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.

Robin Roberts - Stay Strong

My thoughts and prayers go out to ABC/Good Morning America's Robin Roberts, who announced this morning that she will undergo surgery on Friday for breast cancer. You can send Robin a personal message HERE.

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.

A Most Beautiful Garden

The kiss of the sun for pardon,
The song of the birds for mirth,
One is nearer God's heart in a garden
Than anywhere else on earth.

- Dorothy Frances Gurney

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I wanted to share with you a beautiful "secret garden" that I discovered at a private, stately home on Historic Hill while visiting Newport, Rhode Island this past weekend. Thanks to the residents for allowing me to come inside to share the beauty of their serene and colorful garden.

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.

Visiting Newport, Rhode Island

ROSECLIFF MANSION, NEWPORT, R.I.
(Used in filming the Great Gatsby)



NEWPORT















FOUNTAIN AT ROSECLIFF





TOURISTS IN NEWPORT










LOCAL COLOR

DID YOU KNOW?

In an age of religious persecution and conflict, Newport stood out as a haven of toleration. Its earliest settlers came from Massachussetts where they had run afoul of the rigid Puritanism that dominated other New England towns. Their new social order in Newport was based, instead, on religious toleration and democracy. Newport's reputation for tolerance spread, attracting other religious groups from both sides of thr Atlantic, who shaped much of the town's future.

These early settlers separated church and state for the first time in history.

WHY SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE NANCY PELOSI WAS IN NEWPORT ON SATURDAY:

NEWPORT HAS BEEN LONG SUPPORTED BY THE WORKING CLASS


Excerpts from:
Pelosi sees two sides of Newport
Providence Journal
Sunday, July 29, 2007
By Nicole Dungca and Stu Woo
Journal Staff Writers

NEWPORT — The third most powerful politician in the country, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, visited a Bellevue Avenue mansion yesterday but first made a stop at a housing complex for homeless women and their children.

The San Francisco Democrat, the first woman speaker, heralded the achievements of women in politics at a women’s leadership reception held at Belcourt Castle and urged her audience to push for more influence.

She came at the invitation of U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy, who sponsored the address along with the Newport County Chamber of Commerce.
When Pelosi was first elected representative in 1986, there were fewer than 20 women in Congress.

“Now we’re in the 90s — Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate — and we still want more,” she said.

The crowd of about 150 at the ornately decorated castle included several female elected officials and business leaders, among them state Rep. Amy Rice, D-Portsmouth; state Sen. June N. Gibbs, R-Middletown; state Sen. Hannah M. Gallo, D-Cranston; and Lt. Gov. Elizabeth H. Roberts.

During her 15-minute speech, Pelosi championed the work of women in Congress.

“It’s not just about [women’s] issues, as important as they are. It’s about women having impact on national security in our country. It’s about women having impact on the economy and budget system in our country,” she said.

Newport City Councilwoman Jeanne-Marie Napolitano said, “I was really impressed with her for the short time that she spoke. She said more in 10 minutes than some people say in an hour.”

Earlier in the day, Pelosi met with representatives from Newport’s Child and Family Services. The group toured the Supportive Housing Program for Homeless Women and their Children on John H. Chafee Boulevard.

Kennedy and other leaders in Newport wanted Pelosi’s visit to spotlight the services provided to women in need.

Keith W. Stokes, executive director of the Newport County Chamber of Commerce, pointed out the contrast between the image of affluent, tourist-based Newport and the working-class community of the City by the Sea.

“[The working-class] part of Newport is as much a part of Newport’s history and heritage as any mansion or any yacht. Here’s an opportunity for the third most powerful person in America to see a very important image of not only Newport, but of America — the working families,” he said.
[my emphasis..]
[.....]

[..] Pelosi is no stranger to the state — she noted in her address that her grandparents met in Pawtucket.

Last year, Pelosi, before she was named speaker, attended a news conference with Kennedy in Woonsocket, in a show of support for the congressman after he acknowledged having a drug and alcohol addiction problem.

“It’s not just about [women’s] issues, as important as they are. It’s about women having impact on national security in our country. It’s about women having impact on the economy and budget system in our country.”

John Edwards Post-Debate Webcast

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

Never Let Me Down - J.Ivy

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.

Chris Cillizza: Why Edwards Criticized Hillary's Coat

Chris Cillizza says this about John Edwards debate performance last night:

Edwards' emotion seemed to fit the night..

