watch on the ninth...

TwoJohns: The Redux

2010-02-01T12:15:00.006-05:00

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...

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development?

2008-12-06T21:45:00.004-05:00

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 transitionsingovernance.org), 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.

The Great American Giveaway [by Paul Aaron]

2008-11-06T11:10:00.002-05:00

[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...”

The Perfect Veep?

2008-08-08T16:26:00.007-05:00

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...?!

FOCUS On Obama

2008-05-14T16:34:00.012-05:00

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.''

FOCUS On The Politics of Poverty

2008-01-31T00:28:00.000-05:00

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.

FOCUS On Ballary

2008-01-31T00:13:00.000-05:00

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.

FOCUS On John (2)

2008-01-30T23:58:00.000-05:00

[Courtesy of Matthew Phillips]

I think it was somewhere between Centerville and Ottumwa that I first started to question 's sanity. Of course, 36 hours on a bus crisscrossing 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 —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 ," 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.

FOCUS On John (1)

2008-01-30T23:32:00.000-05:00

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.

FOCUS On Poverty - John's Redux (II)

2008-01-30T13:55:00.000-05:00

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.

FOCUS On Poverty - John's Redux (I)

2008-01-30T11:01:00.000-05:00

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.

FOCUS On Immigration

2007-05-01T06:45:00.000-05:00

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,
Your 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.

FOCUS On America

2007-04-23T08:18:00.001-05:00

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.

Wake Up America!

2007-04-17T12:22:00.000-05:00

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.

FOCUS On A Helping Hand

2007-04-12T13:26:00.000-05:00

The organizers (SEIU) of SinceSlicedBread.com (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 http://www.watch9.blogspot.com/, 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!

Great Minds Think Alike

2007-04-09T10:28:00.000-05:00

The Service Employees International Union, the trade union organizing SinceSlicedBread.com (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

2007-04-09T10:00:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-04-09T09:41:00.000-05:00

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.

FOCUS On SSB

2007-04-08T11:17:00.000-05:00

FOCUS On Poverty has caught the attention of SEIU, the national union organizing the SinceSlicedBread.com (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: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/idea/13449

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

Click here to find one you might like: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/allideas

Sincerely,
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

2007-04-08T10:33:00.001-05:00

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.

2007-04-08T09:15:00.000-05:00

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.

Cancer

2007-03-23T07:30:00.000-05:00

Five members of my immediate family were struck by cancer. I lost my mother to cancer.

I genuinely hope that the period of treatment for Elizabeth Edwards, and the following process, is as painless as possible for her, for John, and for their young family.

I wish Elizabeth the very best.

Real FOCUS On Poverty

2007-03-18T11:15:00.001-05:00

Good news for John Edwards, W9 and our jointly-conceived program for eliminating poverty in the United States - FOCUS On Poverty. Ordinary folk are jumping onto the bandwagon. And you too can help to garner support for the cause of helping America's poor. Read on!

At the end of 2005, at the same time that the specifics of FOCUS On Poverty were being aired on the local community radio station that serves both John and me, in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, I submitted a summary of FOCUS to a web-site called SinceSlicedBread.com.

SSB is a project run by the Service Employees International Union, and its purpose is to serve as a national clearing-house for ideas from regular people about how to help America's working families - in particular, those that fall below the poverty line.

FOCUS On Poverty was the suggestion that received the most reviews during the competition phase, back in January 2006.

FOCUS On Poverty is the idea that has received the most flags in the past year. And...

FOCUS On Poverty is the proposal currently being adopted by the most visitors to SSB.

This is great news for all of America's working poor, who struggle every day to achieve some small measure of dignity, in the face of obstacles they believe are insurmountable. It sends them a message that they are not alone.

Be a part of that same message.

Lend your voice. To ensure that SEIU hears it. That the other visitors to SSB hear it. And, perhaps most important of all, that John Edwards hears it.

That he never wavers. And never feels that it might be ok to 're-calculate' just how important the issue of poverty is to all ordinary people in America.

You can do this in a number of ways:

Go to the SSB site, create an account, and then review FOCUS On Poverty.
Flag FOCUS On Poverty as a slice above the rest! When you have signed in, go to FOCUS On Poverty, and below the idea, click on the 'yes' icon, where it asks if this idea is a slice above the rest.
Adopt FOCUS On Poverty as an idea that needs implementation - now! Once you have signed in, go to FOCUS On Poverty, and left-click once on the light-bulb icon. Note: when it asks if you want to set it loose - don't!
In the Comment box, in the Act section, make suggestions as to what you think can be done to make FOCUS On Poverty a reality.
In particular, in that Comment box, openly lend your support to W9's campaign to get John Edwards to accept our outstanding invitation to come and be interviewed on his local, grass-roots radio station, and give detailed, irredeemable specifics on how he intends to implement FOCUS On Poverty when he becomes President.
Leave a comment on this blog, why not? SEIU and John Edwards will be sure to see it!

W9 and FOCUS On Poverty are not about me. They're not even about John Edwards - even though he is the only Presidential Candidate to make America's poor the central focus of his Campaign.

I don't care a fig for myself whether or not you take any of the action outlined above. I care only about helping those 50 million of our friends and neighbors who have done all they can to make ends meet. It's time we remembered the generous spirit that was behind the founding of this country, and gave our friends and neighbors a helping hand.

You can give a helping hand today, by going to SSB, and letting our friends and neighbors know they are not alone.

You can also go to John Edwards' site and leave him a message. Tell John you want him to prove, once and for all, that he is a real friend of the poor.

Ask him to agree to give a detailed interview to his local, grass-roots radio station. To prove to all of us that he is staying on message. I'll make it easy for you - just paste the following into John's Questions/Ideas box:

"Hey John. Here's an idea. Why don't you agree to give a live interview to Geoff Gilson on your local, grass-roots radio station. Show us the 'real' you. Convince us you're still on message about America's poor."

Now John, you don't have to wait to hear the message. You can agree to that interview - today! And John - have you yet gone to SSB, and shown your open support for FOCUS On Poverty - 'adopted' on SSB the very same proposals on eliminating poverty that you have already adopted for your own Campaign?

John, SSB represents the very essence of your Presidential Campaign. It allows ordinary folk to organize and take action on their own common sense ideas to help America's working families. It is a magnificent reflection of your call for people to achieve results even before you get to the White House. In fact, you should want to 'adopt' the entirety of SSB! Certainly, give it profile on your Campaign web site.

I want to thank SEIU and their President, Andy Stern, for the opportunity to give such high profile to the cause of America's working poor. SSB is truly American innovation and inspiration at its best. As they themselves say, who better than real working men and women to put forward ideas on how to make America a better place for everyone?

Folks, don't miss your opportunity to send the right message on poverty to all those campaigning for the Presidency.

Go to SSB, support W9 and John Edward's FOCUS On Poverty, and help to get some real 'focus' on the 50 million Americans who live below the poverty line.

Real March Madness

2007-03-18T11:14:00.000-05:00

While we gamely celebrate the exploits of the likes of Vanderbilt and VCU in the Men’s NCAA Basketball Championship (and John and I cheer on the Tar Heels!), let’s spare a thought for a real upset in an international sports championship half a world away.

In the Cricket World Cup, Ireland defeated Pakistan. On a Saturday which was also (quite fittingly) St. Patrick’s Day.

Pakistan is a powerhouse on the international professional cricketing scene. The Irish team, on the other hand, is that rarity which has virtually disappeared from the whole American approach to 'serious’ sports – the Irish cricket team is composed entirely of part-time, unpaid amateurs.

That means Irish team members do not make their trade at the sport. They are doctors and farmers and laborers. They do what they do for the love of the sport, and for the honor of representing their country.

Half a world away in geography, maybe. But many lifetimes removed from what we have become in America, without a doubt.

To put the Irish achievement in perspective, imagine your local community college putting together a basketball team of adult part-timers, and that team then taking out Ohio State in the NCAA Championship. That’s the equivalent.

So, let’s celebrate what a team of ordinary guys, in true blue-collar, gritty fashion, can actually pull off.

But let’s also view their success as a triumph of real human spirit and soul over the co-option of human endeavor by selfish, professional greed – a living example of what a few good men can do in the face of a society that says, it can’t be done, because corporatism wins over humanity every time.

And let’s see it as a good omen for what we in America can achieve, after the next Presidential Election, on behalf of the 50 million of our friends and neighbors who still live below the poverty line.

Real Straight Talker?

2007-03-13T15:36:00.000-05:00

"You're entitled to not agree with me, but you will know
what I stand for and you will not get politician double-talk"

MSNBC tell us that they have got hold of a galley-proof of a memoir by Bob Shrum, one of John's former political consultants.

Conveniently, Bob confesses that it was his fault that John voted for the Iraq War Resolution in 2002.

And we simple working men and women are supposed to believe that this galley-proof just dropped into MSNBC's lap...?

John. Bless your heart. Reality check.

Inviting a former adviser to fall on the sword is not perceived by ordinary working men and women as an act of political courage.

Regular folk do not expect a straight talker to slip around in the shadows and get books leaked, just to help him with his polling figures.

The worst part, John, is that the book doesn't actually help you. Not only was its leaking naked political calculation - which you pretend to eschew. It was bad political calculation.

Far from helping you, the book actually undermines your claim to have (naturally) heightened levels of political testosterone. Bob thinks he's doing you a favor with his 'candor.' And you obviously think so too. But in truth, both the book and its leaking are helping to dig you a grave.

Bob writes that he regrets advising you to give President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq. He says that if you had followed your instincts, instead of the advice of political professionals, you would have been a stronger presidential candidate in 2004.

This doesn't tell us, John, that you are a man of steely conviction, prepared to stand your ground no matter what. Rather, it seems to suggest political weakness and calculation - which you keep telling us you reject.

Now, your spokesman, David Ginsberg, has done his best to dispute the suggestion that you were making a political calculation with the vote that you have called the most important of your career:

"John Edwards cast his vote based on the advice of national security advisers and the intelligence he was given, not political advisers," David has said. "He got political advice on both sides of the argument, and made his own decision based on what he thought was right, not political calculation."

Bob disagrees. He writes that you called your foreign policy and political advisers together in your Washington living room in the fall of 2002 to get their advice. You were "skeptical, even exercised" about the idea of voting yes, and Elizabeth was forcefully against it, according to Bob.

But Bob says the consensus among the advisers was that, after just four years in office, you did not have the credibility to vote against the resolution and had to support it to be taken seriously on national security.

Um. John. That's called basing a national security decision on political calculation.

Far from helping you, this whole contrived episode serves only to suggest that you have no conviction; you are the prisoner of political calculation; and that you change your mind whenever the political wind demands it.

Plus, if we really want to know who the 'real' you is on any given day, there's no point in asking you - what we need to do is take a straw poll of your family and advisers...I know...ouch...but I tell it like I see it...and I only do it because I care...

John, I will say it again: I want so very badly to believe that you are 'real,' because I want so very badly to believe that the 50 million people who fall below the poverty line in this country finally have a 'real' champion.

You have tied the credibility of their plight to your own political credibility. If people come to believe that you are not 'real,' then they will also conclude that there is no 'real' poverty problem.

When you say you are one thing, but are proven to be another, that disconnect damages you credibility - and it hurts poor people.

When you say we will know what you stand for, but your beliefs keep changing, that damages your credibility - and it hurts poor people.

When you say we will get no politician double-talk, but that's all you dish up, then that damages your credibility - and it hurts poor people.

Even after forty years, regular folk still feel the authenticity of Robert Kennedy - and he came with a lot more baggage than you do, John.

But the baggage didn't matter. What people remember is that Robert Kennedy had true political courage. He took risks. He crossed lines. And he didn't care about the consequences. He did what was right. Because it was right. And damn the consequences.

There wasn't a hint of contrivance or calculation in his looks, his policies, his speeches, his strategy or his tactics.

Frankly, John, if you are to overcome the credibility chasm that your advisers have opened for you, then you need visibly to start taking risks. You need to find a line to cross. To appear really authentic.

You claim to speak for 50 million people who do not know about living the lifestyle you have created for yourself - commendably. They know only about surviving, day-to-day.

If you want to bring those in poverty along with you - if you really do - then they need to see that you are prepared to risk your plans, your comfortable lifestyle, your political ambitions. To stand by them. They need to see you cross a political line, over which you can not return.

Otherwise, all they will see is someone whose political credo is based on political self-interest - not political courage or honesty. All they will see is political calculation. And they will not put their lives, let alone their votes, in your hands.

John, if you want to be a champion of the poor, then you need to be a warrior, not a politician. If you want working folk to see the warrior, and not the politician, then you need to get away from the Hollywood Campaign that has you trapped.

Convince us, John. Before it is too late. And if I can help you...well...the invitation to engage in some 'real' straight talk in a 'real' radio interview continues to be open.

Real Soul

2007-03-06T11:11:00.000-05:00

I want to say something about my party," John said. "I'm so tired of incremental, careful caution. Where is our soul? Where is our soul? We are [at] our most powerful when we speak from here" -- he touched his heart -- "and not from a poll."

Time to take stock, John.

At first, I was worried that maybe you weren't doing enough to let real people see the 'real' you. I thought that was the only problem.

I thought that might be because you were so involved at the center of your campaign, and so controlled by the intricate choreography of it, that you simply weren't allowing yourself to get to ordinary folk.

And don't go believing your own press, John. 'Getting out' is not 'getting to' the people. You are never so alone when you are at the center of a crowd. On a platform. Behind a mike. Remembering the phrases from that last focus group poll.

But now, I have another fear. In a way it's the same problem, but in reverse. Now, I 'm troubled that, being so in control, you are allowing that control to keep you out of touch. With reality.

There are too may continuing miscues, missteps, mistakes...hmm, I'm beginning to sound a bit like an old, broken record.

Listen John. I'm going to give this a rest for a while. I'm still with you. But there are problems you need to address - in my opinion. You know what they are. I've covered them already. And you know what I think would be a large part of the solution.

