For President: Go, Johnny, Go

Steve Novick

I admit it: other things being equal, I like the idea of voting for a woman and / or a non-Caucasian. I was big for Shirley Chisholm in 1972, when I was nine, and proud to vote for Jesse in ’88. But, as the initial results of the BlueOregon unscientific flash poll reflect: In the absence of Al Gore, John Edwards, the rich white guy, is the progressive candidate for President in 2008.

Let’s not even talk about Hillary Clinton. Clinton hasn’t said a single inspiring thing on any subject since, oh, 1994. Joshua Green’s recent article in the Atlantic lays out the case against Hillary, with its devastating closing line: “Senator Clinton has plenty to talk about, but she doesn’t have much to say.” The most appalling thing about the article is Clinton’s “voted for the authorization, didn’t vote for the invasion” waffle on Iraq. Did Senator Clinton loudly object when the war started, then? Didn’t think so. Which makes hers a revoltingly disingenuous rationalization.

Which leaves Edwards and Obama. Now, Obama started out with a big advantage over Edwards: Edwards voted for the war, and Obama, as a state senator, was opposed. But since then, Obama went to Connecticut and loudly endorsed Joe Lieberman in the primary against Lamont. Meanwhile, Edwards is, as far as I know, the only Senator who voted for the war to declare, simply, “I was wrong.” He was also the first to call Lamont after his primary win, and campaigned for him. So at this point, I call them even on the war.

Specific votes? Obama looks good on interest group ratings, at least. Probably more liberal than Edwards looked – but I do cut Edwards some slack for being from North Carolina.

I do enjoy Obama’s bemused attitude toward his own celebrity. That’s a big selling point. And I respect the fact that he didn’t use Harvard Law School as a springboard to just making money at a big firm; shows character.

But I am annoyed by his reflexive support of the environmentally meaningless domestic corn ethanol industry, to the point where he supports sugar tariffs, undermining the possibility of fighting global warming with more energy-efficient sugar-based ethanol. I’m glad Obama has stopped flying on Archer Daniels Midland corporate jets, but disturbed that he ever did accept such rides.

So what’s next? Since this is BlueOregon, I say, take a look at the Web sites.

If you look at the Web site for John Edwards’ One America Committee, it’s all about the working poor. There are links to articles on striking janitors. Articles about housing costs. Gobs of material on the minimum wage: Edwards helped raise money for the six state minimum-wage initiatives. This really is what John Edwards is all about now: Inequality – the poor – organized labor. There is literally nothing not to like.

If you look at Barack Obama’s Senate Web site, you see virtually nothing about the minimum wage – nothing about the poor – nothing about labor. You see uninspiring pablum on a variety of issues. And one thing that sticks out:

Military Funding Since arriving in Washington in 2005, Senator Obama has been a strong supporter of defense funding. He has supported the annual Defense Department appropriations bills and supplemental appropriations bills that fund American troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Senator has also supported pay raises for the troops, efforts to improve military readiness, and the acquisition of new weapons systems.

Focus on that last point for a second. Pay raises for the troops? Sure. But a blanket endorsement of “new weapons systems”? That is the mark of a complete sellout to the military-industrial complex. And of a politician sorely lacking in fiscal responsibility. “Cutting weapons systems of the kind originally designed for the Cold War that have nothing to do with fighting terrorism” isn’t just a relatively safe position; it’s a totally safe position - a standard New York Times editorial page position. Here’s the latest from former Reagan Administration deputy secretary of defense Lawrence Korb:

“First, cancel outright the following weapon systems: the F/A 22 Raptor fighter attack aircraft; the SSN 7-74 Virginia Class attack submarine; the DDX Destroyer; the V-22 Osprey Tilt Rotor transport aircraft; the C-130 J transport aircraft; and all offensive space-based weapon systems. In addition, the Pentagon should slow down the development of the tri-service F- 35 Joint Strike Fighter and the Army’s Future Combat System. These steps will save $30 billion in 2006 alone and more than $100 billion over the next five years.”

The fact that Obama doesn’t even have a nod toward those ideas shows a stunning degree of fealty to the military-industrial complex, and/or unjustifiable political timidity. And no, I don’t know where Edwards stands on these issues (other than being against Star Wars) – but at least he’s not going out of his way to endorse “new weapons systems.”

Or maybe it shows that experience does matter – that Obama hasn’t gotten around to reading Lawrence Korb. Which would be equally troubling.

