Monday, February 1, 2010

TwoJohns: The Redux

Oh dear. Oh dear. Oh dear. It all began for me with a semi-humorous post, that I then converted into this full-blown blog, back in December 2006.

John had set up his 2008 Presidential Campaign HQ across the green from where I work in Chapel Hill, NC.

While I applauded his championship of the historically disadvantaged, something about him rang not quite true.

So, I watched. And wrote. Sometimes seriously. Sometimes with lashings of irony. But then, as this blog attests, I became genuinely quite worried about this seeming schizophrenic, who offered himself as the cure for his country's schizophrenia.

However. Never did I believe we would end up here.

How sad for John. How sad for his family. How said for the reputation of all politicians. And primarily, how sad for all those who still live below the poverty line, who had looked to John to help raise them up.

Well. That's the last, serious comment on this living tragedy. For the more amusing sarcasm, you gonna have to go to my Facebook page...

Saturday, December 6, 2008

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development?

If President-elect Obama can reach out to Hill, Bill and assorted Republicans, I hope he will reach out to John Edwards.

For all my joshing in 2007 and 2008, the fact is that John Edwards is an inspirational leader and a super-capable innovator.

Of course, I do not condone what he did. The deceit he pulled on his supporters and the pain he must have caused his family.

But we are in a crucial moment in our country's history. We need every pair of hands we can get.

There are politicians who have come before, and have committed far worse deeds. John didn't start an illegal war. He does not have blood on his hands.

In this time of everyone uniting for the common good, let's forgive and move on. I truly hope that John is made the new Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

As the post below reminds us (from, HUD was one of John's areas of specialty during his Presidential Campaign. And goodness knows, we need someone who can lead from the front to help get all of us out of the current housing mess.

Barack, pay heed. John, good luck!


"Former Democratic Senator and current 2008 Presidential Candidate John Edwards says his proposal to “radically overhaul” HUD, in part by eliminating at least 1,500 jobs, would improve the lives of millions of people in public housing.

On his
website, John Edwards has called the Department of Housing and Urban Development a “Symbol of bureaucracy and mismanagement.”

Also, in a quest to reduce the number of employees as HUD “by at least 1,500″, Edward’s wants to institute state-run regional authorities.

Finally, Edwards also says HUD should reduce its use of contractors. The candidate says reliance on contractors contributes to “cronyism” at the agency.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

The Great American Giveaway [by Paul Aaron]

[Paul Aaron is a well-known poet and progressive activist in Hillsborough, North Carolina. He is also my brother-in-law.

He, like me, believes that the work of resurrecting hope in this country only began with the Election of President Obama.

It will require each one of we citizen activists, through networks like Blogger, to continue to articulate what we want an Obama Presidency actually to do.

And almost more importantly, what sort of a 'feel' we want it to have, and to generate in our country, and around the world.

This is Paul's opening shot on the subject of taxes. I don't necessarily agree with all that he says.

But, he doesn't have a Blogger account with friends. I do. The most important defense of democracy is to be found in the constant dissemination of knowledge. I'm happy to help him disseminate his.]

Who paid for World War I?

“I did,” said John the baker. “I worked hard to feed soldiers and civilians. I didn’t make much money, but I did my part. I was a patriot and saved the world.”

Who paid for World War II?

“I did,” said GI Joe. “I fought to keep the United States of America free. While I was overseas, my wife, Jessica, ran her restaurant and paid her taxes. Kept our country out of debt. That war cost our country lots of money but everyone paid their taxes to keep our country’s economy strong.”

Who paid for the Korean war?

“I did,” said June the factory worker. “I built airplane wings for our fighter pilots. My pay was low but I was a patriot and paid my taxes to support my country.”

Who paid for the Viet Nam war?

“I did,” said GI Jane. “My husband, already disabled in the war, worked from his wheelchair. While I was in Nam he paid taxes to support our country and to make sure our country did not go into debt.”

Who paid for the Iraq war?

“Not me,” said Joe the plumber. “I needed a tax break while our soldiers fought.”

“Not me,” said Jill the stock broker. “I made lots of money here at home while the Armed Services did their work over there. I didn’t have to pay a cent, and now the bailout has covered my company’s losses.”

“And not me,” said Jim the banker. “I bought a second house and then a third. I like it when we fight these wars. I especially like the tax breaks.”

Then who is paying for this war?

“Not me,” said Jewell the political activist. “Our President said that we can be patriots, watching while the soldiers and the security contractors fight this war. Our national debt is huge and someone will have to pay it off.”

I’ve been thinking about the word “tax.” The word “tax” riles us. Yet, President James Madison believed that “taxes are what make a civilized society.” Similarly, the word “king” has a nice image but if we visualize the United States ruled by one, the word is suddenly not so attractive and romantic. Context always changes meaning.

Perhaps “tax” is actually good. We are not taxed to fund a king's dynasty; we are United States citizens and therefore, we the people are the government. By paying taxes, we provide crucial resources for ourselves. How can essential taxes be characterized so negatively?

“Tax cut” sounds so nice in some contexts. We must find a new word to replace “tax” so that we can feel good while we pay for our necessary services. Or we can create a context for Americans that links “tax” to “roads,” “schools,” “safety,” “democracy,” “freedom,” and “liberty.”

How did we get to this desperate economic place? We redistribute wealth by having tax breaks for the upper class—to the billionaire CEOs and corporations—to the hedge fund money managers and the oil magnates, and by increasing every day costs such as gasoline and food. Redistribution of wealth to the super wealthy is still redistribution of wealth.

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle-class gets squeezed out. Joe the plumber and Jessica the restaurant owner will do just fine if we stop redistributing the wealth to the wealthy through corporate tax breaks.

So who is paying for the gasoline our military trucks use? Who is paying for the security contractors of Blackwater. Who is paying for the Halliburton meals for our troops?

“I am paying,” smiled the president of China. “America has borrowed all its money from me. For China, it is good that American citizens do not pay their taxes for this war. We make money hand over fist from every dollar borrowed to pay for the Iraq war. Then we can buy land in America. We bought a good piece of IBM, too. We own America.”

“No, I am the financier,” smiled North Korea. “America has borrowed its money from me. For North Korea, it is good that American citizens do not pay their taxes. We own America.”

“And I am,” smiled a European tourist on a shopping spree, buying up a piece of Manhattan. “In the last 18 months we tourists bought one-third of all new Manhattan condos that were for sale, while native New Yorkers remained worried about bonuses and the economic climate,” (paraphrase from Christine Haughney of the New York Times of December 21, 2007).

“And I am,” smiled the United Arab Emirates. “Abu Dhabi Media is flush with oil cash. We reached a $1 billion deal to make movies and video games with Warner Brothers, the big Hollywood studio owned by Time Warner,” (paraphrased from Tim Arango of the September 3, 2008 New York Times). “For the United Arab Emirates, it is very good that American citizens do not pay their taxes for this war. We, too, own America.”

“And I am,” smiled Saudi Arabia. “China pays us for oil from money they make investing in the Iraq war. We, too, own America.”

Wow! So you all get rich because of our tax breaks. Is that right?

“Oh, but we like your corporate tax breaks,” say China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (but not Europe, who is now suffering their own recession). “Your corporate tax breaks make us money.”

OK, so you’re saying corporate tax breaks come from thinking that if the rich get richer, money trickles down all the way to the poor, and we all share the wealth.

“Yup, but the only people who are sharing the wealth are us,” say China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the billionaire American CEOs and hedge fund managers. “And we like it...”

