of political bedfellows? Why are we made to see so often that they're working against us bloggers? Why do our leaders seem to be afraid? Who are they afraid of? What are they afraid of losing? An election? For all my eyes have seen, I'm afraid the country's losing its very soul.



The man in this video, John Edwards, has the kind of courage and vision I saw in JFK's time and the media is being complicit in framing him as a rich phony with only power in mind.

He says he won't let them shut him up.

I say good!

It's time for courage again.

Is this a returning breed?

Have we finally seen enough of the worthlessness from the empty promise of new conservatism from fat-faced hate-talk radio blatherers..and are we so sick of its vacuous political nature that we are returning to leaders who are looking well past the trees to see what could be possible beyond the forest?

This week at Daily Kos, my Idea Consultant colleague and fellow Spiritual Progressive David Beckwith said it well:



John Edwards is not promising you the world...he is delivering it. What needs being done...he is doing it. People in need cannot wait for him to be president, they need his help right now. And he is getting it to them.

I know of no one who is more deserving of the presidency, since we know he is not serving up empty promises. He is doing the heavy uplifting, and getting many other good and caring souls to help with this Herculean task.

We need an exemplar...especially after punishing the world with Bushworld Inc. Obama and Hillary are great and good people, but John is leading by example, and should be commended, not pejorated and smeared.

It has been said that when someone cares for another person, God cares for them too. Both of them. The caregiver and the recipient. I think most Americans realize that something of the sort is at play, and that caritas is indeed one of the sweetest and noblest acts a person can do.

There are people suffering today...this minute. We cannot wait for an election. Help us help John help people who need it.




Happy 30th Anniversary, John & Elizabeth Edwards!



I'm not the only blogger to be wishing John and Elizabeth Edwards a Happy 30th Wedding Anniversary today. Christy Hardin Smith has done the same..and has written an interesting post about the importance of the media sticking to the issues that matter, as I said this morning at Raw Story.

Here's hoping the Edwardses have a wonderful day - hopefully spent together at a place that's special to both of them whether it's home, a neighborhood Wendys eating double-cheeseburgers [see WSJ article], or the fanciest joint in any town they happen to be in today on the campaign trail.



Thursday, July 26, 2007

John Edwards Post-Debate Webcast



For those who may not have seen it, here is John Edwards' special post-CNN/YouTube debate webcast:


Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Edwards' Poverty Initiative



A re-posting of John Edwards' recent trip focusing on his Poverty initiative:

  • Concert with Dr. Ralph Stanley and the Clinch Mountain Boys
    Roanoke, Virginia




  • Dr. Ralph Stanley and the Clinch Mountain Boys join with John Edwards and perform during a free concert in Roanoke, Va. Photos by Rachel Feierman.



    (Man, am I sad that I didn't get to attend that concert! Dr. Ralph Stanley is one of my favorites.)



  • Wise, Virginia
  • Smitty said the impoverished Appalachian region is a hotbed of heart disease, lung cancer and black lung.

    However, the group said it didn't want Edwards' poverty tour to reinforce negative stereotypes of the region.

    "These challenges don't define the people of this area," Edwards responded. "Their strength and defiance and courage define them..."
    - AP

    A perfect example of that strength and courage the story that John heard from James Lowe, a 51-year old coal miner who had lived with a cleft palate, unable to speak for the first 50 years of his life because he could not afford the $3,000 operation to treat the problem. Last year a volunteer orthodontist with RAM performed the operation. Traveling with Senator Edwards, Mark Kornblau described the encounter, remarking that rather than being angry or complaining, Lowe was grateful. "It was remarkable humility," he said. He said Lowe reminded John of the men who worked at the mill with his father in South Carolina. He wrote, "Senator Edwards was enraged that James and people like him are often invisible to George W. Bush."



  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

  • After Cleveland, the Road to One America tour moved on to Youngstown, then Pittsburgh, PA. Pittsburgh was the last stop of the day. John ended the day in Pittsburgh by visiting the Hill House community center.

    Over the past four decades, it is estimated that the Hill House has provided care and support for more than 500,000 children, adults and seniors living in an urban environment. In 2004, more than 70,000 individuals participated in Hill House programs and outreach.

    Today, John visited one of their "Mission Discovery" classrooms, an award winning after-school program that brings real-world science and technology experiences to Hill District middle school students. "John met some incredible kids here," John Davis writes from the road

    During the speech, John was onstage stage with a diverse group of community members. The audience applauded when John pointed out how unjust it is that "we don't just have racial segregation, we have economic segregation in our schools. We all know it."



  • Youngstown, Ohio
  • He began at Beatitude House, which provides housing and support to homeless women with children in the Youngstown area. Beatitude House opened in 1991 to "offer housing and support to any woman dreaming of better opportunities for herself and her children."