It certainly did!



Chris asks why John Edwards criticized the jacket that Sen. Clinton was wearing. I wondered myself, and then realized that it was likely done deliberately to point out how publicly pointless and vain it is to criticize something so very personal....like a haircut.

It got Chris' attention...but why doesn't the perpetual political uselessness and pettiness surrounding the haircut make so many in MSM take notice?

Welcome, David and Victoria Beckham

Iddybud Journal wishes to make welcome to the United States the major-gorgeous Mr. and Mrs. Beckham. In the photo on the left, they're enjoying themselves at a welcome-to-L.A. party recently held in their honor.







In attendance was Katie Holmes, whose new hairdo looks smashing and sophisticated. To heck with meeting Tom Cruise, I want to meet her hairdresser!

Ed Koch: Done Defending US Iraq Policy

"I'm bailing out. I will no longer defend the policy of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq to assist the Iraqi central government in the ongoing civil war."

- Ed Koch [Fox News]

Former NYC Mayor Ed Koch is jumping off the Bush bandwagon. Has he seen the light? Yes and no. His persistent stock in Friedman units still causes me to question his current judgement. Koch still credits captured braggart Khalid Sheikh Mohammed where credit may not be due. The terrorist is still given public credit by Mr. Koch for having murdered WSJ journalist Daniel Pearl, but recent developments lead us to question whether or not it was, indeed, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who was actually Pearl's murderer.

According to the BBC, widow Marianne Pearl has initiated a lawsuit to bring out fact through more rule of law and less lawless Guantanamo bragging and conjecture:

The lawsuit notably names al-Qaeda, alleged al-Qaeda kingpin Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - who claimed responsibility for beheading Pearl and is now in US custody-- and Pakistan's Habib Bank among the defendants.

"I am looking for the truth of what happened to Daniel, for our family, our friends, and the public record," Mariane Pearl said in a statement.

"This process allows us to delve deeper into the investigation, and to bring accountability and punishment to those involved with his kidnapping, torture and murder," she said.

I'm not quite sure who Koch is blaming for Tony Blair's fall from grace:

Tony Blair was cast out as prime minister in part because he supported the U.S. in Iraq. Under the new prime minister, Laborite Gordon Brown, the British commitment is shrinking and the inevitability of a minimal and ultimately no British troop presence is clear.

He's not willing to let go of the fear-mongerer's meme about them following us home if we leave Iraq:

The American people no longer support our presence in Iraq. They made that clear in the 2006 congressional election when the majority in both Houses of Congress shifted to the Democrats. My own position has been that we were better off fighting Islamic terrorism in Iraq than abandoning and having that battle shift to American soil which I am certain will happen when we depart Iraq.

Mr. Koch, as so many writers and pundits tend to do, draws no distinctions between civil violence between Iraqis and the attacks that come from outside radical forces. He's not clear on exactly who's going to "follow us home". The bad guys in his narrative are lumped into our fortune in Iraq when, in reality, it is the Iraq war that is impeding the national security activities we could and should be pursuing.

But, at the very least, Koch is admitting that the foreign policy that the Bush administration has been pursuing for so many years is a sham and a failure - a fact that so many of us have seen for years. Welcome to your move toward reality, Mr. Koch. Thank God you aren't cursed with the Bill-Kristol-bubble syndrome.


Related:

Joe Gandelman talks about the Koch proclamation

Comments at Politico.com

Edwards CNN Debate:YouTube Reverend Lacked Full Truth

I was a bit confused by the premise of Reverend Longcrier's question addressed to John Edwards on the CNN/YouTube debate this evening. He stated that religion had been used to justify slavery when, in fact, the earliest campaign to end slavery in the United States was largely the work of a small number of Christians who opposed slavery on explicitly religious grounds and who, in their own time, were regularly condemned as fanatical zealots.

Perhaps Reverend Longcrier, who said religion was used to justify keeping the vote from women, didn't realize that it was the Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) - with Frances Willard at its head in 1876 - who was a powerful force in the women's suffrage movement. Interestingly, one of the most vehement opponents to women's enfranchisement was the liquor lobby, which feared women might use the franchise to prohibit the sale of liquor.