Should I really base my decision on Web sites? Why not? That’s where voters can see, in writing, what candidates really, truly want them to see, without buying their books or whatever. (I shouldn’t have to pay $24.95 to find out what anyone stands for.) Everything Edwards gives me, I like, a lot. Obama gives me nothing to like very much and one thing to intensely dislike.

Edwards for President.

Comments

  • Mike Schryver (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I'm with you, Steve. I was impressed with Edwards in 2004, and continue to be. I especially like his focus on improving the lot of the working poor. He's the one I would get behind at this point.

  • Garrett (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You have a lot of good points. I don't think I agree with you on shutting down the development of new weapons systems. Frankly our jets were all developed in the 1970s, our submarines (Los Angeles class and Seawolf class) are aging. The Seawolf class was developed at the end of the Cold War and led to the Virginia class of subs that are smaller and less expensive. The DDX destroyers are new guided missile cruisers that are smaller and more efficient. They are going to begin laying down the Zumwalt early next year.

    I think the general assessment in Washington is that yes we have to deal with terrorists but a real threat may come from the Chinese. They aren't exactly armed with weapons from circa 1945 anymore.

    I think that more of this would be helped by stopping this war immediately. How many trillions would we save over the course of 5 years instead of billions?

    Bagging on Obama because he supports military research and development is kind of a weak arugment don't you think? You're dead on about Edwards though. I can't find a single fault with the guy but his complete lack of experience...that's not necessarily a bad thing.

  • Bert (unverified)
    (Show?)

    That is an excellant analysis. Bravo.

    Very helpful.

    Another source of data might be the Charlie Rose show.

    I consider it much more enlightening with respect to candidate's positions and posturing than any other television venue. The guests know that only policy junkies and elites are watching.

    Both Edwards and Obama have appeared.

    Obama portrayed himself as a compromiser focused on interests and outcomes. This can be a good impulse, but it's hard to figure out whether it just amounts to a realization of powerlessness, stonewalling or opportunism.

    Edwards has discussed the issues you note in your post but also went out of the way to uncritically embrace establishment postures with respect to Israel and Russia. He seemed to be telling powerful actors in the foreign policy community that he'd be willing to play the geopolitical game according to script.

    I believe he appeared with Jack Kemp who is quite experienced at integrating right wing ideology into progressive agendas.

  • TomCat (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thanks Steve. Great analysis.

  • Brandon Rhodes (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Thank you, Steve, for catching that military bit on Obama. I was sparring with family this morning about which Dems I like, and the only anti-Obama ammo I really had is his lack of introducing any brave bills in the Senate.

    But cozying up to the MIC is definitely a sure way to sour this Oregonian's opinion. Thanks again for the tip.

  • Brian Newman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I am sure glad that you have moved on from Al Gore, Steve. I absolutely agree with your analysis on Edwards and think that he is the best of the pack. I was sorry to see him lose the nomination to Kerry two years ago, but in retrospect Edwards needed the experience of a national campaign to mature as a candidate and his announcement today seemed pitch perfect. He seems to be laying the groundwork for a populist, anti-washington campaign on economic fairness and the war. An Edwards/Obama or Edwards/Richardson ticket would be ideal, in my humble opinion.

  • (Show?)

    Let's not throw the Obama out with the bathwater. There are a number of reasons to be cautious about Barack--his scant resume should worry fans as much as critics--but voting records are a crappy index about where a person stands on an issue. Particularly given that Dems were not allowed to participate in drafting legislation, were mostly not allowed to amend it, and were forced to vote for large spendings bills up or down. There can be no more blunt measure than that.

    The predictable Obama backlash is coming now, and folks are combing through that scant record for evidence of malfeasance. Fair enough. But let's put things in context. How he votes in the next session, when Dems are drafting and amending legislation, will say a whole lot more about him than how he voted in the last.

  • (Show?)

    Garrett is clearly up on this weapons stuff. But I don't see why we build (not just research, build) lots of new weapons just because our current ones are somewhat old, if they're still far better than anyone else's. It sounds like buying a new car every three years "just because." Korb says China is way, way behind us. Here's a link to an interview with him where he addresses that.
    ttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/future/interviews/korb.html

  • (Show?)

