Rdillon...your continued in-depth support of Edwards is appreciated, and I keep up with your daily and weekly comments, adding my own occasional kudos to Edwards.   He does see the "new realities every day", as you say, and also the 'old realities' of the common citizen and workers at the bottom of the ladder.   Not one other candidate, of either party, seriously acknowledges the plight of the poor and social injustice with the fervor and insight that Edwards does, not even Kucinich.   Edwards makes real plans for people, rather than conjuring up grand ideas that evaporate like mist from one campaign day to the next.   I keep looking for others to see what we see, but Americans in general are just not attuned anymore to serious issues, and would rather see rock-star candidates, and hear about the latest personal gossip from mainstream media and tv host ranters.   I'm convinced that the real problem in our country is an overall care-less attitude by most citizens.   I see it every day, in my own community and across the land.   I don't know if Edwards can wake up this somnambulist-society, because people don't really want to wake up, they prefer the illusion, it's more entertaining and helps them escape from the "new realities."

they work you like a mule, til your health suffers from not taking days off when you have the flue or other ailments and replace you with cheap labor after breaking your body, mind, and spirit.

We are all hamsters now running the treadmill of corporate financial insatisfaction.  They will never have enough and won't share withteh very people who put the dough in their corporate coffers in the first place.

Tapped into the pharmacy corporations driving you nuts while trying to make a dollar out of what makes no sense.

Welcome to the rat race of old, where all you do is run your self to death for peanuts.

And this we leave for our children and grandchildren.  Slave wages and third world principles and dictatorship in government.

I like Obama and you all know it. 

mommapanther

Despite the complete failure of leadership shown by President Bush at the G8, John Edwards has made it clear that he supports the efforts to reduce greenhouse gases by 50% by 2050. He announced it today in Austin, TX. Here is a link to the story:

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070612-G8-challenge/

John Edwards more than anyone else running has taken the lead on getting serious about Global Warming. He realizes that this is a moral issue, what kind of world we are leaving for our children and theirs. Check out his site on reducing your carbon:

http://www.reduceyourcarbon.com/

More than any other candidate Edwards has thought hard on Global Warming and has come out with extensive plans to fight it. These plans call for Americans to be patriotic about something besides war, and challenges the American people by honestly asking them to sacrifice for the greater good.

http://www.johnedwards.com/about/issues/energy/new-energy-economy/

Added to this the fact that John Edwards wants to invest in researching and developing the fuels of the future, which could create a whole new industry and thousands, or even millions of high-paying American jobs, while making America energy self-reliant and it is plain to see Edwards realizes how this problem can actually be used to the benefit of our country.

This is just one of the many reasons I am supporting Edwards. Talking points are good for drawing crowds, but we need to be coming up with big solutions to big problems. Edwards is showing the leadership to do this.

Edwards in 08- The Only Choice for Progressive Change!!

other candidates statements regarding the SC ruling on overtime and benefits for
in-home health care workers.
I found none.

This issue is very close to me as my elderly mother is dependent on her helper
for basic needs like shopping, running errands, help with meals, bathing and
getting dressed.

To deny these dedicated, hard working people overtime pay and benefits is wrong
on so many levels.

I am both glad to see Edwards speaking up for them and greatly dissappointed
to find any comment from the other candidates in support of the workers.

Why the Supreme Court of the US turned their backs on the help providers is sad and puzzling.

That is why Edwards is blathering as you call it. This ruling had nothing to do with the minimum wage, federal or state, but declared a certain segment of dedidcated professionals in this country from qualifying for either.

Despite the bad press, Edwards is the one candidate in either party who is ready to lead our country and the world into the New Century. Here is one quote from that speech:

Our main conclusions are just as relevant today: that Russia's direction is critically important to America's national security—from non-proliferation and energy security to the spread of HIV/AIDS. And as our report's title made clear, Russia has been headed in the wrong direction, whether in its de-democratization or by bullying its neighbors.

Unfortunately, we have not been able to concentrate sufficient energy on critical issues like getting our relationship with Russia right. Instead, we've been distracted by larger problems created by this president's military and national security policy.

This quote is particularly timely as the Bush Administration does its best to create a new Cold War with Russia. I guess then they could bring their "War on Terror" to an end. This shows Edwards has the common sense to reach common ground with Russia.

Then after reiteriating his belief that the War on Terror is a slogan, he gives his ideas on moving the American military into the New Century:

Any new strategy must include new preventive measures to win the long-term struggle and fuel hope and opportunity. This includes strong and creative diplomacy, and also new efforts to lead the fight against global poverty. I've proposed a plan to lead an international effort to educate every child in the world. As president, I would increase foreign assistance by $5 billion a year to make millions of people safer, healthier, and more democratic, and by creating a cabinet-level post to lead this effort.

Any new strategy must improve how we gather intelligence. From my years on the Senate Intelligence Committee, I know how difficult this can be. We must always seek to protect our national security by aggressively gathering intelligence in accordance with proven methods.

Yet we cannot do so by abandoning human rights and the rule of law. As two former generals recently wrote in the Washington Post, "If we forfeit our values by signaling that they are negotiable... we drive... undecideds into the arms of the enemy." And we must avoid actions that will give terrorists or even other nations an excuse to abandon international law. As president, I will close Guantanamo Bay, restore habeas corpus, and ban torture. Measures like these will help America once again achieve its historic moral stature—and lead the world toward democracy and peace.

And finally, a new strategy must have a clear idea of how to rebuild the U.S. military.

The results have been a disaster. This Administration's policies have been particularly hard on our military men and women and their families. President Bush could have called on all Americans to sacrifice. But the only ones who have been at war—the only ones asked to sacrifice—have been our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and their families. And that's wrong.

I am here today to announce a new pledge to America's servicemen and women, their families, and our veterans. We will stand by you just as you have stood by us. As president, I will implement a defense policy based on five major principles:

Ensuring that our military policy is planned and executed to fulfill essential national security missions, not some ideological fancy;
Repairing the tremendous damage done to civil-military relations;
Rooting out cronyism and waste and increasing efficiency in the Pentagon;
Rebalancing our force structure for the challenges of the new century, including improving our capabilities to help weak or failing states;
And taking a broader view of security throughout our government.

With these steps, we can begin to rebuild an American military for a new century.

First, we must clarify the mission of a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq American military for the 21st century.

What other candidate has put this time and energy into creating a policy that truly fights terrorism, and respects and rebuilds our military at the same time? Cmon folks, substance has got to matter sometime now, we aren't electing Prom King and Queen!!

I am a lifelong loyal Democrat. I am tired of always having to hold my nose and vote for someone who won't fight for Democratic principles. Hillary buys the Bush/Rove "War on Terror" hook line and sinker. She even thinks we are safer now. Obama's campaign believes Scooter Libby should be pardoned. Is this our shining hope for progressive change?

Lets get behind the real Progressive, John Edwards!!

You know I have seen my fill of national polls. Despite being the only candidate who currently leads all Republican candidates, everyone seems to be wanting to make these polls dictate that Edwards is not a viable candidate. It is much too early to be looking at these kinds of polls. Instead of being caught up in hype generated by the media, we need to be looking at the Progressive vision and policies offered by these candidates.

I have been waiting my whole life for a truly Progressive candidate to come along. Now that one has the reaction I see truly shocks and appalls me. I expected the Republicans to be attacking Progressive vision, but never have I seen a feeding frenzy like sharks swirling around John Edwards. Even within our own party I see people all too anxious to attack the vision we have been fighting all these years just because he isn't adored by the media, and Washington insiders.

I have been waiting my whole life for a truly Progressive candidate to come along. Now that one has the reaction I see truly shocks and appalls me. I expected the Republicans to be attacking Progressive vision, but never have I seen a feeding frenzy like sharks swirling around John Edwards. Even within our own party I see people all too anxious to attack the vision we have been fighting all these years just because he isn't adored by the media, and Washington insiders.

I worked in a primary in Kentucky for an awesome candidate named Eric Streit. Our district is one that really needs a leader in Washington to stand up and start doing good things for us. Eric cared deeply about our homes, and the jobs, and the fact that our part of the state was extremely neglected and has been for some time. He had many ideas and much vision to put to work helping our neighbors. He wanted most to help the many low-payed service workers and the seniors and people on disability. On election day the most painful part of losing was seeing all the people we so desperately wanted to help vote against us. It was a very sobering experience.

