Is John Edwards' Leftward Turn About Populism or Posturing?
As his poll numbers sag, the presidential candidate has stepped up his populist rhetoric. He often speaks of "the two Americas"?the gap between rich and poor?but there are two sides to John Edwards as well.
For primary voters who lean toward the left of the Democratic Party, the candidacy of John Edwards has presented a series of impossible contradictions—the latest being the fact that the further down he dips in polls and in fundraising numbers, the more he starts saying the kinds of things they have been waiting to hear from a mainstream Democrat for twenty years or more. At a campaign stop in New Hampshire on Saturday, Edwards told an overflow crowd:
I think there are powerful interests in Washington DC…. The entire system is rigged, and it's rigged against you…. From insurance companies to drug companies to oil companies, those people run this country now…. And I think you got to take them on and beat them, I don't think you can sit at a table and negotiate with them. The idea that they are going to voluntarily give away their power... that will never happen…. They have billions of dollars invested in making sure there is no change, that the system continues exactly like it's continuing today.
At a stop in Iowa a few days earlier, Edwards took his populist rhetoric a step further, characterizing the attention to "silly frivolous nothing stuff" (presumably including his $400 haircuts and his former hedge fund salary) as a backlash—apparently, with the support of the mainstream media—by the rich and powerful, especially corporations, who are threatened by his campaign:
This stuff's not an accident. Nobody in this room should think this is an accident. You know, I'm out there speaking up for universal healthcare, ending this war in Iraq, speaking up for the poor. They want to shut me up. That's what this is about. Let's distract from people who don't have health care coverage. Let's distract from people who can't feed their children.... Let's talk about this silly frivolous nothing stuff so that America won't pay attention. They will never silence me. Never. If we don't stand up to these people, if we don't fight ‘em, if we don't beat them, they're going to continue to control this country. They're going to control the media. They're going to control what's being said. They do not want to hear us talking about health care for everybody. They don't want to hear us talking about a fair tax system. You think these people who make $100 million a year, you think they want to pay their fair share of taxes? That's what they hire all those lobbyists for in Washington, DC. They hate listening to people like me.
These are words to strike hope in the hearts of progressive Democrats. But are they just words? Beyond the question of whether "they" are attacking Edwards, does his campaign really present a threat to the powerful interests that do indeed, as he says, "run this country now"?
From the start of his campaign, Edwards, considered one of only three viable candidates for the nomination, has positioned himself slightly to the left of frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, especially on questions of economic justice. At the Democratic National Committee's winter meeting in 2007, the first major public forum for 2008 presidential candidates, "Edwards drew a rousing reception," the Washington Post reported, "with a sharp attack on Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq and a populist appeal for Democrats to return to their roots as defenders of the union workers, the poor and struggling middle-class families. 'Brothers and sisters, in times like these, we don't need to redefine the Democratic Party,' he said. 'We need to reclaim the Democratic Party.'"
Five weeks earlier, Edwards had announced his candidacy in the Ninth Ward of New Orleans, surrounded by hurricane survivors who had been not only exploited by conservatives, but also largely ignored by most liberals. That day, Edwards finally highlighted poverty—an issue that had been so conspicuously absent from the Democratic Party platform, both in the failed 2004 presidential campaign and the triumphant 2006 mid-term elections.
Progressive voters can also find encouragement in the assessments of the mainstream press, which depict Edwards as the Southern New Democrat who left the fold of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council to take up a populist cause. After a day on the New Hampshire campaign trail with Edwards in February, ABC's Terry Moran declared, "He's different this time around. In 2004, when he was a relative unknown, Edwards was a cheerful moderate populist. Now, in what some critics call a convenient conversion to woo liberal Democrats, Edwards is tougher, staking out positions on health care, national security, and the environment much further to the left than he advocated in 2004."
Convenient or not, the idea of Edwards' "conversion" is buoyed not only by his own rhetoric but also by attacks from conservative critics. "He is a redistributionist, another word for socialist," Cal Thomas wrote recently in USA Today. "His populist jargon is nothing but class warfare, the 2007 version."