In the framing of his YouTube question, Reverend Longcrier appeared to have mistaken John Edwards' personal faith for what Edwards had already explained to Wolf Blitzer about Presidential responsibility during the CNN Forum on Faith and Politics at George Washington University on June 4. At that time, Edwards stressed that the president of the United States should never use his personal belief system to impose that belief system on the rest of the country.

Unfortunately, as Marc Ambinder pointed out at the Atlantic, John Edwards "seemed on his game, although a noisy audience deprived him of the chance to impress a questioner on gay rights." Reverend Longcrier, who was in the audience during the debate, claimed not to have been satisfied by Edwards' answer and left me with the distinct impression that his own dissatisfaction was because of his own clumsily worded YouTube question. While CNN seemed happy to put such a controversial wedge question to Edwards on gay marriage, Reverend Longcrier's less than theologically/historicallly honest set-up of the question shortchanged everyone involved. On Cooper's live audience follow-up with the Reverend, Longcrier was given a brief chance to expand his question toward the more relevant issue he seemed to have wanted to lead into ...that is to say overall social justice and fairness issues. Alas, Anderson Cooper cut the Reverend off as quickly as he cut most of the candidates off tonight for the sake of fitting in as many YouTube videos as possible.

UPDATE:

Tip of the hat to Chris Johnson for this excerpt from the CNN debate transcript:

COOPER: This next question is for Senator Edwards.

QUESTION: I'm Reverend Reggie Longcrier. I'm the pastor of Exodus Mission and Outreach Church in Hickory, North Carolina.

Senator Edwards said his opposition to gay marriage is influenced by his Southern Baptist background. Most Americans agree it was wrong and unconstitutional to use religion to justify slavery, segregation, and denying women the right to vote.

So why is it still acceptable to use religion to deny gay American their full and equal rights?

(APPLAUSE)

EDWARDS: I think Reverend Longcrier asks a very important question, which is whether fundamentally -- whether it's right for any of our faith beliefs to be imposed on the American people when we're president of the United States. I do not believe that's right.

I feel enormous personal conflict about this issue. I want to end discrimination. I want to do some of the things that I just heard Bill Richardson talking about -- standing up for equal rights, substantive rights, civil unions, the thing that Chris Dodd just talked about. But I think that's something everybody on this stage will commit themselves to as president of the United States.

But I personally have been on a journey on this issue. I feel enormous conflict about it. As I think a lot of people know, Elizabeth spoke -- my wife Elizabeth spoke out a few weeks ago, and she actually supports gay marriage. I do not. But this is a very, very difficult issue for me. And I recognize and have enormous respect for people who have a different view of it.

COOPER: I should also point out that the reverend is actually in the audience tonight. Where is he? Right over here.

Reverend, do you feel he answered your question?

(APPLAUSE)

QUESTION: This question was just a catalyst that promoted some other things that wrapped around that particular question, especially when it comes to fair housing practices. Also...

COOPER: Do you think he answered the question, though?

QUESTION: Not like I would like to have heard it...

(LAUGHTER)

COOPER: What did you not hear?

QUESTION: I didn't quite get -- some people were moving around, and I didn't quite get all of his answer. I just heard...

COOPER: All right, there's 30 seconds more. Why is it OK to quite religious beliefs when talking about why you don't support something? That's essentially what's his question.

EDWARDS: It's not. I mean, I've been asked a personal question which is, I think, what Reverend Longcrier is raising, and that personal question is, do I believe and do I personally support gay marriage?

The honest answer to that is I don't. But I think it is absolutely wrong, as president of the United States, for me to have used that faith basis as a basis for denying anybody their rights, and I will not do that when I'm president of the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

I have commented at these posts:

QUEERTY

Bible Bending

Hair - Video From John Edwards Campaign

What Really Matters?

You Choose.

www.JohnEdwards.com

Why Does Jonathan Darman Hyperfocus on Edwards' Looks?

The kindest thing I can say about Jonathan Darman is that I firmly believe he's overpaid for the goo he's pumping out.

Media Matters called him on the horsecrap he'd spewed last March:

In a cover story for Newsweek's March 12 issue, senior writer and political correspondent Jonathan Darman baselessly asserted that "[i]t is hard to imagine" former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) "botching the response to Katrina in the way President Bush did," without noting the flaws critics have cited in Giuliani's supervision of the post-9-11 cleanup. Darman also asserted as fact that Giuliani is "America's Mayor" and is "heroic."