Now, as a staunch Edwards supporter I am feeling more and more the same way. For once we have a truly Progressive candidate who has championed Progressive causes. This campaign seriously wants to heal the divisions in America and rebuild our moral standing in the world. It wants to help the 37 million Americans who wake up in poverty. It wants to make affordable healthcare available to all of those who work. It wants to restore American industry and rebuild dilapidated rural communities. It wants to fight Global Warming, and research in and build a whole new industry to manufacture the fuels of the future. It wants to make college available to all American kids who don't mind working for it. Edwards seeks to rebuild the fractured relationship between the military and its civilian leadership. He wants to truly honor our troops by raising their pay and bringing them home, then not calling them out to fight unless it is truly required.

And where is the Progressive vision from our so-called "frontrunners"? Hillary believes that George Bush's "War on Terror" is real and has actually made us safer!!! She envisions us in Iraq for another ten years!! And where are her proposals to rebuild our military, help the American worker by supporting unions, fight global warming and create new fuels, or truly combat terrorism in the New Century? There are none. The one Economic proposal I saw was just an Edwards plans smoothed over to suit the DLC.

Obama's campaign is equally void on ideas. He thinks we can just wait until the next President to get out of Iraq. He said as much during the first question of the last debate. His campaign actually believes Scooter Libby should be pardoned. His healthcare plan is once again taken from Edwards and trimmed to suit the DLC. Where are his plans to truly combat terrorism? Where are his plans to rebuild our military for the challenges of the New Century? What leadership role has he assumed? From what I see I think he is tied up with Hillary and the DLC crowd, and will offer nothing truly Progressive.

Has our attention span as a party become that short? Don't we remember that we had a Progressive candidate in 04 that got derailed the same way? It is time for we as a party to for once look at the candidate that fights for the things most dear to us. Not only that, we need to look at the candidate who doesn't want to hide the way they feel but has true Progressive policies that could move this country foward if actually enacted. I fully intend to fight for the party of JFK and RFK and for the morals that they represented. That is why I am fighting for John Edwards and the fact that so many power brokers have risen against him, that makes me want to fight even harder!!! So to everyone out there who truly wants to fight for a Progressive vision in our time please join us, we need you!!!

Now that a couple of candidates have released their healthcare plans, I thought it would be good to take a look back at Edwards healthcare plan, and why it is better. Here are some of the reasons:

Following a tour of East Riverside Health Center today, Senator John Edwards detailed the cost-saving measures in the universal health care plan he laid out in February. Edwards' plan to guarantee quality, affordable health care to every person in America plan would save an average family $2,000 to $2,500 a year and eliminate at least $130 billion a year in wasteful health care spending.

"Americans today aren't getting the quality of health care they pay for and can't afford the cost of the care they do receive," said Edwards. "The American health care system today is broken—for families and businesses like those here in Detroit. These businesses and their unions made a promise to workers and now it's time for the government to hold up its end of the bargain and lower health care costs. To fix our health care crisis, we need a fundamental change —the plan I laid out in February will cover every man, woman and child in America and bring down costs for families and businesses."

Driving down costs is the main thing most uninsured Americans like me need. Under the Edwards plan I could actually afford to buy my own insurance. $130 billion could be saved by Americans to use on other pressing concerns.

But how will the Edwards plan bring costs down?:

Reforming the insurance industry by setting national accounting standards requiring insurers to spend at least 85 percent of their premiums on patient care. Without new rules, insurance companies could continue to charge hardworking families excessive premiums, pocketing the savings from health care reform instead of delivering more to patients. Edwards' Health Care Markets will also drive down costs by making private insurers compete with a public plan.

Anyone who has ever had a legitimate claim denied by an insurance company can surely get behind this. Insurance companies nowadays worry too much about the bottom line at the expense of the policyholder. Edwards plan would combat this greed and heartlessness. Also, the "competition" or lack thereof between the insurance companies have made it impossible for true savings to occur. If these companies had true competition with a public plan, they could not collude to keep prices higher.

Next we have this idea:

Cutting the cost of and improving treatment for chronic conditions. Chronic diseases are the top driver of skyrocketing health costs, accounting for three-quarters of our national health care spending. Edwards will create patient-centered "medical homes," and require Health Care Markets and public plans to pro-actively monitor the health of patients with chronic ailments, to reduce complications and hospitalizations. He will offer private plans incentives to do the same. Edwards will also require all insurers to cover preventive care, with public plans offering preventive care without co-payments, and he will provide incentives for patients to participate.

As a person with several loved ones who are in need of chronic care, this idea is music to our ears. Again, it just asks for a little professionalism and care for their costumers by the insurance companies. It also provided much needed competition by the public sector.

Improving the Patent System and the FDA: The patent system sometimes encourages greater investment in profitable but minor innovation ("me-too drugs") than in the costly and speculative research that generates true breakthroughs. In 2005, only 20 percent of FDA approved drugs were new molecular entities. In addition, the patent system gives companies long-term monopolies that can make life-saving drugs prohibitively costly for patients. Edwards will convene an expert panel to explore whether there are certain key disorders where prizes for breakthroughs – as an alternative to patent monopolies—would offer new incentives to researchers, guaranteed gains to companies, and lower costs to patients. Prizes would supplement, but not replace, the current patent system. Additionally, Edwards will eliminate loopholes and trade obstacles that block generic drugs and let the FDA approve biogenerics, saving up to $43 billion over 10 years. [Woolley, 2006; Stiglitz, 2005; CAGW, 2007]

Investing in truly life-saving drugs, instead of coming up with the next Viagara seems like a real good idea to me. The prizes for medical breakthroughs that save lives, instead of allowing monopolies that drive prices through the roof on life-saving drugs is an excellent idea. It allows the companies to make profit, while keeping prices lower for the consumers that desperately need these drugs. It is another stroke of genius to allow generic and bio-generic drugs easier access to the market, because as shown it would save the American taxpayer billions over ten years.

Supporting our health care infrastructure by improving work conditions to bring back 50,000 nurses who have left the profession and recruiting 50,000 young people into nursing. Edwards will also invest in telemedicine for rural areas.

I think most Americans have heard about the current nursing shortage that has afflicted our country. Edwards plan would show these professionals the respect they have earned, and bring many back to their profession. He would also provide incentives to hire 50,000 new nurses to take pressure off the already overworked nurses we have. I know how overworked they are. When my girlfriend had a brief hospital stay recently, the nurses on her floor worked 14 hr shifts.

These are just some of the highlights of Edwards healthcare plan. No candidate has put more thought into this issue and come up with a plan as detailed as the one presented by John Edwards. Don't just take my word for it, go to this link and see for yourself the 27 pages the Edwards campaign has dedicated to this problem:

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070614-health-care-costs-qua...

John Edwards- Leading the Way on Affordable Healthcare!!!

Question how genuine the Progressive vision coming from John Edwards now, I want to share a quote from an interview with him before he decided to run:

"In honesty," Edwards said, "going through a campaign has a natural maturation process. I mean, it changes you. It changes the way you see things. It changes how you feel about your own views and your willingness to stand with them, no matter what kind of opposition or unpopularity they have. I think it just gives you a different perspective."

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/Story?id=1985018&page=3

I think Edwards had been told a long time by advisors that he could not run on his own views and win. This time around he has learned that he can't listen to the DLC voices because Americans just don't admire fence-sitting. This time around he is willing to stand with his own views

no matter what kind of opposition or unpopularity they have.

I think this easily gives Edwards the most integrity and honesty in the field, and after 8 yrs of Bush those are the traits we need most in our next leader!!

I thought in the first debate that John Edwards won it by his denial of the "War on Terror" in the show of hands question. I think it is essential for Democrats to nominate someone who has a realistic approach to this subject. I want to share a couple of statements Edwards has made on the subject:

As I said yesterday, the core of the Bush presidency is a political doctrine they call the Global War on Terror. They use it to justify all the worst abuses of this administration – from Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo to the assault on civil liberties to the war in Iraq. The one thing it doesn't do is the one thing it's supposed to do - by the Administration's own admission, the threat of terrorism is up, not down.

But that's not what the Bush terror doctrine does. The Bush terror doctrine says we're going to pursue our ideological agenda without regard to whether it works and without regard to the will of the American people. And if you oppose us, if you challenge us, if you disagree with us, you're soft on terror, you're not a patriot.

