Centerfield

John Edwards is in, and will be making his announcement Thursday from Ward 9 in New Orleans, the hardest hit area during the Katrina disaster

Puuulllllheeeessss!!! Give me a break. Someone needs to tell him that neither GW Bush nor Michael Brown nor Michael Chertoff is running. Posted by: c3 at December 27, 2006 05:56 PM

I must agree with Chris.

Edwards wants to represent the downtrodden and middle class to politically offset his too-smooth fluffy image. A case of keeping it real. He has little in the way of convincing strategy on foreign policy, nor does he offer details to his domestic proposals. Although he is a likeable guy, Katrina, like his comments lately on Iraq, seems fishing for a base and that knee-jerk reaction to run against Bush. Bush ain’t running.

The Middle wants an impressive energy policy, systemic medical insurance reform, pragmatic education reform, and coherent immigration and homeland security policies.

Independents want a strategy abroad that at least has a chance of success on paper with bold initiatives that puts partners, adversaries and existing international agreements on the spot.

Posted by: Maxtrue at December 27, 2006 06:41 PM

John Edwards has always represented the downtrodden...at 40% of the jury award, plus expenses. Of course.

Posted by: Tully at December 27, 2006 07:16 PM

Wow! You guys are bitter. God forbid a politician take up issues in defense of the poor. He must be doing it to get elected, because advocating for people that for the most part don't vote is such a hot button issue that gets so many politicians elected.

It isn't as if he is opposing tax cuts.... Gessh.

The Middle wants an impressive energy policy, systemic medical insurance reform, pragmatic education reform, and coherent immigration and homeland security policies.

Thank you for speaking for the middle. That is a good list, despite the fact that it lacks details and liberals and conservatives can argue the same exact thing. I think the center has to bring up those issues that aren't on the agenda, but should be, and find fresh and new solutions to old problems that both parties have simply ignored... Fixing Social Security and fighting poverty both come to mind.

Let's not forget that Edwards had a DLC policy staff that in some ways came up with some fresh approaches on various issues in 2004. Granted, his shift to the left should raise questions, but it is interesting to me that he has taken up a cause that elected officials outside of the innner city stay away from. Furthermore, I think someone who grew up poor like Huckabee, Vilsack, or Edwards and became rich and/or powerful may be some of the best advocates for the disadvanataged. If you care about those issues, and I do, those candidacies are at least worth looking into.

Posted by: Mathew at December 27, 2006 07:39 PM

John Edwards has always represented the downtrodden...at 40% of the jury award, plus expenses. Of course.

I assume this is tongue in cheek. I am not one to come to the defense of the legal industry, but let's just say that we all agree issues regarding the impoverished deserve to be at the center of the national campaign in 2008. Wouldn't the best person to be doing the arguing on behalf of the disadvantaged be those individuals who have actually defended them? Like his trial lawyer past or hate it, if you care about those issues, there are two current prospects for President that have the background to actually talk about them:

1. Barack Obama as a community organizer;
2. John Edwards as a trial lawyer;

and maybe to a lesser extent;

3. Tom Vilsack as someone who grew up poor and tackled those issues as Governor, and;
4. Mike Huckabee (same as Vilsack).

Now out of those four, who is the most likely to be President?

Posted by: Mathew at December 27, 2006 07:47 PM

I assume this is tongue in cheek.

Nope.

Wouldn't the best person to be doing the arguing on behalf of the disadvantaged be those individuals who have actually defended them?

Plaintiff's attorneys don't do defense. Edwards defended no one. He prosecuted deep-pocket defendants in civil court for 40% of the award--plus expenses. He was notable for his psychic channeling of the deceased, and for ignoring science in favor of rhetoric. He got rich doing it. At 40% plus expenses.

Tom Vilsack as someone who grew up poor

Vilsack didn't grow up poor. He grew up in a solidly upper-middle class family, and went to a fairly exclusive liberal prep school in Pittsburgh. Not his bad that he was denied the joys of childhood poverty, of course. I certainly don't hold that against him. :-)

Hucakabee grew up in a working-class blue-collar family, but not poor. And Barack Obama was reportedly a hard-working community organizer for three years. Kudos to him--it's discouraging work and he did it for three years.

Posted by: Tully at December 27, 2006 08:55 PM

I don't think supporting McCain is a good idea. HE is the republican version of Hillary. Pandering to the max.
Giulliani is okay for a republican
Edwards I don't feel good about or trust. He is kind of fake. Really fake.
Right now I am supporting my senator, Obama if he gets in.