    The founder of Beatitude House, Sister Margaret Scheetz, saw a too-prevalent problem in Youngstown - a cycle of poverty and homelessness that many women and their children were caught up in. Believing that education was the best way out of poverty she sought to offer these women an opportunity....

    ... John went from meeting with women just getting on their feet at Beatitude House to meeting with business leaders at the Youngstown Business Incubator. It's a very different setting, but an organization working to do a very similar thing as Beatitude House - which is to create opportunity where there is none. Although it was once home to a thriving steel industry, the decline of Youngstown Sheet and Tube in the late 1970s was the start of economic challenges. In the past few years, the Youngstown Business Incubator has been instrumental in helping to turn the economy of this former steel town around, by creating high-tech, information age jobs in a city that was stuck in the industrial age and quickly deteriorating as a result....



  • Cleveland, Ohio
  • The Road to One America tour continued today, moving up into Ohio and starting the day off with a visit to the home of Mariah Crenshaw in the Mount Pleasant neighborhood of Cleveland, Ohio.

    Cleveland has suffered a wave of home foreclosures in recent months as a result of a combination of job losses, predatory lenders and falling home prices. Predatory lenders and mortgage brokers have targeted the Mount Pleasant neighborhood, like many other working-class and predominantly African-American neighborhoods across the country.

    While subprime loans can be valuable to families without other credit opportunities, African-American and Latino borrowers are three times more likely to receive subprime loans than white borrowers with similar credit scores. Mariah is fighting to keep her family home of 30 years after a coercive and deceptive mortgage process.

    In Cleveland--a city with more than 13,000 foreclosures a year--ACORN is helping citizens like Mariah and organizing residents of economically distressed neighborhoods like Mount Pleasant.

    John Edwards knows that homeownership is the foundation of the American dream and fighting these predatory lenders must be part of the solution to moving people into the middle-class. He has presented a plan to fight these lending practices and help protect homeowners.

    In addition to meeting with Mariah, John toured the Mount Pleasant neighborhood with Mariah and organizers from ACORN.



  • Pictures from Marks, Mississippi



  • Marks, Mississippi

  • This afternoon John and the One America tour moved on to Marks, Mississippi. You don't have to tell anyone in Marks that poverty is still a problem in America--1 out of every 3 people here live below the poverty line. In fact, the people of Marks have a great deal to tell the rest of the country about their struggle for economic fairness, and they have been fighting to be heard for decades.

    Martin Luther King came to this town in 1968 to launch his Poor People's March. Though Dr. King was assassinated before the march could reach Washington, over 7,000 people continued all the way to the capital.
    And now a new generation is ready to sound the call to justice from these same streets in Marks, Mississippi--ready to continue the great journey towards justice that Martin Luther King began.

    Here's the report from John Davis, traveling with the group down historic Cotton Street:
    In Marks, MS we had one of the most moving moments of the tour. On our walk down Cotton Street we stopped at the home of Mrs. Sammie Henley. Mrs. Henley told Senator Edwards about hosting students during Freedom Summer in 1964. She also talked about the flood that came in 1968, and how Dr. King rowed a boat up to the house at the start of the Poor People's March when he famously described the situation as "an island of poverty" surrounded by an ocean of American wealth.


    Today John also spoke with Sam McCray, another long time local activist who participated in the Poor People's March in 1968. He met with Sonya Murphy, who led 40 members of ACORN from Jackson on a 3 hour drive to join the One America tour. He was introduced at a small gathering by Steve Simmons, who spoke powerfully about his struggles as a low-wage hospital worker without health insurance.

    It's important to know that the story of Marks is about so much more than the ravages of poverty--it's about some of the most daring and innovate work to fight poverty going on anywhere in the country.




  • Canton, Mississippi


  • In New Orleans, John met with community leaders who were working to create opportunities - through rebuilding and recovery programs in the 9th Ward, providing early childhood education and offering at-risk teenagers a choice between destructive behaviors and violence or constructive set of life skills and a career path. These organizations are working at the local level to create the opportunity for those who were struggling to get ahead.

    In Canton, John talked about the second part of this equation - rewarding work. Anyone who works hard should have the chance to get ahead. Yet, many industries routinely break basic labor laws, making getting ahead impossible.

    To address this problem, John Edwards will revive the Department of Labor and create a new task force to target the industries with the worst abuses of minimum wage and overtime laws. He will also stop the misclassifying of employees as independent contractors, and make workplaces safer by boosting funding for OSHA inspectors and extending OSHA protections to all workers.