It's a political sledgehammer plain and simple. And the most insidious part about it is that it does not work.

Abu Ghraib has not made us safer.

Wiretapping Americans has not made us safer.

The war in Iraq has not made us safer.

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070524-bush-comments/

Now, I have been thinking that very same thing for a long time. I would like to share part of a post I wrote some time ago on this site:

I know now some brainwashed lunatic Rush baby will say "but George Bush didn't annoint this war, the Islamo-facists(another shameless WWII comparison) did on 9-11". If this is actually true, why did we turn our backs on the on the very person who they tell us actually masterminded this attack and let him prance away, dialisis machine in tow? This modern day George W. squandered the unity of America with his lies, LOST the "War on Terror" with the same lies to pull our troops away from the real war and go attack the wrong people. What if George Washington would've decided to invade Czarist Russia in the middle of the Revolution?

So I would just like to say once again as loud and clear to anyone in this country that will listen that if you really believe there is this huge "War on Terror" and we are defending our very liberty and way of life, against some great "mighty empire" then that war is already lost. Our troops didn't lose it, the idiocy of the leadership enacted by the elections of 00 and 04 lost it. When they turned their backs and let our true attacker run free and attacked a country that didn't have anything to do with 9-11, every American that wasn't invested in the war industry LOST!!!! We lost what will end up being TRILLIONS of dollars!!! We lost way over 3000 and counting of our young people. We lost our American morals and respect from the world. We lost ever seeing the man who cost another 3000 Americans their lives brought to justice. We lost the unity that came from being attacked. Everyday, we lose these things yet again.

If we really must keep declaring war on abstract ideas like "Terror", why don't we declare a "War on Idiocy". Idiocy that allows selfish, narrow minded men who only care about filling their own coffers and will go to any lengths to do it to be elected into government and given the power to try and push their vile form of "patriotism" off on the whole world. As a nation we simply must realize that we were duped and are not entangled in some noble undertaking to free the world, but are fulfilling the desires of War Profiteers who are bleeding us dry and have been for some time. If we can't I very much fear for the future of our country and freedom.

http://www.democrats.com/node/12055

So I thank John Edwards, not only for allowing me a shameless plug of some former writing, but for being the one candidate who had the courage to stand up and say what we were all feeling, no matter what the political damage. That is exactly the kind of leadership we need in this new century.

Edwards made his mistakes listening to the "centerist" advisors that have ran so may campaigns. He has now decided that he is going to run on what he feels in his heart is best. He is motivated and has the best solutions to the problems that have beset our country. Please join our campaign of hope and change for this country and the world.

John Edwards- New Leadership for a New Century

It is no big secret to any Democrat that the rural and non-urban parts of the country have been a problem for our party for a good while now. Not only the south, but rural areas of the midwest and west have been consistently voting Republican. There are many reasons for this, but one of the main ones is that the Republican Party has heavily invested in these areas and the Democratic Party has ignored them, and not reached out to this valuable block of voters.

Everyone wants to fuss about Florida in 00 as well they should, but is it lost on everyone that if Gore would have just carried his home state of Tennessee, Florida would not have mattered. I remember that election, and our party abandoned not only Tennessee but all the surrounding mostly rural southern states. We did not reach out to them.

We cannot allow our party to become centered in only the large urban areas. There is no way we can ever expect to win enough power in our government to actually bring about real change we simply must start including the rural, small town voter in our strategy once again.

This is another reason why I support John Edwards and believe he has the best chance to win in these areas in a general election against any candidate from the other side. He grew up and went to school in small town America, and he understands their problems and the challenges they have faced in the last few decades.

Edwards has what I consider an excellent plan to reach this crucial block of voters and try and revive our dying towns in middle America. Since this primary should be about actual plans for moving our country forward in the new century, I would like to look at this very important policy. First, here is a brief explanation of the problems:

Too often, the problems of rural America are forgotten by politicians living and working in far-off capital cities. Many rural areas are struggling: rural families earn 27 percent less than other families and 244 of the poorest 250 counties are rural. Rural manufacturing has been hit particularly hard by international trade, the offshoring of jobs, and automation. Struggling family farms are another challenge for small towns. As young people move away to find opportunity, rural communities are turning into ghost towns. One in four non-metro counties lost population in the 1990s. [Carsey Institute, 2006; Davis, 2003; USDA, 2002]

Edwards then goes on to list six proposals to help rural America:

Investing Seed Money for Rural Recovery: Helping innovative small businesses is a promising approach to economic development, but only 1 percent of state economic development funds now support entrepreneurs. Edwards will create the Rural Economic Advancement Challenge (REACH) Fund to bring capital and management expertise to small town America. The REACH Fund will connect investors with rural entrepreneurs, organize businesses into networks to help them succeed together, and ensure that rural areas have access to the investment capital they need. [RUPRI, 2007]

Now, I will be the first to admit that economics is really not my strong suit. It does seem to me however that this fund could do some very good things getting warehouses opened in rural America. All the ones I drive by are empty.

This next idea is the one that I really like:

Creating the New Energy Economy in Rural America: Renewable sources of energy -- including ethanol, biodiesel, wind, and solar -- can make the U.S. independent of foreign oil, cut global warming pollution, and create new industries and hundreds of thousands of jobs in rural America. Edwards will establish the New Energy Economy Fund to jumpstart renewable energies. He will create new markets for ethanol by requiring all new cars to run on both gasoline and E85 ethanol, requiring 25 percent of chain gas stations to carry E85, supporting E20 and E30 fuels, and working with U.S. automakers to make efficient and alternative-fuel cars. He will support locally owned biorefineries with start-up capital. He will also require 25 percent of electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2025.

This one here is sort of personal to me, because I helped a candidate in Kentucky's First who lost a primary last year. His name was Eric Streit and he was very intelligent, we just couldn't raise the money in a poor district to get his message out. This was one of the things we really wanted to let Western Kentuckians know about, that with a little research and investment we, and the surrounding rural states could lead the way in making our country energy independent. We are one or two breakthroughs away on biofuel from being able to do this. Edwards clearly states that he wants to invest in researching these fuels of the future. The jobs and advantages to Americans rural and urban would be enormous. Our country has always achieved great things when real leaders stood up and challenged us. I think the American worker and ingenuity can accomplish this and thanks to Mr. Edwards for agreeing with me once again!!

Edwards goes on to address the plight of the Family farmer:

Creating Fairness for Family Farmers: Edwards recognizes that the rules are stacked against family farmers. He supports the strict enforcement of laws against anticompetitive mergers, unfair pricing, and country-of-origin laws. He will enact a strong national ban on packer ownership to stop the spread of large corporate hog interests and create a national moratorium on the construction and expansion of hog farm lagoons. To help family farmers he will also limit farm subsidies to $250,000 per person, close loopholes in payment limits, and expand conservation programs.

Family farmers have been baraged by big corporate farming and cheap foreign farm products for a while now. We all saw how successful that was when our pets were poisoned by Chinese wheat glutin. The family farm has been a distinctive part of the American culture since there has been an America, and it is good to see John Edwards trying to lead a resurgence in family farming.

He goes on to talk about rural broadband:

Investing in Rural Broadband: Once a world leader in broadband access, the U.S. is now 21st in the world, trailing Estonia. Rural households are only about half as likely to have a broadband connection even though digital inclusion is one of the quickest and surest ways to attract businesses. Edwards will establish a national broadband map to identify gaps in availability, price, and speed and require telephone and cable companies not to discriminate against rural communities in building their broadband networks. [ITU, 2006; CWA, 2006; Pew, 2006]

When I was in Nashville for his announcement of this plan, that day there was a story in a local paper about state legislatures worrying about rural broadband access. This is a real problems that effects real Americans, and Edwards is the only one I know who has acknowledged the problem, let alone address it. If another candidate in the primary has, then I do apologize.

He then moves on to bank discrimination and predatory lending:

Prohibiting Banks from Discriminating against Rural America: Rural communities have fewer bank branches, fewer per-capita small business loans and more high-cost mortgages. Deregulation has led to bank consolidation while small towns rely on community banks to support local businesses. Edwards will strengthen the Community Reinvestment Act to prevent banks from discriminating against rural areas and increase investment in rural small businesses. He will also establish a strong national law against predatory mortgages common in many rural areas. [NCRC, 2007; Carsey Institute, 2006; Federal Reserve Board of St. Louis, 2004; SBA, 2004; Independent Community Bankers Association, 2006.]

