WP: John Edwards Says U.S. Should Set Out to Eliminate Poverty

[DeepModem Mom]

Edwards Says U.S. Should Set Out to Eliminate Poverty
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 23, 2006; Page A09

Former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.), sketching out themes for a possible 2008 presidential campaign, said yesterday that the nation should set a goal of eliminating poverty over the next three decades and seek to reclaim the moral high ground internationally by starting to withdraw forces from Iraq.

On a day when the Senate defeated two Democratic amendments aimed at forcing President Bush to begin pulling out of Iraq, Edwards told a National Press Club audience the administration has made a mess in Iraq. He said he favors an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 troops and called for all combat forces to be gone in the next 12 to 18 months.

"We desperately need to restore the moral core of leadership," he said. "It is absolutely no secret that our credibility in the world has been enormously damaged and tarnished over the last six years. . . . It is absolutely essential, if we are going to defeat these global jihadists, that we restore America's credibility in the world."

The 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee had sharp words for his party, saying Democrats must stand for big ideas, backbone and leadership. "I do not believe in a party obsessed with incrementalism, half-measures, positions based on yesterday's polls," he said.

In his 2004 campaign, Edwards talked about an America divided between haves and have-nots, and after leaving the Senate he helped establish a poverty center at the University of North Carolina. But it was Hurricane Katrina, he said, that gave new urgency to the 37 million Americans living below the poverty line....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201672.html?sub=AR

[Syrinx]

1. Gee, ya think?

I personally want Gore to get in the race and get the nomination. But if Edwards got it, I wouldn't complain. He's been talking the talk, and I think he would walk the walk.

[Digit]

2. John Edwards can take us where we need to go as a Country

I am ready to follow his lead.

[FloridaPat]

3. But they're already busy ending the middle class. Will they have

the means to end proverty too?

[PurityOfEssence]

4. Too funny

Yes, they'll end us all if they had their way. it'd be sad for them if they succeed though, because what's the use of massive wealth if you can't feel superior to others?

Sadly, the poverty issue is always a hard row to hoe in this country; the reactionaries have so pitted the "have littles" against the "have nots" that any political momentum to help the poor is met with the fear mongering that to help the poor would tax the rest of us out of whatever comfort we've managed to attain. It's just like the approach to curbing affirmative action: "them other no-accounts is gonna take yer jobs".

I love John Edwards, as anyone who's been hanging around this board for the last 5 years knows, and yes, he's the real deal. Perhaps some goodness of the American character can be cobbled together into a coalition to be responsible human beings, but my assessment of the current situation is rather bleak.

The reactionaries of this country are nothing more than parasites, and even as their policies will destroy the whole system, this matters naught to them; immediate gain and gain beyond any rational limits is all that matters. These people are looters, looting from the past by not sustaining the infrastructure and looting from the future by saddling our children with crushing debt. It's the dark side of the American character: getting away with something.

This too shall not necessarily pass.

Nice punch-line, though; sorry for being such a downer.

Edwards truly could be the one to heal this country. Knuckle-dragging functionaries from red areas can't let their constituents see them talking with some northeastern thinkin' type like Kerry, but they could be seen with a backwoods progressive southerner like Johnny, and much as we all hate the forces of selfishness and blockheaded conservatism, we need to bridge the divide for anything substantive to happen.

Stay tuned.

[pokercat999]

6. "we need to bridge the divide"

I disagree I think we need to widen the gap say to where we divide the country into two. I don't see any evidence that poor "conservatives" will ever change their minds about anything. The GOP only has to shout "national security" which I believe has become code for "the brown skinned people are coming" and poor rednecks everywhere jump on their bandwagon. The modern GOP is nothing more than an updated and slightly more sophisticated KKK, IMO.

[4_TN_TITANS]

36. Poor Rednecks? Not so fast...

That's all that this TN county is made up of and it's true blue. These rednecks are the first to feel the pain of the safety nets unraveling. Lots of dumb rednecks out there, of course, but lump us all together. Poor does not always = stupid.

[pokercat999]

43. I didn't say ALL, lots of our less fortunate rural friends

are blue as can be. But so many more of them are dubbed by the "call to arms" of the GOP and it's always over our brothers with a tint to their skin. I'll stand by my statement. It would not be a terrible thing to divide the US into two separate countries, peacefully and by choice, of course.