I want you to pop down to your local radio station. I want you to give a grass-roots interview. No props. Totally open and honest. From the heart.

I want you to address the issues you are not addressing.

I want you to address them in a way that you are not - at the moment.

I want you to deal with the disconnect between your rhetoric and your actions.

I want you to tell ordinary people why the issue of poverty is so important.

I want you to tell those regular folk why they should trust you to keep your promises - all of them; not just the ones about alleviating poverty.

I want you to convince all of us that changing your mind and being calculating will not mean that you will change your mind about poverty, and 'calculate' that its elimination is not so important, once you get to the White House.

I want you to explain your specifics, without the hedging and the fudging you are employing at the moment.

I want to give you a real opportunity to convince ordinary working folk that you are not the same old, same old - that you are, indeed, a breath of fresh air.

And I want to give you the best opportunity possible to speak to and to speak for real working class people.

Of course, you can go on avoiding the invitation. But there it is. It's open. I don't need to go on reminding you.

In the meantime, you know what might be useful, John? Aside from picking on you? It might be interesting if I spent a little time explaining just why I am so passionate about the plight of America's poor.

And if I did this by sharing with you and with my other readers the journey that brought me to this conversation with them and with you.

Why? Because in so many ways, John, when I look at you, I see parts of me.

One of the biggest criticisms of me is that I am overly calculating. But I'm not. I mean, yes, I calculate. I can't help the brain that God gave me. And I care enough about what I do, to care about doing it in a way that gives it the best chance of success. But I'm not calculating.

I try to help those of my friends who are less fortunate than myself. I feel about them the way you say you feel about working people. In your anecdotes. I just wish I had the same opportunity as you to help so many more disadvantaged people.

So. When I see what I see in your Campaign, John. When I see what I am seeing with you. When, in particular, I see what may be disconnect. The possibility, however remote, that you may not be exactly who you say you are. I want to do something about it. I want to help you get back on message.

And I believe that a grass-roots radio interview with me would really help to start that process.

But, as I say, John, I think it only fair that you get to see why I believe all of this so fervently. And so you will.

In among the continuing commentaries, I will include some autobiographical notes about me, my journey to this conversation, and to my conversion to the cause of eliminating poverty in America.

In other words, 'the real story' about me...

Ouch! For Real (B)

2007-03-06T10:54:00.000-05:00

John, John, John.

You know you've got problems when the Campaign staff start saying behind your back that you might just be out of touch with reality. Really.

And I don't mean one of those "gosh, I'll tell you, but don't tell John" unattributable quotes you and Dave have been libbying...I mean, leaking to Newsweek and The Washington Post.

I mean Campaign grunts expressing real concern about the direction of your Campaign.

For example. There is, apparently, a big question mark over the disconnect seen within your own media-response task force.

On the one hand, you, Dave and the Campaign team hit the ground running before Ann Coulter even had a chance to adjust her titanium make-up - after her totally ineffectual remarks at Con-PAC.

Yet, no-one has been given any instructions as to how to deal with all of the really damaging material about you that keeps seeping into the media. Like:

The continuing perceived disconnect over your house and you championship of the poor.

A similar disconnect concerning your luxury National Campaign HQ.

Your seeming lack of achievements while at the UNC Center for Poverty.

The absence of pro-bono work when you were a lawyer.

The less-than-stellar relations with ordinary folk in your new hometown of Chapel Hill, NC.

Stories of isolation when living in Raleigh, NC - plus episodes of bird-flipping while jogging...?

Your staff remember your declaration at the beginning of your Campaign, when you stated boldly that you would be fully alert to any and all allegations of disconnect on your part.

You Campaign was going to be one of engagement and connection - with ordinary people and with the media.

Those same staff are now beginning to wonder why the rhetoric is not being matched with action...

Ouch! For Real (A)

2007-03-06T10:33:00.000-05:00

John, John, John.

Do you remember Deirdre?

Well, she came up to me the other day, all a-fluster. It would seem that you sent her an e-mail asking her for money.

Now, in case you don't immediately recall, Deidre is my friend from work, whom I persuaded to pop across the green - to your National Campaign HQ - to ask for help.

Her mother has breast cancer, and there's all sorts of problems with benefits. Not an anecdote - a real-life person, having to make that real-life choice between paying the rent or buying medicals.

"So why," Deirdre cried, "why is John asking me for money? He lives in a big mansion. I live in a small apartment. I need to help my mom. I can't help John as well. Doesn't he understand that...?"

I tried to calm her down. Told her that it's the quid pro quo. You help her. She goes on the mailing list. But with that, Deirdre just got a flinty look in her eye.

She looked at me with ice in them eyes, and she said: "No, Geoff, no. He's supposed to be different. He told us he was going to be different."

You lost a vote, John. You lost a vote because a good, honest working lady saw the disconnect between what you say you are doing and what you are actually doing.

Deirdre will not vote for you now because she can not trust you to keep your promises. She now takes the view that you're just another calculating lawyer.

Deirdre lives over in Siler City. You know it well. She'd heard all the stories from her friends that you only took cases that you could win. But she wouldn't listen.

You helped her. And she thought the world of you because she thought you didn't care whether or not she could do anything for you. Until she got the e-mail asking for money.

Deirdre no longer believes that you are a breath of fresh air. That you mean it when you say you won't use the old political ways. You won't hide. You won't horse-trade. You'll be open and honest. Show us all the 'real' you.

Well, she thinks she's now seen the 'real' you. She now thinks everything you do and say is just a new take on the same old, same old. That you're no better or worse than other politicians. Just a little more slippery.

Of course. Deirdre's just one vote. Just one worker. Maybe she doesn't matter. But she matters to me.

And she ought to matter to you, John. If you're real. If you really have soul...

The Real Question About Iraq

2007-03-06T10:31:00.000-05:00

[OPEC Oil Ministers]

You see, John, what gets me itchy is that when I talk with my mates, who are down-to-earth working-class types, they don't ask any of the questions you seem focused on answering.

Take Iraq and oil for starters. My mates, untroubled by the so-called complexities of geopolitics, see 150,000 heavily-armed American soldiers in Iraq - I think that would be without The Surge ("the insurgent cleaner that kills 99% of all known germ warriors").

They see American military bases in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. Taken all together, that accounts for, what, about two-thirds of the world's known oil reserves?

They see a brand-spanking new, western-suited, probably American-educated, Iraqi oil minister, striding into the latest meeting of OPEC - no doubt with George's marching orders tucked into that oh-so-pretty Gucci briefcase.

And they can't help but wonder, ever so gently, why gas prices are still so high?

Now, I may think this a silly question. Indeed, I may have a clever answer. But they don't want to hear me. They want to hear you.

They want me, as an ordinary person, just like them, to ask you precisely this sort of question in a real radio interview. On your local grass-roots radio station.

And why? Because they know I won't back off. And because they don't hear the fancy media asking you this sort of question - the sort of question that interests real working people like them.

It doesn't matter what I think of their questions. Or what you think. You should want to answer them because they are the questions on the minds of the ordinary folk you claim to want to speak to and speak for.

So, what about it, John? Real questions. Real answers. Real feelings. Real credibility. Lots of reality, all around. Really.

Are you game for some real tough reality, John?

The Real Problem With Iraq

2007-03-06T10:02:00.000-05:00

And so political expediency meets...well...political expediency.

John was in Nashua, New Hampshire recently. Talking to a group of 125 residents at the home of a State Senator. And attempting to highlight the differences between him and Hillary on the issue of Iraq.

Now, John has to create what we in England call clear blue water between him and Hillary on this topic, because he's trailing a distant third in this all-important first Primary State. That's politically sensible.

And he's doing it by picking on the one aspect where there is both clarity - and not only in the color of the water - and distance.

Hillary won't apologize for her 2002 Senate vote. John, on the other hand, has made sackcloth and ashes his motif de couture on this issue. This plays well to the anti-War activists. And so, again, it is politically sensible.

The problem with political expediency is that it often ignores the real issue - and even ordinary people can see that.

My favorite demographic - the boys and girls down at the VFW - know all too well that what's done is done. We're in Iraq. And it's a mess.

What worries them is not who did what in 2002. Nor who is saying what now. They ain't stupid. They know we are going to withdraw. The only questions are when and how.

And that is what worries Jonny Nascar and Wynette Walmart. What is going to happen when we do eventually withdraw from Iraq? Particularly, what is going to happen to the price of gas?

And no-one, not John, not Hillary, not even McCain, is talking half-way sensibly about that. And that is what really worries the boys and girls down at the VFW.

And John. Take note. If they are still worried come the General Election, it may well be the issue that pushes them into what they continue to see as the 'safe arms' of the Republican Party.

So. Maybe, it's time to get real on this subject. Maybe this is somewhere where "it's really important for us to be honest with the country..."

On a positive note, John, I am happy that you were addressing an intimate group of 125 people in Nashua. I know they were probably hand-picked.

But it's a step in the right direction - of loosening yourself from the Hollywood aspect of your Campaign, and getting closer to real people.

Nice to know you're reading the blog, John - and paying some heed. Thank you.

A Conservative Christian: Is Edwards For Real?

2007-03-06T09:42:00.000-05:00

[Kuo, far left, is the guy who says Bush and Rove broke campaign pledges to faith-based groups.]

David Kuo is a conservative Christian, who served as Deputy Director of President Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives until 2003.

David is currently the Washington editor for Beliefnet.com. He wrote a book, Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction, in which he claimed that Bush aides had privately called conservative Christians "nuts,'' "ridiculous'' and "goofy.''

What follows is an article David posted on Beliefnet.com on the same day that Ann Coulter called John a "faggot" at the Con-PAC annual conference:
I believe John Edwards.

I believe his passionate statements on behalf of the poor. I believe that the faith he says animates him is real.

I believe that he has made quiet and selfless trips to care for the suffering around the world. I believe he knows what poverty is like and that his faith in Jesus requires him to care for the poor.

I believe that those who criticize him for living in a huge house while talking about the poor should shut up - by that standard should only the sick get to talk about health care?

I really, truly, absolutely believe John Edwards.

But I'm skeptical. Blame President Bush for that.

I walked away from a long meeting with Gov. George W. Bush in early 1998 believing certain things - that compassionate conservatism motivated him, that his talk of "racial, social and economic justice" was sincere, that he really was a "different kind of Republican."

I believed it so much I went to work for him and ended up spinning the facts so I wouldn't have to have my beliefs disturbed. I've been set straight.

John Edwards has many distinct advantages over the George W. Bush of1998. Bush had been moved by a single question asked him by a young man in a juvenile detention facility. "What do you think of me?" He didn't have an answer but nobly wrestled with it and out of the wrestling came his compassionate conservatism.

Like Jesus' parable of the seed and the sower, however, it sprung up quickly but had no roots and just as quickly it died away.

Edwards has more than anecdotes. He actually did grow up poor as he has talked about perhaps a bit too much. But more than that he has put himself in suffering's way.
Casual mentions of trips to some of the world's poorest places mingle with talk of the suffering he has experienced in his own life - the loss of a son, his wife's breast cancer.

To John Edwards combating poverty and fighting for the poor isn't a novel idea - there isn't any starry-eyed talk about solving poverty, just a firm resolve to address it. That is good.

He is also less brazen about his faith. He obviously understands the great political benefits (and increasing necessity) of talking about it - this very successful litigator knows how to win a case after all.

Still, there is a striking and attractive reticence for being too spiritually naked. Then again, that may simply be the trial lawyer judging the jury.

Ultimately, however, the proof will be in the actions. Will he continue to make the poor a center of his agenda? With increasingly success - if it comes, and I believe it will - will he still display that same passion?

And, if elected, will he actually follow though on his promises? That is the only question that ultimately matters.

Promises to the poor are sacred promises, a test of character and of faith because they depend more than most promises on the person making them.

There are no great lobbyists who push the poor, no Fortune 500 companies throwing parties for candidates who support the poor, in fact, no one really cares about the poor in politics except for those who make the promises.

Is John Edwards real and genuine? He may have the chance to prove it.
Amen.

I am not a conservative Christian. But John - and David - I could not have said it better.

The Conservative Primary (3)

2007-03-06T09:36:00.000-05:00

Look, John. I understand you have to get your press coverage where you can. But frankly, the one thing that caused a bigger yawn this past sleepy Sunday morning than Ann Coulter's silly attack on you was your utterly unnecessary response.

John, the only people who care about Ann Coulter are Ann Coulter and the 1,705 registrants who voted in the Con-PAC straw poll. Get real! You'd have suffered more damage being savaged by a sheep.

So, the contrived tone of injury was...well...contrived. And frankly, we ordinary folk - your very best friends - are beginning to get a teeny-weeny bit tired of it. That is a shade of color up from 'concerned.'

There are real problems in this country to be talking about. And I'm beginning to wonder if your avoidance of them is purely accidental.

There are serious problems within your campaign which need attention. And I'm beginning to wonder if you're becoming...well...out of touch, John.

And I'm not the only one. I'm hearing it from former supporters of yours. I'm even hearing it from inside your campaign, John.

We all want you to get back on track, John - before it's too late.

The Conservative Primary (2)

2007-03-06T09:26:00.000-05:00

Mind you, why are we even pretending that one can possibly take social conservatives seriously?

It was the same Con-PAC conference which on Friday applauded when arch-conservative pundit, Ann Coulter, called John a "faggot."

This from an organization which had just chosen an airhead pretty-boy ("Mitt-ens the Face-Lift") as its favorite Republican Presidential Candidate.

To make matters worse, it was Mitt-ens who introduced Ann Coulter to the conference before she made the speech where she used the offending word. Socially conservative she may be, but Christian she clearly ain't.

The Conservative Primary (1)

2007-03-06T09:08:00.000-05:00

The Republicans' Second Primary should have been the annual conference last week of the American Conservative Union Political Action Committee. However, it would seem that a liberal dose of March Madness was in the air (pun intended). And so it was that Mitt Romney came first in a straw poll of the GOP activists attending.