And yet this same John Edwards can also come off as a slick lawyer, who has plenty of stories to tell about his legal victories defending Main Street Americans injured by uncaring or nefarious corporations and health care providers, but rarely mentions the fact that these multimillion dollar civil suits also made Edwards himself a very rich man. His assets total some $30 million, and while the senator likes to talk about his days of poverty and hardship, he did not hesitate to build an ostentatious 28,000 square-foot mansion in North Carolina. In between his two presidential campaigns, he also worked for a hedge fund that engaged in the kinds of practices he now decries, and suggested, in an AP interview, that he had done so largely "to learn about financial markets and their relationship to poverty"—although "making money was a good thing, too."
Most troubling of all is evidence that, during this same period, he used an anti-poverty foundation to fund travel, staff, consultants, and other expenses that advanced his own political career.
It's true that the media seems to have a double standard when it comes to Edwards, largely because of his very willingness to talk about the poor. Jeff Cohen, founder of the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, points out that "we've been shown aerial pictures of Edwards' mansion in North Carolina, but not of the mansions of the other well-off candidates" and "we've heard so much about Edwards' connection to one Wall Street firm, but relatively little about the fact that other candidates, including Democrats, are so heavily funded by Wall Street interests…. You see, those other pols aren't hypocrites: They don't lecture about poverty."
Edwards' wealth alone may not disqualify him as a defender of the poor, any more than it did Franklin Roosevelt or Bobby Kennedy, two of the wealthiest men ever to run for president. But it adds fuel to the essential question: Does Edwards present a real challenge to the system that creates such massive inequities to begin with? Is he willing to help the poor even at the expense of people in his income bracket, and the corporate entities that helped make them rich? Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich told the New York Times: "Rhetorically, if you're calling Edwards an economic populist, it's true he cares a lot about the poor. He evinces a lot of concern for the middle class and middle-class anxieties. But he's not in any way attacking the rich or corporations. He is not explaining one fundamental fact of modern economic life, which is that the very rich have all the money."
During his single term in the Senate, Edwards was less corporate-friendly than the Clinton New Democrats of the Democratic Leadership Council, but not by all that much—and no amount of wishful thinking will produce evidence of a radical transformation on Edwards's part. Still, he has indeed moved to the left on several issues—in some cases, far enough left to distinguish himself from Clinton and Obama, who can also be found playing so-called populist cards when it seems politically expedient to do so.
Edwards' poverty reduction program is a mix of ideas advocated over the years by the party centrists, with a few imaginative touches and some stirring rhetoric. In one way or another, these are all good ideas. They have been tried off and on since the New Deal with varying degrees of success. Edwards currently proposes raising the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour, along with a somewhat vague sounding jobs program for the unemployed that would create a million "stepping stone jobs for workers who take responsibility"—minimum wage jobs lasting up to 12 months, and in return, "workers must show up and work hard, stay off drugs, not commit any crimes, and pay child support." (Dennis Kucinich, in contrast, wants to put people without jobs to work rebuilding America's crumbling public infrastructure—bridges, tunnels, roads—at a time when many politicians in both parties are desiring to sell them off; his program would put people of New Orleans to work rebuilding their own city and its water defenses.)
Whether Edwards' leftward turn is sincere or merely shrewd—or, as is most likely the case, both—his rhetoric in defense of America's poor nevertheless stands to have a much-needed and long-overdue impact on the presidential race. After accompanying Edwards on one of his many trips to New Orleans, Matt Bai wrote in the New York Times Magazine: "The significance of what Edwards is saying… goes well beyond messaging and tactics. As the first candidate of the post-Bill Clinton, postindustrial era to lay out an ambitious antipoverty plan, he may force Democrats to contemplate difficult questions that they haven't debated in decades—starting with what they've learned about poverty since Johnson and Kennedy's time, and what, exactly, they're willing to do about it."