Friday, August 8, 2008

The Perfect Veep?

Oh dear. With the admission that he did have an extramarital affair, it turns out that John-Boy may not have been as 'real' as he was claiming throughout his Presidential campaign. Oops.

Mind you, with the exception of the National Enquirer, you have to admire the fact that Our Johnny managed to keep the affair a secret for so long. Does this make him the perfect candidate to be Barack's Veep?

After all, the Veep has to hang out at an undiscloseable location. If the media couldn't find the affair, they sure as heck will never find the location.

And is this why Happy-Happy John-John never took me up on my offer of a no-holds-barred radio interview...?!

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

FOCUS On Obama

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. - Democrat John Edwards has endorsed former rival Barack Obama, fresh signs of the party establishment embracing the likely nominee even as Hillary Rodham Clinton refuses to give up her long-shot candidacy.

Edwards appeared with Obama in Grand Rapids, Mich., as Obama campaigned in a critical general election battleground state.

The endorsement came the day after Clinton defeated Obama by more than 2-to-1 in West Virginia. The loss highlighted Obama's work to win over the "Hillary Democrats" - white, working-class voters who also supported Edwards in large numbers before he exited the race.

Edwards, a former North Carolina senator and the 2004 vice presidential nominee, dropped out of the race in late January.

Both Obama and Clinton immediately asked Edwards for his endorsement, but he stayed mum for more than four months. A person close to Edwards, speaking on condition of anonymity, said he wanted to get involved now to begin unifying the party. Obama also signed on to Edwards' poverty initiative, which was a major cause for Edwards in his campaign and since he left.

When he made his decision, Edwards didn't even tell many of his former top advisers because he wanted to make sure that he personally talked to Clinton to give her the news, said the person close to him. Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, who has spoken favorably about Clinton's health care plan, did not travel with him to Michigan and is not part of the endorsement.

"We are here tonight because the Democratic voters have made their choice, and so have I," Edwards said to thunderous applause in Grand Rapids. He said Obama "stands with me" in a fight to cut poverty in half within 10 years, a claim Obama confirmed moments later.

Edwards told the rally that "we must come together as Democrats" to defeat Republican John McCain in November.

He also praised Clinton.

"We are a stronger party" because of her involvement and "we're going to have a stronger nominee in the fall because of her work," he said.

Then as Edwards sat on stage and watched, Obama gave one of his most animated addresses in days, much of it devoted to fighting poverty. In America, he said, "you should never be homeless, you should never be hungry."

Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said in a statement: "We respect John Edwards, but as the voters of West Virginia showed last night, this thing is far from over."

Political strategist and Clinton ally James Carville said Edwards' endorsement was a psychological boost for Obama, but unlikely to sway many voters.

"I think it certainly helps in terms of the psychology of the superdelegates," Carville told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Thursday, referring to the elected officials and party leaders who will ultimately determine the Democratic nominee.

``This is one of those endorsements that really matters,'' said Stephanie Cutter, an unaligned Democratic strategist who worked on Senator John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign. ``Not only does his message represent those blue-collar workers that will be critical'' in the general election, she said, ``but its another sign that the primary race is coming to an end.''

[© 2008 The Associated Press]

Thursday, January 31, 2008

FOCUS On The Politics of Poverty

John Edwards' campaign for the Democratic Party nomination ends today, with the candidate not even making it to Super Tuesday.

There is no doubt that there are many reasons for the poor showings that led to his withdrawal. He had two formidable and well-financed opponents, of course, but it is a mistake to think that his basic message did not play a part as well.

"Poverty," according to Edwards, "is the cause of my life." The voters did not respond with similar enthusiasm, however, and the obvious question is, Why not?

The answer can't be as simple as the suggestion that it is the messenger and not the message that is the problem. Rival candidates unable to break out of single digit polling may not have been the ideal messengers for their individual marquee issues, but when their messages show signs of gaining electoral traction, the rest of the pack rushes in with their own five-point plan.

Not so with poverty relief, even as the state of the economy shifts to center stage and almost everybody has something to say about stimulus packages.

When Edwards last summer completed his eight state poverty tour, modeled on Robert F. Kennedy's similar tour across America 40 years earlier, why didn't the issue strike a chord with a larger share of the electorate?

Certainly, the shame of poverty amidst plenty is no less significant now than then. There are, in Edwards' fine phrase, "two Americas," and the gap between the richest Americans and the poorest has been increasing fairly steadily since the 1970s and throughout the largest period of economic expansion of the 20th century.

Many predicted that the federal response to Hurricane Katrina's devastation of New Orleans' 9th Ward would retain considerable political potency among voters. CNN reporters were quite confident in their early pronouncements that a renewed national conversation on race and poverty was certain to follow.

But it did not happen. The stubborn fact remains that New Orleans is yesterday's news, and poverty in America is not a winning ticket in the presidential lottery.

Perhaps the explanation lies with the familiar observation that the poor don't vote in numbers comparable to better-off economic demographics.

While we know that pocketbook issues often crowd out other important concerns, even those of war and peace, the issue of poverty has resonated more broadly in the past among voters who have shown a capacity to be moved by considerations other than their own economic self-interest.

Even in purely self-interested terms, there are reasons for thinking that the plight of the poor should hit closer to home for more Americans, many of whom, as polls show, feel increased anxiety over their own economic uncertainty. Unlike in Robert Kennedy's era, poverty is now a phenomenon affecting working people at almost twice the rate of the 1960s.

Nonetheless, many people who feel economic insecurity don't see themselves as potentially part of the poor, a demographic many tend to see as a distinct, permanent economic class. The poor are different, many may think, and popular explanations of the fundamental causes of poverty reinforce that idea.

Americans are divided over the way they understand poverty and its causes. There are two Americas here as well.

About half consider the principal cause of poverty to be associated with various personal behaviors and habits, which are more or less up to the individual to do something about.

The other half point to various social structural impediments - e.g., low wages, lack of health insurance, lack of educational and other conditions favorable to social mobility - that lock people into fates that are largely beyond their control.

The post-Reagan Democratic consensus largely abandoned poverty as a major issue in favor of the concerns of the middle class, and, with it, they abandoned their historic emphasis on social structural forces that government can address. To the extent that poverty is seen largely as a sign of a personal failing, then the case for governmental action withers.

The rhetoric of the 1992 Clinton campaign reveals just how consequential the Democratic Party's shift in political emphasis and rhetoric was to become. They discovered the voting bloc made up of those "who work hard and play by the rules."

The new "third way" Democrats struggled to win back the so-called Reagan Democrats. These Reagan defectors had complained that the interests of the poor had displaced concern for middle-income voters, but the very language chosen to frame the party's renewed commitments to the middle class had profound and lasting implications for the anti-poverty movement.

In effect, the change in language represented a wholesale capitulation to the Reaganites' favored explanation of poverty as primarily a consequence of morally culpable personal failings and a lack of personal responsibility among the poor.

When Clinton emphasized the need to "end welfare as we know it," his clever slogan was meant to signal a greater moral and intellectual affinity to the personal responsibility explanation championed by the right, and, most importantly, the shift in rhetoric was unaccompanied by any real program for ending poverty as we know it.

The response to the fate of the Clinton health insurance plan is another example of how much the rhetorical landscape changed. When the political backlash to Clinton's plan for universal access to health insurance emerged, it came from the insured who feared loss of benefits such as choice of physician.