    In addition, to make sure workers can take care of their families and themselves, John Edwards will make sure that all workers have at least seven paid sick days a year. Nearly half of all private-sector workers, and nearly 80 percent of low-wage workers, must forgo pay to miss even a single day when they get sick or have to take of a family member who is.

    These new initiatives are part of the Edwards agenda to reward work with a higher minimum wage, stronger unions, new protections for home health workers, universal health care, Stepping Stone jobs and smart trade policies that work for workers as well as corporations.

    You can read more details on his plan for rewarding work, here.



  • Kingsley House and Cafe Reconcile


  • Kingsley House was founded in 1896. Since that time it has been a safe haven for the children and families of New Orleans.

    Since 2005, Kingsley House has stepped up as a saving grace to thousands of families who were victim to the destruction of Hurricane Katrina. After sustaining $3.5 million in damage to their buildings and grounds from the hurricane, Kingsley House rebuilt and became even more focused on their mission of "educating children, strengthening families, building community." Kingsley House now serves as an essential resettlement and recovery center for thousands in Southeastern Louisiana.

    Yet despite the selfless efforts of Kingsley House and dozens of other relief organizations, large areas of the city still remain deserted and government services taken for granted in most American cities have become a luxury in post-Katrina New Orleans.

    John Davis writes in from the road:
    Over and over we have heard stories of folks getting caught up in red tape. Much of the city looks exactly as it did immediately following Katrina. The level of frustration among the residents is incredible but the commitment to the community is amazing.

    That commitment was demonstrated by the staff of Kingsley House, including, Dr. Keith Liederman, their executive director who led John and Elizabeth on a tour through the facilities.....

    ......Following their visit to Kingsley House, John and Elizabeth stopped at Café Reconcile where they met with dozens of young people who are part of their training program for at-risk youth.

    From the Café Reconcile describes their mission:
    In 1996, under the leadership of the late Rev. Harry Tompson, S.J., a group of concerned people of faith gathered together to began a course of prayer, study, research, observation and dialogue regarding the witnessed challenges facing out-of-school youth in New Orleans. The newspapers, police reports, television news, research and personal experiences all pointed to a multitude of young lives spiraling into destructive and violent behaviors.

    In an effort to stem that tide, to effect a glimmer of hope in the near-downtown community of Central City, this group of concerned and motivated people began the planning and research necessary to establish a safe and supportive place where at-risk youth could have the option of receiving the life, work and educational skills necessary to turn their lives on a productive path toward thriving and complete citizens of this city.....



  • Behind the Scenes: The GMA Town Hall


  • Video: The Lower 9th Ward






  • Walking in the Lower Ninth Ward


  • 8:37 p.m. - New Orleans, Louisiana

    We are walking around the Lower Ninth Ward, one of the areas hit hardest by Katrina. I have to say, this area is still devastated. It's hard to imagine that it's been almost two years since the storm hit. It really makes you realize how incredibly insufficient our government's response to the storm was and how many people's lives were ruined as a result.

    We just met a man named Henry Phipps. He's been living in a FEMA trailer for the last 2 years. These trailers are not big by any means - they could easily fit in your average driveway. Tomorrow he is putting in the baseboard at his home - almost two years later. He told us he has received no help getting back on his feet.

    9:31 p.m. - New Orleans, Louisiana

    We just finished a tour of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Charter School for Science and Technology in the Lower 9th Ward. This school is a testament to the dedication of this community. It was their effort that built this school and community center. The dedication of these teachers to the students and their community is heroic......



  • Rebuilding New Orleans Starts in New Orleans



  • In New Orleans, Senator Edwards will unveil his three-point plan to rebuild the city. The plan seeks to address the question of recovery with a focus on rebuilding infrastructure, creating jobs and keeping the city safe from future storms and rising crime.

    Rebuild: The rebuilding of infrastructure in New Orleans is stalled. The city needs new hospitals, clinics, schools and roads. John Edwards will call for building a new Veterans' hospital downtown, call on the VA to stop delaying site selection and choose downtown New Orleans, and then fast-track the design process so construction can begin. He will also propose building a 21st century infrastructure, integrating new housing, and preserving livable housing.

    Create: Edwards believes we need to create good jobs in New Orleans. He will propose hiring 50,000 Gulf Coast residents to fill stepping stone jobs dedicated to rebuilding infrastructure that will help local and returning residents gain skills and experience. He will also protect workers from contractor exploitation.

    Protect: Finally, Edwards believes we need to protect the city and the region from weather and crime. As president, Edwards will do whatever is necessary to ensure that Katrina never happens again, including building stronger levees and restoring coastal wetlands. Following Katrina, New Orleans has experienced an epidemic in violence. Edwards will strengthen public safety to end the epidemic of crime and violence.