Page 1 of 1 
Probably just posturing. If Edwards was really about populism then his Congressional record would reflect it, however, it does not. Not to mention it is hard to be a populist while getting $400 haircuts.
There is another point here. Edwards remains the most electable Democrat who can carry a number of southern states. Yet, the Democrats are still self-destructive, and are poised to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I was born in 1925 which means that I grew up during the New Deal of FDR when the Democratic Party worked to improve the life of the average American. I don't know if Edwards is the real thing or not but he is the only leading candidate to speak like a New Dealer. If Edwards can revive a badly ailing Democratic Party devoted to an old fashioned Democratic program I am willing to take a chance on him.
Didn't Mr. Ridgeway just complete an article about Mike Gravel? Mr. Ridgeway, do you suffer from amnesia?
"Edwards, considered one of only three viable candidates for nomination,"
By whom? Your audience? Think again! By Mother Jones? I should hope not; I was under the impression that MJ is independent media. By mass media? If that's what you meant, then say so! We all know mass media think there are but 3 "viable" candidates!! Only we didn't expect Mother Jones to agree. You might have mentioned the irony in what makes a candidate "viable" in the first place: money. Then to have the audacity to say he is one of three. . . well, you cannot speak from both sides of your face, sir.
To really take on poverty would make any candidate a pariah overnight, and then we would rely on independent media, which I thought this was, to tell us all about said brave candidate. But rarely would I have expected a Mother Jones reporter to parrot mass media. More Gravel, less Edwards, please!
"we've heard so much about Edwards' connection to one Wall Street firm, but relatively little about the fact that other candidates, including Democrats, are so heavily funded by Wall Street interests…. You see, those other pols aren't hypocrites: They don't lecture about poverty."
that is truly the most assinine argument i have ever heard and it's being repeated here as if you, too, are a tool of the wholly biased mainstream media.
it is a ridiculous argument and one made simply to cause unthinking people to dismiss edwards and his ideas. i am convinced that is because he, beyond any of the other candidates, threatens the status quo.
the argument that, because he is wealthy, he cannot argue to improve the status of the poor and middle class is absurd.
the fact of my never having been abused as a child did not stop my 16 years of top rated work as an investigator of child abuse. because i was not a delinquent youth does not mean that i could not successfully work with hundreds of delinquents in my work as a juvenile parole officer.
the quality of empathy is sadly lacking in politics these days, most particularly among the republican candidates. what i see in john edwards is empathy ~ a quality that should be treasured above all others in a political candidate.
can we move beyond his haircuts and his house to the fact that this man expresses concern for the vast, alienated middle and lower income people in this country?
criminy, what an shocker. i never thought mother jones would become such a propagandistic tool.
Lynnete, Edwards doesn't come close to threatening the status quo until he does put his money where his mouth is. Gravel already has. Gravel is threatening to status quo; Edwards is "one of three viable candidates," as Mr. Ridgeway advises here. See the confusion, Mr. Ridgeway? I guess we expect a certain standard from independent media. Give it to us. Thank you.
I don't think it's posturing. I don't know why talking about issues like poverty and inequality suddenly means that you have to qualify for sainthood. Obviously, he wouldn't have gotten this far if he hadn't played the game (the mansion, the millions, the haircut). I think it funny how on the one hand he's being attacked by the mainstream for being a socialist, and by us lefties for not being a socialist. He's obviously not a socialist. I don't think he's running on that ticket, is he? He's just a democrat running on the issues of inequality and health care reform. He's just talking about the issues that are important, unlike everyone else. Why does that seem so strange to us? What's scary is what an anomaly he is.
I think he's talking the way he is now because he knows he has nothing to lose by taking a risk. Isn't it strange that we are suspicious of someone when they start telling the truth? That's the perversity of how bad politics has gotten in this country. Edwards is just doing his job. I'm not mad at him for his haircut, if it can get him elected and if he does what he says he's going to do.