[TwentyFive]

49. GOP = updated and slightly more sophisticated KKK? Yup, I'd agree

The aim is the same. GOP=KKK

[Demeter]

5. Eliminate Criminal Greed and White Collar Crime, and It's Done

Redress the social contract, and only the totally depraved will exercise their innate criminality. The rest of us will have food, shelter, work, educational opportunities, health care, retirement, and a chance to build a family. Drugs will lose their attractiveness, when reality is bearable.

[WePurrsevere]

7. "Drugs will lose their attractiveness, when reality is bearable."

That's a great line.

Although ending poverty certainly won't end all of the "reasons" people use end up taking drugs it sure would put a nice dent in it. B-)

[karynnj]

29. A great line - but there's a drug problem even in very affluent

areas. The good thing is that making reality more bearable is a good very important goal in and of itself.

[WePurrsevere]

38. True, I realize that which is why I only said "dent". :-) n/t

[karynnj]

40. I was commenting on your comment

that it wasn't the only reason and adding that, even where it doesn't work, the benefits to making life more bearable are good for other reasons. (So, at least it couldn't ever hurt.)

[WePurrsevere]

44. Okay.. sorry I misunderstood. It's been a long, exhausting & stressful

month so I'm a tad bit foggy &/or over sensitive at times. :)

[rodeodance]

8. "We desperately need to restore the moral core of leadership," BINGO>

[union_maid]

9. He's got to start framing it in terms of the middle class, too

His proposals are good for everyone except those who are becoming mega-billionaires at the expense of everyone else. The thing is, if he wants to be president, he has to talk to the middle class about the middle class. Most voters don't associate the word "poverty" with themselves, whether they have a nice stock portfolio or are financing their lives on credit cards and a wing and a prayer. Decreasing poverty helps the middle class by putting labor in a stronger position, and of course, real universal healthcare would keep millions in the middle class who are in danger of falling out of it. Making the middle class stronger and more accessible helps lift people out of poverty, so it all works together. But voters will respond to the phrase "middle class" a lot more enthusiastically than they will "poverty".

[The2ndWheel]

10. So even Edwards doesn't think it's possible then?

Over the next three decades? Eliminate poverty?

2036. Yeah, I'm thinking that's not going to happen. But what do I know, I'm not looking for votes.

[rodeodance]

11. and he has a PLAN:

,,,,,Edwards said that welfare reform has helped reduce poverty among single mothers but that the problem remains acute among young men. He called on society to strike a bargain with those in poverty by providing additional assistance for housing, health care, education and savings. In return, he said, those capable of working would be expected to work and to make responsible choices about their lives.

His policy proposals include raising the minimum wage to $7.50 an hour, which he said would lift a million people out of poverty. He also proposed creating a million temporary government-subsidized jobs over five years, tax credits for first-time home buyers, a radical overhaul of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, tax credits to help low-income workers establish savings accounts, and expanded opportunities to attend college.

Edwards said wiping out poverty would cost $15 billion to $20 billion a year, which he said he would pay for by rolling back President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and preserving the estate tax, which the Republicans are seeking to eliminate.

Noting that past declarations of war on poverty have fallen short, Edwards said there are huge obstacles ahead, particularly in helping young African American men break out of the poverty cycle. He said new thinking must be part of the solution.

[bleedingheart]

19. how about reinstating the public works programs of the depression?

The national parks, inner cities...all need help. We have loads of young people that we could give the task of helping fix our problems and pay them a decent salary. I bet for a lot less than it is costing us to wage war. Now there is a plan.

[Catchawave]

12. Kos diary about the speech....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/22/195513/261

[Catchawave]

13. Live Blog from the National Press Club

http://blog.oneamericacommittee.com/story/2006/6/22/13746/5831

[saltpoint]

14. I imagine that Karl Rove is sort of amused by John Edwards' emphasis on

poverty when Rove's clients are into gargantuan corporate tax breaks and high-level power leveraging.

Rove is strategizing priorities for the already-powerful. Edwards' recent addresses have become voices for the unheard, people who are mostly unheard because they don't have any of the power that money affords the powerful. They don't meet with advisory boards and high-paid consultants; they're trying to catch the damn bus to go to one of 2 or 3 jobs to feed their children.

Part of other nations' distrust and contempt for the U.S. has to do with Rove Republicans representing the people Edwards necessarily opposes. Ken Lay's power greed versus John Edwards' public service. Ann Coulter's spiritual vandalism versus Elizabeth Edwards' affirmation and uplift. If that isn't a clear distinction in models of citizenship, I don't know what is.