Posted by: vwcat at December 27, 2006 09:44 PM

I just had to respond to tully. Yes, Obama has the reputation for hard work. He was known as a very hard worker and a brainy policy wonk in the state. He has done a good job for us in the US Senate.
I guess that is why I don't really trust Edwards. I've been told by several NC dems that he began running the minute he got elected to the senate and did not do a very good job or much work there.
Quite the opposite of Obama.

Posted by: vwcat at December 27, 2006 09:48 PM

What Tully said. I didn't take a swipe at Obama, but he has shown little passion for serious real time security issues. For me he is still an unknown. Katrina is a makeover for Edwards into a public defender, which he was not.

As far as the downtrodden, it should be clear poverty is the result of major issues not being resolved by either party. Poverty isn't a disease you can cure with a magic bullet.

When "I" speak for a middle, I am talking about an economic and political middle. To start a business you need to curb the insurance and energy costs. The Middle Class certainly grows during times of economic expansion and opportunity. Our economic engine runs on energy, educated employees, open markets, robust R&D, affordable housing and medical insurance. I didn't know that centrists had demoted energy policy (which includes global warming /environmental issues and the Middle East), or insurance reform, domestic security and education. These issues ARE most important and need to be removed from the bi-polar butchering they have endured for a decade now. Maybe centrists can do this. I would argue that new national works programs (those projects of critical national importance) along with an enlarged military, increasing the alternative energy sector, building a border fence, expanding education/trade assistance, funding our natural disaster recovery can collectively add to the options out of poverty. I've even argued a national service program could help too.

As I said, poverty is a symptom of a system not working to its potential (apart from the chronic poverty). There is no reason why poverty can't be reduced without socialism. I think Edwards and others imply this without calling it "socialism". The poor are "entitled" to what? This is certainly a huge debate. To advocate the redistribution of wealth to remedy systemic disadvantage is reactionary as far as I am concerned. I am not however, talking about continuing to subsidize the rich through tax breaks. We need to make jobs, lower urban violence and weed out those who refuse to be productive from those who can't catch a break. To take up the “political” issue of poverty “in itself” is inherently disingenuous. It is just one-step ahead of Sharpton wearing race. Who doesn't want poor to be better off? The richer the poor are, the more consumer crap they buy. Poverty is a productivity-downer. Comparing Katrina to an American paradigm of poverty is disingenuous too. It implies Republicans create poverty, as though Bush created Katrina. Didn't God played a role? LOL When I see this stuff, I know ideas are very hard to come by, DLC staffers or not..

None of the four you listed will be President in 2008 (my foolish opinion). I see none as inherently a champion of the poor, though I may be wrong. I think Bill Clinton has made a far stronger case that he feels the pain of racism and poverty than any of the four listed.

I wasn't being bitter. I am cynical of champions of the Middle Class. These are no Mr. Smiths. Perhaps election reform could change this.

Posted by: Maxtrue at December 27, 2006 10:33 PM

Edward's defended no one.

I guess that depends on how you define defense. Again, no fan of those in Edwards' former profession, that doesn't mean they are all the spawn of the anti-Christ. The whole Edward's is an evil trial lawyer rhetoric is a little Bill O'Relly Fox Newsish for a centrist blog.

My knowledge about Huckabee and Vilsack is little, but I always have heard them promoted as a rags to riches story, that of course doesn't mean it is true. Whether it is or not, they both articulate positions on issues relating to poverty, which is the opposite of what most do in either party.

I didn't take a swipe at Obama, but he has shown little passion for serious real time security issues.

I guess I am confused as to what real passion for real time security issues is? I personally am not "passionate" about security issues, but I understand them and get that they are important. Newt Gingrich shows passion for security issues, but he also happens to be wrong about them a good portion of the time. Shouldn't we want to elect somebody that will be smart about security issues?

As far as the downtrodden, it should be clear poverty is the result of major issues not being resolved by either party. Poverty isn't a disease you can cure with a magic bullet.

Yeah, that's my point.

There is no reason why poverty can't be reduced without socialism. I think Edwards and others imply this without calling it "socialism".

That is the oldest scare tactic in the book. They are for helping the poor, that means they must be socialists. I do think there is a bigger role government can play but don't disagree that either party hasn't done an adequate job of defining what that role is.

and weed out those who refuse to be productive from those who can't catch a break.

Sounds like that magic bullet you were talking about, and good luck with that... You tell me how that is done and who gets to decide and I will be all for it.

To take up the “political” issue of poverty “in itself” is inherently disingenuous.

Couldn't that be said about any issue? Take security. Don't we all want American's to be secure? I don't think Al Sharpton is disingenuous. I think he is dead wrong most of the time, but that doesn't mean he doesn't believe in what he is doing. Based on your logic you can basically label anybody who disagrees with you as only advocating their issues because they want to get elected. That's pretty convenient.