In a perfect world elections would be publicly funded (and not corporately funded) and we could vote middle class and working class people into office to represent ourselves. But I'm not going to hold my breath. (Though it's something worth fighting for.)
I recant my praise for Mr. Ridgeway's article on Gravel. Again, Mr. Ridgeway, the above posts from lynette and emily b illustrate the power of the press to misinform. "He's just talking about issues that are important, unlike everyone else" (from emily b), so thank you, Mr. Ridgeway for pointing out (falsely) that Edwards is one of "only three viable candidates." Emily certainly believes you now. To see Edwards as an anomoly is absurd.
What a spin!
Maybe you have forgotten Gravel already, but those of us who know what a truly unique candidate looks & sounds like have not.
Richard Cummings, James, Arthur, Sweet honey mead,
The Democrats will self-destruct once Hillary wins the Democratic nomiation for President. She will go by the way of Al Gore and John Kerry, she will not win one, and I mean not one Southern State and she will lose all of those rocky mountain and mid-western states that have elected Democratic Senators, Governors, and House members. She may win all of the states (no guarantee of course) that Gore and Kerry won, which will still be in a losing electoral college cause. Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel or Ron Paul are the only logical choices for America at this point today.
I am disappointed to see Mother Jones includ part of a roundly refuted and poorly researched NYT story in this, as well as the notion that somehow spending his earned wealth on a home for his family should be considered in whether Edwards is genuine in his commitment to alleviate poverty.
As to the accusation that he "used" an anti-poverty foundation, the short and simple answer is no. Too bad you didn't go beyond cutting and pasting that unfounded criticism to include the many other articles you could have found to refute it. Edwards established 2 not-for-profit organizations focusing on poverty issues, one a foundation and the other an advocacy center. The foundation is home to the College for Everyone program; the advocacy center researched issues surrounding poverty here and internationally. It was from the center that John Edwards, head of the organization, went out to give speeches on poverty, to walk the line with union members, to raise the visibility of poverty issues. It was the purpose of the center, and John Edwards did absolutely nothing wrong -- as even the reported tax expert said at the end of the NYT article.
And as to whether the size of John Edwards's house should inform us on his authenticity, all I can say is hogwash. He is a self-made man who earned his wealth. How he chooses to provide for his family has nothing to do with his commitment to public service or alleviating poverty. Anymore than the multiple homes of FDR tell me anything about his determination to heal this country and raise up those most damaged by the Great Depression.
Please, can we put a rest to the $400 haircut story already. It's fatiguing and lame to continue conversation on it.
Frankly I think it impressive that Edwards --someone who does have money, yes, like most politicians do-- speak out so directly about changing the ongoing and worsening poverty and lack of good health care in this country, and actually offer some real plans on how to achieve them (unlike Clinton and Obama).
I have been following Edwards for the last few years and continue to like his ideas and agree with most of what he speaks. Like Mr. A. Shapero noted in his posting previously, I too don't know if Edwards is, or will do all he says he will, but I do think he could be the candidate to revive not only the Democratic party, but the nation itself.
I am happy that he has address the problems of the poor in our country, The real problem lies in getting funding for the presidential postition. Johnson did do a great deal for the working class in our country.
James Ridgeway does not particularly like
Senator Edwards, plus the fact that I believe that he votes Republican most of the time. I think that John Edwards has a great potential for his Presidency to make the kind of changes in our way of life that would compliment the USA, not
only because he is aware of outrageous
poverty that exists in our country but
he is willing to talk to the "whys and
wherefores" of the problems and get to
a solution of the problem.
No one is pure and I think Jim Ridgeway will take issue with anyone who is not. Edward is the only candidate who really advocates for the poor. He is a far cry from the unbelievably ambitios and cynical Hillary and the glib and fairly inexperienced Obama. Obama. Is ANYONE grist for the cynics' mill? (Yes!)