John Edwards has a real good shot at being our next president. I wouldn't hesitate to vote for him in and of himself, but especially after 6 years an unholy alliance between unbridled corporate greed and the Republican Party.

[daydreamer]

15. Poor people don't vote.

He needs to change his campaign theme if he wants to amount to something. Always say fight for working middle class, not "the poor".

[lindisfarne]

16. Elim. poverty? Our priority is to get rid of the death tax! So the wealthy

won't be impoverished.

[ckramer]

17. I'm glad he said that

But democrats seem to me have lost its connection to the poor.

A couple of things Edwards needs to bring to his politcal agenda:

1. substantially raise the poor's income - advocate living wages
2. control the housing cost
3. free health care for the poor
4. control the cost of higher education
5. control CEO's pay by law
6. stop invading other country and cut the defense budget in half

[paparush]

18. POPULISM BABY!!! Woot Woot!!

Keep beatin that drum Johnny Boy!! Divide and Conquer!!

[Roxy66]

20. You know, the Edwards are DU alumni.....

Elizabeth used to post here regularly...I sure would like to see her back. I wonder if she still checks in....

[daydreamer]

22. I think Elisabeth Edwards is a very smart lady

like Hillary.

[mntleo2]

21. Welfare Reform Did *Not* Lift Single Mothers

I love John Edwards work towards lifting people out of poverty, but he says Welfare Reform lifted women out of poverty. It has not. There is no indication that low income families with a single parent has gone anywhere. Poverty levels are up for low income women with children. Worse, *nobody* has tracked what has happened to the women who left welfare to go to work. Nobody. They do not have a clue, not one whit of an indication as to what happened to these women and their children. They just fell off the face of the earth into the boiling oily vat of working dead-end McJobs.

Oh we do have some stories. Like the little 5 year old boy whose mother worked 2 jobs and, because nobody was paying any attention, took a gun to school shooting and killing another 6 year old (no available childcare is not enough of a reason to sanction a mother for not working). We have stories galore of families without health insurance or any safety net while the companies they work for get bucco tax breaks for employing them. We talk to families on the street who cannot afford to pay the exorbitant rent that is required in almost any place that has employment, and we have watched as infant mortality is now competing with third world countries in the statistics.

We refuse to acknowledge that mothering IS work. We cannot imagine that raising the next generation is actually contributing to this country, therefore we refuse to support it.

I would ask smug childless people who say parenting is a choice: "Who is going to change YOUR Depends when you are too old and sick to do it? Who is going to fight in your wars? Who is going to run your cities, do your plumbing, take your garbage? Who will be raising your crops so you can eat? Who will be running the government when you are sitting in your wheelchair? If you have your way and only people who can "afford" to raise children should be the only parents, then do you think a bunch of rich or even middle class kids would choose to change your dirty diapers and wipe the slobber off the front of your shirt? Will they be the ones sweating out in the poisonous fields reaping the crops that you eat? Will they be in Iraq facing an angry mob who is out to behead them? Rich kids won't do that now, what makes you think they will do it 30 years from now?"

John Edwards is at least out there trying to open dialogue about poverty, and while he may need to also address the vanishing middle class, he also needs to respect the work of raising the next generation. It is important work and it is not valued at this time by anyone. Welfare DEformed said in essence that raising children is "doing nothing". Its real name is "The Personal Responsibility Act," ratified by legislators who are anything *but* responsible themselves. If we are true Americans and progressives we should be required to recognize that making some rich person richer working for minimum wage is not as valuable as investing in Americans who are ensuring the future of this country by raising children. Period!

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

[shrike]

26. What pisses me off

Is that women with law and medical degrees are expected to stay home and be mothers . . .

While mothers with high school diplomas, if that, are expected to WORK AND SUPPORT THEIR CHILDREN!

For the record, I know both working moms and SAHMs who are doing a great job raising their kids.

[mike923]

27. Any plan...

that doesn't promote a two parent household raising children will not address poverty in this country.

[mntleo2]

28. I Might Add..

Any plan (and that is what the Personal Responsibility Act is) that says raising the next generation is "doing nothing" IS a bad plan. People can raise children as a single parent. But if raising children is "doing nothing" while working a poorly paid minimum wage job making some rich man richer, is considered "contributing to society," THAT is a bad plan IMO.