Despite his record of inconsistency on some social issues, the former Massachusetts Governor received 21 per cent of the 1,705 votes cast by paid registrants to the three-day conference. They were asked who their first choice would be for the Republican nomination.

Now, don't go getting your knickers in a twist. My predictions in The Preacher Primary still stand. The Con-PAC straw poll has little real meaning. The voters were just pissed that John McCain had decided not to attend, and they acted out their anger in the straw poll.

The Preacher Primary

2007-02-15T06:53:00.000-05:00

The Republicans’ first primary contest is this week, and it’s not in New Hampshire. It is in Orlando, at the annual meeting of the National Religious Broadcasters.

With George Bush and Karl Rove out of the way, the gathered congregation is split all over the place about whom they will support for 2008.

The word is that the three big names - Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Frank Dobson (of Focus on the Family) are themselves each leaning towards different Candidates.

Falwell favors McCain. Robertson, who hates Falwell in the worst possible (but totally Christian) way, is likely to back Romney - guess age will do that to your brain. And Dobson, who loves himself above all others (again, in a wholly healthy and Christian fashion), will probably plump for former Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee - come on, you gotta love faith!

The problem is that these rattlesnake-charmers are suffering from the same blinkered mind-set that plagued the Democrats before 1994 - they've been kingmakers for so long in the corridors of Washington that they don't pay any attention to election results.

Brothers! Brothers! Hello! Your flock went independent on you in 2006. More than half of Christian voters did not follow your lead. Get with the program. Or the service. Or the missal. Whatever.

My prediction about what the Christian Right will do in 2008 goes something like this:

But first, some advice for the Democrats: don't get too cozy about the results from 2006. Last year, Christian voters suddenly got all righteous and touchy-feely. They wanted to give George a bloody nose. And they felt bad about Iraq, Katrina, and particularly the struggling families left behind by many working-class military personnel.

The problem with people shifting their political position is that it's like cheating on your partner - if you do it once, you can do it again.

Frankly, the Democrats face a conundrum with their new majorities on the Hill. First off, they are not naturally liberal Democrat majorities. They are made up of a lot of conservative Democrats, who won in normally Republican areas.

Secondly, those Democrat majorities are pretty much buggered if they do and buggered if they don't. If they do well, those Christians, who shifted over to the Democrats in 2006, may well think "mission accomplished," and go back to supporting perhaps a liberal Republican for President in 2008.

On the other hand, if the Democrats screw up, those same Christians may feel they did wrong by the Lord, and vote once again for a socially conservative disciple of Jesus, rejoining their brethren on the solid and rabid Christian Right.

Now, here's the thing about that psycho Christian Right. I think that they, like their moderate and more left-wing Christian friends, have begun to enjoy the sinful taste of independence.

It is not just that they are sick and tired of Republican Presidents who promise them Armageddon, but then refuse to let rip the fire and brimstone. It's that they are totally fed up with the plump and aging preachers who keep telling them to support those false idols.

And thus it is, yeah verily, that the likes of Huckabee (a former conservative preacher himself), Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (a favorite son of the religious right), California Representative Duncan Hunter and Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo all think they have a real chance with the Christian Right this time round.

But I have to say this - fellas, get real. Wacko, the Christian Right may be. But stupid, they ain't. They know minnows when they see minnows. And you boys be tiddlers. You don't have a prayer.

The exemplary pro-life (but also pro-death penalty, pro-killing in Iraq) evangelists of the Christian Right may well decide not to listen to their earth-bound masters in 2008, but the Holy Spirit is still going to make them plump for one or other of the Republican fat cats. So, which one is it going to be?

Romney? I'm getting bored even typing his name.

Giuliani? Even he knows he's wasting his time courting these voters. He's not intending to speak at the National Religious Broadcasters' meeting at all.

McCain? Hmmaybe. There may be some nose-holding, though. Memories still go back to Mac's talk of "agents of intolerance" in 2000.

So? Yup. You got it. The Dark Horse. The guy all the pundits just love to overlook - Newt Gingrich.

That's my prediction. Look for The Newt to pick up heavily - and unexpectedly - among Christian Right voters, once the caucus and primary season begins in 2008.

In particular, look for a strong showing in South Carolina, which I think Newt will win. Pretty much bringing to a close the campaigns of the minnows. Dealing a death blow to Romney, and seriously denting McCain.

There's even a chance that South Carolina will do for McCain what I predict it will do to Hillary - show that they're both losers in the South. After S.C, Mac may hobble through some more primaries in the North and Mid-West. But The Newt could then seal the deal when the circus tracks back South later in 2008.

"I'm Real. Really!"

2007-02-14T15:10:00.000-05:00

Have a certain ring to it...?

It ought to. Much of the article about John in this week’s Newsweek reflects the points I’ve been making - and the way I've been making them - on this blog for some time now. All of them in a bid to help make John the 'real' Candidate he says he wants to be.

Indeed, the parallel between the Newsweek article and OneJohn: Courage, Conviction and Calculation is uncanny.

Well, the good news, John, is that you seem to be accepting the fact that ordinary people are beginning to see the credibility disconnect between the TwoJohns – the ‘real’ John you say you want them to see, and the carefully-protected John they are actually being allowed to see.

The bad news is that you think regular folk will buy that they are seeing the ‘real’ you just because you tell Newsweek you’re trying harder. Real people will know they are finally getting to see the 'real' you when you actually let them do just that.

The funny thing is that, without any prodding from me (or maybe it was because of that prodding – who knows?), you set out both the problem and its solution in this same article. They are there, for all to see, in the following excerpt:
Still, Edwards' new commitment to authenticity may have real roots: in 2004, the candidate learned the hard way that too much caution can be fatal.

When the Kerry campaign faltered, Edwards and his wife were convinced that a broad swath of competing consultants, offering conflicting advice, were largely to blame.

"Consultants can make it hard to tell the truth," Edwards says. "They want you to be so cautious it makes it hard to say anything."

Aides, who didn't want to be named discussing their boss's internal thinking, say he walked away from 2004 convinced that only strong, centralized decision making works in presidential campaigns.

I agree there should be strong, central control of your campaign organization. The Great Blogging Scandal underlines that very point. But not by you - at least, not any more.

You say it yourself: if there’s going to be control of the campaign, and you’re at the center of the campaign, it follows that you have to be subject to that control, too. And that's the very thing we are both agreed gets in the way of real people seeing the 'real' you.

If ordinary folk are going to believe that they are seeing the ‘real’ you, then they have to see something uncontrolled. And you can only do that by separating yourself from your own hugely-choreographed campaign.

I can’t help but feel there should have been an ergo in there somewhere…

So John, one more time. Leave the controlling to Dave. Get away from your campaign. Lose a little control. Go and meet some real people. In real settings. Without too much advance work.

And when you really feel ready to reveal the ‘real’ you, as opposed to hiding it in Newsweek, I’ll be here, waiting to help you do just that in a real, genuinely-revealing, grass-roots, radio interview.

Real questions. Real feelings. Real credibility.

Really.

Meet The Boss

2007-02-14T14:46:00.000-05:00

Ok. We got way too serious there for a while. Time for some levity...

A few weeks ago, John interviewed with Tim Russert of NBC’s “Meet The Press.’

Let’s rewind. And replay the interview. But this time, imagine Tim as the boss of the company where John is applying for a job…

Tim: Good morning, Mr…ah…Edwards.

John: Hi.

Tim: Now I see your last job was as Director of the Center for Poverty. Did you finish the job...'cos we still seem to have lots of poverty...?

John: Er. Well. No.

Tim: Why not?

John: I wanted this job.

Tim: Can we get a reference from the University of North Carolina?

John: Lemme see. I left the job early... I sued their hospital for malpractice... Er. Probably not.

Tim: And before that, you were a Vice Presidential nominee. How did that go?

John: I lost.

Tim: Ah. Can we get a reference there?

John: Uh...John Kerry… Probably not.

Tim: Hmm. And prior to that, you were a Senator. For just one term. Why did you stop?

John: I was going to lose.

Tim: And…reference…?

John: Er. Probably not.

Tim: So. To summarize. You’re not too good at finishing the job. You have little experience. And you can’t give us any references.

John: That’s about it.

Tim: And you want to be President of the company…?

[Oh come on, John. It's worth a small grin!]

Biden His Time?

2007-02-14T14:26:00.000-05:00

Mind you, on the subject of tough causes, there are still some out there who believe that Joe Biden has a chance, notwithstanding his 'open-mouth-insert-foot' comments about Barack's washing habits.

This from The Politico's Roger Simon:
Best Corridor Conversation [at DNC Winter Meeting]: I chatted with Don Fowler, a former chairman of the DNC from South Carolina, and a guy who has forgotten more about Southern politics than most people have ever learned.
The Democratic presidential ticket did not carry a single Southern state last time and I asked Fowler which candidate could carry Southern states this time.

“Obama could carry Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina,” said Fowler, who has not endorsed anybody yet. “That is based solely on black voter registration. And [Joe] Biden could carry Florida and Virginia.”
Hmm. Any truth to the rumor that Joe is now going for broke in the fund-raising stakes by filing a paternity suit in respect of Anna Nicole's child...?

[Graphic courtesy of Dustin Ingalls of UNC-CH. I take the view he'll be grateful for any profile anyone gives to Joe...]

Straight-Talker -v- Tightrope-Walker?

2007-02-14T09:14:00.001-05:00

John has been getting good news from Newsweek for a couple of months now.

Their December polls showed John as the only Democrat able to beat John McCain. And their January polls confirmed that only John could beat both Mac and Rudy.

The bad news is that it won't be Newsweek deciding the next President. It will probably be Jonny Nascar and Wynette Walmart.

It was they who tipped 2004 in George Bush’s favor. And they'll still be around to deal a potential blow to John’s chances in 2008.

The issue that may make the difference is Iraq – which is why John has been trying to muddy the waters with “The McCain Doctrine.”

Here’s the deal. I’m betting Mac’s advisers have already said to him: Mac, if it’s Edwards (or, indeed, Obama), forget a podium debate. Get up close and personal. Like the ‘conversation’ between Edwards and Cheney, in 2004.

And then keep hitting Edwards with Iraq.

The line will be: forget how we got here; what we need to do now is end it – and what do you know, sonny, about ending a war?

Mac will continue: look, this is a mess. But it was a frat boy that got us into it. And it won’t be another frat boy that gets us out of it. Why don’t you leave this to a grown-up – a grown-up who truly knows about war.

That will play strong with Jonny and Wynnette. And all their friends down at the VFW. The ones who still wave the Confederate Flag, have bumper stickers that boast "We're Real Patriots," and who sing that God-awful Toby Keith song every Friday night at the karaoke.

There's not much else John will be able to do but come back with the line: but...but...Mac, you got us into this, too.

Which will lead to an entertaining spat about blame, and mind-changing, and posturing. But none of that will truly count with Jonny and Wynette. What they will be waiting to hear is what these guys intend to do next.

And that may be the cruncher for John.

The Presidential Election may well come down to John’s perceived credibility on any plan to end the war in Iraq. Not Mac’s.

It won't matter whether Mac's plan is good, bad or indifferent. He has all the credibility the VFW crowd need - he was a Prisoner of War.

The only thing that will make the difference is John's credibility. And even that may have little to do with any war plan.

Rather it may depend on the extent to which John has managed to convince Jonny and Wynette that he is Real. Really.

And, of course, whether he looks as good as George (Bush) and Mac in a Stetson...

[I swiped the 'Rifle Jesus' pic from Jeff Fecke's blog. Only peripheral relevance - God-fearing Jonny, the righteous crusade in Iraq, and all that. But I liked it. So, sue me.]

Mitt-ens

2007-02-14T08:59:00.000-05:00

What can I say about Mitt-ens ("The Face-Lift") that is short and incisive, yet fair and comprehensive, while still thoughtful and interesting?

Hmm? Ah yes.

Fluff.

Period.

No wait. I think I can do better than that. I was just having trouble breathing, while picking myself up from the floor, and wiping away the tears of mirth.

I mean, Sweet Mother Mary and Joseph. Why does anyone take this dandy seriously? Fer chrissakes, he's had more re-invents than he's had face-lifts.

I'd be more ready to vote for The Penguin as Mayor of Gotham City than for this guy to be President of anything other than the Aspen Apres-Ski Ladies' Knit 'n Bridge Club.

But hang on. This just in. Pat Robertson takes him seriously. Oh well. Why didn't someone mention that earlier? That's a lock on the White House then.

Guess Mitt ’n Ann won’t be inviting me to their Deer Valley skiing soiree this year…

The Newt

2007-02-14T08:54:00.000-05:00

Do not underestimate Newt Gingrich.

In many ways, he is the ‘John Edwards’ of the Republican Challenge – just not as good-looking.

He has been quietly putting together an organization these past few years, "Winning the Future" one supporter at a time.

Like John, he has a web-site which has all the all the bells and whistles that go with a modern political campaign, centered around the use of social media and web-networking.

Newt has a brain that is every bit as organized as John’s, and is possibly more nimble, on both a strategic and tactical level.

This is the guy who stole the House of Representatives from the Democrats back in 1994, with “Contract with America,” and then dictated Bill Clinton’s political agenda for the next six years.

It was Newt’s Republican House that balanced the federal budget, as much as Bill and Robert Rubin.

And don't be thinking Newt is just an ivory-tower policy wonk. Who can forget the unscripted Town Hall meeting between Bill the President and Newt the Speaker?

When two of the cleverest populists of their time went toe-to-toe for an hour, treating those watching to one of the finest debates of political fundamentals that this country has seen in several generations.

Newt's aura amongst rank-and-file Republicans may well have increased in potency with the loss by his Republican colleagues of their control of Congress. Control which those same grassroots Republicans remember, all too well, was engineered by Newt in the first place.