Come on, now. You can't seriously think that its going to make any difference who "wins" the presidency? What have the last two elections taught us if not that the rich & powerful run this country & they run it for the benefit of the rich & powerful. Period. It doesn't make any difference which party is represented, the idea is still the same. The poor & middle class are on their own. The best we can hope for is that someday someone will again have the balls to throw the tea into Boston Harbor.
At least Edwards wasn't born with a multi-million dollar trust fund. I worked for the Kerry/Edwards campaign as a volunteer, and heard Edwards speak, he had a very populist message until the handlers shut him down! He reminds me a lot of Jimmy Carter, I just hope unlike Carter, he isn't too 'good'! Washington DC has become a real mean place (not that it was nice then, it's just worse now).
If not Edwards what's our choice? Obama who voted FOR the Bankrupcey Bill? Or more of the Clinton Corporate/Centrist 'sell-out'?
If either of those two are my only choices, I'll have to hope Bloomburg runs as an Independant!
For now, I'll send my $10 to Edwards!
I find the accusation that Edwards is a 'redistributionist' and so a socialist ludicrous, as the republicans are the pinko redistributinists, and essentially everything they've supported has been designed to redistribute wealth, upwards. Edwards is the candidate who recognizes that we've a mountain of laws that are anti-competitive, socialist, and redistributive, and so should be repealed. Any 'democrat' who doesn't call for the repeal for millions of words of federal laws that favor the rich and powerful is no democrat, and that includes hillary.
Since JFK the only time the democrats
won the White House they had a southerner on the ticket. I don't see
the democrats winning without Edwards
on the ticket. If we are going to turn the cornor and get a single payer universal healtlh care program we need the likes of Edwards.
"He who slings mud generally loses ground." -
-- Adlai Stevenson
It is truly disheartening to read nothing but cynical stories such as these about Democratic candidates who are, in my mind, some of the best presidential candidates we've seen for a long time. Our own Party’s cynicism is partly to blame for our failure. It is good to be cautious about entirely trusting a public official, but not to the point where we deter any progress. The Republican's are running rough shot over us while we spin in circles trying to figure out where we are going. I’ve known Republican’s that are good people, but defend their Republican officials no matter what atrocity that official has committed. Why can’t Democrats defend their officials, too? Why isn’t there more written about Guilani’s dark side? Why do we have to keep picking on the Democratic nominees, who at least are addressing the important issues in this race? I’d love anyone of these candidates, because they are a world better than BUSH. (Remember the guy who really is bad and who we all hate.) The mainstream media (and now independent media) has focused our attention so much to the corruption and chaos that has infiltrated the government that we cannot trust any public official to do the right job. If we actually had a public official who had real integrity, we wouldn't recognize it or we'd be so bored that we wish for the Jerry Springer administration that is in the White House today.
Aw Jeeze. Catchy headline, but no substance. Nothing here but a cheap shot that differs not at all from the 'haircut' b.s. that the main-street and faux media indulge in. Who SAYS the anti-poverty foundation at UNC-CH was purely to advance his political agenda? 'Evidence' you said. Where is it? And usually I hang onto the words of Robert Reich, admire the man, but this quote is worth less than nothing. Why did you bother? Cynicsm is endemic in this country. With this absurd column, you've added a goodly portion to it. Aren't you proud?
John Edwards is striking the right cords and the reality as alot of thinking Democrats know is that he - not Obama or Mrs. Clinton - is the one candidate who could full proof Democratic Party victory in 2008. Clinton and Obama are the two elephants in the living room - neither one of can win the Big Race. And the great tragedy is Edwards is genuinely to the left of both of them.
The only real populist candidate is Dennis Kucinich. Too bad the likes of him never have a chance to take on the job of president.
We live in a republic that has a Left brain (democracts) and a right brain (rebublicans)where the "will" of the conscience that organizes the affected purpose has always been about the combined self-interest of those who have and those who want more. As for the will of the people, lets just say they have no power without money and i have not seen many spen their money empowering others: Which is exactly why the have not have not power.