If there was more support within communities and the work place for parenting and it was respected as a job within itself, we would lift a whole lot of people (children included) off of poverty. For instance, paid family leave makes a whole hell of a lot of difference in making sure a mother returns to work healthy and able to work.

Welfare at its height used 4% of our budget while the military used almost 50% of the budget. The military is taking even more now and social services is now down to less than 3% of the budget (and that includes childcare and medical coverage). By dehumanizing mothers, the conservative wing nuts picked on the ones who had the least ability to defend themselves. By demonizing motherhood (and fatherhood) single or not, this was despicable IMO.

This year Venezuela passed legislation that actually PAYS mothers to be moms. They give her a wage. They recognize that she is raising the ticket to their future and they honor that with pay.

Now THAT is s plan!

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

[mike923]

30. And in addition to allowing the mom to be a mom...

the dad needs to be there. Otherwise the cycle of poverty just continues on for the next generation.

[union_maid]

33. You're right, but that would require huge changes

One reason, I think, that welfare became such an easy target for the right is that for a short time it provided some things to the poor that the middle class could no longer afford. It was only a small period of time, when the price tag of being middle class started to go up and before we started making drastic cuts in social welfare programs.

When it was a matter of course that most moms stayed home with the kids when they were little, it wasn't such a controversy to provide for that among recipients of public assistance. When it became increasingly difficult for working families to afford a stay at home parent, then it became impossible to ask taxpayers to support it for recipients of aid.

We can't pretend that it was really possible to address this politically and reasonably. Even now, if you float the idea that we should be able to have stay at home parenting, a lot of the left goes nuts, believing that it's a way to keep women down, and maybe it is, to some degree. This is an area where you can't even make everyone on the left happy, let alone everyone in the country. But bottomline - if the middle class can't afford it, they're not going to want to provide it for those who are not working. Even when it costs at least as much to provide childcare for the working single parent as they're earning at work.

[mntleo2]

34. It Should Be A Choice As In Other Jobs

I do not think the left would go nuts if they saw mothering and fathering as job choice. I do not think it means someone HAS to stay home and raise the kids, it merely says that you are working two jobs if you work outside the home as well. If you choose parenting as your primary job, this is worthy of support (tax breaks, social security, etc) as much as choosing to work for a company is all.

As for needing BOTH parents, yes this is a wonderful thing. But most poor mothers have been left high and dry by the fathers ~ this is WHY they have to turn to welfare. A great deal of these fathers have two families and/or as poor as the mother is, and/or are incarcerated (for drugs, child abuse and other issues).

Do you realize that less than 40% of single mothers even receive child support? And after raising those kids on nothing, even if child support is ordered and not paid, the father just rides out the waiting time and never has to pay if they can get by doing it until the child reaches 18 ~ and believe me a lot of them do. So, after spending every cent she earns on her children and having nothing left to save, a woman is left on the street ~ and believe me a great deal of the homeless are women over fifty who face age discrimination on the job as well as not having any social safety net, thanks to the mostly MEN who run this country. Meanwhile men can retire in comfort without any obligation, even to know their children much less help with their upbringing. What a man is able to do, a woman would be prosecuted for child neglect, and that is a fact.

I will agree having both a mother and a father is a good thing for a child, but marriage does not mean riding off into the sunset to live happily ever after. I am not trying to just blame men here, but lets face it far more men leave behind their obligations of child raising than women do. Not every woman in this country can marry a man who has a wonderful paid job with good benefits ~ and that is getting less and less of a possibility every day for men as well.

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

[union_maid]

37. Of course, I realize it

Maybe the day is coming when people can see it as a choice, but there are those who see any discussion of stay at home parenting as a threat to the strides women have made in the workplace. The problem is that those are some of the same people who favor social and economic justice, so it has been a bit of a sore point and really hasn't been persued in all these years.

[mntleo2]

39. MomsRising

I am working with the women's group called MomsRising. It was began by the woman who started MoveOn as well as others. While MomsRising is about moms who work outside of the home who are in dire need of support, Joan herself knows that, before we can get support at work, we need to respect mothering as "work".