The health care debate from that point forward was transformed. For most of the decade, the cause of universal health care gave way to the patients' rights movement aimed at preserving what the reasonably well-off segments of society already had.

The legacy of the Democrats' strategic political shift away from poverty as a focal concern shapes the options the Democrats have for going forward.

To the extent that Democrats once again want to mount a serious anti-poverty agenda, they have to do battle hobbled by the intellectually truncated rhetoric bequeathed to them. Once again, the case must be made for the comparable importance of social structural explanations of poverty.

As long as so many Americans are in the grip of the pernicious idea - validated by Democrats themselves - that it's largely the fault of the poor that they are poor, then no new consensus on the need to fight poverty can emerge.

Edwards seems to think that recitation of the stark facts of economic inequality or reminding voters of the harsh burdens faced by the poor are enough to effect change.

However, sufficient numbers of voters can be moved to embrace political action against poverty only when they first move beyond the seriously deficient causal story that both parties have embraced for the last 15 years.

A battle of ideas that was suspended for a time must be re-engaged if poverty as a viable political issue can be revived.

[© 2008 Madison Powers/CQ]

FOCUS On Ballary

John Edwards's decision to suspend his campaign for the Democratic nomination leaves behind two important questions: Will he eventually endorse one of his rivals, and where will the Edwards vote go in upcoming primaries?

Aides said Wednesday morning Edwards will not make an immediate endorsement and in his departure speech in New Orleans he offered no hints about his thinking. Whom he might support -- should he choose to endorse in the near future -- is a question without an obvious answer.

Edwards appears to have little affection for Hillary Clinton. That has been obvious in most debates, but particularly beginning in Chicago last August at the YearlyKos convention.

There he drew a bright line of distinction by challenging her to join him and Barack Obama in rejecting contributions from Washington lobbyists. When she declined and defended those lobbyists, he had an issue that he never relinquished.

Edwards ran a crusade against Washington special interests and the political culture that has created such a cozy relationship between money and power. Clinton, he argued, symbolizes that relationship. She was, in his line of argument, a member in good standing of the status quo politics that he said desperately needed changing.

In debate after debate, he led or helped carry the fight to Clinton. A natural debater from his days as a trial lawyer, Edwards enjoyed the prime-time combat of their joint encounters -- in a way that Obama never seemed to.

The record is replete with quotations from Edwards denouncing Clinton's brand of politics. An endorsement of her would produce the most awkward press conference since John McCain grudgingly gave his support to George W. Bush in the spring of 2000.

Everything about Edwards's message suggests he and Obama are natural allies. As Edwards said in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses and in the memorable debate in New Hampshire three days before that state's primary, voters want change and two candidates in the Democratic race offered it -- albeit with very different styles.

So it would be logical to assume that, if Edwards were to endorse, he likely would support the other change candidate in the race: Obama. But that is only one way to look at the choice he now faces.

Edwards has been in conversation with both Obama and Clinton over the past two weeks. How often and exactly what they discussed has been the subject of rumor and speculation but not much hard detail. Some reports suggested he was looking to make a deal with one of them, that he was interested in a cabinet post in an Obama or Clinton administration.

Aides said Wednesday that in his conversations with Clinton and Obama on Tuesday, he asked for and was given commitments that each would make poverty a more central part of their campaign messages and of their agendas, should they become president. But those were as easy for Clinton and Obama to agree to as they were for Edwards to request.

Whether there is anything more explicit in Edwards's discussions with Clinton and Obama will have to await later accounts. He is a hard-headed politician and a man used to making deals. It would be no surprise to learn that a possible endorsement could come after some understanding of a future role.

Edwards is hard-headed in another way, one that could lead him to endorse Clinton, improbable as that might seem given the way he has run his campaign. Over the course of the past year, Edwards has gotten to know Clinton and Obama extremely well.

He has shared stages at debates repeatedly and spent time in proximity to them in holding rooms back stage. He has been able to take their measure -- their intellect, their leadership skills, their toughness, their readiness to be president. Only Edwards and his wife Elizabeth know how he truly assesses his two rivals.

Until recently he seemed aligned with Obama in the effort to defeat Clinton. But at the South Carolina debate last week, he suddenly turned against Obama, challenging him in a way that suggests he questions whether Obama is truly prepared to stand up to the special interests in Washington.

He may not think Clinton will necessarily bring the kind of change to Washington that he has advocated, but he probably does not doubt her overall toughness.

Given all that, an endorsement of Obama still would seem the more likely course, but an endorsement of Clinton would not be a total surprise -- if Elizabeth Edwards agrees.

Where Edwards's vote might go is equally puzzling. I e-mailed Democratic pollster Mark Mellman after the news of Edwards's decision had come out and asked him where voters attracted to Edwards might now go. "Honest answer is its not clear," he replied.

He said there is an assumption that Clinton is no voter's second choice, that those who already are not supporting her made a decision early on that they never would. If true, that would mean Obama and his change message would pick up the biggest portion of the Edwards vote.

But there is some polling data, Mellman said, showing that more Edwards supports prefer Clinton over Obama as their second choice. In South Carolina, Edwards took white voters away from Clinton. Mellman also believes Edwards's decline in New Hampshire helped Clinton win a surprise victory.

Other strategists said Wednesday that there will not be a consistent pattern to the distribution of the Edwards vote. In Southern states next week, they said, Clinton will certainly benefit from the absence of Edwards. Among progressive Democrats in a states like California and Minnesota, however, Obama may be the beneficiary of Edwards's decision to suspend his candidacy.

John Edwards ended his campaign where it began a few days after Christmas 2007 -- in New Orleans, the city that came to symbolize his commitment to make poverty the central issue of his candidacy. He led the debate on other issues as well. He was the first to put out a plan for universal health care and he sharpened the debate about the about the role of special interests in Washington.

But his was an improbable campaign from the start, given the odds of anyone defeating both Clinton and Obama. Realistically, his hopes ended in Iowa, where he needed to win but finished second. Defeat in New Hampshire persuaded his wife Elizabeth that there was no viable road to the nomination. Nevada delivered the most disappointing result -- he ended with just four percent. South Carolina sealed his fate.

Now he is out. But he may have one more act in this drama.

[© 2008 Washington Post]

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

FOCUS On John (2)

[Courtesy of Matthew Phillips]

I think it was somewhere between Centerville and Ottumwa that I first started to question John Edwards's sanity. Of course, 36 hours on a bus crisscrossing Iowa in the dead of winter and you're likely to question your own, as well.

By then it was 5 a.m. on Jan. 2, and we weren't even halfway through Edwards's 900-mile Marathon for the Middle Class bus tour. We'd just left a pancake breakfast at the home of an Edwards supporter in Centerville: population 6,000.

It was the third house we'd been to that night, and they were all starting to look the same: cozy living rooms packed with faces smiling over steaming mugs of coffee, a crackling fire and a Christmas tree, old ladies in sweatshirts with kittens stitched on the front, exhausted kids who'd clearly been dragged from bed to come support the cause.

At each stop the press would layer up and stagger off the bus into the crunchy snow—a thermometer outside a small-town bank said it was two degrees—and then Edwards would come up the walkway and in through the front door to cheers of "Go, John, go!" beaming and shaking hands, still looking as starched and presidential as ever, and way too tan for Iowa in January.

The speeches were mostly the same, dripping with populism. He would rail against corporate greed and how it was stealing our children's future, talk about the honor of working-class folks and about the homeless shelter in Des Moines he'd visited the other week that turns away 75 families a month.