Now again, I am no economist these facts seem disturbing as an American living in a small town. We all know about predatory lending and evidently it is more prevailant in rural and small-town America. Some regulation is good, especially when it protects the American consumer. Thanks once again Mr. Edwards for addressing a real problem faced by real Americans, including me!!

He goes on to mention rural poverty:

Fighting for Economic Fairness: Child poverty rates in rural areas are higher than urban rates for every racial and ethnic group. The highest child poverty rates are in the most isolated rural areas. To eliminate adult and childhood poverty nationwide within 30 years, Edwards will raise the minimum wage, cut taxes for low-wage workers, help workers save and invest, and expand affordable housing near good jobs and schools. [Carsey Institute, 2006]

With all due respect if I have to defend this aspect of this plan, I think you may have wondered into the wrong party.

Here are more solutions in this very well thought out plan:

Guaranteeing Rural America the Funding It Needs and Is Entitled to: More than half of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s $70 billion in rural development funds has actually gone to metropolitan regions, suburbs of midsize cities, and resort towns like Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket. Edwards will rewrite these funding rules and get resources to the intended isolated and disadvantaged areas. Because many small towns lack the grant-writing capabilities of larger towns, Edwards will direct federal agencies to offer a simplified, one-page grant application for small grants to rural towns and counties, based on the successful COPS program. [Washington Post, 4/6/2007]

I think this is a true tenet of Progressivism, that all regions should recieve their share of support whether they are the "glamour" regions or not. We should invest in all Americans, and all American towns.

Next Edwards addresses strengthening rural schools:

Strengthening Rural Schools: Rural schools enroll 40 percent of American children – including most children in Iowa, New Hampshire, and North Carolina – but receive only 22 percent of federal education funding. Small rural schools often struggle to provide a complete curriculum and attract and retain excellent teachers. [NEA, 2007]

Investing in Teachers: Research has found that teachers are the most important part of any school, and rural schools have particular difficulty recruiting and retaining teachers. They often lose teachers to wealthier districts. Edwards will improve pay for teachers in rural and other hard-to-staff schools, including rural schools, to help attract quality new and experienced teachers. He will also offer college scholarships for students who commit to teach in underserved rural schools after graduation. [Rural School and Community Trust, 2006 and 2007]

Creating Digital Learning Opportunities: Distance learning through the Internet can bring the content of the world’s best universities, libraries, and museums to rural and remote areas. Software programs incorporating virtual reality, digital modeling, and intelligent one-on-one tutoring systems are proven to dramatically accelerate learning. Edwards will invest in cutting-edge research to integrate these new teaching tools and test them in rural America. [Digital Promise, 2003]

Again, I know I am already an Edwards supporter hence biased, but those three ideas to me as someone from these places just makes sense. Where a child lives should not affect the quality of education they recieve. That is true in both urban and rural communities. Respecting teachers and keeping quality teachers in all districts is very important to. I really hope I don't have to defend any of those last few points here.

Edwards has been a vocal leader in the fight for healthcare reform, and next he includes rural healthcare:

Improving Rural Health Care: Over the past 25 years, 470 rural hospitals have closed. Rural counties have only one-fourth as many doctors and one-sixth as many specialists per capita and face critical gaps in trauma care. The Edwards plan for universal health care will cover the 9 million rural Americans that lack insurance and establish a nationwide network of safety net clinics and public hospitals. He will rewrite the unfair Medicare and Medicaid funding formulas that punish rural states and communities. He will also support investments in telemedicine to instantaneously connect distant specialists and advanced equipment with local doctors and patients, allowing better monitoring, chronic disease management, and emergency response. Health care is also an important source of economic development, creating jobs directly and attracting businesses and retirees. One study estimated that each doctor was worth more than eight jobs. [Winbush and Crichlow, 2005; Carsey, 2006; USDA, 1999; Wakefield, 2000; KFF, 2003

Again, I don't see how I can add much to this. All of it sounds very good, and I am once again impressed at the depth of Edwards perception of the problems that face everyday Americans, and how to turn lemons into lemonaide. No matter who it upsets, on all levels I just believe that Edwards is by far the best candidate on either side to solve the problems with healthcare.

Finally Edwards ends with a few ideas on Protecting the rural way of life:

Ridding Rural America of Methamphetamines: Many areas of rural America are facing the devastating effects of meth abuse. It can be easily, quickly, and cheaply produced and is highly addictive. Edwards will invest in enforcing drug laws in rural areas, help states make meth ingredients more difficult to get, and expand programs that successfully treat addicts such as the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment program for prisoners.

Now first I want to say that I have never been a huge "War on Drugs" person. However, with that being said once again one of these points is personal to me. Living in Western Kentucky, I have seen the curse of methamphetamines rip apart my generation, and the ones just before and after it. One of my very best friends growing up was lost to this epidemic. I didn't realize he had gotten in such a bad shape, and he was lost to suicide. I am forever left with memories and knowledge that I wasn't there... Even the people who survive meth use or addiction are mostly never the same. They end up with criminal records and devestated bodies. Their minds usually never recover either. Again, I applaud Mr. Edwards for addressing a real problem that is not glamourous, but seriously destroys the lives of millions of Americans. I think he shows a real good balance between prosecution and treatment with this proposal and understands a slogan can't solve real problems.

He now shows the courage to address a controversial issue, that of gun ownership:

Protecting Lawful Gun Ownership: In small towns across America, hunting and gun ownership is a way of life. John Edwards believes that law-abiding citizens have the right to defend their families and respects the long American tradition of hunting. We can protect Second Amendment gun rights while also stopping criminals from using guns. Edwards will protect the right of law-abiding citizens to participate in gun shows, an important source of economic activity in many communities, while ensuring all that all weapons sold there are subject to an instant check. He will also crack down on gun crimes.

I think Americans should be able to own a gun if they obey the law. I also think that any American who wants to buy assault weapons and such who won't wait for a background check doesn't need one. That is about all I can add to that.

Finally he addresses yet another real problem that confronts everyday Americans, that of clean water:

Expanding Access to Clean Water: Every household deserve clean, drinkable water and sanitation services, but more than 1.7 million Americans lack basic plumbing facilities. Rural households are four times more likely to lack proper plumbing than urban homes. Inadequate water and sanitation damage public health and impede economic development. Edwards will help local areas improve their infrastructure and tackle local pollution problems. He will also establish tough clean air and water requirements for concentrated animal feeding operations. [RCAP, undated]

http://www.johnedwards.com/about/issues/rural/

I think it goes without saying that every American deserves to be able to turn on their faucet and get at least relatively clean water to drink. I don't have a problem with that where I live, but I am sure the Americans who do would very much welcome the change, not that the MSM is going to let them know about it.

So there it is, the John Edwards Rural Recovery Act. I am sorry this post was so long, but that is a testament to John Edwards that his proposals on so many issues are very in-depth and include real information and proposals. I think this plan is needed badly, and if it got introduced on a broad scale to rural and small town Americans, it would generate a whole lot of votes that were going the other way.

I will just end by saying, no matter what your perception of John Edwards is, just look at the depth of thought, and understanding that went into coming up with a plan this far-reaching. This shows no matter what the media will tell you that Edwards DOES understand the problems real Americans face and cares about solving them. I again challenge any other candidate on either side to come up with a plan as far-reaching to revive our rural and small town communities. John Edwards has once again shown he has the qualities to be a great leader.

In 2004, John Edwards stormed onto the American political scene with his talk that strongly resonated with voters, including myself, about the two Americas that exist today. Now, Edwards is revisiting this theme, and will give a speech tonight outlining his plans to create one America once again. Lets take some time to look at this brilliant plan in advance.

As always, Edwards does an excellent job of recognizing the problem before solving it:

American families are working harder to get by. Despite living in the land of opportunity, most families' incomes have stagnated for the past generation. Meanwhile, George Bush's Washington has let corporate interests grow stronger than ever. The result is Two Americas, one struggling to get by and another that has everything it could want. As president, John Edwards will put our government and our economy back in line with our values. Today, he announced his plan to take on abusive lenders, create a new Family Savings and Credit Commission on the side of families who are investing and borrowing, and give families alternatives to high-cost debt.

