John Edwards and poverty: love the message, kill the messenger

[Squigglenob]

Today in the Washington Post, E.J. Dionne looks at the Democratic candidates and confirms that a new populist message is taking hold:

Quietly, a new anti-poverty consensus — reflected in the dueling speeches Edwards and Obama gave this week — is being born. It stresses personal and parental responsibility while also addressing economic changes that are promoting inequality. It seeks to deal with the growing isolation of the poor, the need for early intervention in the lives of poor children and the importance of increasing the economic rewards for what is now low-wage work.

This is the correct path to take–building the foundations of a stronger working class through better pay, better working conditions, more protections for families and emphasis on responsibility, personal pride, and ambition as a virtue rather than vice. And Dionne acknowledges what the Times' Robin Toner pointed out earlier–that Obama and Clinton are taking their cues from Edwards in sharpening their focus on economic issues.

So, here's the question: If Edwards is the clear leader and thinker on these issues, why is he still trailing so far behind in the polls and fundraising?

The first answer is simple... read more at Scholars & Rogues

[Demeter]

1. Because We Want Hillary and Obama To Run Interference

Let them catch all the crap from the MSM and the GOP, and retire bloody, beaten and bowed, so that Edwards has the field clear for a touchdown.

[goodgd_yall]

2. Corporations have TREMENDOUS power

and many voting Americans, including Democrats, are in denial of how widespread poverty is in this country. Edwards is still the only candidate of the top tier that is stressing the message of poverty in America, not Clinton or Obama.

[frazzled]

3. There's a presupposition in your question

Namely, that "Edwards is the clear leader and thinker on these issues."

I'm not sure everyone would agree with that part of your statement. Some may feel that while Edwards clearly has been talking about these issues a lot, that he may not have walked the issues as well as, say, a Clinton, who has been engaged in the issues for many decades (back in Arkansas, in the WH, and as a Senator) or an Obama, who actually worked in impoverished communities as an organizer, or a Richardson, who as governor of a state has had to deal directly with issues of poverty. What I'm saying is that talking, taking tours, and issuing policy statements is not always the only barometer that people use in judging whether a candidate is "leading" on a particular issue. It's also not the only issue, either, which could explain some things in regard to your question about trailing.

[Ken Burch]

8. If Hillary cared about the poor, she'd have divorced Bill for sigining Rush Limbaugh's welfare bill.

Instead, she said nothing as Bill abandoned the poor forever, and then didn't gain a single vote for doing it.

Nobody who can still defend the signing of that act has any right to claim they feel compassion towards the poor. It was based on a lie and hurt millions of people who had done nothing wrong. And it's sickening that DLC'ers still brag about it.

[1932]

4. One of these guys is going to be the other's VP.

And if Edwards is the VP, this will be the headline: "Always the Bridesmaid"

You read it here first.

[saltpoint]

5. For a new generation of voters and volunteers in our party, New Orleans

was a huge headline. With very good reason, many of those new voters -- and many of them young (though not all) -- asked themselves why a horse lawyer was in charge of the nation's rescue and relief program. They asked themselves why the Republican president was sitting on his fanny while citizens of his country were begging for that rescue and that relief which he is sworn by oath to provide.

Those were damned good questions.

I am hoping the fruition of those new voters' inquiries into the process will be realized in the 08 election. It's a reminder that much work must be done, but perhaps also a harbinger of great and fundamental change in the nation's sense of what public service is -- and who exactly represents it.

And that would tend strongly to draw them toward the blue team and not toward the red team. I'm not persuaded that those who are first now will later be last, or vice versa, but among our talented field will emerge the next President of the United States, bolstered (IMO) in significant part by the people who came new to the process during the coverage of Hurricane Katrina and whose perception of what's needed and who failed whom is current and keen.

Go, Democrats.

[Cant trust em]

10. I'm glad that you brought Katrina back into this

It seems like a lot of people have stopped talking about New Orleans like it's yesterday's news.

[ronleslie]

6. Edwards has two problems .. his own weaknesses and an unresponsive electorate

I think Edwards is trailing at the polls for a couple of
reasons.   First, he is connected with John Kerry and that's
not good for him.   They both performed dreadfully in the last
campaign.   I was especially shocked at Edwards' terrible
performance in the VP debate against Cheney.   He just didn't
have what it takes; he was weak.   The other reason has to do
with the fact that the main issues he is championing just
aren't the issues that most of the voters (certainly those
with some money) think are important.   You do and I do, but
unfortunately we're not the average voter.

[Ken Burch]

9. There's nothing the people who have some money care about that's worth caring about.

We can't be worth electing if we try to be the party of the comfortable. To put your own short-term self-interest first is to be a heartless bastard.

[inna]

7. good post

great blog, i bookmarked it.

also, see this post by the same author:

Edwards launches “poverty tour”; have-mores launch the lie machine:

http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/16/edwards-launches-poverty-tour-have-mores-launch-the-lie-machine/