    Steve,

    I like everything that Edwards says. What I worry about is what he doesn't say. In 2004 he ran a very weak campaign as VP nominee. He just kept giving his stump speech and wouldn't attack Bush with anything more than pablum. He gave the debate away to Cheney, which should not have been a challenge except that Edwards wasn't willing to attack and call him out. Until I see a change in that behavior I will consider Edwards a nice decent guy whose views I agree with, but who can't make it to the top.

  • (Show?)

    John - I might be in the minority, but thought Edwards was OK against Cheney. And my assumption is that what a VP candidate says is dictated by the Presidential candidate's handlers, so to the extent that he was a disappointment, I'd blame Bob Shrum.

  • (Show?)

    I tend to agree with you, Steve, with the proviso that my support for Edwards is contingent on Al Gore not running.

  • (Show?)

    Well, I was one of the few advocating for Edwards on this blog in 2004, so I'm glad to have the rest of you realize the potential of his candidacy.

    He has a very compelling personal biography, and he's an eminently electable Democrat whose heart and whose political mind are in the right place.

    I'd also agree with jeff, though, obama is smart and at times inspirational. I'm not sure he's electable at this point, so I lean toward Edwards.

    Whomever we elect in 2008 has to have some humility and some brains, in order to deal with the tremendous worldwide mess that will be left by GWB.

  • pat malach (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I like Edwards, that son-of-a-millworker

    Steve, he may be "a rich white guy," but he made his money the old-fashioned way ... suing even richer white guys.

    Edwards' book "Four Trials" is a good read. Actually quite a little page turner. Covers the four trials where he made his money, suing corporate titans on behalf of working-class people who suffered at the hands of their malfeasance and negligence. Some nice David v. Goliath stuff and good info about his background.

  • (Show?)

    Obama's key selling point at this stage to me is his transcendant presence. Like it or not, voters of all stripes have a tendency to vote their guts for President, and what gets people's guts in many cases is charisma and vision. Edwards has both, but he sounds and looks just a LITTLE too smooth to make you believe it all the way. I think Obama is less skilled as a policymaker, but he's rich with understanding about leadership and connecting to people, finding common cause and inspiring that search in others.

    Either man, near as I can tell, would likely be an excellent person to turn the national rudder and get us back on track.

  • Tahoma Activist (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Brother, this is a wonderful post. I love your analysis, very informative.

    My only concern is your position on ethanol. Yes, sugar-based ethanol in America is a total non-starter. We use more than we grow, so using some of it for fuel is totally not cost effective.

    But dissing sugar tariffs? Tariffs on all goods are VITAL to restoring the American economy. If you don't like sugar tariffs for ethanol, then why not fight for legalizing industrial hemp, which would make killer biodiesel for pennies on the dollar.

    I like Edwards position on biofuels, because they are required for our future success in the energy industry, and I like tariffs of all kinds to protect our domestic industries. If you oppose high-priced gas, that's fine, but don't oppose tariffs. Tariffs will save this country.

  • (Show?)

    Tahoma -- I'm a fair trader, not reflexively opposed to tariffs at all. But I make a global warming exception on this one. I confess I don't know about industrial hemp and biodiesel.

  • lin qiao (unverified)
    (Show?)

    As for the prejudice to vote in favor of a woman or non-white candidate in a crowded field, I have two words: Vera Katz. Never voted for her and have not regrets about that.

    In 1993/94 I was wondering what Hillary Clinton couldn't ne president, but now the thought is frightening. Problem is that she is being touted by the same folks who brought us Presidents Kerry, Gore, and Dukakis.

  • Gil Johnson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I will vote for damn near any Democrat for president in 2008, with the exceptions of Joe Lieberman and William Jefferson. The prospect of four more years of Republican control is just too apocalyptic.

    So if Hillary is nominated,I'm going to work for her, contribute money and vote for her. She's not my first choice--that would probably be Edwards, though who knows who will pop up in the next 12 months? Hillary has been an awfully good senator for New York and is well respected among her peers. What she lacks in vision, she makes up in smarts.

    Like Hillary, LBJ was considered an opportunist and less of a visionary, but he got more things done as president than any Democrat since FDR.

    Slamming Obama for catering to the ADM corn-based biofuels industry is like slamming Peter DeFazio for opposing gun control. He's representing a major part of his constituency. Hell, Wayne Morse and Mark Hatfield carried water for the timber industry.

    The main thing is, let's not do the usual Democratic thing and tear down every potential candidate in our party. The Republicans don't need any help on that.