I do not think it is as touchy as you think. As a feminist who has been one since the early '70's, I can tell you that it is imperative to respect what we call "women's work" as a job. Why? Because everytime people see some job as "women's work" then they denigrade it and minimize it into nothing ~ pay-wise as well as just plain respect for the work being done. This is true whether you are a woman doctor, lawyer, or construction worker. As soon as women get into the market, then the pay for them goes down and they are paid less. If we truly want to be respected for what we do, our roles as mothers needs to get that respect even more. It should be considered as important as any other job IMO. And then compensated.

If women are "touchy" about being mothers and do not want the recognition, then they are not only doing themselves and their daughters a disservice, they are letting down the sisterhood of other women. It is the one place where we of all nations, faiths, occupations, and even political differences have something major in common ~ we are mothers. It is time to take that commonality and make it an issue and we could be a powerful force.

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

[shrike]

45. Historically, though, mothers have always worked outside the home

Americans have such short memories that they feel "Leave it to Beaver" was the norm.

Women of color worked outside the home for generations. Immigrant women took jobs in factories and sometimes brought their children with them -- it was called the Rhode Island system. Or, they took "piecework" home and worked on it in between everything else they have to do. And farm women worked pretty damned hard, especially during the days of pre-electricity. even though technically they WERE at home. I'll never forget a diary entry I read, written by a pioneer woman in the Northwest: she recounted all the extremely difficult tasks (to me) performed by her during the day -- then at the end of it revealed that she gave birth to her fifth child as the sun went down.

But to be fair, the COMMUNITY was much different then. The country was much different then. Family was a very cohesive unit and it had to be -- kids were put to work as soon as they could walk. Lots of support, lots of "we're in this together." We don't have that any more. Families are extremely isolated, even from each other. I don't have children, but I have a lot of sympathy for parents and single parents -- it must feel like us against the world.

[mntleo2]

47. Yes Women Of Color Were Treated This Way...

...and it was wrong. Now ALL women are expected to go work that McJob when her baby is three months old, putting the child in some daycare. There is no family to help out because Grandma is not around, too busy taking those cruises, or working at the 7-11. And where has it gotten women of color all those years laboring in the fields or cleaning some white man's house? No freaking where!

This is not making strides. This is matriarchal slavery and it is stooopid of women to think that working these jobs is somehow doing something for society. They are not appreciated, they are not paid decently, and their jobs as mothers goes by the wayside as soon as they leave the maternity ward to go back to that McJob. They are not compensated, they are punished for being mothers, when the contribution made by parents to this nation for raising the next generation should be considered of the utmost importance.

I will stand by this because I have LIVED it and I am convinced: Mothering is far more important than making some rich man richer. Period!

Cat In Seattle

[shrike]

50. Actually, I think the difference here, today,

is that women are now occupying positions of power and influence, which must be incredibly threatening to the powers that be. (Oh, and some of them are women of color.) Just fine to let the little woman clean toilets, but if she's in the boardroom. . .

BTW, I think I didn't make myself clear enough -- that the world doesn't end because mothers work, and humanity won't go in the toilet. (Not that I'm saying you're saying that, but I hear it from people all the time, people whose sense of history doesn't extend beyond 1983.) And, as I pointed out in my post, the world was much different then. (I for one don't want to return to those days of pre-electricity farming!) BUT, families are in an incredible bind today, after some admittedly halcyon days post-WWII when America reached a state of affluence I'm sure it will never reach again. And society seems to want them to continue on as though it were 1955 -- laissez-faire family life.
Other societies, namely Europe, accommodate mothers -- paid maternity leaves, state-regulated daycare help: for all our "family friendly" culture, moms and dads in this country are truly on their own.

[mntleo2]

46. As A Woman, I Can Say This:

If women are so hot to forget their main roles as mothers, they are not being very smart, IMO. If they are giving more of their energy and time to some outside job while considering their roles as mothers as being less important than making some rich man richer just because they think they have "made strides," they are sadly mistaken. Now they not only have the job of being mothers, they are freaking EXPECTED to be the breadwinner as well. Soooo, making life a lot harder for ourselves by making more work for ones self that nobody even appreciates, especially some employer, is making strides???? Most women are not professionals and live the life of "flex time," paid medical benefits, retirement, and such things. They work McJobs with psycho bosses who are paid to be taskmasters at every turn and take these women for every penny they can so their CEOs can buy that vacation home while their workers cannot even get a cost-of-living raise.