Now, lets go into some of the solutions that would create One America:

Debt is now a central fact of middle-class life. In Washington, the financial services sector gives more money to politicians and spends more money lobbying than any other sector of the economy. With no limits on interest or fees, loans have become more costly and deceptive. Consumer debt has increased eightfold and foreclosures have skyrocketed in recent years. [Open Secrets, 2006; Federal Reserve Board, 2007]

Now, I am a history major, and I did an independent study on the Great Depression. I found that one of the main reasons for this catastrophe was all the high-interest credit lending that blew up in people's faces. Today, we are disasterously close to that trend once again. Financial Services who are getting fat don't care, but everyday Americans like me and John Edwards do. We simply must curb the amount of high interest debt in the interests of our country.

Edwards goes on to detail these problems further:

Regular Families Are Borrowing to Make Ends Meet: Half of Americans say they live paycheck to paycheck. For most families, wages have not kept up with rising costs for middle-class essentials like health care, housing and child care. More than half of middle-class families do not have enough savings to survive a job loss at 75 percent of their income for even one month. [MetLife, 2003; Warren, 2007; Demos, 2007]

I don't see how anyone can refute this statement. Next:

Credit Card Rates Are Skyrocketing: Interest rates and fees have skyrocketed since rates were deregulated in 1978 and fees in 1996. Penalty interest rates now top 39 percent. One in three accounts is assessed a late fee a year, averaging $35. Deceptive tactics include bait-and-switch marketing on interest rates, penalty rates triggered by unrelated debt under "universal default" clauses, and mailing statements later in an effort to induce more late fees. Credit card debt helped drive increasing numbers of families to the bankruptcy courts. One in 53 households filed for bankruptcy in 2005, more families than got divorced or graduated from college. [NCLC, 2005; Cardweb, 2005]

Anyone who has a credit card knows this. I cancelled mine over two years ago and although I always pay substantially more than the minimum payment, almost two years later I am still paying off a modest balance. Deregulation of this industry is desroying the credit of millions of Americans. These numbers speak for themselves. Edwards continues:

High-Cost Financial Services Exploit Low-Income Families: Financial services companies collect high fees in urban and working-class neighborhoods where there are few mainstream bank branches. Payday loans -- short-term unsecured loans that carry high interest rates -- have ballooned to a $28 billion industry. Annual rates on payday loans typically exceed 400 percent a year. Families pay check-cashing stores as much as $500 a year for services that banks offer for $60. Interest on car title loans quickly exceed the amount borrowed. Low-income tax filers pay more than $1.2 billion a year for the "refund anticipation loans" that are aggressively marketed by tax preparers, even though they could get their refunds from the I.R.S. for free within ten days. [CRL, 2004; Fannie Mae Foundation, 2006; CFA, 2005; NCLC and CFA, 2006]

Again, I think this speaks for itself, and cannot be refuted. Edwards goes on:

Predatory Mortgages Have Led to Millions of Foreclosures: While subprime mortgages are a valuable option for families with poor credit, predatory mortgages have abusive terms that deceive and exploit borrowers. Americans own a smaller share of their homes today than they did a generation ago -- down from 68 percent to 55 percent -- despite the housing boom. Some banks and mortgage companies refinance mortgages with high rates and often deceptive terms. Repeated refinancings create millions in fees for lenders while hurting homeowners. Today's homeowners are more than three times more likely to lose their homes than they were a generation ago. [Demos, 2007; Warren, 2003]

Again, this cannot be refuted. The plain and simple fact is that ordinary Americans are owning less and less of the American dream. It is nice to know that Edwards understands this. The theme: One side of America gets fat, while the rest of us lose ground. Next, Edwards outlines two economies in the two Americas:

There Are Two Economies: The number of Washington lobbyists has tripled in the past decade. Drug and insurance companies write our health care laws, oil and power companies write our energy laws, and banks write our lending laws. It is no coincidence that regular families are finding it harder to get ahead. Working families face less income mobility, more inequality, and more risk.

Speaks for itself again doesn't it? One America who has it all writes all the rules for the other America that doesn't. No wonder working men and women can't get ahead. Edwards then goes on to detail the plight of the middle class:

A Generation without Progress: Middle-class families' income has grown slowly in recent years are largely the result of more hours worked, particularly by women. Men in their thirties today earn less in real terms than men of their fathers' generation did 30 years ago. Only 30 percent of Americans think life will be better for the next generation. [Pew, 2007; Edison Media Research, 2006]

Boy, this rings hauntingly true for me, a man in his thirties. My father worked union for a good wage and benefits and didn't need a college education, I am stuck working service type jobs for low wages and no benefits. I would just love to make it to the middle class. Hopefully, soon the education I am recieving late will help. I am one of the many who worry about how life will be for the next generation.

Next Edwards talks about where our economy is growing:

An Economy Only Growing at the Top: Over the last 20 years, American incomes have grown apart: 40 percent of the income growth in the 1980s and 1990s went the top 1 percent. The top 300,000 individuals now make more than the bottom 150 million. If all Americans were sharing in economic progress as they were nearly thirty years ago, families in the bottom 80 percent would be earning $7,000 more a year. [EPI, 2006; Saez, 2007; Summers, Furman and Bordhoff, 2007]

This again speaks for itself. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, it may be a stereotype, but unfortunately it is what our country has come to. Edwards realizes this like none other running. Next, he talks about the risk to regular families:

More Risk for Regular Families: Families' hold on the middle class is more precarious than ever. Families in their forties are almost three times more likely to fall into poverty than they were a generation ago. The chances that an average person will experience a 50 percent or larger drop in income more than doubled since the 1970s. [Hacker, 2007]

That is just dumbfounding. Think about that last sentence for just a few seconds. 50% or larger drop in income have doubled in my lifetime!! This is way beyond disgraceful!!

So once again, Edwards has done a very good job of outlining many disturbing problems in our society. That is half the battle. Now for the other half, solving them:

Protect Families from Abusive Financial Products: Families need someone on their side to help them get a fair deal from lenders and investment companies. The current crazy-quilt of five federal regulatory agencies share oversight responsibility but overlook consumer protection in favor of bank profitability. Federal law prevents states from effectively regulating financial products offered to their own citizens from out-of-state banks. Edwards will create a new Family Savings and Credit Commission to protect consumers. It will review all financial services products marketed to families, from six-figure exotic mortgages to $30 bank overdraft charges. It will ensure that terms are reasonable and fairly disclosed and oversee all types of financial institutions, whether chartered under federal or state law. To reduce excess regulatory bureaucracy, Edwards will eliminate the Office of Thrift Supervision. [Warren, 2007]

I don't care if you support Hillary or Gravel, this plan should be music to any true Progressive's ears. Far too long have banks and unscrupulous lenders been allowed to prey upon American families. Edwards shows that not only does he understand this, but has the courage and conviction to solve the problem. His Family Savings and Credit Commission should immediately be adopted by all the candidates and the Democratic platform, and a true Progressive should not support them until they do. Enough said. Edwards then goes on to detail how to prohibit the most abusive practices against American families:

Limiting Abusive Credit Card Practices: Edwards will restore balance in the credit card market through a Borrower's Security Act. The strong new law will require credit card companies to: (1) disclose the true cost of making only minimum payments, (2) restore a 10-day grace period before imposing late fees and penalty rates, (3) apply interest rate increases to future balances only, and (4) end the practice of universal default, where a creditor can change borrowers' terms based on their debt and payments to other creditors. [Demos, 2003; GAO, 2006]

A Borrowers Security Act? What a fantastic idea!! We have plenty of politicians watching out for the lenders, it is refreshing to see that at least one cares about the borrowers. Again I say this should be part of our platform and I challenge every single candidate to come out immediately in favor of this. If they don't, they don't deserve the vote or support of ANY Progressive that is serious about change. Edwards doesn't stop there however, it goes on:

Banning the Most Abusive Payday Loans: Edwards will issue national protections on payday lending, including a limit on the number of loans to an individual each year, a minimum term for each loan of at least 60 days, and a right to repay the loan in installments. He will also strengthen states' ability to enforce their laws by banning the rent-a-charter practice that allows payday lenders to get around state consumer protections. [Center for Responsible Lending, 2004]

Again, this is simply genius, and anyone here who argues against it has wondered into the wrong party. Once more, I call on all our candidates to immediately adopt this idea. Edwards moves right along:

Protecting Homeowners against Predatory Mortgages: Edwards will pass a strong national law to prohibit the worst abuses in the mortgage market, such as steep prepayment penalties, mandatory arbitration clauses, balloon loans, loan flipping, and excessive fees. The law will strengthen underwriting standards to ensure that borrowers receive affordable loans suited to their means and reach non-bank lenders and mortgage brokers. To help the estimated 2.2 million families already facing foreclosure, Edwards will create a Home Rescue Fund to help families get into more affordable mortgages and let families shed excess mortgage debt that exceeds their home's value through bankruptcy. [Center for Responsible Lending, 2007; New America Foundation, 2007]

To millions of American the American dream is working and making enough money to live, and owning your own home. Edwards has already shown how he feels on wages, and now his Home Rescue Fund is a wonderful idea to help millions of people not lose their hold on their little corner of the American Dream. Again I say, every Democratic candidate should adopt this idea, and if they don't they aren't fighting for Progressive change.