It sounds as though you haven't been following Edwards regularly since the last election. I have and his "rhetoric" is emblematic of the positions he has staked out while working with people in Iowa continuously since Nov. 2004. Don't forget he doesn't accept pac money and is practicing what he preaches through his own "poverty" organization. In my view he is electable and certainly has articulated the most detailed health care plan of all of the candidates. The fact that he can afford $400 haircuts and a 28,000 sq ft house doesn't make him deaf to the needs of the poor. That happens without regard to ones wealth. For my money he's the best candidate in the race and I'm supporting him.
When I first heard John Edwards I was impressed with his lean to the left. As a democrat I have been waiting since Lyndon Johnson left office to find a true liberal. However, any man who cannot accept homosexuality and gay marriage, is willing to deny fundamental rights to those people who are the last people in this country vilified by churches, the media and others, is not truly a liberal. Only when a person can accept the truth that all people are entitled to equal rights under our constitution will that person be a liberal. I am not gay, but I cannot deny fundamental rights to my fellow human beings. The problem with most politicians is that they are usually only what they say they are when they want your vote. I don't know who I will vote for in the next election, but it will not be John Edwards.
I could sum up that ridiculous "essay" in one sentence: In order to champion the poor, one must be poor. What a bunch of nonesensical twaddle. Pinhead.
This is truly a disappointing post from Mother Jones. Yes James people are complex and have various details about them that can be dismissed or highlighted. Issues are complex, sorry it is not simply black and white for you. We will continue to try to dumb down the world to make it easier for you.
What might be more interesting is what we have learned about poverty since the times of the Kennedy's. Why don't you pull some quotes from them about how we need to change our GDP measure, because it doesn't measure the things we should actually value.
From Robert Kennedy: "The gross national product includes air pollution and advertising for cigarettes, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors, and jails for the people who break them.
"The gross national product includes the destruction of the redwoods and the death of Lake Superior. It grows with the production of napalm and missiles with nuclear warheads....
"And if the gross national product includes all this, there is much that it does not comprehend. It does not allow for the health of our families, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It is indifferent to the decency of our factories and the safety of streets alike. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials....
"The gross national product measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to country. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile; and it can tell us everything about America except whether we are proud to be Americans.”
Oh, hell. Comparing him to Carter did it for me. Vote for anyone whose name isn't Edwards.
I would argue that Edwards is a predistributionist. Meaning Edwards favors trade agreements which keep jobs in the USA; supports tax reforms which requires USA licenced companies to pay taxes on their offshore profits; legislates for fair labor organizing to secure a living wage & benefits for US workers; supports environmental legislation which favors renewable energy. His predistributionist ideas keeps money in people's wallets. His ideas do not require corporations, "the industrial complex", to give money back to the US people (redistribute), his vision makes sure business does not get the money in the first place (predistribute).
Edwards is the most obviously Christian of the various candidates because of the great stress he has put on poverty and health care.
clinton and obama have no chance of introducing any decency to government. let's provide edwards with the opportunity.
Wakeup my pleasant slave, this is your personal, fair and balanced report from the Rupert Murdock Eye channel ensuring our slaves are ok. We wouldn’t want any bad slaves now would we? After all, the air waves use to belong to you, but were sold to people like me as predicted by that communist, but we convinced you to be good slaves didn’t we? As the EU races ahead on nearly every front formerly held by the U.S., we wallow in self pity in our despair over the neo Nazis (mafia?) who have taken control of the Republic, who listen to the babbling of mystical deities to guide them. So, if you think this is the way to go, vote Republican, if not work for third party candidates if you don’t like the choices and start at the bottom to build responsible social structures and quit being led by people who care nothing for you even if their straight line projections predicted that your grandchildren have to forage for food and clothing in future slums that resemble those of third world cities today. We have the right to overturn the ruling class and it is time we start finding ways to do it.