He'd usually tell the story of Nataline Sarkisian, the 17 year-old girl from California who died in December when her health insurance company wouldn't pay for a liver transplant and remind them that he's the only candidate never to take a dime from a Washington lobbyist.

With a clenched fist and a set jaw Edwards would finish by saying that America needed a fighter and that he was the guy they should send into the ring. And that when he was president—not if but when—he promised to fight for them with every fiber in his body.

Then it was more smiles, a picture or two, and out the door, onto the bus and away into the night, down a dark road to the next stop. No one was going to outcampaign John Edwards. If he was going down, he was going down swinging. Some of us started wondering why we couldn't have been assigned to Fred Thompson. At least he slept, apparently a lot.

Edwards's campaign blitz in the final days before the Iowa caucuses sure seemed crazy at the time, but it's probably what gave him a one-point edge over Hillary Clinton—a difference of just seven delegates.

The campaign spun the second-place finish as though it were a landslide victory. "America clearly voted for change. Now it's between us and Obama," the Edwards camp said, and headed off to New Hampshire with a sigh of relief.

But over the next five days, whatever momentum Edwards had gained from Iowa was lost in the mix as the media fell over itself anointing Obama and sounding the death knell of Clinton, and then marveling at her snowy resurrection.

Despite strong debate performances, Edwards couldn't buy his way into the conversation no matter what he did. Whenever members of the press chatted up advisers like Joe Trippi or Jonathan Prince, the frustration of being the odd man out always bubbled to the surface. But what could they do? A white guy in a race for president against a woman and an African-American: it was hard to compete for the story.

Plus, it always struck me as just a bit off to watch Edwards, the handsome millionaire in a suit, with the sparkling teeth and the perfect hair, run as the champion of the working poor. Though his backstory was genuine—son of a mill worker, trial lawyer who spent 20 years suing corporations on behalf of the little guy—the performance never quite seemed right.

On the road Edwards always traveled in his bus, the Mainstreet Express, usually with his two young children and wife Elizabeth, and sometimes their 25-year-old daughter Cate. The press was for the most part relegated to a trailing van or bus.

Our chances to ask him questions were limited to hasty "press avails" after events. Exclusives? There were none. And the few times he actually took the time to come talk to us on or off the record—he brought coffee onto our bus one morning in Iowa—he always struck me as no different from when he was on the stump, or even on TV for that matter.

Maybe that's the mark of a good trial lawyer: always be convincing a jury. No matter what the polls said, Edwards's sunny and optimistic demeanor never flagged. Any suggestion of dropping out was quickly denied as implausible. "I'm in this till the end, and I intend to be my party's nominee," he'd say without even the slightest hint of irony or self-delusion.

So even after he got socked in Nevada and finished a distant third in his native South Carolina last weekend, I was surprised to hear the news that Edwards had dropped out. I'd always expected him to do what he said he would, to keep on keepin' on, at least until Feb. 5.

Just two days ago his press office sent out an e-mail about his recent online fund-raising surge and his Super Tuesday strategy. It's too early to say whether his finances or the health of his cancer-stricken wife had anything to do with the decision, but maybe he just felt that his job was done. "The support was still there but over the last few days it became clear that the path to the nomination was not," said campaign spokesman Mark Kornblau.

Though he never made much of a mark in the polls, Edwards has had a major impact on this race by driving the conversation, something he deserves a lot of credit for. He was the first candidate out with a universal health care plan and the first to rail against trade agreements like NAFTA that, he says, have cost America a million jobs.

He also brought a sense of morality and social justice to the race, themes both Obama and Clinton have folded into their stump speeches over the last month. Through a year of hard campaigning, Edwards has forced the Democratic Party to refocus itself on the plight of the poor.

In his resignation address in New Orleans Wednesday afternoon, Edwards said he had gotten both Clinton and Obama to pledge to make the eradication of poverty a central part of their administration.

He finished by urging his supporters not to give up on what's possible and to keep on fighting. He wasn't giving up so much as passing his torch to a stronger, faster candidate. He is gone now, but Obama and Clinton go forward carrying a torch that Edwards lit.

[© 2008 Newsweek, Inc.]

FOCUS On John (1)

John Edwards is nothing if not dogged. It's a quality that made him rich, and won him a seat in the U.S. Senate, and it's what kept him on the campaign trail on the quest for the Democratic nomination for President for the better part of the last five years.

But even Edwards' boundless optimism and energy has his limits, and today he admitted what all the pundits and politicos have been saying for the past month: the Democratic contest is a two-person race, and Edwards is not one of them.

Four days after coming in a disappointing third in his native state of South Carolina, Edwards told a crowd in New Orleans' Ninth Ward, where he launched his campaign more than a year ago, that he will "step aside so that history can blaze its path."

He leaves the race with promises from the two remaining Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, to continue his commitment to poverty. "They have both pledged to me that as President of the United States they will both make poverty and economic inequality central to their presidencies," Edwards said. "This is the cause of my life and I now have their commitment to engage in this cause."

Edwards, who after speaking went with his family to work on some Habitat for Humanity houses being built in the area, did not endorse either Obama or Clinton. Though he has said many times in recent months that Obama and he are both "agents for change" while Clinton represents the "status quo," sources said he would not rule out anyone in considering his endorsement, which will likely not come before Super Tuesday.

He will now return home to North Carolina to spend time with his family, where he is expected to weigh which candidate could be most effective in furthering his priorities of poverty and corruption.

Edwards' challenge from the beginning of his presidential quest was to stay relevant. After losing the 2004 election as John Kerry's running mate, he no longer held a public platform, having chosen to run for President instead of a second term representing North Carolina in the Senate.

He signed up to head a Poverty Center at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and launched a charity with his wife, Elizabeth, called College for Everyone, where students worked 10 hours a week in exchange for scholarships.

Edwards' stump speech in 2004 had been about the two Americas, one where the poor live increasingly neglected lives and the other where the rich grow richer. That remained the central theme of his 2008 populist campaign.

"Our campaign from the very beginning has been about one central thing and that is to give voice to millions of Americans who have absolutely no voice in this democracy," he would say, as he did conceding South Carolina, never forgetting to remind voters of his Horatio Alger background as the son of a poor mill worker. "If you're one of the forgotten middle class, people who are working and struggling just to pay their bills, literally worried about every single day, we will give you voice in this campaign."

"John Edwards didn't really move to the left as much as he began to use the language of class war," said Michael Munger, a political science professor at Duke University. "And that was a tactic designed to appeal to the angry left in Iowa, and the to laid-off factory workers of South Carolina."

The strategy at first seemed shrewd: build on Edwards' surprisingly good showing in Iowa in 2004 and make his native South Carolina his firewall while garnering union support. It was designed to take on the establishment candidate that everyone knew was going to run: former First Lady Hillary Clinton.

What no one, not Clinton or Edwards, was prepared for was the insurgency candidacy of Senator Barack Obama. Suddenly Edwards was running against a version of himself in 2004: the young, fresh, optimistic face, the Washington outsider with a thin resume but lots of charm, ruffling some feathers as he jumped the line.

Except this version was an African American celebrity candidate with a cult-like following. Big and small donors flocked to Obama, the freshman Senator from Illinois, as did the endorsements, and suddenly Edwards seemed like a third wheel.

And there were other complications. Edwards announced his candidacy in New Orleans' Ninth Ward, redoubling up on his pledge to fight corruption in Washington on behalf of the neglected and needy. But he was plagued by a series of missteps that damaged his image as a crusader for the poor.