They may take the view that, as a born-again Washington outsider, Newt can work that same magic all over again, in the face of the current Democratic groundswell.

What may tip things Newt’s way is the social conservative vote in the Republican Primaries. For all his posturing, Mac is still seen as a social liberal. Rudy is way beyond hiding the fact that he’s always been one. And Mitt...oh please!

It may come down to New Hampshire. I'm guessing Newt will have to get at least 15% of the vote there to be taken seriously. And if he fails to achieve that benchmark, then I believe he will have to win heavily-religious South Carolina to stay in the race.

Thing is, he’s actually leading polls in several states at the moment – including North Carolina…

America's Security Blanket

2007-02-13T00:10:00.001-05:00

In the week that saw The Dixie Chicks cleaning up at The Grammy's with their song, "Not Ready to Make Nice," it's probably a good a time as any to look at the likely Republican Challenge to John Edwards and the rest of the Democratic Presidential field.

Forget what anyone else says, John McCain is clearly the man to beat. He’s the one with the organization. And that counts for a whole lot more than what 1,000 people say in a poll conducted by a bunch of bored interns on a slow Friday afternoon.

Both Rudy Giuliani and Mac know that Rudy’s current lead in the polls is all ‘smoke ’n mirrors.’ It exists solely because no-one in the media has had the balls to say that "America's Mayor" was actually something of a failure until 9/11 happened to put him in the wrong place at the right time.

As soon as Rudy hits the Presidential Trail, folks will see that his wooden campaigning style makes John McCain look positively charismatic. And once that happens, the media will feel more comfortable reminding voters that, before 9/11, Rudy was downright unpopular in New York.

True the crime rate fell with Rudy as Mayor. But he'd had an embarrassing divorce from his wife. And he backed off a one-on-one Senate contest with Hillary because he knew he was going to lose.

Once the press and the electorate think of Rudy as a potential President, they will realize that their over-hyped assessment was based on fuzzy memory rather than reality, and the candy floss poll figures will plummet.

The problem is that Mac can’t pick someone as his Veep who’s suffered a complete loss of credibility. Thus, the main purpose of Rudy’s Presidential Campaign will be to get him loads of national exposure, so as to offset the negative effect of his campaigning style and the info coming out of New York.

Don’t get too sidetracked by talk of “The McCain Doctrine,” either. It’s clever lawyer-speak, but it won’t run with Jonny Nascar and Wynette Walmart.

Remember, it was Jonny and Wynette who voted for Bush in 2004, because George wore cowboy boots and brought the oil home. They made the difference then (well…they and the Diebold machines), and they’ll still be the demographic of choice in 2008.

Jonny and Wynette, and their friends down at the VFW, like Mac because he’s ‘real’ military. They know there’s no-one going to come out of the woodwork and suggest that Mac was actually a stooge at the Hanoi Hilton. They know he did ‘real’ time at the hands of his North Vietnamese captors.

And so, Mac and Rudy will form the Republican Ticket in 2008, and together they will counter “The Dreamy Team” (Edwards/Obama) by portraying themselves as “America’s Security Blanket.”

Unless…

Valentine John!

2007-02-11T00:49:00.000-05:00

Of course, there are those who say that the sight of a man's pecs does more for women than the smell of his sweat.

Which gets me thinking of the lady who said that all John needed to do to win the Democratic nomination hands down was to put out a swimsuit calendar...

So. Edwards. John Edwards. What about it? Take your shirt off, for Valentine's Day!

Show us what you've been up to in that new gymnasium on your 'plantation.' Grab a few cheap votes while you can.

Happy Valentine's Day, one and all!

Don't Sweat It!

2007-02-11T00:38:00.000-05:00

For women, apparently there's nothing like the smell of a man's sweat.

Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley said women who sniffed a chemical found in male sweat experienced elevated levels of an important hormone, along with higher sexual arousal, faster heart rate and other effects.

So John, that's why you were getting yourself so worked up at the DNC Winter Meeting a week ago? And that's why you have both a gymnasium and a basketball court at your new 'plantation' outside of Chapel Hill, North Carolina?

You son of a gun, John. You really are a calculating genius, after all!

Unbug the Blog?

2007-02-09T23:27:00.000-05:00

I get that Amanda Marcotte was chosen as Blogmistress for John Edwards '08 because she's loud and sassy and free-thinking - and has great Internet connections.

But hasn't this most recent episode proven that Johns' Blog Team needs some other disciplines, too? Well. Maybe just some more discipline...

Here, in John's home county - Orange County, North Carolina - we have an excellent Blog Moderator, by the name of Ruby Sinreich. Who, if she ever gets to read this post, will instantly grow gray hair, hearing this praise come from me.

Ruby and I have crossed swords. However, in the space of just of few years, she has put together an extraordinarily professional multi-author blog. Which she moderates assiduously. She is intelligent, outgoing and dedicated. And is more than capable of swapping acid with the best of them.

My only complaint - hence the sword-play - has been that she has sometimes been a little too keen to edit out posts. Which actually may be just what John's blogging effort needs at the moment.

Ruby lives down the road from John. She's on great terms with the family - to the best of my knowledge. She is already on John's Blogroll (OrangePolitics and LotusMedia). And I believe would be a tremendous asset to John's campaign.

I'm still not sure I'd want to spend an evening in a bar with her. But you don't have to like someone to recognize their suitability for a particular position.

Bug in the Blog...

2007-02-09T22:39:00.000-05:00

...or storm in a tea-cup?

I don't pretend to know all the details of The Great Blogging Saga within John Edwards '08. What little I do know tells me that all the parties concerned need to get real. There really are more important things to worry about.

The central point seems to be the one I've been hacking on about for a while now - you need to separate the individual from the campaign. On the one hand, when you join a campaign organization, you have to leave the individual behind. And on the other, the campaign needs now to be separated from its figurehead, so that the campaign's everyday machinations are not constantly distracting him.

This is a Presidential Campaign. Not a Friday evening, beer-keg, blogathon. Wise-cracking, college-level, smart-ass may be appropriate when you're an individual author on an independent blog. But when you've just become Blogmistress to a Presidential Campaign, you need to provide something a little more thoughtful - and yes, calculated. Get real!

As for the right-wing. Is this really the biggest dent you can find to make in John's campaign. Really? I mean, I was raised a Catholic. As a species, we helped to make half the world dysfunctional. We're crying out to be made fun of. Get real!

And the fairweather left? Look, I have the odd poke at John, but I'm along for the ride. I'm just trying to make him a better Candidate and President. You want to jump ship the first time the sea swells. You really think this is the roughest it's going to get? Get real!

And John? This is my point, entirely. I don't care whether the decision to hire the two bloggers was the right one, or not. I don't care whether the decision to reprimand them was the right one, or not. The only thing I care about is that both decisions should have been made by the campaign, and its manager - and not by you. Get real!

As it is, we've had another distraction. Which should have been an organizational hiccup, reported as the last sentence of a side column on The Slate. Instead, it made waves because you, John, got involved.

Hand the campaign over to Dave. And let the press focus on the real you, as an individual, meeting the ordinary people to whom and for whom you say you speak. Let Dave speak to and for the campaign staff.

OneGreatSociety?

2007-02-06T14:52:00.000-05:00

Maybe John and I are of OneMind, after all?

Imagine my surprise and pleasure when I reviewed the YouTube videos of John's DNC speech. Paid close attention to his remarks on healthcare and poverty. And heard myself talking back.

Nope. No tongue in cheek this time!

Last weekend was the first and formal unveiling of John's stump speech on healthcare and poverty. Followed by his interview with Tim Russert on "Meet The Press," where John shared more specifics.

Sixteen months ago, two fellow broadcasters (Paul Aaron and Ian Kleinfeld) and I aired a four-part radio series, on John's home-town community radio (WCOM 103.5LPFM), on what it might take permanently to eliminate poverty in the US.

We came up with FOCUS on Poverty, a $200 billion a year program to ensure that every man, woman and child in the United States had access to food, clothing, housing and healthcare.

We very specifically excluded education, feeling it should be considered separately - as John has done.

The first program in the series dealt with our general progressive principles, by way of context.

The second program dealt with the specifics of FOCUS on Poverty - and please, I took enough stick from kid sister about FOCUS not being a precise anagram!

In the third program, we had a professor of economics from the University of North Carolina join us, to discuss our proposals as to how FOCUS on Poverty could be funded.

And the fourth program in the series dealt with what language could be used to 'sell' FOCUS to an electorate, which (pre-2006) we felt might still be in a tax-cutting rather than a tax-raising mood.

Our proposals, our costings and even the language all appeared in John's recent pronouncements on the subjects of poverty and healthcare.

Right down to borrowing back George Bush's 'no-one should be left behind' tag line, and the emphasis on children - hey, we may be progressive, but we know the power of a marketing message!

Frankly, I'm delighted!

Of course, I don't know for sure that John or his staff ever listened to our radio show - which is not that outlandish a suggestion, bearing in mind WCOM broadcasts where he and we all live, and the fact we informed him, OneAmerica and the UNC Center for Poverty of our four-part series.

And it may well be that they came up with their almost-identical proposals quite independently of us.

What I do know for certain, however, is that we devised our program independently of them.

And that none of them spoke then or have spoken since then (in public) about anything that faintly resembles FOCUS on Poverty - until John spoke this past weekend.

Indeed, a professor of sociology at Duke University (I apologize to fellow Tar Heels for letting those words pass my lips...!) declared that we would have to do all the work of devising the specifics of FOCUS on Poverty and its costings, on our own, because he was unaware of anyone else approaching the elimination of poverty in this manner.

Whatever the case, who cares? I say again - I'm delighted!

All I care about is that we elect in 2008 a President who agrees that the single most important priority facing him is the need to ensure that not one single child goes to sleep at night in America without food, clothing, housing and healthcare.

The 'how we got here' ain't important.

All this episode proves, at the very least, is that a group of progressive-thinking minds, living just a few minutes away from each other, all had the same great idea at the same time. Says wonders for the fresh air in North Carolina!

Now all I have to do is manage to convince John to clear the over-calculated clutter of his campaign out of the way, so that good people can hear the real message...regardless of where it came from!

Back to you, John!

OneJohn: Courage, Conviction and Calculation

2007-02-05T10:40:00.000-05:00

Ok. Time for a deep breath. I'm still bothered that Jon Elliott of Air America Radio initially thought I was opposed to John Edward's campaign.

Before Jon understood what I was really saying, turned around 180 degrees, and agreed to help me get John to do a grass-roots radio interview with me.

So, to echo John's speech to the Democratic National Committee last Friday: why am I here; what am I doing; and what am I hoping to achieve?

Well, the first thing to say is that, contrary to all the advice I've seen about writing blogs, this may be a lengthy post.

Then again, Technorati says there are over 55 million blogs. And if my experience is anything to go by, we bloggers are mostly a bunch of basement-dwellers, who enjoy playing by ourselves. So, self-indulgence is pretty much the name of the game...

...um...ask Amanda Marcotte...ouch!...but more of her later!

In the meantime, let's go back to my beginning vis-a-vis John Edwards.

I was first inspired by John in 2004. He was the only Candidate talking about the plight of the poor, and doing so with language which resonated with me and my own experiences of having lived with people who are honest, hard-working, yet poor folk.

Fast forward to 2007. We all knew John was going to run again. And I was eager with anticipation as the day of the official announcement drew close.

Then, I heard that John was going to open his new National Campaign HQ across the village green from where I work, in this palace of an office complex (on right).

Frankly, I was puzzled. And that's putting it mildly.

The press had already told us that John would be kicking off his campaign in the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans. This was to be more than merely symbolic. It was to represent the very essence of his campaign.

A campaign that was to be about all of us. A campaign where we all took responsibility for what we did. Where we made a difference with our actions on the way to the White House, as well as when we got there. The whole message was: I mean what I say - judge me now for what I will do then.

Brilliant!

Except that with his first public campaign decision, John had created a disconnect between what he said he was doing, and what he was actually doing.

I work in a grocery co-op. I've just received my W-2 for last year. Technically, I am no longer working poor. I fall above the poverty line by about $1,000.

The co-op happens to be in one of the smartest, richest, most exclusive office/residential developments in North Carolina. What on earth was John thinking? For my views at the time, go to the very first post on this blog ("A Tale of Two Hills").

Chapel Hill is a few miles away from Durham, an old tobacco center, which has a load of undeveloped warehouse space. It also has large areas of poor districting, which cry out for some sort of starter-development.

Wouldn't John have sent a message more consistent with his campaign themes and persona by situating his National Campaign HQ in one of those areas? Re-developed a run-down corner shopping area, for example. Done it in a way that would have allowed him to hand it over to the local residents, after the campaign.

Blimey, one of his best mates here in Chapel Hill is one of the region's most successful and most progressive developers.

At the time, I drew no conclusions. I just got worried. Poked a little fun about Lower and Upper Ninth Wards. And decided to start "watch on the ninth..." To "keep a friendly, but gently irreverent eye" on John's continuing moves - to help him stay on message.

You see, this isn't about me. It's not even about John. It's about my friends.

For the first time since Robert Kennedy, someone has finally stuck their head above the political parapet, and has had the gumption to state that having some 50 million of our friends and neighbors below the poverty line, in the richest country in the world, is the single greatest obscenity in this nation at the moment. Period.

I want to make damn sure that he doesn't let my friends down. I want to make damn sure he's real; that he stays on message; that we are not merely a factor in some grand political equation - and, frankly, that he doesn't screw up.

Why me? Who the heck do I think I am?

I am precisely the guy to whom John says he wants to reach out. I am exactly the person upon whom John is basing his success. John says that he wants the electorate to measure his credibility on his ability to speak to and speak for me and my friends - real working men and women.

And that's who I am. A working stiff. Nothing more, and nothing less.

No-one may read this blog. No-one may listen to what I have to say. But no-one will tell me or my friends that we are not good enough to be heard.