The Darman article further claimed that Giuliani is "always thriving at moments of crisis," that "when the crises come, Giuliani has proved to be big enough," and that, on September 11, 2001, Giuliani "was transformed into the man of destiny he'd seemed to always believe himself to be."

My goodness! Talk about a so-called serious journalist drooling over a candidate.





And now he shits out this nasty little hit-headline:

The Down and Out Tour
Edwards's poverty campaign echoes RFK's, but times have changed (and Edwards is no RFK)

Who is Jonathan Darman to say that Edwards is no RFK? He sounds more like an RNC staff writer than a well-educated political journalist. When are we readers going to start hearing about things that actually matter rather than seeing these nauseating, brash, and juvenile ad hominem jabs at our candidates in bold headline print?

Look at the way the decidedly shallow Darman uses John Edwards' outward appearance to discredit Edwards' heartful stance on poverty:

John Edwards is too perfect to be Robert Kennedy. In popular memory, all Kennedys are immaculately tailored and silver-tongued. But Robert was not John; the younger Kennedy's hair was wild and unkempt, his tie was eternally askew, his eyes were lined with crow's-feet from too many hours in the sun.[..]

[..] Edwards too has suffered. He was born into poverty; his eldest son was killed in a car accident at the age of 16; his wife is fighting bravely against terminal cancer. But he shows no sign of struggle. His face is tan but unaged. His famous hair is not just well coiffed, it is nearly immobile and lacks even a touch of gray. Edwards says his notorious $400 haircut and his 28,000-square-foot house are the obsessions of the media, not "normal voters." (He does have a snarkier press corps than RFK. Not only did reporters not criticize the size of Kennedy's Virginia mansion, they wrote fawning prose about the senator in the hopes of scoring an invitation.) He is also quick to point out that other rich men—like Franklin Roosevelt and Kennedy himself—were able to help the poor. But fundamentally, the problem caused by the house and haircut is not the appearance of hypocrisy. Rather, it is the perception that Edwards will pay any price to maintain his flawless veneer.

So, Darman's line is that Edwards hasn't really suffered in his personal life and the proof is that he looks so good.

Let me ask you, just how substantively empty and wrongly judgmental is Darman's hyperfocus on John Edwards' HAIR? This opinion piece (which shouldn't be called an article for all its reliance on vacuous right wing talking points) is a virtual BLACK HOLE on substance.

Simply put, it's stupid.
Moronic.
A waste of ink.
The lazy antithesis of good investigative political journalism.

One look at the comments from the collective brain trust under his hit-headline piece will show you the crowd Darman apparently wishes to write to.

It's all hate comments all the time at the after-Darman party:

Boy, do you have that right. I don't think Bobby Kennedy ever paid over $5.50 for his hair cuts. Edwards is even disliked by his neighbors for being a pompous you know what.....

I think maybe he blew it when he chartered a jet to keep the press focused on him. A flight is too short of a time period! He should charter asomething like the QE II and keep them locked up, I mean focused on him, for a week or maybe more, like until December 2008! This guy is so-o-o-o-o out of touch with reality and so in love with himself and the vast amounts of money he has..... pitiful that it's wasted in this manner.....

He is a ambulance chaser and nothing more. But fortunately for the DNC, qualifications and responsibility take a back seat to "image". Most people that vote DNC are uneducated and looking for a handout-what a perfect marriage, eh?....

I remember how Mr. Darman had judged Edwards on his looks rather than treating him as a whole person; failing to taking seriously the message Edwards was sending to the American voters:

The "real" John Edwards is not someone America knows well. When he first crossed the national stage, he called himself the "son of a mill worker," but he seemed more like a creature spawned in a focus group—attractive, well spoken and safe. Since then, he has weathered enormous hardship—his wife, Elizabeth, has battled breast cancer—but hardly a wrinkle has crossed his perpetually tanned face.

People who met Edwards last week in hardscrabble places like Marks, Mississippi and Wise, Virginia see things differently than this pampered purveyor of poof hitpieces.

I don't think Darman would be surprised by my critique of his writing. After all, in another of his poofy hit pieces, this one on Markos Moulitsas in 2006, he'd said, "Moulitsas is also learning another downside of membership in the elite: the bigger the liberal sniper gets, the more incoming fire he faces."

The same goes for writers with a warped view on what matters. The bigger the fish is, the more incoming fire.
Bang, bang, Mr. Darman.