I haven't heard the term "predistributionist">. I use the term economic empowerment that gives more options to working class people. I also favor ending the corporate protectionism that is rampant and inherent to the whole idea of corporations. In Britain they're called "limited liability" companies. Unlike people they can't be held fully accountable beyond what is initially invested. Gives companies incentives to take risks that others pay for - like environmental damage, questionable working conditions, and other slipshod labor environments. The idea that corporations that derive money from worker investment funds can make decisions that trash worker compensation, lose money for shareholders and still pay bonuses to the decision makers is scary. Why are those whose mantra is "personal responsibility" when it comes to meager protections for consumers and workers, so silent about these abuses?
Intentionally avoiding the political rhetoric of this campaign, your rag has and will continue to open my eyes to that which is important on the Globe and in our back yards- Thanks MO-JO.. I know who I am voting for- GO JOHN!
it's odd the only mention you'll hear of the poor by the mainstream press is when using them to label an advocate a hypocrite. "oh he's just saying that to get elected." they say. nothing about if what he is saying is the truth or not, because they cannot deny that it is.
I attended the poverty tour in pittsurgh-the AP report on it was inaccurate-there were probably 500 people there, not 250-they were a mixed crowd of black and white-middle to upper middle class-informed citizens understand that solving poverty helps every taxpayer in many ways-reduced costd for prisons, healthcare, less police because crime would decrease, safer neighborhoods, and many moral rewards, the list goes on-as the Republicans continue to pillage the country in every way they can think of, it's nice to see a candidate that lives in the real world.
Why is it that anyone with a shred of decency to them is pounded by our narrow minded press. Why arent they talking about Mitts make up job every time he appears in public at $300 a pop. Edwards is putting the poor first in this nation, so of course hes bad guy according to the press. God forbid we elect someone like JESUS who always put the needs of poor above the needs of the wealth of greed. Edwards also refuses to take corporate money. I think its a sign of strength with in when you refuse to be a corporate whore & do their bidding. Of course the candidates on the other side,as well as the dems side are already corporate owned. So if the press in the united states would stop bowing on their knees to the extreme right maybe that would help this country to start believing in fairness & freedom of the press again. So if you continue to down grade one side look over your shoulder at whats happening on the other side. Enough of this narrow mindedness, Lets give everyone a fair shake!
John Edwards is very timidly trying to get the cat out of the bag. I don't know if he'll ever do it, but someone in this country has to show the populace that this society is navigating in an ocean of disinformation, pretending that we are what we are not. Just research on your own how USA compares to other industrialized countries. Here are some pearls:
Freedom of the press:
USA's ranking: 31 . USA in Iraq: 135
Child poverty:
USA 21.9% of children live in poverty Rank: 25 (just above Mexico)
Income inequality (0 equality, 100 total inequality):
USA's rank: 45 down from 40.8 in 2000
Health care (overall system performance)
USA's rank: 37; just above Cuba
Prison population (per 100,000)
USA's rank: 1 (we made the top!)
Gross domestic Product
USA's rank: 1 (we made it here too!)
Environmental performance index
USA's rank: 28 (New Zealand is #1)
Grasp of genetics and acceptance of evolution
USA's rank: 33, just above Turkey
ANY QUESTIONS?
Actions speak louder than words. Whether it be John Edwards or Jesse Jackson, I don't see any of these folks stopping their feed at the public trough. They like to speak about doing something re poverty -- I guess they must mean their own, because they don't stop stuffing their wallets. When the so-called leaders step up to the plate, give away their own money to help the poor (I don't mean mere tax write-offs, but real money), and cease to feed off of the public, then we'll see. I am not holding my breath -- it isn't going to happen anytime soon. In the case of Edwards, it is desperate posturing from a real loser of a candidate.
Go Edwards! This is the man the republicans fear the most. If he wins the democratic nomination he will be presedent. The republican controlled media is pushing Hillary and Obama because they know they stand the best chance to defeat either one of them. I support John Edwards.
would it have been better for him to pay $10 for a haircut? His $400 haircut went to a hairdresser, a common person. He is a self-made man, and i havn't seen any hypocrisy in anything he has said. good for him for speaking for the common man. he is genuine. he has won and lost like everyone else. his wife has terminal cancer, he has lost a child. he was raised in a blue collar family. if this man doesn't know common values, i don't know who does.