First came a spate of stories when Edwards built a $6 million home on 100 acres outside Chapel Hill in 2005. Then came an embarrassing disclosure that he paid $400 for his carefully coifed haircut. Finally, it turned out working with non-profits wasn't the only thing Edwards, a former trial lawyer whose estimated personal worth is as much as $30 million, did after the 2004 elections; he also worked for a New York hedge fund, earning an undisclosed sum.

When asked about a possible contradiction between his words and actions, Edwards gave the unconvincing reply that he wanted to learn about the economy: "I do think it's important for the President of the United States to have a good understanding of our financial markets, how they operate, where the incentives are, where the incentives aren't."

Even more seriously, in March 2007 Elizabeth Edwards' breast cancer - she was first diagnosed in November 2004 - came back. While treatable, the disease had progressed to a stage that's incurable. Speculation raged that Edwards would drop out of the race, but he stayed in.

Six months later dropout rumors resurfaced when the campaign announced it would accept public financing. Facing not one, but two candidates who were outraising him 3 to 1, Edwards was forced to accept matching public funds in a deal that severely limited how much he could spend in comparison to his rivals. But, again, Edwards weathered the storm and forged on.

While he managed to pull out a surprising second-place showing in the Iowa caucuses, beating out Clinton, he placed a disappointing third in New Hampshire and his campaign was stunned when he garnered just 4% of the vote in the Nevada caucuses.

After losing South Carolina, the only state he won while in the race in 2004, he initially vowed to fight on all the way to the convention, focusing on southern states like Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas and Oklahoma on Super Tuesday; many speculated that Edwards could play a key role in what is shaping up to be a drawn-out delegate fight between Clinton and Obama.

"In different ways we have been thinking and talking out loud since taking third in New Hampshire," Trippi said. "Every day we were looking for ways to break out against these two candidates ...

"It became clearer and clearer after South Carolina on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, the press was really focused on Clinton and Obama that it was going to be tougher and tougher for us to break through...

"And contrary to what staff or pundits may say - the idea of playing the political game of kingmaker or spoiler never really appealed to him. In his mind it was a clear shot at the nomination or nothing."

Trippi, who had plane tickets to Atlanta for debate prep today, received an e-mail at 3 a.m. this morning to come instead to New Orleans, and he knew the decision had been made. In the end, with dwindling money and no victories in sight on Super Tuesday or beyond, Edwards had decided to call it quits.

Edwards leaves the race having made a big impact on the two remaining candidates. His populist rhetoric forced his rivals to compete for union support, and he was the first out of the gate with detailed plans for universal healthcare and education, putting pressure on the field to match him.

"He led on just about every single issue: poverty, economic stimulus to universal healthcare," said Joe Trippi, a senior adviser to Edwards' campaign. "He pushed both of them further than they would've gone without him. When they wanted to blur the lines and not have real proposals, he came out with them and forced the others to move ahead."

The former trial lawyer arguably won a majority of the debates, time and again challenging his opponents to refuse money from lobbyists and speed up their plans for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq.

What his exit will mean at the polls is less clear. On the one hand, it should help Obama consolidate the sizable anti-Hillary contingent of the Democratic Party. At the same time, however, he drew more votes from Clinton than Obama in the first four contests - blue-collar white workers - so it could also help her fend off Obama, whose recent endorsement by Ted Kennedy should help with organized labor.

And if anyone should pay close attention to the race that Edwards has waged, it's Obama: if he doesn't win the nomination, four years from now he could be in John Edwards' shoes.

[© 2008 Time Magazine]

FOCUS On Poverty - John's Redux (II)

NEW ORLEANS - Democrat John Edwards bowed out of the race for the White House on Wednesday, saying it was time to step aside "so that history can blaze its path" in a campaign now left to Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

"With our convictions and a little backbone we will take back the White House in November," said Edwards, ending his second campaign in a hurricane-ravaged section of New Orleans where he began it more than a year ago.

Edwards said Clinton and Obama had both pledged that "they will make ending poverty central to their campaign for the presidency."

"This is the cause of my life and I now have their commitment to engage in this cause," he said before a small group of supporters. He was joined by his wife Elizabeth and his three children, Cate, Emma Claire and Jack.

Edwards said that on his way to make his campaign-ending statement, he drove by a highway underpass where several homeless people live. He stopped to talk, he said, and as he was leaving, one of them asked him never to forget them and their plight.

"Well I say to her and I say to all those who are struggling in this country, we will never forget you. We will fight for you. We will stand up for you," he said, pledging to continue his campaign-long effort to end what he frequently said was "two Americas," one for the powerful, the other for the rest.

The former North Carolina senator did not immediately endorse either Clinton, seeking to become the first female president, or Obama, the strongest black candidate in history.

Edwards told reporters he would meet with Clinton and Obama before deciding whether to make an endorsement. He set no timetable for deciding whether to endorse either candidate.

Praise from Clinton, Obama

Both of them praised Edwards — and immediately began courting his supporters.

"John Edwards ended his campaign today in the same way he started it — by standing with the people who are too often left behind and nearly always left out of our national debate," Clinton said.

Obama, too, praised Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth. At a rally in Denver, he said the couple has "always believed deeply that two Americans can become one, and that our country can rally around this common purpose," Obama said. "So while his campaign may have ended, this cause lives on for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America."

The impact of Edwards' decision will be felt in one week's time, when Democrats hold primaries and caucuses across 22 states, with 1,681 delegates at stake.

Four in 10 Edwards supporters said their second choice in the race is Clinton, while a quarter prefer Obama, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo poll conducted late this month.

Edwards amassed 56 national convention delegates, most of whom will be free to support either Obama or Clinton.

As expected, Edwards said he was suspending his campaign rather than ending it, but aides said that was simply legal terminology so that he can continue to receive federal matching funds for his campaign donations.

An immediate impact of Edwards' withdrawal will be six additional delegates for Obama, giving him 187, and four more for Clinton, giving her 253. A total of 2,025 delegates are needed to secure the Democratic nomination.

Edwards won 26 delegates in the Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina contests. Under party rules, 10 of those delegates will be automatically dispersed among Obama and Clinton, based on their vote totals in those respective contests. The remaining 16 remain pledged to Edwards, meaning his campaign will have a say in naming them.

Three superdelegates — mainly party and elected officials who automatically attend the convention and can support whomever they choose — had already switched from Edwards to Obama before news of Edwards' withdrawal from the race.

Kate Michelman, an adviser to the campaign and former president of NARAL-Pro Choice America, said she spoke to Edwards Wednesday morning.

“He felt that this was the moment to take this step, given the reality of this campaign. This campaign has been about two celebrity candidates — excellent and qualified candidates — but celebrity candidates,” Michelman said.

[© 2008 The Associated Press]

FOCUS On Poverty - John's Redux (I)

DENVER - Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday [January 30, 2008], ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voters' sympathies but never diverted his campaign, according to The Associated Press and NBC News.

The two-time White House candidate notified a close circle of senior advisers that he planned to make the announcement at a 1 p.m. ET event in New Orleans that had been billed as a speech on poverty, according to two of his advisers. The decision came after Edwards lost the four states to hold nominating contests so far to rivals who stole the spotlight from the beginning — Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

The former North Carolina senator will not immediately endorse either candidate in what is now a two-person race for the Democratic nomination, said one adviser, who spoke on a condition of anonymity in advance of the announcement.