Now, we have seen how Edwards would change the rules to make it harder for dishonest lenders to prey on American families, but what alternative does he offer to these unscrupulous lenders? Well, read on my friend!!:

Supporting Alternatives to High-Cost Credit: Because commercial banks rarely make personal loans anymore, high-interest credit cards and payday loans are often the only option for families with unexpected expenses. Edwards will help non-profits and states administer low- or no-interest emergency loans directly to taxpayers. States could choose to use state tax refunds as collateral. Because neighbors have a stake in one another, Edwards will help community groups establish up local revolving loan funds. [Center for Financial Services Innovation, 2006]

Again I think this plan is great and shows Edwards devotion to fairness for all Americans. The other candidates should once again embrace this idea, and if they don't they are not interested in Progressive change. Edwards continues:

Helping Families Save and Get Ahead: Savings are how families cushion themselves against bumps in the road. Edwards will create new "Work Bonds" to help low-income workers save up to $500 a year. He will subsidize banks to offer free savings accounts to the 56 million Americans without them, giving them a way to save and avoid exorbitant check-cashing fees. Finally, he will give taxpayers the option of directly depositing their tax refunds into a retirement account. [Center for Economic Progress, 2004; BEA, 2007; Barr, 2003]

Once more, great ideas all. They show Edwards deep understanding of the problems and offer hope to millions of Americans that they will be able to save and get ahead. It also effectively negates huge check-cashing fees. Finally Edwards adds this:

Modernizing the Community Reinvestment Act: For decades the CRA has led financial institutions to serve millions more families, helping them save. However, lower-income families, people of color, and rural Americans are still underserved and President Bush has weakened the law's requirements. Edwards will modernize this important law by expanding its reach to non-bank finance and mortgage companies, securities firms, insurers, and services in areas without bank branches. The new CRA will reward financial institutions for marketing financial products at fair terms to underserved consumers and collect the data we need to ensure that all Americans have equitable access to financial services. [Woodstock Institute, 2006; NCRC, 2007]

A modernized CRA? Expanding its reach to mortgage companies, securities firms and insurers? Rewarding financial institutions that are fair with consumers? Ensuring that all Americans have equitable access to financial services? Am I the only one who sees the common sense in all this? Once again I call on every Democratic candidate to immediately endorse this plan for progress for all Americans. If they do not, once again I say they are just paying lip-service to our party and America.

So there it is. Another bold new initiative to create real Progressive change in our time from John Edwards. I challenge the supporters of other candidates to not smear Edwards with another post about his house, his haircut, or any of the other garbage they have posted about him, and seriously come out and refute the many ideas proposed in this one policy proposal of many.

John Edwards has shown once again that he simply gets it. No matter who voted for what, when, where, and why in the past, Edwards is the candidate who is fighting for Democratic values and Progressive change and hope for all Americans once again. He is the only candidate who truly offers to build one American for all once again, just like our fore-fathers envisioned.

Join our campaign of hope and change for everyone. The Edwards campaign considers every new supporter a personal victory and offers respect to all. To make these ideas reality, and to truly build one America we need the help of everyone who shares this vision, and I respectfully ask you to join us in changing the world. You can support Edwards and this vision here:

https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/johnedwards?refcode=sitefoote...

Best wishes to everyone!!

John Edwards is definitely on my radar ESPECIALLY since the corporate press is trying to keep him out of the spotlight as "the powers that be" highlight Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama.

 I think we have to DEMAND a few things of "our" candidate BEFORE we sign onto support them.

1--Get us out of Iraq ASAP...no questions no excuses

2-Single payee universal national health care (The insurance companies as well as the large non-profits are motivated by profits and this has to end if we want decent health care....believe you me...I've worked in a large not for profit hospital and have decided that's the last place I'll go if I get sick.)

3-Campaign Finance Reform....have to get the corporations OUT of OUR congress....

4--Media Demands--  Network Neutrality....Restore the Fairness Doctrine on TV and Radio... and let the public airwaves that the tv stations are abandoned have a good proportion left in each community so the people can create their own local television stations....and open the doors for the people to have local low power FM.....

 That's the START of the MINIMUM we should be demanding of the candidate who wants to represent us!!!

You know, since the piece by the NY Times, many people have tried to make it look like John Edwards was running a non-profit for his own benefit, and acting unethical because he knew he was running for President. Now, for him to have actually done that, wouldn't that mean that he didn't use the funds to promote fighting poverty?

I just want to look at some of Edwards activities for this Group.

First we have this:

Mandy Zatynski,Dayton Daily News,Apr 29, 2005: The former U.S. senator from North Carolina addressed the National Conference of Black Mayors in downtown Columbus "to let them know I'm working on the poverty issue — that's my campaign right now. And hopefully we can work together to eradicate poverty in America."

Edwards is the director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He emphasized the Democratic Party's commitment to providing a voice for working class families and communities.

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/ddn20050429/

Then we have this story from the Associated Press dated June 29, 2005:

LANSING, Mich. — Democratic legislators fighting to increase the state's minimum wage got some help Wednesday from 2004 Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards.

Edwards, a former U.S. senator who now directs the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina, told several hundred people at a rally on the Capitol steps that raising the minimum wage will reduce the number of people living in poverty.

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/ap20050629/

Edwards then evidently flies from Michigan to Arizona because this article appears, also on June 29, 2005 from Matt Hanson of the Arizona Republic:

Former vice presidential candidate John Edwards told a crowd of more than 300 Valley supporters on Tuesday that raising the minimum wage in states around the country would help lift people out of poverty.

Edwards is on a three-day tour with Maude Hurd, president of ACORN, a community group that has led efforts to raise the minimum wage throughout the country. Tuesday's stop was hosted by the Arizona Minimum Wage Coalition at the Church of the Beatitudes, 555 W. Glendale Ave.

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/azrep20050629/

Notice the group ACORN, whose leader defended John Edwards from the Times article. On June the 30th it was back east to Ohio:

Allison Wood,Crain's Cleveland Business,Jun 30, 2005: The campaign to raise Ohio's minimum wage kicked off today with a rally that included a speech by former Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards.

Supporters are aiming to put this issue on the November 2006 ballot.

In a brief address in the chapel of Trinity Cathedral in Cleveland, Mr. Edwards said the minimum wage should be higher because those who work for minimum wage make an amount considerably below the federal poverty line.

The rally was sponsored by ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) and also included speeches by Ohio Senate Minority leader C.J. Prentiss (D-Cleveland) and House Minority leader Chris Redfern (D-Catawba Island). Representatives from the AFL-CIO and the National Council of Churches also were in attendance.

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/ccb20050630/

It was then back to Michigan:

Stacey Range,Lansing State Journal,Jun 30, 2005: Former Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards stopped in Lansing on Wednesday to attend a rally urging state lawmakers to raise Michigan's minimum wage.

After the rally, Edwards sat down for a one-on-one interview with the Lansing State Journal.

In that interview we find this exchange:

LSG: It's been reported by various media outlets that you are undecided on whether to run for president in 2008. Are you still undecided, and if so, what factors are holding you back?