  • hawthorne (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Gil,

    Well stated. What is the rush to judgement? I don't understand the need to position and dog pile right now- especially by tearing other candidates down. I am also concerned by the tone I read here regarding Hillary. While she is also not my first choice, it makes one wonder if the same attacks would be made if she wasn't a woman. Progressive, open minded? Let's wait more then a few days after one candidate announces and others have not even made decisions to hear substance.

  • Terry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Which leaves Edwards and Obama.

    It's unfortunate that even a progressive website like Blue Oregon --and Steve Novick-- feel it necessary to "marginalize" the only truly progressive candidate in the field, Dennis Kucinich.

    Nothing against John Edwards, but why eliminate Kucinich from consideration before the contest actually begins?

  • marko (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You know, the Republicans have this thing called the 11th commandment--"Never speak ill of another Republican."

    Maybe we should give it a try some time.

    p.s. Kucinich is bat shit.

  • peter (unverified)
    (Show?)

    i love dennis kucinich, i think he's wonderful, and says things no one else will even consider, but i won't vote for him in the primary. his job is to hold the left flank, the hardcore, ideological, lefty-liberal fringe, and he does it well. he is marginal by definition, and that is not a bad thing at all.

    i won't be deciding on any candidates this early. if i felt truly inspired (like with dean), i would already be volunteering like those folks at draftobama, and draftgore, but right now i still need to be convinced by solid actions, and serious proposals by the candidates themselves.

    imho, both edwards, and obama are a little weak, but more or less on the right track policy wise. clinton is the opposite--she's quite strong and often wrong.

  • lois (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I think Edwards is the best chance we've got to take back the White House in 2008. Aren't we ready for a win after 8 years of Bush? Does ANYONE really believe that Clinton or Obama can really win in a US that elected GW Bush 2x's??

  • (Show?)

    You're dead on about Edwards though. I can't find a single fault with the guy but his complete lack of experience...

    Um, let's check the record, shall we?

    • Hillary Clinton: elected 2000. By 2008, eight years in the Senate.

    • Barack Obama: elected 2004. By 2008, four years in the Senate.

    • John Edwards: elected 1998. By 2008, six years in the Senate, and four out.

    Admittedly, Hillary was first lady for 8 years - plus first lady of Arkansas for 12 years. Obama was an Illinois State Senator for 6 years (across two separated terms). John Edwards was one of the leading consumer advocates and most successful trial lawyers in the nation.

    I'm not sure that there's any way to judge equivalency among those things - but in terms of US Senate experience, all three have roughly equal amounts; which is to say, not much.

    I'm not sure that matters.

  • Garrett (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Steve,

    An interesting article by Korb to say the least. You do have to realize it is not exactly an article rather than an opinion of 1 man. I do happen to agree with him a lot. Why do we build rather that develop? Simply because sometimes theory doesn't play out in real life. Sure in theory a new missile guided carrier can wreck Osama bin Laden...in reality can it? That is why they build. The Air Force question is a joke. They developed the F-18 in the 1970s. 30 years later its about time we got another state of the art jet. Its just common sense. We've been developing the F-22 since the 1990s. When it finally becomes the standard it could be 2020. That's 50 years between development and deployment. Look...this is what my argument comes down to...China may be nothing now...I'm not saying they're going to become any kind of threat anytime soon but honestly...military arguments are the same thing over and over. If we say they're nothing now we essentially say the same thing the Japanese Admiral said about the US before the Pearl Harbor attack. "We will awaken a sleeping giant". Sure they're behind us. There is no reason not to spend on development and deployment as a deterrant. If we're 20-30 years ahead of anyone else I see no need to slow down our development of national defense. WWII took us almost 1 1/2 years to deal with rations and get put a fighting force that could beat Nazi Germany and Japan on the ground. Why would we repeat mistakes? We are not seperated by oceans anymore. That is the days of Jack Aubrey and the HMS Surprise.

  • Judah (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Quick point: its hard to compare Edwards' campaign website with Obama's Senate website, because there are very strict limits to what one can say and do with a taxpayer funded website (as well as a limit on the staff you can have working on it). Wait until you see a real Obama campaign site, then you can compare apples and oranges.

  • JOhn (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I was impressed with Edwards' run in '04 as well. He ran on progressive issues and attacked war profiteering, a stance rare among Democraps. I agree that he ran a weak campaign for VP, probably because Kerry muzzled him on his best issues.