Family duty

Edwards waged a spirited top-tier campaign against the two better-funded rivals, even as he dealt with the stunning blow of his wife's recurring cancer diagnosis. In a dramatic news conference last March, the couple announced that the breast cancer that she thought she had beaten had returned, but they would continue the campaign.

Their decision sparked a debate about family duty and public service. But Elizabeth Edwards remained a forceful advocate for her husband, and she was often surrounded at campaign events by well-wishers and emotional survivors cheering her on.

Edwards planned to announce his campaign was ending with his wife and three children at his side. Then he planned to work with Habitat for Humanity at the volunteer-fueled rebuilding project Musicians' Village, the adviser said.

With that, Edwards' campaign will end the way it began 13 months ago — with the candidate pitching in to rebuild lives in a city still ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. Edwards embraced New Orleans as a glaring symbol of what he described as a Washington that didn't hear the cries of the downtrodden.

Edwards burst out of the starting gate with a flurry of progressive policy ideas — he was the first to offer a plan for universal health care, the first to call on Congress to pull funding for the war, and he led the charge that lobbyists have too much power in Washington and need to be reigned in.

The ideas were all bold and new for Edwards personally as well, making him a different candidate than the moderate Southerner who ran in 2004 while still in his first Senate term. But the themes were eventually adopted by other Democratic presidential candidates — and even a Republican, Mitt Romney, echoed the call for an end to special interest politics in Washington.

Loyal following

Edwards' rise to prominence in politics came amid just one term representing North Carolina in the Senate after a career as a trial attorney that made him millions. He was on Al Gore's short list for vice president in 2000 after serving just two years in office. He ran for president in 2004, and after he lost to John Kerry, the nominee picked him as a running mate.

Elizabeth Edwards first discovered a lump in her breast in the final days of that losing campaign. Her battle against the disease caused her husband to open up about another tragedy in their lives — the death of their teenage son Wade in a 1996 car accident. The candidate barely spoke of Wade during his 2004 campaign, but he offered his son's death to answer questions about how he could persevere when his wife could die.

Edwards made poverty the signature issue of both his presidential campaigns, and he led a four-day tour to highlight the issue in July. The tour, the first to focus on the plight of the poor since Robert F. Kennedy's trip 40 years earlier, also was an effort to remind voters that a rich man can care about the less fortunate. It came as Edwards was dogged by negative coverage of his personal wealth, including his construction of a 28,000-square foot house, his work for a hedge fund that advised the superrich and $400 haircuts.

But even through the dark days of summer and as Obama and Clinton collected astonishing amounts of money that dwarfed his fundraising effort, Edwards maintained a loyal following in the first voting state of Iowa that made him a serious contender. He came in second to Obama in Iowa, an impressive feat of relegating Clinton to third place, before coming in third in the following three contests.

The loss in South Carolina was especially hard because it was where he was born and he had won the state in 2004. But Edwards performed well enough to pick up 58 delegates.

[© 2008 The Associated Press]

Tuesday, May 1, 2007

FOCUS On Immigration

We are all witness to the increasing focus in this country on how to renew the American Dream for those of our friends and neighbors struggling below the poverty line.

May 1 is a good time to spare a thought for those around the world who also live in poverty, and whose dream of improving their circumstances is to join the melting pot that is this American nation.

What better way to celebrate their ambition than to remind ourselves of the inscription to be found at the base of the Statue of Liberty:
The New Colossus
Not like the brazen giant of
Greek fame,
with conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
a mighty woman with a torch
whose flame is imprisoned lightning,
and her name Mother of Exiles.

From her beacon-hand glows
world-wide welcome;
her mild eyes command the air-bridged harbor
that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands your storied pomp!"
cries she with silent lips.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
No mention here of green cards or financial qualifications. No hint of border fences or security patrols.

Only a simple invitation to come - penniless, but hopeful - to our shores, where all will be welcome.

No need even to say 'thank you,' because you were welcome even before you left your homeland.

Today is a good day to remind our leaders that we are still a generous nation, even though they may have become scared and selfish and small-minded.

Today is a good day to think about what we can do to reclaim our government. To renew our invitation to those of our friends around the world who still live poor and huddled, and who want so badly to join our Dream.

Monday, April 23, 2007

FOCUS On America

Members of the Since Sliced Bread Community continue to adopt ideas, and news from the world (and the blogosphere) continues to show how relevant your ideas are, and how much we need to take action to make them a reality.

FOCUS on Poverty continues to be our most adopted idea, and with good reason as poverty is perhaps a bigger problem than many Americans realize. Via Care2 News Network this week comes a news of 2004 census analysis which reveals that 60 million Americans live on less than $7 a day.

While global income inequality is probably greater than it has ever been in human history, with half the world's population living on less than $3 per day, and the richest 1% receiving as much as the bottom 57%, the fact that so many Americans are living on so little, is particularly confounding.

The so-called “wealthiest, most abundant nation on Earth” now has the widest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized nation.
[2] In light of the fact that one dollar spent in the Caribbean, Latin America and Asia buys what $3 or $4 does in the U.S means the quality of life for tens of millions of Americans is now on a par with huge populations living in the developing world.

Ezra Klein points to a Robert Samuelson editorial that he says ignores the possible causes of economic disparity. But there are some Americans who can't ignore it, and according to this article by Raiane Eisler, most of them are women and children.

Consider that in the United States women over the age of 65 are twice as poor as men in the same age group. And there's a reason poverty so disproportionately hits women. Most of these poor women were, or still are, caregivers. And we've got an economic system that gives no visibility or value to this essential work when it's done in the home.

In fact, according to economists, the people who do the caring work in households, whether female or male, are "economically inactive." Of course, anyone who has a mother knows that most caregivers work from dawn to dusk. And we also know that without their work of caring for children, for the sick, and for the elderly, there would be no workforce, no economy, nothing.

Working Dad points out that children's health is at a 30-year low, and the Annual Child and Youth Well-Being Index (PDF) indicates that poverty is one of the main reasons. One of our finalist ideas, 3 Steps to Universal Health Care, recommends guaranteed health care for children and young adults.

So, what are you doing about poverty? The One Campaign wants to know, and wants you to tell the rest of the world.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Wake Up America!

Today, we are all Hokies.

No sentient human being can watch the images of despair on the TV news, and not feel the pain of everyone at Virginia Tech, and in the small supporting township of Blacksburg, Virginia.

But we must also wonder, in confusion, what has become of our country. What on earth made this happen? What did we do that was so wrong that it could bring this to pass?

I can remember the Sixties like they were yesterday.

At home, America seemed to be a land of plenty. And Americans sought to carry that good feeling to new frontiers around the globe.

My father was a part of that crusade. Which is how I ended up being born and bred in England, even though my family had made the initial journey to America with the rest of the pilgrims, on the Mayflower.

My dad helped to introduce the American Express card to all points north and south, on the other side of the Atlantic - in Europe, the Middle East and in Africa.

It's difficult to conceive of a time when such capitalist artifacts were not commonplace around the world. But it was an era of adventure, heralded by John Kennedy's rousing words from the steps of the Capitol in Washington.

And then it all went wrong.

Assassinations. Vietnam. Watergate. A loss of innocence. A loss of pride. The adventure just crumbling away. I spent my teenage years in Europe avoiding the graffiti on the walls calling for all Yanks to go home.

When you believe that your excessive bonhomie and good fortune are impenetrable, and that you are welcome wherever you go, it's a mind-shock to discover that you're vulnerable after all, and that your neighbors were just waiting for you to fall over.