Edwards: I'm involved in a campaign right now — a campaign to end poverty in this country. It's where I'm spending most of my time and energy. It's where my heart is. As most people know, my wife, Elizabeth, has had, along with our family, this challenge of dealing with breast cancer, and she's doing very well by the way.
Because of that, our family has been focused on that, and I've personally also been focused on this fight against poverty.

So I'm going to see where all this goes and then make a decision about where I can do the most good.

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/lsj20050630/

Thank you John, for making the right decision. We need you.

The next day finds him again in Ohio:

Joe Hallett,Columbus Dispatch,Jul 1, 2005: Although not ready to declare his own presidential candidacy, Edwards said the winner in 2008 will be the candidate with "the character and strength" to elicit trust.

"I think it's not all that complicated of a formula. People want a president who understands what their lives are about and who has clear ideas of how to make them better, to tell the truth about what's going on, and to be honest about what you think is achievable and what's not."

Edwards said studies show that states that have raised their minimum wages gained jobs. "My assumption is that's true because when you raise the minimum wage, you increase the tax base in an area and there's more money going to taxes," he said. "You've got more people who are less dependent on government programs to pay their way and more people who are selfsufficient."

Edwards made his comments in an hourlong meeting with Dispatch editors and reporters while in Columbus to promote a proposed constitutional amendment to raise the state's minimum wage.

After a stop in Cleveland, Edwards headlined a rally in support of a minimum-wage increase at the King Arts Complex. He was joined by Mayor Michael B. Coleman and other political and community leaders.

Since leaving the Senate in January, Edwards said he has focused on helping his wife, Elizabeth, defeat breast cancer, and has taken a job as head of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina.

Then he shows up in Oklahoma on July 17 from the Associated Press:

"My passion right now is to do something about the issue of poverty, and that's where my energy and time is going," said Edwards. The former U.S. senator from North Carolina heads the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina.

"The most valuable thing I've done has been actually meeting with people who live in poverty because they can give you the best information about what they're going through and what matters, what works and doesn't work," Edwards said.

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/ap20050719/

Then July 20 in Kansas City:

The time has come for America to focus on the 36 million Americans who live in poverty, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards said Tuesday in Kansas City.

"It's a leadership issue," said Edwards, who was raising money for Democratic candidates for the Missouri House.

Edwards, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential candidate and a possible 2008 presidential hopeful, now heads a policy institute at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill that searches for creative solutions to poverty. He travels the country to talk about the subject, which he says has become his personal mission.

"We as a nation have to decide whether we're in this alone or we're in it together," Edwards told reporters. "It's not very complicated."

On Tuesday Edwards once again called for a boost in the $5.15-per-hour minimum wage that has not budged since 1997. With the GOP-controlled Congress rejecting attempts to increase the minimum wage, Edwards has helped launch individual state campaigns to boost the hourly rate.

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/kc20050720/

Next he kills two birds with one stone in Wisconsin, talking about Poverty and helping fellow Democrats:

Alec Loftus,WisPolitics.com,Jul 21, 2005: MILWAUKEE — Former vice presidential candidate and North Carolina Sen. John Edwards brought his anti-poverty message to the state's biggest city Wednesday as he raised money for state Senate Democrats seeking to regain a majority they lost in the November 2002 elections.

Before popping in to the SSDC fundraiser at the Japanese sushi restaurant Saki Tumi, Edwards said he had just spent time with Milwaukee families living in poverty and hearing their powerful stories. He said he found it distressing that poverty had not hit the political forefront — even though it was a presidential priority some 40 years ago.

Edwards said the Bush administration has done little to raise the status of the poor and nearly nothing to lift the curtain of poverty around the globe, where 3 billion people live on $2 a day or less. "I've heard about as much as I want to hear from George Bush talking about freedom," said Edwards. "Freedom is about more than use of muscle."

Frequently mentioned as a possible 2008 presidential contender, Edwards told the estimated 200 in attendance that he still thrived on spreading his anti-poverty message. "I've got more fight in me than I had on November 2nd," he said.

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/wispol20050721/

On the 26th, John Edwards is in Maine from the Associated Press:

PORTLAND, Maine - Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards met with people living in poverty during a visit to Maine on Tuesday to draw attention to the plight of the poor and to raise money for Democrats.

In his first stop in Maine since last year´s presidential campaign, Edwards called poverty the "great moral issue in America today." Edwards was the Democratic nominee for vice president in John Kerry´s run for president last year.

Edwards now leads the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he graduated from the law school in 1977. In his role, he has traveled to more than 20 states meeting with poor people and looking at programs that help the poor with the aim of learning how best to address the problem.

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/ap20050726/

Do I need to go on? I can. In fact, that whole summer John Edwards was in many places doing this very thing for this very organization. I remembered it happening, because I was keeping up with Edwards at the time. Now that I look back at the headlines, I didn't even realize as a supporter how much work he actually did. It is amazing.

Now, I would like everyone to remember one thing about John Edwards. When he entered politics he was one of the most successful lawyers in America. He could have gone back and took a job and made many millions of more dollars. He could have built five houses like the one who took so much heat over. Instead he went around America trying to help those in poverty, low-wage workers, and unions, trying to find a way to consistently battle poverty as well as helping fellow Democrats now and then.

I am a low-wage worker, and Edwards work has not been lost on me at all. I I was there, because I believed in what he was talking about and he was the only one besides Ted Kennedy who was really talking about us. He did more than talk however. He came down to the frontlines and fought, and studyed the problem and came up with many plans to fight it. He cared.

Now, I don't care who you support in this primary, the plain and simple fact is the NY Times article was a hit piece, and was not based in fact. As you can see while working for this non-profit Edwards was all over the country fighting poverty and gaining insights ending it all together. I think that a John Edwards Presidency would be the best thing that has happened in a long time for people who work harder and harder and can't seem to get ahead. If you don't agree, you still should not try to refute the work Edwards has done like the NY Times did. Their is a trail of evidence left all over the country that proves them wrong.

Finally watched the Demo debate and was thoroughly disgusted by the way it was formatted to make the contenders have to race the clock, speaking without breathing.   It was painful to watch Edwards especially, for me, because he doesn't fit into a phony situation as readily as the other candidates.   He's a sincere man,  and there was no time or support for sincerity in that ridiculous event.   It makes me like him all the more, and at the same time fear that this country isn't ready for the likes of John Edwards as a president.   Foolishness reigns supreme in our culture now, and he doesn't fit in , or want to fit in,  with the idiotic herd.   America needs Edwards , but doesn't deserve him.   And the fact that he actually delves into the nuts and bolts of all the issues, and comes up from underneath the nonsense with real resolutions regarding vital aspects of our lives, pushes all the other candidates further into phony empty positions; they even try to steal his ideas and take credit for them, but the right words have already been used, by Edwards, so their attempts have to be covered up with fog at the same time they're trying to be clear.   Why can't people see that ?   It's so obvious.

Edwards is the best fit with my priorities.  Working Class Warrior

and Social Justice Crusader.

I reserve the right to bolt if Gore throws his hat in the ring.

Dillon, you have done some honorable work here.

OHLib 10 

One of the many reasons I find myself so firmly in the Edwards camp during this nomination fight is his stance on the "Global War on Terror", and his ideas for combatting the rise of global terrorism. It was a step in the right direction to hear someone running for President speaking of the "War on Terror" in terms I had been thinking a long time now. Lets look at what Edwards has to say about the "War on Terrror":

"There's a word for doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. George Bush has made America less safe and less respected in the world. And the Republican presidential candidates, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, are competing to see who can be the bigger, badder George Bush. Is that really what America wants? When I'm president of the United States, I will make America more safe.

As I said yesterday, the core of the Bush presidency is a political doctrine they call the Global War on Terror. They use it to justify all the worst abuses of this administration – from Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo to the assault on civil liberties to the war in Iraq. The one thing it doesn't do is the one thing it's supposed to do - by the Administration's own admission, the threat of terrorism is up, not down.

Let's be crystal clear – the president of the United States has an absolute responsibility to stop terrorists wherever they are, with whatever it takes.

But that's not what the Bush terror doctrine does. The Bush terror doctrine says we're going to pursue our ideological agenda without regard to whether it works and without regard to the will of the American people. And if you oppose us, if you challenge us, if you disagree with us, you're soft on terror, you're not a patriot.

It's a political sledgehammer plain and simple. And the most insidious part about it is that it does not work.

Abu Ghraib has not made us safer.