Katrina to an American paradigm of poverty is disingenuous too.

Oh please, are you trying to tell me that if the same people who lived in Beverly Hills lived in New Orleans that the government services provided would have been the same? Or the lack of preperation would have existed to the extent that it did? There IS a difference in how we protect those who are rich and those who are poor, personally being involved in emergency management planning at the local level and working for the Feds during Katrina at HHS, the difference has been made plainly clear at least to me.

These are no Mr. Smiths.

Your point is understood, but I am still going to keep hoping.

Posted by: Mathew at December 28, 2006 01:44 AM

Make no mistake about Edwards' motives; as in all his trials, he is in it for himself, plain and simple. He has made a career out of using the suffering of others to promote himself, and this is just another example.

Posted by: Justin at December 28, 2006 07:37 AM

Jay, off to work so I don't become downtrodden. I will respond this evening. Until then keep your shirt on.

Posted by: Maxtrue at December 28, 2006 08:14 AM

I'm sorry, Mathew.

Jay would have probably agreed with me.LOL.

Again, Jay, keep your shirt on and we can argue later. Maybe by then Edwards (who I actually like) will have turned to religion.

Posted by: Maxtrue at December 28, 2006 08:19 AM

The whole Edward's is an evil trial lawyer rhetoric is a little Bill O'Relly Fox Newsish for a centrist blog.

Puh-lease, Mathew. I didn't call him evil, every word I said was fact not rhetoric, and trying to shade me as O'Reillyish for stating facts is the very end-run rhetoric you're (falsely) claiming I'm using. Plus, are you saying that statements of fact on "centrist" blogs must be shaded to some form of centristic PC'ism? Heh. I'll give Edwards this--of the list you offered, he's the one who comes closest to having come from poverty.

There IS a difference in how we protect those who are rich and those who are poor, personally being involved in emergency management planning at the local level and working for the Feds during Katrina at HHS, the difference has been made plainly clear at least to me.

I've been deeply involved in local emergency response and management for a couple of decades, AND worked both Louisiana-bound resource dispatch and local relief for Katrina victims, and seem to have missed seeing that. Do elucidate. Both the rich and poor in New Orleans suffered from the same lack of LOCAL preparations and implementation.

Oh please, are you trying to tell me that if the same people who lived in Beverly Hills lived in New Orleans that the government services provided would have been the same? Or the lack of preperation would have existed to the extent that it did?

Bad example. If the people who live in B-Hills lived in New Orleans, they might have PAID for better LOCAL emergency planning. Or maybe just prevented the corrupt siphoning-off of their LOCAL emergency mgmt funding into the pockets of the LOCALLY favored. Or, maybe not--for the most part those rich people in B-Hills piggyback on LA County for almost all emergency services outside of police and fire. No crime there--B-Hills is only about 35K population and they pay their share of county taxes. It's not a big city like NOLA. Lastly, the B-Hills population is not all rich. Most of it isn't, and there's poverty there as well.

After a couple o' decades in LOCAL emergency services in medium to large cities I get pretty tired of people bitching that the feds are supposed to wave a magic wand to instantly fix their own LOCAL lack of proper planning and first response infrastructure.

Posted by: Tully at December 28, 2006 12:50 PM

Matthew;

God forbid a politician take up issues in defense of the poor.

I'm all for a full discussion of how to address poverty but to do that in N.O. brings in so much extra baggage, not just at a national level but at a local and state level. Lousiana and New Orleans politicians certainly have well addressed poverty!!

Now having said all that, and while I only heard snippets of the speech, I'm intrigued by his emphasis on community volunteerism as a way to help themselves. Its a very mixed message and one that gets more mixed up by coming out of the 9th Ward. I mean consider, how long should the government "keep" hurricane victims in rented trailers? Should the government allow folks to move back into flood prone areas? And if they move back in, who will be responsible for the next hurricane's aftermath? Is there a coherent message here or just "themes"?

Posted by: c3 at December 28, 2006 03:22 PM

Edwards is a good showman (or he wouldn't have gotten rich as a trial attorney) but his brand of populist demagoguery is a wee bit transparent for my tastes. For example, whining about finger-pointing being part of the problem while finger-pointing, as Edwards was doing with New Orleans. He's recycling his "Two Americas" theme.

By all means, let's help the poor. Let's just quit using them as a bloody shirt. Edwards gave a rousing speech, but the semantic content of it was nil and it was full of contradictions. The setting, of course, was picked for poking emotional buttons.