Am I a shameless self-promoter, as some of the kinder private e-mails have called me? Hell yes! I have a message I want to get across. And I don't have a million dollars and a team of high-priced consultants to help me. I have a free blog and a loud voice.

But back to John. Unlike many in the media I don't give a toss about John's looks, or his wealth, or even the new 'plantation.'

I have some doubts about the political judgment that said it would be a good idea to build the compound in the middle of a Presidential campaign.

But hey. This is America. I want to be rich, too. And I want to drive a racing-green Bentley Continental. You know, the new one. Convertible. With a tag that says, "so maybe it is compensation, but it's still worth the ride..."

Real people, John, don't care who you are, or what you do, provided they feel they can trust you to deliver what you say you want to deliver.

But when you say you are doing something, and you are not. Then that has a psychological impact. Real people begin to wonder if you can be trusted to deliver. They question whether or not you are 'real.'

Two years out from the Presidential Election, a full year away from the first caucus, everything that you are doing is related to its psychological impact. You know that.

And it's not just me thinking this way.

Even your own people put up a post Iowa for Edwards hoping that you mean what you say. The guy who lives at the end of your new asphalt driveway complains that he's never met this Candidate who says he wants everyone else to meet the real him.

The Washington Post runs an article saying that Democrats in Iowa - the state you're supposed to have tied up - are curiously unenthusiastic about you. They think there is something not quite right about you.

Now, these are mere whispers at this stage.

But my twin sister says that one of my curses is that I see patterns (no, John...patterns...not dead people!). Patterns, where other people do not see them. And generally well before anyone else sees them.

What I am sensing at the moment is that real people are no longer worried about the apparent disconnect between your wealth and your message on poverty. And its seeming clash with your message on TwoAmericas. That is simply the outlet they are choosing for what I perceive as a more insidious concern.

Deep down what they are truly worried about, in my opinion, is the growing disconnect between the TwoJohns: between what you say you are doing, and what you are actually doing.

Now John, we ain't stupid. I talk with ordinary working folk every day. They may not have all the clever words. But they understand politics better than some consultants give them credit - and, indeed, some Democrats.

To be honest, there are too many Democrats, with fancy backgrounds, who make the mistake of assuming that they know better than regular people what is best for those regular people.

Regular people know best. All you have to do is ask them.

And they understand the calculations that have gone into producing your 2008 campaign, John - better than you know.

In 2004, you connected with ordinary folk, on an emotional level. You spoke to them of issues and with language that they instantly recognized as coming from the heart, and representing the real experiences of real people who'd been there.

But you didn't win. And you want to win, so that you can help those people. At least, that's what we all hope.

So, this time round, you wrote a new campaign playbook.

You had to appeal to the left-wing in the primary and caucus season. So, opposition to the War on Iraq, heavy on the poverty angle.

You wanted the support of trade unions to help get the vote out. So, lots of schmoozing with union leaders, and heavy on talk of securing jobs at home.

Howard Dean blazed the trail on the Internet. So, you have a web-site that is second to none in its clever use of social networking and Internet activism.

But you know there's a problem. People are going to say you're a rich lawyer trying to win the nomination like you're trying to win a court case - with careful calculation and intricate choreography.

So, you come up with this 'real guy' approach. Slim down, put on jeans, take off the tie, talk about grass-roots a lot, and beg people to see the real you.

The icing on the cake is that you paint your whole campaign as not-a-campaign at all. As the anti-campaign. It's now a people-driven movement, that's going to change America even before you take office. Brilliant again!

But then a second problem enters the equation. The money people may sense Howard Dean all over again. A populist campaign with a charismatic leader who might well implode through his own populist zeal.

And that's when political fudge comes into the picture. Look, you say in those oak-panelled boardrooms and screening theaters, don't confuse the image with reality. I know what I'm doing...

I'm so reminded of a passage in a Time magazine article about Howard, back in 2003:

Last week I asked Dean's mother Andree Maitland Dean of East Hampton, N.Y., whether her son is truly a liberal insurgent. "He's not really," she said. A beat passed, and she added with a chuckle, "I hope they don't find that out just yet."

Good for you, John. Say whatever it is you have to say to win the all-important first beauty contests. The money-raising stakes. We know they set the psychological scene for the real primary and caucus contests in 2008.

But that brings us to your third and current problem. Ordinary folk are beginning to see the disconnect between the TwoJohns. They don't mind you calculating, providing they can trust you to ensure that the calculation leads to the right result.

But when you hedge about the calculation, pretending that it's not there, then regular people see that, and they begin to wonder if, indeed, you're taking them to the promised land.

The answer, as I see it, is to be open about your calculation. John, real people want a clever guy looking after their interests in the White House. Don't hide it. Frankly, we all worry about the wrong things.

And the first thing you should be open about is that your campaign continues to need calculation. But if you're the one doing it, then you can't be out there, connecting with real people, and letting them see the real you. It's too schizophrenic.

So, become the OneJohn by admitting openly to the TwoJohns. [Ok, I'm getting a headache here, but stick with me.]

Have the political calculation to hand over the whole schmoozing, organizing, speaking out of side of mouth, photo op, plastic smile, Hollywood, calculating, OneAmerica monolith to Dave.

And then have the political courage to step away from it. Have the political courage to go out (almost) alone into this country. Become the uber-candidate.

Meet with real people, in real grass-roots settings. Treat us like real human beings. Talk about real issues.

And have the political courage to share with us what you truly believe needs to be done. No fudging, no hedging your bets. Just like you did in 2004.

And have the political courage openly to address some of the apparent disconnect that real folk have seen in the TwoJohns.

So that you may become OneJohn.

Trust me. You will re-connect with ordinary working folk. And your money people? They might not understand what you're talking about. But they'll know a winning political calculation when they see one.

The fact is, John, real people know that all Candidates are driven by political calculation. The thing that separated you from the rest was that, along with the calculation, you promised a real you, who would show real political courage and real political conviction.

So far, all we think we're seeing is the political calculation. This is the time for the real you. This is the time for real political courage. This is the time for real political conviction.

All I want is to see you achieve that. For my friends, John, and for yours - the real working poor people in this country.

So I will continue to prod and to poke. To josh a little. To get serious at times. To applaud - and to remonstrate. And to hold open that offer to help you start re-connecting by doing a down-to-earth, grass-roots, radio interview with me...

TwoJohns: Political Courage

2007-02-05T10:15:00.000-05:00

Onto the NBC "Meet The Press" interview with Tim Russert, and the subject of healthcare.

Again, John, great beginning. We need universal health coverage, so that there is not one child in this country who falls ill without a safety net to catch them. And we will need to raise taxes to do this.

Wonderful! Just last week, on this blog, I asked if there was a Democratic Candidate out there who had the courage to say we're going to have to raise taxes to do what needs to be done in this country to put things right.

Like you, John, I'm no tax-and-spend fiend. But you do what you have to do when it's time to do it. That's what real political courage is all about.

But then you got to the punchline...

You came up with the usual, tired, old tax fudge - we're going to get that money by abolishing Bush's tax cuts for the rich, and by having the government collect more back taxes.

It's like a farmer saying he's gonna get that coyote this time by having a louder alarm system. The reason the farmer ain't ever gonna get the coyote is 'cos the coyote is wily.

Same thing with the rich folks. They're going to get around paying taxes and having their back taxes collected because they hire good lawyers and accountants - whatever the government does. And real people know that, John.

So again, you say you're doing one thing - being politically courageous - but then regular working folk see quite clearly that the rough reality is that you're not being courageous at all.

Real working people have to make check-books balance in real time, rather than with accounting fudges. They know that you have to make tough choices to make those ends meet. You know that too, John. You spoke about it this past weekend.

Ordinary folk know that if you're going to pay the bill for what needs to be done in this country, you're going to have to find room in the federal budget for real money coming from real sources.

And if we're talking about $200 billion a year extra - and I think we are talking that much, to eliminate poverty - then that will mean either a dramatic re-ordering of priorities in federal non-discretionary spending (if you want to make your proposals tax and deficit neutral), or something like my suggestion for a one per cent federal tax increase across the board.

Now granted, not every working person would put it like that. They might say they understand that they might have to choose between funding Smokey the Bear or paying to ensure that every child in this country gets to eat properly, sleep properly, be educated properly and have a doctor if they need one. A genuine "No Child Left Behind" policy.

Real people, John, truly get the difference between real political courage and a political fudge.

And so, once again, we see this new disconnect between the TwoJohns. You say you're doing one thing, and ordinary folk people clearly see that you're actually doing another.

Maybe, John, you shouldn't be making any more cute videos about lousy political consultants? Maybe you should be be sending them out into the cold, to join the others on the turf-laying detail...bless their hearts?

TwoJohns: Political Calculation

2007-02-05T10:02:00.000-05:00

So John, you had a busy weekend.

I read the transcript of your remarks to the DNC Winter Meeting. Truly wonderful.

Full of the language which shows that you've actually spoken to the ordinary men and women who have gone through those experiences.

I know - because I've been there, too.

This is you at your best. In its unvarnished form, it's what helps you to convince real working people that you speak for them.

And then we get to the punchline. As highlighted on your own campaign web-site:

"This is not the time for political calculation. This is the time for political courage."

Oh John. Are you really so hollow? And do you really think real folk are so shallow?

Look, we know you've got to calculate. Particularly now, what with all the big money people you have to schmooze. So don't pretend.

Do us all the credit of treating us like grown-ups. It's not who you are, or what you're doing that is causing the disconnect I fear so much. It's what you then say by way of rationale.

You talk of the disconnect between the TwoAmericas. And the pundits are still having merry hay because, with the way you're displaying your wealth and its timing, you seem to represent that very disconnect. That's what worried me at first, as well.

However, I'm now concerned about a much more damaging potential disconnect: the one between the TwoJohns - that is, when you say you're doing one thing, when in fact you're doing another.

Real people see that. They're not stupid. And it's beginning to worry them too. Because they know it's not 'real' at all.

The Rough Reality of Money

2007-02-03T20:36:00.000-05:00

I do believe that before the end of 2007 John Edwards will have taken my advice about making moves to re-connect with ordinary people.

The bottom line is that he has made his ability to speak to and speak for working folk the measure of his credibility and electability.

However, while we're on the theme of "Reality is Rough," the reality of the modern election cycle is that until at least June of this year, the focus of all Presidential Candidates is going to be on raising money.

Not so much because they need the money (which, of course, they do), but because everyone now recognizes that the first electoral beauty contest will not be Iowa in January 2008, but Wachovia in March 2007, followed by Bank of America in June 2007.

Howard Dean changed the dynamics.

Howard didn't leap from nowhere to the front of the Democratic pack one year before 2004 because he opposed the War on Iraq. He stole that front-runner status from John Kerry because he raised more money than anyone else, as reported in the first two quarters of 2003.

And contrary to popular opinion, Howard didn't raise all that money sitting on the Internet in Vermont. He raised it trading on his family connections with Wall Street powerhouse Dean Witter Reynolds.

The rough reality is that, with a wide-open race for the Democratic Nomination, the person who reports the most money raised at the end of the first two quarters of 2007 will probably achieve an unassailable popular lead going into the caucus and primary contests in 2008.

I say again, not because of the money per se, but because fund-raising chops on their own will be viewed as an early psychological test of electability.

And remember, that money will be coming from Wall Street, not Main Street. From Hollywood, not your neighborhood. The only thing about the Internet that will truly interest campaign treasurers will be those companies and individuals who became billionaires as a result of it.

Howard Dean opened up a whole new box of tricks in 2003. But he then closed it all down again in 2004.

He had everyone - including those holding the purse strings - convinced that the campaign playbook no longer had to be safe. You could go the whole way with a populist, insurgency campaign.

And so the check-books opened, and the political endorsements followed soon after.

Just in time for Howard to implode.

This time, boardrooms are going to want Candidates to play it safe - and they're going to want to know the definition of 'safe' before they empty their pockets.

That's why Hillary will be spending this week in meetings with her top money men and women. She's going to be showing them her campaign playbook, to convince them she has the moves to go all the way.

And that's why John, who has put together an excellent campaign that looks truly populist, actually has it under tight control, with intricate choreography of every aspect - he doesn't want to frighten off his own money men and women.

John knows the importance of making a big showing early on with election money efforts. Even though it was Howard who ended up making the biggest fund-raising splash among Democrats in 2003, it was John who led Democratic fund-raising in the first quarter of that pre-election year.

That was a feat that was to prove curiously prophetic of of his second place finish in the 2004 Iowa caucus - a result that may have been surprising to all but John and a few others who truly understand the bandwagon effect that success in fund-raising can have on voters in caucuses and primaries.

The word is that John has scheduled 24 fund-raisers over 19 days this February alone. Once again, John will be reaching out to fellow trial lawyers — as he did in 2004. “Fund-raising has been a lot easier than we thought it would be,” said Jennifer Palmieri, one of John's spokespersons.

Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for Hillary's campaign is on record saying: “No one plays the expectations game better than the Edwards team. For two years, they have been telling their extensive network of donors to hold off giving him money so they could collect at least $20 million in the first filing period of 2007."

[Editorial comment: "would that be a 'surge' of cash in the first filing period...oh come on; I couldn't resist!"]

So, the rough reality is that John will probably have to continue playing it polished until at least June, in the hope that by then he will have repeated and perhaps improved upon his election money performance of 2003.

The irony is that by then he may already have lost too much credibility with the very folks upon whom he is betting the whole deal - the real working men and women of America.

And the double irony may well be that the check-books were opening for John in the first place precisely because of his perceived ability to appeal to those working folk.

What to do? Frankly, if I had an easy answer to that conundrum, I'd probably be running John's campaign.

But Dave and John, is there not some way to do both - raise serious money, and maintain connection and credibility with real working people?

I can't help but wonder if my idea of two parallel efforts - Dave running OneAmerica, and John out doing grass-roots glad-handing - wouldn't actually prove quite attractive to potential financial supporters.