Oh. Real strides have been made by women: Now they get to bear and give birth to children, be up all night with a sick toddler cleaning up puke, then they also "GET" to get up at 5AM so they can go to that McJob and get harrassed by some moron. Worse, when women reach the age of 50, they BETTER watch out. Because after their children are raised and they have given all that energy to the boss, he will get rid of her. he could give a rat's ass as to how much energy, heart and time she has given. It's business Baby, it's all business! She will not be able to find other employment that pays as well, and her children will not know her. I am telling you, transitional housing is full of women like that and there is *no* help for them. They are too young to get Social Security and nobody will hire them. These are women with masters degrees, years of on-the-job experience and no place to put it.

Until we respect the role of motherhood, then the fate of women is the street after they have raised thier children, their husbands (if they have one) throw them over for a younger woman and they have lost everything they earned. They are expected to work that McJob and doncha know all those years additionally raising children was "doing nothing," so nobody gives a rat's ass when she winds up living in her broken down car. 50 year old women can't even be prostitutes as they are too old. I am not making this up.

Yeah. Great. Women have made such strides...

Cat In Seattle

[Voltaire99]

48. "I would ask smug childless people..." Ok, ask me.

"I would ask smug childless people who say parenting is a choice..."

I believe parenting is often, thought not always, a choice. So I'll play along here.

"Who is going to change YOUR Depends when you are too old and sick to do it?"

Er...YOUR kids?

The point being that in our age-hating society, Americans have been outsourcing care for the elderly for decades. Given the statistical likelihood of cognitive impairment in nursing home patients, it's probable that if I survive to the change-my-Depends age, I won't know who the hell's swabbing down my wrinkled ass anyway. So why should I care?

"Who is going to fight in your wars? ...Will they be in Iraq facing an angry mob who is out to behead them?"

"My" wars? Excuse me: did I put in a request for wars without realizing it? In the case of Iraq, you're talking about an illegal, immoral war as if it were a retroactive argument for childbearing. What a misuse of children! We need to sharply reduce the size of our bloated, wasteful, uncontrollable, right wing military--not produce more canon fodder.

I agree with you on the effects of welfare "reform." It's a cruelty foisted upon poor women by Clintonism so the Democrats could play to white middle class prejudices (a similar brinksmanship is now underway involving the party and abortion). The most notable achievement of this policy has been to provide cheap, exploitable labor for the propertied classes; "reducing poverty," which Edwards praises, is a far cry from providing a living wage. Edwards should know better, and, I suspect, probably does but doesn't care.

[Terran1212]

23. Why does the media always say everything is about a Presidential Campaign

They keep hounding Gore with that too and he is decided against running a long time ago.

Now Edwards. Would Edwards be saying THIS if he had already decided to run? Anti-poverty initiatives are extremely unpopular in today's America.

Which is why I'm proud of Edwards for doing this anyway.

[midnight]

24. A caring message that promotes humanity.

Let's keep these people highlighted. Thanks for bringing this message to DU Deepmodem Mom.

[Mass]

25. Here is where he loses me.

In return, he said, those capable of working would be expected to work and to make responsible choices about their lives.

If somebody else explains that poor people are responsible for being poor, I am going to get crazy. Or are we going to ask rich people to make responsible choices about their lives as well?

[mntleo2]

35. And What IS "Work"????

I agree, he lost me there too.

I am trying to say here that the definition of what "work" is, is something we should reconsider. If "work" means contributing to your family, community and the country, then what IS that? Why is not child rearing considered "work" since it does all three?

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

[IndependentVoice]

31. wow...

6 years already, 6 years to many.

[KamaAina]

32. So, he's seen the light on the war

Edwards told a National Press Club audience the administration has made a mess in Iraq. He said he favors an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 troops and called for all combat forces to be gone in the next 12 to 18 months.

His former status as rah-rah Iraq cheerleader was what kept me out of the Edwards camp in '04. With that out of the way, he's definitely worth a second look.

[Time for change]

41. Good for him

Poverty is almost a taboo subject in today's America. The mention of it brings bitter accusations of class warfare from our corporate media. I really admire John Edwards for talking about this.

[nealmhughes]

42. That is exactly the argument that the GOP and the DLC will make:

Class War. Well, it sure looks like one to me with the tax cuts and abolition of estate taxes and the refusal to fully fund the VA and no increase in the minimum wage in 9 years and still not a word about universal health care. Maybe I read too much Marx when I was younger, but if that doesn't look like a classist agenda, I don't know what is.