  • (Show?)

    While I remain an Al Gore fan--mostly because I think global warming is the biggest security threat this country faces in the next 50 years--I have to agree with Steve that John Edwards deserves a close, close look in this race. He may be the only candidate that has a chance of capturing underpaid and underinsured social conservative voters, whom in the past seemed to have sided with Republicans merely because of social issues.

    John Edwards just might be the candidate who can convince the poor and working class that that they need to vote their economic interests as well. He's not bad on global warming, either--at least it ranks as one of his top 5 priorities.

  • Becky (unverified)
    (Show?)

    John Edwards just looks like a plastic politician to me. I really feel uncomfortable watching him. He does not strike me as being real.

  • DAN GRADY (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Where is Pat Paulsen when we need him most??

    I know he's deceased, and I know he's not getting a state funeral!! I would for my part be more inclined to attend Pat's funeral than Gerald's!

    The Honorable Senator Russ Feingold has dropped for the race, and Al Gore seems to be uninterested! I like John Edwards, I just don't see him with the fire in his belly!! I believe the political climate is going to be very exclusive of Republicans by the time Summer of '08 rolls around, and it will be a Democratic show all around!! I hope we have the stomach for a real good old fashion Democratic Convention.

    I would love to see a race to the wire that includes a broad consensus candidate born out of a fire of debate, and convention floor dramatics. I would love to see politics on our T.V. the way we did in the 60's and 70's that activates a following of our younger voters. I don't care, or am not interested in an orderly, fall asleep convention with all the drama sucked out of it by the Iowa's caucus!

    I don’t want to see another DNC with the candidate anointed by the DLC like a coronation done in a celebrity show format for T.V.! Let the Republicans be the orderly, focused party with an agenda everybody in the party can foam at the mouth for in unison.

    It would be sweet to see Al Gore come out of the convention with a surprise nomination, or some kind of convention dramatics!! We need to be the party of the people, and not a pasty faced version of the Republicans!!

    I would like to see AL Gore/Bill Richardson on the ticket ultimately, though my politics are more in line with Dennis Kucinich, and would vote that way in the primary!

    Happy Thoughts;

    Dan Grady

  • (Show?)

    In response to Garrett: If we had unlimited money in this country to do anything we like, sure, build whatever toys you want. But we do not. We are running multi-hundred-billion dollar deficits BEFORE the baby boomers retire. The military budget is an interesting place to look, because we spend about as much on our military as THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED. As opposed to pre-WWII, where we started off with nothin' and STILL won. We do NOT spend as much on, say, education, or alternative fuel developmnent, as the rest of the world combined. The Federal government spends more on weapons procurement than on aid to K-12 education, for example. So what you are saying, really, is that in order to keep 30 steps ahead of the Chinese instead of 15 steps ahead, you are willing to raise taxes, or cut Medicare, or postpone investments in fighting global warming. Those are the trade-offs; there's no avoiding that. I have no problem with our having the finest military in the world. I do have a problem deciding that we are going to make military spending a privileged class, where we don't even think about trade-offs. And who's to say spending this much on weapons "deters" China, as opposed to committing us and them to an insane arms race that bankrupts borh countries? THAT'S the Pearl Harbor parallel: We "woke up" because Japan ATTACKED us; who's to say China won't build up BECAUSE we're doing so? AHA! I have it! Garrett, are you in the pay of the Indian government, committed to Indian economic dominance by goading the US and China into an arms-race financial death spiral? Have they bribed you with their delicious curries and tasty paratha?

  • josh reynolds (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mr. Grady

    I am curious if you talk with republicans? What I am hearing, even from the social conservatives, is that electing one of their own i.e. Bush did not work. It is now about leadership so watch for Giulani. Edward's clearly lacks leadership.

  • DAN GRADY (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I am curious if you talk with republicans? // Posted by: josh reynolds | Dec 29, 2006 2:54:02 PM

    All the time, I was born in Scottsdale, Az. in the shadow of Camelback Mountain and Barry Goldwater!! My father was an original Young Republican on the campaign for Goldwater while he was in law school. My brother is Reaganite that works in the only part of the government Republicans fully embrace, the Federal Corrections Division of the Justice Department!!

    I like to think of myself as a "Mo Udall/Jimmy Carter" Democrat, far above the Republican negativity, willing to stand up for America, and alongside the Republican for sincere governance, and to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution & Bill of Rights!