America withdrew into itself. It dropped all pretence of genuine altruism, and turned instead to self-gratification.

Ambition and greed were the driving forces at home, and where before America had prided itself on its spirit of outgoing generosity and charity when dealing with the rest of the world, now it was determined only to ensure that none got in its way.

The 'me' generations took over. Two stock booms. Corporate malfeasance. And a growing disparity between the rich and the poor.

An economic policy fuelled by greed; a social policy based on hatred; and a foreign policy driven by revenge.

These are the character traits by which America is recognised around the world in the 21st century.

But don't blame just our leaders. We have all cheered and encouraged the development of the society in which we live today.

It is not Congress or our Presidents who made us cynical and selfish. We did that to ourselves.

It is we who encourage the paparazzi, when we rush to buy the latest photo's of celebrity disgrace.

It is we who spend hours each evening delighting in the discomfort and embarrassment of ordinary people on TV reality shows.

It is we who think it is cute to be selfish and mean and intolerant and abusive.

And it is we who have determined that each of us, in our daily lives, will no longer think of what we can do for others, but rather that we should react to every given situation with prototypical Alpha American Attitude.

A wise politician in England once said, you can't legislate feelings.

There is way too much anger and intolerance in America today. But the answer is not to turn our cities and our universities into over-protected fortresses. Or to start another fruitless debate about the right to bear arms.

The answer lies in each of us.

Starting today, we can all make choices about how we act and react. What we watch and read. Whether or not we take the time to help the person we see has fallen by the wayside.

It is not government that will make us a less angry and a more tolerant country. It is each of us making better choices.

The political season is upon us. We will hear much from people telling us that we can be better; that we deserve better.

I say that we are better people - right now. And all we need to prove it is to start being better people in our dealings with our neighbors and our friends.

We deserve to get only that which we are prepared to give.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

FOCUS On A Helping Hand

The organizers (SEIU) of (SSB) are doing a fantastic job of giving a high profile to FOCUS On Poverty and the plight of the 50 million of our friends and neighbors who live below the poverty line in this country. My continued thanks to SEIU, SSB, Terrance Heath and Matt S!

They have just put up the following guest post from me. All of this activity about FOCUS On Poverty on SSB is giving me an idea of what I might be able to do to help make FOCUS a reality. Given that the potential avenue, originally presented by John Edwards' Presidential Campaign, seems now to have closed as a realistic possibility. But more of that later...

[This guest post is from Geoffrey G., whose FOCUS on Poverty idea is currently our most adopted idea. Watch for more guest posts from Since Sliced Bread Community Members.]

Too many of our working friends and neighbors live below the poverty line. This should be unacceptable in the richest country on earth in the 21st Century. This is not a matter of politics; it’s a question of common human decency.

The purpose of FOCUS On Poverty is to guarantee that every man, woman and child in the United States has access to proper food, clothing, housing and healthcare. It’s not a matter of political semantics; it’s a question of basic human need.

FOCUS On Poverty originated in October 2005, when my co-hosts and I ran a four-part series on poverty, on the community radio station in Chapel Hill, North Carolina – my hometown, as well as that of John Edwards, Democratic Presidential Candidate. The major points of FOCUS now also form the centerpiece of John’s platform on poverty.

On the same day that John announced his Candidacy, I created, the purpose of which is to help John stay on message with his promise to help America’s working poor families.

I have now issued an open invitation to John to appear on my radio program, to allow him to flesh out the specifics of his proposals. Air America Radio have already publicly committed their support to my campaign.

Big concepts and bold promises are all very well. But each one of us can do something right now to help our neighbors in need.

If ever there was time for direct citizen action, it is now. That is the very essence of what Since Sliced Bread is about. And SEIU are being joined in that approach by all of the progressive Presidential Campaigns – from John’s OneCorps, to Hillary’s ‘conversations,’ and Barack’s call to us all to take responsibility now.

I am delighted at the opportunity that SEIU and SSB have given to me to raise the profile of America’s working poor. I am proud of how much they have allowed me to achieve in this past year.

But you know, I was never so moved as when I was able to use the gifts that had been given to me to help my ex-girlfriend in her disability fight against her overbearing chain grocery store. Never so happy as when I was able to encourage a fellow worker to pop across our village green, and ask John’s National HQ for help with her bed-ridden mother.

We all know a family that is in need. They don’t so much want a hand-out, as the warmth of your helping hand. Don’t wait for them to ask. Spare them that final loss of dignity. Offer a kind word, a bit of advice, or a cooked meal.

And remember: all of us, working together, can help to "Take Care of America's Family Values" - one family at a time!

Monday, April 9, 2007

Great Minds Think Alike

The Service Employees International Union, the trade union organizing (SSB), the national clearing-house web-site for commons sense ideas, submitted by ordinary Americans and designed to help working families, continues to give profile to FOCUS On Poverty.

This is excellent news for the 50 million Americans living below the poverty line. And I'm deeply grateful to SEIU and SSB for helping to remind our friends and neighbors that they are not alone. That we stand by them.

You too can show your support for America's working poor, by going to SSB and 'adopting' FOCUS On Poverty as an idea you wish to see become a reality.

This may be particularly crucial now that the Presidential Campaign of John Edwards has faltered.

The primary reason that I supported John's Campaign - and still hope that a miracle might occur - is that he was the only Candidate prepared to put forward proposals that would help to lead to the elimination of poverty in the United States.

There are plenty of national organizations that assist in giving profile to the plight of the poor. But what I wanted was action. And John's Campaign held out the real possibility of that action becoming a reality.

However, if we are to be brutally honest - and John has stated he wishes to be - then we have to admit that it is now highly unlikely that John will be the Democratic Nominee in 2008.

And so I will turn my mind to other other avenues, which on the one hand will parallel and compliment John's efforts, but on the other may hold out a greater chance of our jointly-conceived proposals on poverty becoming a reality.

Now, I'm getting there! And I will be updating you with my thinking and planning - as they progress.

But, in the meantime, you can at least show that your heart is in the right place by 'adopting' FOCUS On Poverty at SSB:

Themes from two of our most adopted ideas -- FOCUS on Poverty and Consumer Credit and Debt -- are cropping up in the news and in the blogosphere. Jim Wallis, of Sojourners, has long been a leading voice in the evangelical community on poverty issues, and on his blog this week he called for a "moral budget" that will "prioritize the poor," and quoted from a letter he sent to every U.S. Senator:

In a letter that went to every senator, I requested that each “make sure to prioritize poor and working families, children, and the elderly as you determine where our nation commits its energies and resources.” I continued, “what is needed now is bold leadership and an agenda that sets clear priorities and seeks to empower families. We need to protect critical programs and increase aid, but also recommit ourselves to the notion of the common good.”

BritMish Accomplished

MSNBC ran an article which seems to support much of what I was saying about the fifteen 'sailors' who were picked up by the Iranians.

The media in the UK have been a tad less inspiring and thoughtful. They’re all bent out of shape because they say the 'sailors' acted with less than the appropriate British 'stiff upper lip.' Oh, get real!

Here’s the deal – by the numbers.

The leader of the sailor group has now admitted they were on an intelligence mission. He has also stated that his rules of engagement were to co-operate if captured – giving the Iranians no excuse to retaliate and exacerbate the situation.

If you watch the sailors making their videos, you see them reading from a cue card. If you read the letters they purportedly wrote, and you have any knowledge of English as the Brits write and speak it, you will know that they contain phrases we would never normally use.