I think that Newsweek should be embarrassed. A writer with a Harvard honors degree should be employed to focus on more than a personality/beauty contest. Ask my dear Harvard honors colleague and friend Anonymoses, who writes about substantive political matters and can tell Jonathan Darman a thing or two about his hero Nosferatu Giuliani.

Hair, hair, hair.




Perfect tan, perfect tan. Doh!


What Really Matters?

You Choose.

www.JohnEdwards.com

Al Gore Apparently Not Running in 2008?

Taegan Goddard has a quote from Kristin Gore, as quoted by ABC News, indicating that her Nobel-prize nominee dad is satisified in his political liberation and apparently doesn't plan to run for President in 2008.

GOP Prays Press Corps Will Distort Edwards' Message

Ian Welsh at The Agonist has led me to a Taylor Marsh piece that shows how the national press corps - for whatever reason - deliberately chooses to write (and broadcast) for Americans with a Junior High mindset rather than educated information-seeking readers or viewers. (Is it any wonder so many are increasingly turning to the blogs for information?)

Taylor Marsh:

The haircut is easier to ridicule, as they hope to capitalize on the juvenile mind set of the average American voter who is too busy working two jobs and is willing to hate anyone so rich, good looking and who has succeeded where they have failed.

Ian Welsh:

When Edwards put up his hand and said he didn't believe in the War on Terror, he did something that had to be done. He was the only one with both the guts and brains to see it had to be done. The fact that American wages have stagnated for 30 years; the fact that America has the most inequality in the 1st world; the fact that social mobility is dropping like a rock - John talks about these things. And they matter.

Taylor Marsh sees the vulnerability of the GOP, explaining why they are gleeful as pigs in mud about the national press corps expanding on the Edwards haircut and house stories while virtually ignoring his core message:

Republicans know how to fight on war turf. However, they haven't a clue how to battle someone who's talking about the poor and that terrorism isn't some talking point "bumper sticker," but something we can tackle through our own actions and policies. Looking inwards isn't a GOP strong suit. They point outward and blame others. Edwards doesn't blame anyone, but instead searches for solutions, even if it means picking up a hammer and fixing the problem himself.

Edwards is asking us all to search our souls and unearth results.

Republicans only talk about souls, while being far more content with identifying enemies and making sure we're sufficiently afraid.

John Edwards is the near-perfect antidote to the disastrous poison of the Little Bush era. The intelligent and heartful North Carolinian's brand of leadership would be a breath of corrective and healing action - - the farthest from the kind of fiercely stubborn and sociopathic leadership style exhibited by G.W. Bush, of whom conservative pundit David Brooks today (on Meet the Press) said that citizens will understandably see as either "strong" or "deranged". (After six long years of witness, I choose "deranged" - how about you?)

The GOP's only hope is that the national press corps holds on to their false view of John Edwards as a politically arrogant leader just because he enjoys a lifestyle that he has honestly earned the right to enjoy, just as I'm sure a lot of those elite media employees enjoy the best that their salaries can afford them and their families.

I keep asking myself why the national press corps cannot reconcile a scenario where an economically successful person in the United States could run for President while desiring to urge others to be leaders and, through government, help the working poor to achieve a fair level of economic success in their own right.

What the heck does a haicut have to do with any of it?

Right - nothing.

In these post-DLC days where triangulation is a word from what is a Democratic lifetime ago, the empty GOP can only hope that their fear mongering and self-righteous narrow values message continues to reverberate and that John Edwards' comprehensive and idea-filled message for turning around the ship of democracy will remain buried under a blanket of ignorant, plaint national press coverage.

If anyone from the national press happens to be reading this, please - for your own sense of self-respect - don't keep making us think of you as bought puppets. Read Taylor Marsh. Read Jamison Foser. Start a revolution within your own industry. So many of you realize that we bloggers aren't just a lump of extremists. We're your brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, and in some cases, we are your personal friends.



In my dream, bloggers and MSM are a living, breathing media astronomical ecosystem. Each of us, whether paid a handsome stipend or paid nothing for our work, is a star with an imaginary shell of space surrounding us where conditions are such that our shared democratic life might survive. When I see any part of that democratic support system destroying its own, I can see more clearly - in retrospect - how our nation wound up with George W. Bush as its President. For the love of God, let's not let that happen again.

Wake up! Write about something reasonable; meaningful; relevant to the future of our democratic survival.