Populist and safe - both at the same time...?

The "Reality is Rough" Bandwagon (Episode II)

2007-02-03T16:54:00.000-05:00

Air America Radio is now getting behind my efforts to help John Edwards get back on message.

Jon Elliott ("The Most Dangerous Liberal in America") has made an on-air pledge to help coax John into accepting my "Reality is Rough" invitation.

Jon hosts the 'fastest two hours on liberal radio,' between 10pm and midnight, Monday to Friday, on progressive Air America Radio.

Jon and I had become bogged down in a 'muscular' exchange of views via e-mail, when I decided to phone his show last Friday evening, and clear up all the misunderstandings.

I explained that I wasn't and never have been anti-Edwards. Far from it. I'm an admirer and supporter.

I'm just concerned that John is allowing himself to be swallowed up by the monolith of a campaign that he has so brilliantly put together.

I said that I feel John needs to take more time away from the OneAmerica juggernaut. And put its organization in the capable hands of Dave Bonior.

That would leave John free to return to grass-roots campaigning, where he could re-connect with ordinary people - let them see him right up close and personal.

I told Jon that I believed the best way to start that process would be for John to pop down the road and do a one-hour, no-holds barred interview on his local grass-roots radio station - with real people, talking about real issues.

Jon got the point in an instant. 180 degree turnaround. And the offer to use his best efforts to encourage John to get on the "Reality is Rough" bandwagon. Pronto!

Mind you, the fact that Jon thought I was anti-Edwards got me thinking. Look, I'm irreverent. That's the way I am. I poke fun. And I speak my mind when I think something's going wrong. But sometimes irreverence can be confused with mindless stridence.

Hmm.

Ok. Thanks Jon. Both for your vote of confidence. And for your little nudge to get me back on message too. No-one should be scared to admit they got off track. Not me. Not John Edwards.

I will continue to try to rescue John from his own campaign. But with a tad more humility and humor, and perhaps a little less stridence and aggression...well, I'll try!

In the meantime, good luck Jon on Air America, and best wishes to all at Progressive 1360AM in San Diego.

Now, over to you...John!

The "Reality is Rough" Bandwagon (Episode I)

2007-02-01T22:38:00.000-05:00

Now, I’m no great friend of trade unions, because I don’t think they’re great friends of real working people.

But I’ll give one union its due. It’s jumping on the “Reality is Rough” bandwagon.

Andy Stern, President of the Service Employees International Union, is now inviting all Presidential Candidates to "Walk a Day in My Shoes" with ordinary union members and their families, so that the Candidates can discover for themselves the reality of life in a regular union family.

To his credit, John is the first Candidate to have accepted the invitation. John said he was proud to be asked and that Elizabeth also has volunteered to participate.

Good for John, Elizabeth and Andy. Now John, all you have to do is go that OneStep further, and start meeting with and taking questions from real working folk.

Remember my open invitation to do just that, in a live, grass-roots, radio interview, with unscripted and unscreened call-ins from real working people.

John, just want to help you keep it real…

Super Bowl Reality

2007-01-31T19:45:00.000-05:00

An estimated 85 million Americans voted in November’s midterm elections.

The Super Bowl is expected to draw a US viewing audience almost double that, roughly 140 million.

And a good proportion of them will be ordinary working folk, who then have to go to work the next day.

Four men, in North Carolina, are collecting signatures for a petition that would seek national holiday status for the Super Bowl.

That official day off would be on the Monday, allowing regular workers to spend the day recovering from an excess of unhealthy food, strong beverage and televised sporting violence. No need to call in sick if the factory is already closed.

Super Bowl Sunday is a special day for ordinary folk all across America. If you want to add your voice to this wonderful, blue-collar, grass-roots campaign, go to SuperBowlMonday.com.

Reality is Rough

2007-01-31T19:38:00.000-05:00

And while I’m making comparisons between love-lives and politics…

Remember back in 1988, when Democratic Presidential front-runner Gary Hart dared the press to find the real story about his love-life?

And they did.

They found him cuddling someone who was not his wife on a boat called “Monkey Business.”

John, your new 'plantation' in Chapel Hill, North Carolina may turn out to be your “Monkey Business.”

You dared the electorate and the media to find the real political you. And they got in a plane, and found your 'plantation.' Can you really blame them now for underlining the apparent disconnect between the “OneAmerica” you preach, and the “Two Americas” you practice?

Again, what to do? I’m not about knocking down. I’m about helping to pick up. Maybe you could take a leaf out of an earlier insurgent Presidential campaign of Gary’s?

Remember even further back in 1984? When Gary almost upended the Presidential campaign of former Vice-President Walter Mondale? A campaign that bore all the same overly-slick, overly-organized hallmarks of your own campaign?

When the chips were down, Gary got in a van and just turned up places and spoke to people from the heart. No advance team. No web-site – not in those days! And little organization worth its name.

John, you’ve put together a superb campaign. It’s practically running itself. And what isn’t looking after itself, can be expertly guided by David Bonior.

Why don’t you get off the campaign plane, and out of the campaign cavalcade? Get in a simple bus. And just become a OneMan (well, maybe a little more than one…), walking, talking ‘meet-up.’

Go around the states, and turn up unexpectedly. Make impromptu visits. Stand on picket lines. Wait outside social clubs. Talk, laugh, kid, joke – be the real guy you say you want real people to see.

Yes, there will be miscues and mishaps and mistimings. And every one of them will make you more human.

Come on John. Why not disconnect from the impersonal powerhouse that your campaign has become? Leave its business in Dave’s capable hands.

Focus your energies instead on a personal re-connection with the real working heroes of everyday America.

And John, bless your heart, get real - you won't be connecting with any real people or any questions that really interest ordinary working stiffs with Tim Russert on "Meet The Press." Much as I admire him.

For a true dose of rough reality, you're going to have to take up my invitation for a grass-roots radio interview, with live call-ins from your real neighbors in your hometown.

'Porking' is Kosher!

2007-01-31T19:26:00.000-05:00

What is this I hear about George Clooney and Pamela Anderson dating?!

Pam, Pam, Pam, Pam, Pam!

How could you lower yourself so?

What on earth do you think this will do for your reputation...!

Now, what I'm guessing is that George felt a little trapped by his image as a cardboard cut-out Hollywood smoothie, and decided he ought to to rough it up a bit.

Hmm. Maybe there’s a lesson here, John? Maybe you’re getting a little too trapped by your image as a cardboard cut-out political smoothie?

Maybe you need to break out and rough it up a bit, too...?

No! Not with Pam! I was thinking more in the political sense. Like taking me up on that offer to do a live, grass-roots, no-holds-barred, radio interview? Surely that doesn't make you nervous?

Hmm...?

'Pork' is Kosher!

2007-01-31T19:06:00.000-05:00

While we're on the subject of huge building projects in the North Carolina countryside...why are we all so dead set against ‘pork’ in the budget? Think about it.

I speak as one who believes more strongly than most that unbridled capitalism should govern the workings of the economy.

I feel that the economy like, say, the weather is a natural force. You do not seek to restrict it. You let it ebb and flow – naturally.

The job of government is to ameliorate what the Austrian-American economist Josef Schumpeter called the destructive side-effects of the overall creative and positive nature of capitalism. Or as ordinary people would understand it, "you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs."

And a part of that amelioration (or "picking up the pieces") is the provision of public projects, which can provide a temporary stop-gap for short or middle-term unemployment.

Who do you think is better placed to pick those projects – a faceless, remote bureaucrat in Washington? Or a Congressmen, who knows his neighborhood backwards, and whose primary interest is in making his people happy, so they’ll vote for him (or her) again?

Instead of discouraging indiscriminate ‘pork,’ maybe we should encourage it to be more discriminating, by making it the primary mechanism for distributing federal funds?

Now, don't get carried away with the snickering. Granted I'm having a little fun. But only a little. You see, if all politics is local, why not all government? Or, at least, more of it?

When I was a lad in England, I ran a campaign to have the government funds for our local youth center handed over to the center’s management committee. I believed that the local committee knew better than remote government how to spend the funds for the benefit of the youth in my then hometown.

There is a move within the British Conservative Party at the moment to make just such an idea the foundation of its new policy for granting funds to local government. Central government in London would allocate grants, which municipalities and the like would then spend as they see fit.

Of course, successive governments in Washington have been doing something similar since the days of Reagan. Only thing is, they’ve devolved responsibility, but have forgotten to send the funds along with that responsibility!

So. Maybe ‘pork’ should be made kosher - as a better alternative…?

Score One for OneCorps

2007-01-30T22:22:00.000-05:00

John Edwards just helped a friend of mine. Thank you, John.

Well, to be accurate, John’s staff at his National Campaign HQ (just across the village green from where I work in Chapel Hill, North Carolina) assisted my friend. So my thanks actually go to them.

We’ll call my friend Deirdre. She’s an honest-to-goodness working lady, who wouldn’t want to cause the slightest ripple. So, I won’t mention her real name. But there, partly, is the problem.

Deirdre felt embarrassed to ask a Presidential Candidate for help. I said – who better to ask? Particularly one who has made his desire to bridge the gap between the "Two Americas," and connect with ordinary people, a measure of his credibility.

So, this got me to thinking.

John, you want your campaign to be one of action, response and responsibility. Why not make all of your campaign offices, across the country, more approachable ‘action centers’?

Call them something catchy, like “OneStops.”

Put a welcoming sign outside.

Make the receptions a tad more inviting.

Have your staff wear ‘How can I help you?’ badges.

Advertise in the local media.

Sure, you have your web-site. But not all working folk have computers, or know how to use them. Plus, it’s way too impersonal.

Most of us engaged in politics take for granted the fact that we have the ability to shape the world around us.

My friends who are regular working people don’t think that way. They feel the world shapes them. And they struggle every day to preserve their dignity as they fight against that world.

John, I don’t have to tell you this. You should know it already. Help ordinary working folk to maintain their dignity while they ask you for your help.

The best politics, John, will always be personal. One-one-one. Why not make it a little easier for regular people to help you build "OneAmerica," one person at a time?

The "Reality is Rough" Challenge

2007-01-29T13:21:00.001-05:00

John, I think real people are beginning to catch onto the fact that you are a little too neatly packaged.

You may very well be real underneath. But regular folk are sensing they really aren't getting to see that real you.

And by the way, John, real people know that 'roughing it' with Jay Leno in Hollywood or Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" in New York isn't really real!

Now, before the itch becomes a scratch. And the scratch leads to tumbling poll figures, why not give ordinary folk an up-close look at the truly real you?

No minders, no photo ops, no prepared video blogs. Just you. Being real. Roughing it a bit.

As you know, I'm a sometime broadcaster in Chapel Hill, hometown to us both. I do no-frills, grass-roots, progressive, political chat radio. Why don't you agree to do an unrehearsed, unscripted, one-hour interview with me?

It'll be friendly. But it'll be serious. Those that know me, know that I'm tough, but I'm fair. And my guests and I, we have a little fun too.

I can promise you this: you'll be roughing it for real, on real grass-roots radio. Real questions. With real answers. We'll all have a chance to see the real you.

The worst that can happen is that you'll trip up - and frankly, you probably need that at the moment. A little rough and tumble would do you good. Ordinary folk would then see you as a real human being, not as an advertising campaign.

Real people expect to see the rough with the smooth. I believe the problem you're beginning to experience is that your tightly-organized campaign has smoothed too much of the rough out of you.

What's more, the very success of your campaign is now its own potential disadvantage. Hollywood slickness, dressed up as internet activism, isn't geared to showcasing the rough edges that make you real.

On the other hand, a live grass-roots radio interview, with someone whom everyone knows is not a campaign patsy, would be the ideal vehicle for you to rough it with real working folk, and allow all of us to see the rough diamond within you.

Maybe you've been playing it too safe? Maybe it's time to take a risk? That's what real working folk do every day.

Maybe it's time for you to find a way to remind real people that, away from the Hollywood slickness and the oh-so-careful campaign management, you really do remember that, for most of us, reality really is rough.

Why not give it a whirl at our level? Accept my "Reality is Rough" Challenge. And get reacquainted - publicly - with the real issues and the real people you claim to champion.

Disconnect...what disconnect?

2007-01-27T15:24:00.000-05:00

I have received the following suggested captions for this recent photograph of John's new hideaway outside of Chapel Hill, North Carolina:

"Honey, what did you do with the chain-saw?"

or,

"Psst, whatever you do, don't say 'Carolina White House.'"

or,

"Dolly Parton rang - she's misplaced 'Dollywood.'"

or,

"Hey look, you can see us from outer space!"

or,

"But Dave, it's a working farm and meat-packing facility..."

or,

"Al Gore wants to know if he can come over and discuss the Tree Conservation Plan tomorrow."

or,

"...the Secret Service will go here, and the Missile Silo over there..."

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear...

John, you know how you did that 'impromptu' video, where you wondered aloud why you were paying so much money to consultants who weren't giving you sensible advice?

I'm assuming those were the same consultants who told you it would be ok to build a brand-new, $10 million mansion in the middle of a Presidential Campaign, where your primary theme is convincing working poor people you can connect with them?

Hmm...is it safe to conclude those consultants have now been demoted to the turf-laying detail?

Please...!

[Photo: Don Carrington/Carolina Journal]

Real Leadership

2007-01-23T22:29:00.000-05:00

I love my uncle. He's got a lifetime of which he can be proud. A career devoted to teaching young adults how better to appreciate the world around them.

He still takes the time to try and improve my understanding of matters political. But on one thing he is just plain wrong - bless you, Norb. Drawing on all his conviction as a lifelong liberal, he declares that Bush is no leader.

I say my uncle is wrong.

Bush is every inch the leader. Full of strength and purpose. Sure of his direction. Filled with confidence. Never short of a word or gesture, with which to enroll others in his mission.

Now, he may be leading us all to heck in the wrong direction. But sure as there's a burr in his saddle, George Bush is most definitely leading.