Kind of like those awful instruction manuals in English the Japanese concocted, when they first started selling consumer products to the West.

And was I the only person who thought the sailors all looked preternaturally composed for a bunch of Brits who were alleged to be scared out of their wits? Was that just natural British 'reserve' - or the result of special forces' training?

Let's be clear about the end result of all this "appalling" behavior by those 'sailors': our boys – and girl – were released without us having to issue any kind of apology, and without one shot being fired.

Sort of stands in contrast to everything else going on in Afghanistan and Iraq, doesn't it?

You know, just occasionally, a thousand years of geopolitical experience counts for more than a big gun and a John Wayne attitude.

So, to all the doubters, I say this - on this occasion, I think we Brits are justified in claiming, "Mission Accomplished!"

Tomorrow Ended Yesterday?

Ok. I was wrong. Barack didn’t delay the announcement of his fund-raising total because it was bad news.

But I still maintain that giving Hillary a week to prance around stating that she had broken all fund-raising records was a bad political tactic.

Rule No. 1: never, ever, ever give your primary opponent the political stage, front and center – all on their lonesome. Hello!

And therein lie a few pointers for the way things may proceed in the Democratic camp during the run-up to the explosive – and for some, potentially implosive – two months of January/February 2008.

Barack is now the clear favorite among Democrats, having raked in a whopping $25 million in the first financial quarter of 2007.

However, the decision to delay his own announcement betrays a political naïveté that may cost him against Hillary’s powerful and experienced campaign machine.

And I hate to say it. Really I do. But the money announcement for March 31 effectively marks the end of any realistic chance John had of winning the nomination.

Oh, he will continue. And I strongly urge him to do so. I want him to go on giving high profile to the plight of America’s poor.

But he had to break the media perception of this being a two-horse race between Hillary and Barack. And in that crucial ambition, John failed.

He has one last, slender chance with the next money announcement on June 30. If he can, at least, insert himself between Barack and Hillary with his fund-raising total for the second quarter of 2007, he might just revive his chances in the minds of Democratic voters.

Otherwise, he will have solidified his position as the eventual third place in everyone’s perception.

And there will be few people out there sadder about that reality than me.

Sunday, April 8, 2007


FOCUS On Poverty has caught the attention of SEIU, the national union organizing the (SSB) web-site, where FOCUS is currently featured.

Terrance Heath, the blogmaster in charge of SSB, recently issued the following e-mail to the thousands of individuals who signed up with SSB, in response to the call by SEIU to help America's working families with a healthy dose of citizen action.

You should see what some people are doing with their ideas!

For example, Geoffrey G. in North Carolina has an idea about how to help the millions of Americans who live below the poverty line.

But he's not just waiting for it to happen: Geoffrey has contacted the John Edwards campaign about the idea and started a blog to support his efforts.

Top 5 Most Adopted Ideas:1. FOCUS On Poverty2. Workweek Down 1/10, Commuting 1/5 !3. Consumer Credit And Debt 4. Peace Study in Public Schools 5. Farm Produce Distribution Network

You can adopt this idea, read excerpts from his blog and help Geoffrey take action here:

If you haven't adopted an idea yet, what are you waiting for?

Click here to find one you might like:

Terrance Heath
Since Sliced Bread

Enlist your friends for help! Click below. Tell-a-friend!

If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for Since Sliced Bread.

Like Terrance says, show your support for the 50 million Americans who live below the poverty line. Let them now that they are not alone.

Go over to SSB and 'adopt' FOCUS On Poverty as an idea you want to see become a reality.

BritCom In Iran

As a Brit-Am, I have to shed a small tear for the President of Iran. Boy, did we have him tied up in knots!

Ok. Let’s take the recent episode with the UK ‘sailors’ by stages.

So, fifteen of our boys (and one girl) were caught at sea. The line put out by the British Government was that they were technically in Iraqi waters, looking for smugglers.

How many search and board missions do you know about that are conducted in rubber dinghies?

What did the media think these dinghies were going to do when they came across a trawler smuggling hash, or whatever? Bump them into harbor?

Rubber dinghies serve only one military purpose. They are used by elite reconnaissance troops (in this instance, most probably a combined unit of Royal Marines and Special Boat Squadron), to evade radar detection, and mount clandestine beach landings.

I’m guessing the fifteen ‘sailors’ were either on their way to or coming back from an exercise to reconnoiter potential bombing targets in Iran.

Of course they were in Iranian waters. And that’s where the Brits started having fun with the Iranians.

The ‘sailors’ saw the Iranians coming. So, they dumped everything suspicious overboard. Then, from the moment they were captured, as they are taught in some of the toughest training in the world, they played dumb.

Did nothing to create waves. No John Wayne moments. Did what they were told. Said what they had to say. With lots of ‘please’ and ‘thank you.’ In the certain knowledge that they had what was needed to tough it out. And all the while fully aware of the action their Government would be taking.

Which was the same: nothing - nada.

The British Government stuck to the line that the ‘sailors’ were in Iraqi waters. And beyond that, they just laughed at the Iranians.

Tony Blair knew what his ‘sailors’ were doing. He also knew that they knew they were deniable. And that they could take care of themselves.

All of which left the Iranians with nowhere to go. So, they caved in.

And how do I 'know' all of this? Ah. Good question. Read the book I wrote about my involuntary adventures in the world of covert intelligence...

Reality Sucks. Really.

So, we have the results of the first non-binding primary of 2008 – the fund-raising stakes.

First the losers – and mine may bear little resemblance to those touted by the mainstream media.

Hillary: she was expected to raise closer to $40 million overall, not $26 million.

John: his own Campaign was spreading the word it would be $20 million, not $15 million.

Barack: we don’t yet know his total. But no political strategy, of which I’m aware, says that you gain points by allowing your major rival to wander around for a couple of weeks telling the world that she won – at anything…

McCain: all former Dean supporters, have a warm and fuzzy moment, why not? Watch somebody else’s front-running campaign enter free-fall. Third among Republicans, with only $12.5 million.

The winners?

Rudy: mind you, he raised the same amount as John. So, why the different measure? Do you know, I don’t know. It’s a matter of perception. But, that’s what this first primary is all about. So, trust me.

Bill Richardson: this guy was one of the last to enter the race. I think he took a couple of minutes to announce in between the State of New Mexico address and a visit to some nuclear waste facility. He has beans for a national network. And he rakes in a cool $6 million. Keep a beady eye on Bill.

He has credentials up the wazoo. Former Congressman, current Governor, former Secretary of Energy and UN Ambassador. He is as much at home welcoming a visiting Chinese dignitary, as he is lassoing a steer at the State Fair. And he has oodles of charisma for the Campaign Trail. He may well end up being the true heir to The Bill…

And last, and absolutely the least – “Mittens The Face-Lift.”

Just goes to show you what the power of the Mormon network and a few judicious telephone calls to old venture-capitalist pals can do.

$23 million. Who would have thunk it? Very definitely the overall fund-raising winner. God help us all.

There are those who accuse John of being plastic. At least plastic has some strength and firmness to it. “Mittens” is more like plasticine. Totally mouldable. Let’s people change his shape whenever it suits him.

How can you trust someone to get their political bearings straight, when they can’t even get their geographical bearings straight? Remind me again, is he from Utah, Michigan or Massachusetts?

About the only thing going for “Mittens,” from my point of view, is that he is so malleable, that if he gets elected, there might just be a chance that he can be persuaded to implement FOCUS On Poverty.