I find your negative lean on Edwards not objective journalism. I have followed Edwards in both campaigns and found him crediable. He had to begin life somewhere and because he's benefited from some good decisions shouldn't be a negative. He seems cleaner than most of them.
Same Old Sh**
Another Hit Piece
Next Story
John Edwards is for real. He has the right ideas for America and for the American people. Senator Edwards just doesn't say things to be saying things, he says things that he believes in and things that he will accomplish when he is elected President. It is past time for Americans to take America back from the special interest groups and John Edwards is the only candidate who can accomplish this.
I want a leader for President. We need universal health care, a living wage, safe infrastructure, safe environment and above all a free press. Money is the American God, it is dangled infront of our noses like a carrott. We need a leader to wake up, encourage and enable all people to cast their vote. To give hope and justice to all, no matter how low on the economic ladder they may be. It has to be a Democrat since Republicans only care for their money and nothing or nobody else. We have the best slate of candidates for a long time. They need our encouragement at all times and the best should rise above it all. We need a leader. We need a free press to give us the facts, to sort out the truth. We need a free press to call the wealthy corporate interests on their misleading and lying ads. I believe Edwards has what it takes but do the American people, they are well fed and titillated, what more do they need? Wake up America, we need a leader.
John Edwards is what this Country needs
we should get off our butts and get this man in office!! we now have the man with the Plan. so lets "Get Informed, Get Inspired' Get Involved"
Is Edwards really even electable????
How many States is he truly going to carry???????
You know it is a shame that so many have opinions and destructive comments about the only candidate on either side of the body politic discussing "ISSUES". You know, things like education, basic nourishment, health care. The other Candidates are leading long diatribes about experience neither one have and the other party is so lost in supporting the party line and it's leader that America is literally taking the prverbial "handbasket ride". Bridges are falling in America and steam pipes are blowing up streets but we spend our money to re-build a nation in a region where men build cars of solid gold and houses the size of airports. I don't think he's a "Populist", I think he's a true "American" concerned about more than his own bank account. Much has been and is being made of his net worth. I find it funny when the guys who currently occupy the house have as much or more money than he does. The only problem with them has been the very evident need on the current occupants to steal more from the public funds for the war, excuse me, they expalined that it "got lost". I for one welcome the "fresh air" being provided by the Edwards campaign and pray that the Democrats gather enough nerve to talk about the things that really matter to Regular Americans, ie. food, gas, education and wages. The vote on last week was despicable. Pandering to the Hispanic community by paying for illegal health care isn't what the Hispanics who came here legally want (can't see how they would), if they are their not thinking like true Americans. A decent wage and respect will guarantee their vote any day.The strength of this country has been the saving grace for many people around the world as is evidenced by the levels of senseless death occurring since we have spread ourselves so thin we can't help those who really need it. Maybe it is time to fix our house and this man seems to be talking about just that!
OK, maybe John Edwards isn't Denise Giardina. He's too slick and well rehearst and he has that perfect hair. I heard him speak in Prestonsburg, KY on July 18. What sets him apart from Hillary and Obama is that he is talking to people and not at people, and he is talking about things that ordinary people are concerned about. He did ask for money. He asked for support. The day after he spoke, the Charleston, WV news announced that Hillary Clinton was coming to Charleston for a fund raiser with a +$2,000 donation price tag for attending. No open rally was planned. Which of the two is more interested in working people? I think the answer is clear.
I don't think it is either. Edwards is putting his REAL position on the table because that is the only way to know if his position is the populist position. It cannot be posturing, if it is, he will be eaten alive if he gets the Nomination because the discrepancies will show.
I think Edwards is trying to force the issues for Obama and Clinton, to make them get some SUBSTANCE in their campaign.