And I'm sad to say that the entire crop of declared Democratic Candidates for the White House, taken all together, have barely one-half of the leadership material in them that George Bush does. And that should frighten any true progressive.

The reason why Jonny Nascar and Wynette Walmart voted for George in two elections is that they saw a man who strapped on his spurs, set off in a particular direction - daring all others to follow him - and then brought home the oil.

Jonny and Wynette look at the Democrats - 2000, 2004 and now - and all they see are a bunch of preening pompadours, more concerned with whether or not they are perceived as being fauxthentic, than with actually being authentic.

Sure, you have to listen. Certainly, you have to 'converse.' And it would be nice - John, and the others - if you would, just for once, get off the podium, and do that 'conversing' with some real people in some real-life situations.

But there comes a time when, finally, you have to lead. When you have to leave the focus groups behind.

Leaders do not do the safe thing. They do what they believe to be the right thing - regardless of popularity. And George Bush, for all of his many faults, does that very thing.

I know I've spent a lot of time doing a fair bit of knocking in the early days of this blog. Frankly, there's a lot to knock.

In coming weeks, I'm going to spend some time talking about me, and my own views as to how I would like to see our Democratic Candidates - and particularly John Edwards - doing their leading. It's no good constantly asking John to reveal his 'real' persona, without giving at least a glimpse of mine.

Here's something to chew on, in the meantime: we are all agreed (I hope) that 50 million people living in this country below the poverty line is an obscenity. It is a further obscenity that we are spending as much time and money as we are rebuilding a country the other side of the world, while we do so little about our own friends and neighbors.

I saw a bumper sticker the other day. It said: "The poor don't have health care - please mug my neighbor for the funds."

When did we stop being a nation of generous spirit and heart? When did we cease to be the country that asked the world to send us its poor and huddled masses?

When did we become a country that felt it deserved an economic policy based on greed; a social policy based on hatred; and a foreign policy based on revenge?

I don't buy this narrow-minded meanness, and I don't buy the narrow-minded people who are selling it to us. And I certainly won't stand by quietly while the collective response of our Democratic Candidates is to answer narrow-mindedness with small-mindedness.

We have spent some $400 billion on Iraq. A one per cent tax raise across the board, personal and corporate, would raise about $200 billion.

I am no great lover of indiscriminate government spending - after all, I began my own political journey to progressivism at the feet of Margaret Thatcher in England. But there comes a time when a wrong is just that - a wrong. And when even Blind Bertie can see that money will be needed to right that wrong.

It would take a bold Democrat to come out and propose a one per cent tax increase. But boldness - in the right direction for a change - is what this country needs at the moment. It's what 'real' people are crying out for.

The poor people that I know, and whom I am honored to call my friends, don't want charity. They don't want something for nothing. They want a helping hand; not a hand-out. A decent break; not a tax break. Is it really too much to ask? Is one per cent more really too much to ask?

If we learned anything from 2006, it is that the mood in this country has changed. More than half of Christian voters this time voted Democrat. Why? Because they finally got that American Family Values actually means taking care of all of America's Families - particularly those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to take care of themselves.

Let us finally treat our fellow voters with respect, and credit them with the intelligence of knowing that with good intentions comes a bill - and let's accept that a majority of the electorate is now ready to pay that bill.

Call it 'investment.' Call it 'audacity of hope.' Call it whatever you like. But we'll be calling it a pipe-dream if our Democratic Candidates - you too, John - don't start showing some sign of spine over the next two years.

Come 2008, mean spirit or no, Jonny and Wynette will vote Republican again if it's the only 'spirit' on offer. Mark my words.

A Raspberry to Reality

2007-01-23T10:27:00.000-05:00

Well. Today was the announcement of the Oscar nominations. Fittingly, on the same day as Dubya's State of the Union Address. Two heavily stage-managed events, both about aspects of human activity which require us to suspend belief.

Is it just me? Or does anyone else find that they are more likely, in the past year, to have watched the movies that have been nominated for Razzies, rather than those put up for Oscars?

Increasingly, the Oscar nominations are becoming obscure and eccentic. This year, there are nominations for people and movies I've never even heard of - and I go to the movies twice a week.

Is this one more example of all things 'Hollywood' simply being out of touch with real people?

You see, reality shows are all the rage on television. But they're not 'reality.' They're fake. They're massively stage-managed. We're too easily buying into Hollywood's concept of reality.

And I can't help but wonder, as all the big names are now announcing their runs for the White House, that we're about to buy into two years of fake 'Hollywood' political reality.

As Candidate vies with Candidate to prove how 'real' they are. All of them by way of photo-ops and catch-phrases that are as close to 'reality' as Donald Trump's hair - or Dubya's description of the state of this nation.

"W" = [W + (D-d)] x TQM x NA

2007-01-22T10:09:00.000-05:00

The secret is out! "Watch 9" (W9) has the exclusive on how George ("W") Bush came up with "The Surge."

Forget military Generals and Study Groups and the new Democratic Congress. "W" came across an obscure formula while reading his morning Intelligence Briefing - which, as we all know, is culled from a selection of English-language children's comics.

Apparently, on the back of this one Welsh comic was a story about a University of Cardiff lecturer, one Cliff Arnall, who had invented a formula which predicted that Monday, January 22 would be the most depressing day of 2007.

Well, of course, "W" instantly saw the connection. He knew that on January 23, in his State of the Union Address, he would be formally announcing the most depressing news of 2007 - his "New Direction" in Iraq.

So, "W" thought to himself, maybe the formula could both predict the most depressing day of the year, and help him to formulate the most depressing news?

Check out Arnall's formula for yourself, and see if "W" was right. The so-called formula itself looks like this - [W + (D-d)] x TQM x NA. All of the letters and symbols apparently represent a sort of mathematical code to track the following:

W: How bad the weather is at this time of year.

D: Amount of debt accumulated over the holidays minus how much is paid off.

T: The time since the holidays.

Q: Amount of time passed since New Year’s resolutions have gone south.

M: Our general motivation levels.

NA: The need to take action.

Uncanny isn't it...?

Action On Energy

2007-01-19T17:32:00.000-05:00

Hey John! Got your call to action on energy conservation and oil dependency today.

I agree with you that personal gestures are important. Taken together, they can have a big impact on a broader problem. Plus, they give a very clear indication of the 'real' mind-set of the person doing the talking.

So, I'm kinda wondering why all the talk around town is that you and Elizabeth gave yourselves a couple of John Deere run-arounds for Christmas?

Now, maybe they're just for show? Or perhaps you have some new gizmo out there in the country, that allows you to run those babies on moonshine?

I guess you could argue that, being as you live on a brand new plot of some 100 acres, there's a heap of work to be done, and you need to get around fast.

Oh but hush, that would sound like you think you deserve an extraordinary dispensation. Making you some sort of 'special interest.' Silly me, I'm sure you're not suggesting that.

Maybe, it's a case of one 'reality' for you, and another 'reality' for the rest of us? Well heck no. That would be "Two America's."

Well darn, now my head's spinning. I tell you what. Why don't you drop a line to the blog, and let us all know? Clearly, this "Man of the People" thing is more complicated than I thought...

The Peoples' Champion?: Part III

2007-01-15T10:37:00.001-05:00

Now, this is more like it.

In an interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC's "This Week," John talks about putting investment in people ahead of reducing the budget deficit.

It was always George Bush's plan to lumber succeeding administrations with an unwieldy deficit, in the hope that other politicians - and preferably Democrats - would then reduce federal social programs, in order to appease calls by the middle class to alleviate their tax burden.

On the face of it, John seems to have taken a bold stance, that sweeps away Bush's cynical ploy. And it may even put him at odds with fellow Democrats in charge of Congressional spending committees.

John is not suggesting an expansion of the deficit. Rather, that plans for its reduction should be put on hold.

The money that would have been used for deficit reduction is invested instead in housing, healthcare and targeted tax cuts, to help bring people above the poverty line.

Leaving aside the moral benefit to the nation of restoring dignity to millions of our neighbors and friends, this approach would help to make for a more productive economy, by enlarging both the labor force and the internal market.

Any corporation knows that you have to invest to grow. You don't confuse operational spending with capital investment.

Reducing the deficit in operational spending should remain a medium-term fiscal goal. But not at the expense of the economic and moral necessity of eliminating poverty in this country.

So, bully for you, John. Unless...this is just more campaign rhetoric.

You see, what John said during the ABC interview bears a striking resemblance to the language used by Tony Blair to defeat the British Conservative Party in 1997.

The political situation in Britain then was much the same as it is in the US now. The British people had been brainwashed for 18 years into believing that their economic health depended on continuing tax cuts.

Tony realized that he could only overcome the public's fear of more Labour "tax-and-spend" policies with a firm, immutable commitment by him not to increase taxes by so much as a penny.

However, Tony knew that money needed to be spent on modernizing the country's infrastructure, on re-training its workforce and on public services, to help those who could not help themselves.

So, he came up with this language about "Investing in People." He advanced the then novel notion that a government could run its finances like a corporation, and separate this capital investment from its operational spending. And thus not appear to be increasing either spending or taxes.

In large part, and to their cost, the British electorate discovered that Tony's words were so much empty rhetoric. And it is for this reason, much more than his tragic support for the War on Iraq, that Tony is now on the way out.

So, John. Are you playing the same game? Is this just rhetoric, or is it for real?

The Peoples' Champion?: Part II

2007-01-15T00:42:00.000-05:00

Wal-Mart is a classic target for Democrats who think they know what working people want.

With the best will in the world, these Democrats get it wrong because they are not talking to 'real' working people.

The working poor of this country could not survive without the cheap goods that Wal-Mart, and stores like it, provide. And John, if you talked to the 'real' working poor, you'd know this.

Let's get real here.

Wal-Mart does not close down stores. Shoppers who choose to shop elsewhere close down stores.

The benefits offered to workers by Wal-Mart are no worse than other grocery stores. The problem is not Wal-Mart; it is the system.

Small, independent stores are no better for workers than Wal-Mart. They pay less; they do not hire disabled workers; and they often do not offer any healthcare.

Trade Unions aren't interested in alleviating poverty. Without the working poor, there would be no need for Trade Unions.

The bottom line, John, is this: you're not listening to 'real' working people. I know you need Trade Union support in the Primaries. But bless your heart, Trade Unions are not 'real' working people.

If you want to know what 'real' working people think about Wal-Mart, why don't you get off the photo-op picket line, and go and ask some of the shoppers - or some of the people who actually work quite happily at Wal-Mart?

The Peoples' Champion?: Part I

2007-01-14T23:15:00.000-05:00

On one level, this photograph screams “The People!”

You have Sylvester Stallone, a peoples’ actor, famous for portraying that blue-collar hero, “Rocky.”

He’s waving to a crowd of the English working-class, at “The Peoples’ Club,” Everton.

This in the same week that it is announced that English soccer star David Beckham will be joining the Los Angeles Galaxy soccer team.

For the uninitiated, Beckham is one half of “Posh and Becks,” a couple who are regarded in England as being the “Peoples’ Royalty” – and that would be “Posh” Spice, by the way.

But then you look behind the arranged photo op, and smack yourself in the head when you realize that Stallone is an actor who made millions playing that make-believe blue-collar character. And he probably returned to a private box rather than the public stands.

Everton is a filthy-rich soccer club, which stopped being a genuine working-class football club a long time ago.

Beckham will be receiving $250 million for the pleasure of kicking a ball around in Los Angeles. And “Posh” Spice hasn’t been ‘real’ since she got the boob job.

None of them is any more representative of “The People” than George Bush is. Once again, smoke and mirrors have us almost convinced that Hollywood ‘real’ is actual reality. And that brings me right back to John's Campaign.

You have to be very careful when you hold yourself out to be a "Man of the People." Pre-arranged photo ops, open-neck shirts and vaguely-worded speeches are no substitute for genuinely staying in touch with ‘real’ people - every day.

You can only truly understand what ‘real’ working people want if you make yourself regularly available to ‘real’ working people – at their level, in their space and on their time-scale.

And if you can’t do this during an Election Campaign, then what hope is there that you can do it when you get to the White House?

...The Big Sleeper

2007-01-13T11:47:00.000-05:00

Al Gore.

Will he, won't he?

Al is a great big teddy bear of a conundrum. Overweight. Sometimes shaggy. Still wooden and intense. And pretty much always flaky.

Yet, for all of that, ordinary people feel like they know him. They've seen him weather the storms. They sense he is genuine. That he just let's it all hang out. And they understand that he doesn't care whether or not they like his message - so long as they get that it's honest.

I get a headache trying to factor Al into the equation. So, I go outside, clear my head, and wait to see what happens. And one word comes crashing through.

Integrity.

And that's the 2008 Democratic Nomination and Presidential Election right there. If Al wants them, he's got both.

If Al enters the Democratic Primaries, he will win. But I'm not sure that he will enter them. Remember, he backed out in 1988 and in 1992. He really doesn't like the scrum.

If Al doesn't enter the Primaries, and there is a hung Convention between John, Hillary and Barack (as I predict), then frantic delegates will turn to Al to save them.

And if Al is the Democratic Nominee, he will beat whoever the Republicans put up. Period.

The Dreamy Team

2007-01-13T11:10:00.000-05:00

So. Hillary will bomb in the Southern Primaries, leaving the field clear for John and Barack.

Barack has some pull with the African-American vote, but not as much as people think.

Ordinary African-Americans would be the first to smack a pundit around the head, and remind him that Caucasians don't just knee-jerk vote Caucasian. They vote for the individual and their policies. So, why should African-Americans be any different?

John has worked long and hard to court Trade Union support. This will be crucial in getting out votes in the Industrial North, and states such as Nevada, which has an important early Primary.

Barack comes out slightly ahead of John on charisma, but John wins hands down on organization.

He has built up a superb effort through two national campaigns, and his work with the Center for Poverty at the University of North Carolina. And at the end of the day, getting out the votes will make the difference.