    I think the question misses the point, or better yet, our circumstance in today's government!! What is the Republican Party but the party kidnapped by the Neo-Cons with an agenda that is little more than that of a Fascists transformation of our democracy!!

    Giuliani is a scoundrel, and borderline gangster with few scruples!!(Yes, I know he was a federal prosecutor) Who do you think was pushing Bernie Kerik for Homeland Security Director??? What a disaster that would truly have been!! Birds of a feather truly fly together!!

    Happy Thoughts;

    Dan Grady

  • Ryan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    With Gore, Dean, and Feingold out of the race, Kucinich is the only real progressive among potential and announced candidates, but he doesn't have a chance in hell of winning.

    Of the large number of centrist Dems in the race, Obama and Edwards are the only two with the public personas to win a national election (unless the Republicans nominate an equally boring candidate, which is possible, but I for one don't want to take that chance).

    I'm having a hard time deciding between the two. I share Steve's concerns about Obama and will add that Obama voted for the energy bill, the bankruptcy bill, and the tort reform bill...all of which most of his fellow centrists opposed. These votes can generally be traced to winning favor from specific industries in his state. However, his rhetoric on energy is almost identical to the other centrist candidates (including his support for corn based ethanol from swing states...a position every candidate is going to take, except maybe Kucinich).

    What makes Obama so appealing is his public speaking skills. As everyone knows, he is amazing and this will make him an incredible force, regardless of his level of experience (Bill Clinton survived Jennifer Flowers because of his public speaking skills). In fact, I predict that Obama will surpass Hillary and be the one to beat.

    Edwards also is a great public speaker, but not on the same level as Obama. I also like Edwards' emphasis on poverty, but when you look at the details of his positions, there is little there that is different from the pack. He supports unioinization, a minimum wage hike, and increased funding for section 8. All the centrists support this, even though they don't talk about it as much.

    Edwards makes no mention of more progressive, edgier ideas such as reforming our trade policies or dramatically increasing the construction of affordable housing through public funding (which is desperately needed).

    With his emphasis on poverty, we don't hear much from Edwards on the other issues, but what is out there is essentially the same as the other centrist candidates.

    So, I'm still undecided and will be watching this year to see how Obama and Edwards play their hands. As for the rest of the pack, they are simply background noise in my opinion.

  • Andrea (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Marko: "Kucinich is bat shit"

    If there is one thing that I cannot stand, it is disrespect. I do no support Kucinich, but I am not about to demean him.

    On the matter of the article, I love Obama. He seems like the kind of person who is looking at reuniting the country instead of focusing on other issues. I think that is what this country needs. We have been divided for too long. I am ready for change.

  • Steve Rankin (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The main reason John Edwards didn't seek a second Senate term in 2004 was that he knew he would likely lose.

    If there are truly "Two Americas," we know which one Edwards belongs to, don't we? In the unlikely event that he becomes president, Edwards will have to move into a smaller house. (Of course, he's the great champion of the poor people-- right?)

    On the other hand, the last three Democratic presidents have been from the South, so the Dems might be smart to nominate a Southerner. Then it will be much easier to hide the excrement in the chocolate ice cream.

  • (Show?)

    Who cares where he lives? WTF? The issue is what he says and does. And you must not have been paying attention, because few people in the public eye have done more ON THE GROUND to address poverty and displacement via Katrina than John Edwards the last two years. And what time he wasn't spending on those projects, he spent campaigning for Democrats all over the country last fall.

  • Ron Buel (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Excellent analysis Steve. You always make a better critic than you do a supporter, though. I seldom see you talking shades of gray like this. Black and White are your colors. Is this as a result of being in the consulting business?

  • Steve Rankin (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Edwards had plenty of time for campaigning, since he doesn't have a job.

    If he's addressed the problems caused by Katrina for TWO YEARS, he must be psychic, since Katrina occurred on August 29, 2005.

    I remember Katrina well, as it destroyed my backyard shade tree.

  • (Show?)

    Edwards has had several jobs since then, actually:

    Director, UNC Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity Senior Advisor, Fortress Investment Group Founder, College for Everyone Co-Chairman, Council on Foreign Relations task force on US/Russian Relations Founder, One Corps

    you misread my last post (which might have been clearer I admit), which referred to his work on poverty, AND the displacement via Katrina. Two separate things.

connect with blueoregon