Posted by: Tully at December 28, 2006 06:25 PM

Then there's the company he keeps, but that's not a substantive policy criticism at all.

Posted by: Tully at December 28, 2006 08:13 PM

Mathew,
Sorry to show up late. Edwards is indeed a good showman. He is a likeable guy. I agree with Chris. Katrina is a whole bag of worms that involves failed Democratic and Republican leadership. I don’t think Republicans told the poor to reside in the path of disaster, nor do I think they built faulty dikes.

I am not saying Edwards is a phony, but he is trying to change his image and appeal to BOTH the poor and Middle Class. His speech rambled and gave no real details. He talked about global warming and didn’t mention that Bush has declared Polar Bears are at risk from global warming. With huge deficits, an ongoing global war with extremists, containing our prior adversaries, reforming our energy policy, rebuilding infrastructure, - hell, I don't know where Edwards thinks he can find the cash. Clinton saw a growing economy provide growing revenue. That seems the secret to improving the plight of the poor.

What I was saying above was that supplying opportunities can separate the productive from the chronically dysfunctional. It is not a magic bullet, but rather a door. Making our economy regain strength and educating our workforce for tomorrow's jobs are the most pragmatic way to decrease poverty. Edward's call for universal healthcare follows what model? I have a right to bring up the socialism card. Social Security won't last forever, either. I see Edwards would tax Big Oil. He’ll close loopholes and support increases to the minimum wage. Stock politics if you ask me. His ideas seem to rely on community service (good, but of questionable impact) and the redistribution of wealth. If one is serious about poverty, one has to address the economic dynamics that excludes the poor.

If one wants better security, one has to identify security threats and have a realistic plan to deal with them. It does little to simply lament dangers and claim one is FOR SECURITY. So Edwards takes off the suit and does his Mr. Smith impersonation. I am sure he is sincere to the degree he wants to be elected. He wants to connect his telegenic manner with populism. I just don't buy it. I sense Edwards is looking to siphon off some of Hillary's (or Obama's) black vote and tap the antiwar crowd. He wants to be one of us and Oprah is not far off. It may be smart politics but seems transparent to me. I like him better than Kerry or Gore.

It will be hard to expand government after the Bush years. so I am cautious about how government expands. Perhaps, energy reform, security and education might be an acceptable start. Healthcare needs a unique balance between private providers and government. Even diplomacy is a delicate balance between self-interest and practicality. I see Edwards and others slip into ideology to score points. More of the flip flopping and pandering, though Edwards is not the worst offender.

I said Obama lacks passion about national security. The next President will have to be very passionate about strong US leadership before 2008. I can just picture Edwards staring down Putin. The next several years is going to take some tough negotiating and resolve. I get the feeling most candidates could care less about Islamists getting run out of Somalia, or the crisis in Lebanon and Gaza. Edwards ran in 2004 on a plank of keeping Iran from getting the bomb. Does he retract that too? He has not been very vocal about missile defense, Sudan, the Chinese Navy, EU abandonment of Afghanistan, Chavez, or even the Democratic retreat by Putin. I think his remark about one being Patriotic about something besides our military misses the point. An amnesty without border security, closing Markets, retreating from conflict and blaming Republicans for the results of Katrina doesn't seem so patriotic to me. I have to agree with Tully. I wish Edwards would start sounding like a heavy weight and act like he has a bold plan to change things. Unfortunately, I just see a showman trying to generate some hype by broadening his appeal to the Democratic base. Good politics, but too pandering for my taste. The weakness of the field is his present advantage.

Posted by: Maxtrue at December 28, 2006 09:15 PM

My views on Edwards haven't changed. IMHO, he lost in 2004, and will lose in 2008 because he doesn't yet understand executive leadership or, even, really, our system and the world. He needs more seasoning as a governor or running a law firm or something.

Yeah, JFK ran pretty young, too, but JFK had alot more seasoning. He was in the House for three terms first. He'd also already won a second term as Senator before running for President.

More significantly, he'd already been a war vet under fire (PT-109), and had to learn to live with two different disablements - Addison's Disease and a back injury from PT-109 - which also gave him alot of time and character to read. Before these things happened, he seems to've been pretty much another playboy.

I'd probably vote for him for Senator (of course, I'd vote for Spot over Sen Cornyn, sigh).

Posted by: Jon Kay at December 29, 2006 01:10 PM

Thanks for the remarks about Mike Huckabee. We think you are right. We'd like to invite you to visit our blog to learn more about him, and why he is the right person to lead America in 2008.

http://www.mikehuckabeepresident2008.blogspot.com

Regards,

BSR

Posted by: BSR at December 29, 2006 11:01 PM