I predict that John and Barack will do equally well in the South. They both have their differing strengths in the North. But John will tip the balance in places like Florida and the West, and will come out ahead.

Finally, I predict that, for all of this, there will be a hung Democratic Convention in 2008. John will only just pip Barack. And Hillary will still have gathered a large enough stack of delegates that there will be no overall winner on the first ballot.

Hillary, however, will never agree to be a Vice-Presidential Nominee - she has way too much pride. Besides, she has an alternative path to power as the next Democratic Majority Leader in the Senate.

So, the Convention will finally rally around its "Dreamy Team": "Bobby" John and "Baritone" Barack - in that order. Unless...

Barack, Hollywood and Coke

2007-01-13T10:49:00.001-05:00

Oh give me a break on Barack and coke!

Ordinary people beg every day to be represented by politicians who understand what it is to be ordinary.

Regular people know that 'real' people have flaws. And that often, great flaws go with great characters.

Working stiffs laugh and cry, hurt and mend, cheat and make up - and they do alcohol and drugs, and anything else they can find, to help make what they see as the indignity of their daily lives a little more bearable.

It's not that regular folks don't mind if their politicians have ordinary flaws, just like them; they positively want them to have ordinary flaws, just like them. They want to know that they have representatives who truly 'get' their hurt.

It is only the professional Washington pundits who expect political candidates to walk off the pages of a Hollywood script.

So, give Barack a break. He's showing himself to be a 'real' person.

I'm more concerned that both of the books he has written play on their association with "Dreams." Is this genuine? Or a focus group ploy to tie himself subliminally to the American Dream, and to Martin Luther King's famous speech?

The people of this country are sick and tired of 'politics as usual.' They are fed up with plastic persona and policies that pander rather than paint a bold vision. They are thirsty for someone who, through his words and his experiences, can blaze a trail that gives them hope that things might actually be a little bit better tomorrow.

Barack, I will say only this: if you hold yourself out as the African-American Kennedy, and you then turn out to be a charlatan, the people will never forgive you. Whether you win or lose, do not let us down!

The "H-Bomb"?

2007-01-13T10:17:00.000-05:00

Time to consider some of John's serious Presidential opponents. My first prediction: Hillary will enter the race, and she will bomb in the South.

Her first problem will be sex. And I don't mean gender; I mean sex. Gender was a plus. It gave her an edge over all her other baggage, with the 'what if' factor. "Er, I'm not really sure I like her...but hey...a female President - that could be cool!" She has now lost the 'what if' factor to Barack.

For all the talk of a 'New South,' when it comes to male-female relationships, regular boys and girls down here still pretty much follow the script in "Gone With The Wind." Working men do what they do, and their women keep quiet. I don't agree with it. But any honest pundit knows it's true.

Ordinary folk - both men and women - just smirk at the thought of Bill getting 'serviced' in the White House. But they cringe at the memory of Hillary's stern not-so-private remonstrations. It makes them feel uncomfortable.

Guys won't want to flirt at the water-fountain. Gals will start wondering what their men are doing at the water-fountain. And all of them will blame Hillary for their itchiness.

Next problem for Hillary: Southerners held their noses and voted for Al Gore in Democratic Primaries in 2000, because he was at least nominally Southern. They held their nose for John Kerry in 2004, because he was former military. Not even Bill will get them to do it for Hillary.

She'll do ok in Iowa. Cream New Hampshire. And will then bomb for the first time in South Carolina.

She'll pick up her skirts, and move onto the Mid-West. And places North and West. But she will then bomb for a second and final time when the circus swings South again.

And once people see that a Clinton can lose, Hillary will nose-dive for the remainder of the Primaries. She will not win the Democratic nomination in 2008. The field will be left to John and Barack.

Stood Up @ The Stand Up

2007-01-13T10:02:00.000-05:00

And so...

No John! Not even a funny story in the e-mail!

To be fair, he might have been scared off by the possibility of an NSA satellite overhead his homebase. But everyone knows. All of George's satellites are currently over Chicago, trying to work out if that's actually dandruff on Barack's blazer lapel!

Boom, boom! And we had much more of the same last night at the DSI Comedy Theater in John's home town. It was a pity John did not accept my invitation and turn up. He missed out on some good, clean fun with some of his regular working neighbors.

I don't care so much for myself. There will be other opportunities. I just felt bad for the audience, who were well aware that John had found the time to do Hollywood with Jay Leno earlier in the week.

Ah well. And so the reality show of politics continues. While this blog will continue to try to find the actual reality...

My thanks to Zach and DSI for being great hosts, and to the audience for just being great!

'Dear John' Letter

2007-01-07T17:26:00.000-05:00

What follows is an open 'Dear John' letter I have just e-mailed to John:

"Dear John,
I will shortly be posting this invitation on my new blog – http://www.watch9.blogspot.com/ - but I wanted you to receive it first.

As a consequence of my new blog, I have been invited to be the guest this Friday (January 12) of DSI Comedy Theater (http://dsicomedytheater.com/), on stage, at their home base, in our home town of Carrboro-Chapel Hill.

It occurs to me that the only reason I have been invited is because of you, and in fact, you should be a co-guest. So, I am making this open invitation to you to appear with me this Friday, at 9.00pm, on stage.

As explained to me, the format is that the special guests (you and me; or me on my own, if you don't want to come) tell personal stories and anecdotes inspired by audience suggestion, and DSI members then improvise comic scenes based on the stories we tell. This will last from 9.00pm to 10.30pm. And the show will feature about 5-6 stories, each with an average length of 2 minutes.

I've been having a little fun at your expense. Here is your opportunity to have a little fun at mine. Plus, you can prove to all the world that you have a human side that goes with the political. Most of the audience and the actors are ordinary working stiffs, the very people with whom you hope to connect.

In the event you genuinely can not attend, why not send me a true but funny story about yourself, which I promise to read to the audience as you send it to me. Of course, we may have to have a little fun in your absence as well...but I will read out the story word for word.

What about it, John? Let me know.

Your continuing friend and supporter,
Geoff Gilson"

Oops!

2007-01-07T00:45:00.000-05:00

Not everyone will agree with what I say, nor the way in which I say it. However, those who know me know that I always act with professionalism and courtesy.

I have things I want to say, and I want to begin a conversation about them through the medium of this blog. And I want to do that actively rather than passively - which is the way I do most of the things in my life!

However, I am new to this discipline of blogging. I am not an idiot, but I do not know all the ways of the blogosphere. So help me.

Write to me privately or openly, and share with me the best way to continue this conversation in a fashion that is widely inclusive, but which does not breach web etiquette and offend other bloggers.

I know I may already have upset one or two of you with the manner in which I announced my arrival. And for that I apologize. With your help, I will get better.

For those of you for whom that is not enough...sorry, I ain't going away!

The "Pro Bona Fides" Challenge

2007-01-05T11:11:00.000-05:00

The charge has been made, perhaps unfairly, that while making his fortune at tort law, John Edwards did no "pro bono" work for the poor.

My challenge to John now is to set that record straight by agreeing to take The "Pro Bona Fides" Challenge. To establish his "bona fides" as a true champion of the poor.

I challenge John to ask that every member of his Campaign - including Elizabeth and Cate - take a moment out of every day of the Campaign to engage in an act of kindness towards someone who is disadvantaged.

Stop and listen to a street busker; make a telephone call for someone seeking help from a social agency; go and visit a senior citizen who is living on their own.

Sure, it will take time away from the Campaign. But that's the point. This is supposed to be a Campaign of action, as well as ideas.

If, John, you don't like the expression "Pro Bona Fides" Challenge, what about The "Helping Hand" Challenge?

Frankly, you can choose whatever name you like. I'm not looking for credit. I'm just looking for you to use the opportunity of your national Campaign to start a chain reaction of active good neighborliness. That's all. What about it?

The Real Thing?

2007-01-04T22:49:00.000-05:00

Look, I truly want to believe in you, John. Honest. I do. But one question more than any other keeps nagging at me: are you the real thing? Or do you just talk the talk?

Here’s the deal. You have made the plight of the poor a central plank of your Campaign for the Presidency. No-one forced you to do this. It was your choice. And in my opinion, rightly so.

There is no greater stain on the moral fabric of America than the 50 million of our friends and neighbors who find themselves, through no fault of their own, living below the poverty line (according to the Luxembourg Income Study).

You ask us to ignore the apparent disconnect between your fight against poverty and your multimillion-dollar house; the distance between your "humble beginnings" in a mill town and your life now, after a lucrative law career.

You urge us instead to focus on your statement that your Campaign is not just about garnering votes for yourself; it is about taking action to help the disadvantaged – even before we get to any vote-tallying.

Sounds great. But then, I’m not for one moment doubting your ability to talk a great game. You're a highly successful tort lawyer. You ought to be right up their with the very best talkers.

However, John, I can't help feeling that we’ve been here before.

Two years ago (ironically, the same amount of time left before Decision ’08), you helped to form the Center for Poverty at the University of North Carolina, here in Chapel Hill.

At that time, you promised that you were genuinely concerned with the plight of the poor, and that the Center was not merely a platform to kick-start your eventual bid for the Presidency in 2008.

Yet I’m left wondering exactly what the Center or you have done in the past two years “about taking action to help the disadvantaged.” As opposed to, say, just talking about it? Or traveling around the country, building a Campaign organization…?

To borrow a line…I know the working poor. I’m one of them. They are my friends. And you John…hmm…is it fair to say that you still have a tad more to prove? And it’ll take more than words to do it?

John, you have two years. You can spend that time genuinely helping the poor - both specifically and in general. Making bold proposals, pushing for far-reaching action, doing the right thing. Even if it means taking risks.

Or you can stick to talking, finding photo ops, and doing the safe thing. Simply using the poor as a vote-getting platform; a means to ensure trade union support. The choice, John, and the challenge are yours.

In the meantime, I'll be here, asking the tough questions of you...and poking a little fun. With a ton of good-nature – and my very own brand of English charm.

All the while making sure that Campaign John ’08 produces the action that maybe Center John ’04 didn’t. Making sure that you, John, prove yourself to be a genuine friend of the poor, both during your Campaign, and when you get to the White House. Making sure that you keep it real. Ok?

Homecoming Idol

2007-01-03T10:17:00.000-05:00

And so John Edwards, America’s very own Political Idol, returned home to a hero’s welcome, after one of the longest and most exhausting temperature-gauging exercises in modern political history.

John’s self-described ‘homecoming rally’ last Saturday in Chapel Hill, North Carolina was all noise and spectacle. Perhaps too much spectacle, and not enough substance – as some have said of John himself? Oh hush. We hadn’t come to cast doubt. We were there to see our Presidential Poster Boy.

John didn’t disappoint. With his inexhaustible energy, he played every role to the hilt: Quarterback Heartthrob, Prom King, School Council President and Debating Champion - he even found time to be his own master of ceremonies.

Indeed, he’s been doing a pretty good impersonation of American Idol’s master of ceremonies, Ryan Seacrest, the past few months. Always coy. Always ready to announce the decision…but not until after the next commercial break! Come to think of it, wasn’t all that all just a contrived media ploy as well…oops, there I go again!

Now, if John is Ryan, does that mean that as the resident English-American acid humorist in Chapel Hill, I’m Simon Cowell? And Hillary is Paula Abdul? And Barack is Randy Johnson? More to the point, when the knock-out voting is all said and done, will John be the one left standing at the Democratic Convention in 2008? Will the audience like him? Does he have enough ‘oomph’ to go all the way?

Maybe John’s a shade too Democratic Lite? All pop ’n polls. But no real heart ’soul. More Clay Aiken than James Brown? But is this fair? John has devoted himself tirelessly these past two years to championing the cause of the disadvantaged in society. However, has this too been an oh-so-careful calculation, designed to tie up the support of the always-important trade union organizing effort during the primary campaign? Call in with your vote…

Granted, the media have Hillary and Barack as the early heavyweight favorites. But John is outrunning every Democratic Candidate in the polls in Iowa, where the first caucuses will be held in 2008. The people there must know something? Hmm. Maybe all they know is that John, who’s been out of any elected office since 2004, has had enough time on his hands to make almost as many political appearances in Iowa as their now-declared Governor, Tom Vilsack.

Oh wash my mouth, and bless my heart! We’d gathered to have a party. Not to ask questions. All hail the conquering hero! Mind you, I’m not sure what he’s conquered yet. But no matter. Pass me a balloon. What was that, dear? Oh don’t be silly. Of course, he’s not going to put out a swimsuit calendar! Then again…?

A Tale of Two Hills

2006-12-22T00:02:00.000-05:00

England has David Cameron and Notting Hill. Here in America, we have John Edwards and Chapel Hill - currently my home town in North Carolina.

Both politicians affect a concern for the less fortunate. David talks of Compassionate Conservatism; John of Two Americas - the one rich, the other poor.

John Edwards will shortly be announcing his candidacy for the Democratic Presidential Nomination in 2008. He will be doing so from the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans, the area worst affected by Hurricane Katrina. He tells all and sundry that this is reflective of his genuine concern for the poor in society.

However, what might be more reflective is where he has situated his new Campaign Headquarters: a suburban village in Chapel Hill, which I have lovingly christened the Upper Ninth. As in the houses you can buy there reach into the Upper $900K's; or the average income is in the Upper Ninth percentile of all Americans...

The HQ itself occupies the upper floor of what can only be described as a luxurious faux rendition of the sort of Mediterranean villa you might find in the smarter parts of Palm Beach, Florida.

The moral, I guess, is: beware politicians who affect concern for an issue, but then have a lifestyle that belies that affected concern.

We have an abundance of that in Chapel Hill, where the 'progressives' tend to be what we call Merlot Democrats. There used to be an equivalent in England - the Glenda Jackson, Hampstead set of Champagne Socialists. Have they been overtaken by the Cameron, Notting Hill set of Beaujolais Tories?