Wiretapping Americans has not made us safer.

The war in Iraq has not made us safer.

We don't need a political sledgehammer; we need a comprehensive strategy to protect America from 21st century threats. We need to build a strong mission-focused military and restore our moral leadership around the world. That's the vision I laid out yesterday."

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070524-bush-comments/

I couldn't have said it more beautifully myself!! Bravo Mr. Edwards!! The "War on Terror" for several years was just used to silence critics of the Iraq War like all of us, and make us look weak or un-patriotic when we pointed out the many flaws in their Iraq planning. No matter who you are supporting for President you should admire Edwards for having the courage to stand up and say to the world that this "War on Terror" is garbage, and we need a different way.

Further, the one thing I have heard many Republicans including my Senators and Congressmen is that "Democrats just want to critisize Bush, but they don't come up with any plans of their own to fight the War on Terror". This simply is not true. The Administration will not listen to anyone else!! Many people have different ideas to bring to the table. Democrats like Russ Feingold and Jack Murtha have led on this issue. John Edwards doesn't just critisize either, he has detailed plans to not only re-build our military to better suit modern challenges, but to make a more concentrated effort at really fighting terrorism where it starts. I wanted to share it with anyone who wants to read it today. First the mission statement:

Edwards will put America on an offensive footing against those who would harm us. In order to fight terrorism, Edwards will strengthen our military force structure and recognize what our military commanders have made clear military action is only one of the tools we have to stop terrorism; we have to supplant the lure of violent extremism with the hope of education, opportunity, and prosperity.

Edwards then goes on to state six specific proposals for making this happen:

Force Structure: The force structure of our military should match its mission. The Administration's mismanagement of the military has not only breached the faith at the highest levels—it has led to a very dangerous situation for our security. We are sending some troops back to Iraq with less than a year's rest. Edwards believes we need to ensure that our force structure is well-equipped for the challenges of the new century. We must have enough troops to rebuild from Iraq; to bolster deterrence; to decrease our heavy reliance on Guard and Reserve members in military operations; and to deploy in Afghanistan and any other trouble spots that could develop. As president, Edwards will also double the budget for recruiting and raise the standards for the recruiting pool so that we can reduce waivers issued for recruits with felonies, which have skyrocketed under President Bush.

Wow. Now, I am no military genius and will not pretend to be. However, to me some of these things just seem to be common sense. Everyone knows Bush has stretched the military to the breaking point and it simply has to be fixed by our next leader. Everyone knows that the same troops are serving over and over in Iraq. It only seems sesible to me too, that we are fighting in a 21st century world and it is time to update tactics and equipment. This whole Iraq fiasco is a perfect example. Everyone knows we need to take pressure off our National Guard. Katrina showed us what happens when they aren't here. Unlike Bush, Edwards would try to address these problems instead of defund them, and would show real respect to our troops and the problems they face.

Next, Edwards goes on to talk about the art of Intelligence gathering:

Intelligence Strategy: We must aggressively gather intelligence in accordance with proven methods. Valuable information can be gained through interrogation, both about past and future attacks, and we must do everything we can to gather this information to keep us and our allies secure. At the same time, we must avoid actions that will give terrorists or even other nations an excuse to abandon international law. As president, Edwards will immediately address the issues that have become blemishes on America's image in the world by closing Guantanamo Bay, restoring habeas corpus, and banning torture.

Need I say more? Does this not sum up what we have been trying to scream out to our fellow citizens the whole time? With Edwards in the White House, we would have a sensible leader, who would pay attention to all the intelligence available and not cherry-pick what he wants to hear? A leader who would not expect us to give away generations of Constitutional protections to make his job easier!! A competent, level headed leader who would listen to what realistic people told him. I submit with a leader like Edwards in the White House that 9-11 could have been prevented because he would take the time to read intelligence reports!!

Now, I could rant on that point all night, but for the well-being of all those involved, I will move on. This next one is real important too:

Meetings with Military Leadership: The past few years have brought the biggest crisis in civil-military relations in a generation. The mismanagement of the Pentagon has been so severe that many of our most decorated retired officers are speaking out. As president, Edwards will institute regular, on-on-one meetings with top military leadership. He will also reinstate a basic doctrine of national security management that has been demolished by the Bush Administration: military professionals will have primary responsibility in matters of tactics and operations, while civilian leadership will have authority in all matters of broad strategy and political decisions.

Now again, nobody is ever going to accuse me of being General Patton or anything, but this paragraph just seems like common sense too. It is sad that in our nation a candidate running even has to include this paragraph. It sounds like to me Edwards has the true mark of a leader. He wants to surround himself with his military leaders on a regular basis to consider their input and make an informed intelligent decision. Having military leaders make decisions on tactics and operations instead of chickenhawks like Dick Cheney and corporations like Halliburton??!? How revolutionary!!!!

I really like this next idea:

"Marshall Corps": Weak and failing states create hotbeds for terrorism and create regional instability that creates security dangers for the U.S. and our allies. As president, Edwards will create a "Marshall Corps" of 10,000 professionals, modeled on the Reserves systems, who will work on stabilization and humanitarian missions. He will also implement new training for future military leadership and create a undersecretary for stabilization and a new senior stabilization position within the Joint Staff.

This is actually a very good idea. I see it as sort of a "Peace Corps" for the new century. After I finish college, I would actually consider serving in such a capacity if it were available. It is time that we took President Kennedy's approach towards reaching out to the world once again. This proposal would definately be a step in the right direction!!

This one is a no-brainer:

Rebuild Equipment. Over 1,000 vehicles like tanks and helicopters have been lost in Iraq, and our equipment is being used at a rate of five to six times its peacetime use. Our forces are not equipped to meet the challenges presented to them. As president, Edwards will re-invest in the maintenance of our equipment so our strategy against terrorists is as effective as possible.

We need to make sure that our troops are recieving the tools they need to do what is asked of them. You can bet with Edwards as their leader, they wouldn't be buying their own body armour, and digging through scrap heaps to try and armour their vehicles. I think Edwards makes that pretty clear.

He goes on to talk about streamlining the military and various civilian agencies:

National Security Budget: The military budget itself also needs substantial reforms to keep us as safe as possible and to deal with 21st century threats. Today, dozens of agencies perform overlapping tasks, and there is no central, overall accounting of all security activities performed by all relevant agencies. We have nuclear proliferation programs in the Defense, State, and the Energy departments, and more than 15 different security assistance programs, running out of both the State Department and the Defense Department. As president, Edwards will implement a new National Security Budget that will include all security activities by the Pentagon and the Department of Energy, and our homeland security, intelligence, and foreign affairs agencies.

http://www.johnedwards.com/about/issues/military/terrorism-plan-fact-sheet/

Now, this again just sounds like to me to be common sense. We simply must streamline these agencies so that information flows more freely between them. This will end much confusion and allow these agencies to perform at full capacity.

Now, you may wonder how John Edwards can have so many ideas on terror, and the military. That is because Edwards shows the same maturity in his campaign as he would in his administration. He has surrounded himself with military experts and gained valuable insights into what has to be done. Here are the members of Edwards' Military Advisory Group:

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070523-military-advisor...

As you can see, Edwards has the maturity and policy to be a leader all America could be proud of on the world stage. Please join us in sending a truly strong, mature, and compassionate human being to the White House!!!

Edwards in 08- The Democrat with vision!!

John Edwards is the candidate in this race that understands the enormous pressures that have been put on the American worker in the last few decades by several administrations. From trade deals that expose them to uneven markets, to neglecting to address falling wages, to the diminishing number of workers who have the right to collectively bargain for wages and benefits, the American worker no matter who is in power seems to be the ones who are constantly taking the shaft.

Now I know the knee-jerk reaction among the MSM and many opponents of Edwards is to say that he can't really care about these things, he is this rich lawyer with a huge house who gets fancy haircuts. But where are their ideas for respecting the American Worker with more than talking points? Why are they not speaking out and fighting against these lopsided trade deals, or expanding our middle-class?

John Edwards has studied long and hard on the causes of poverty and of how to lift people out of it into the middle-class. He doesn't only talk the talk on these issues he walks the walk. You notice at the ACORN convention that the people there all talked about knowing him, and him coming to help them on the ground to get minimum wage raised. He is the only candidate that has had the guts to take a pounding from Corporate American and say what really needs to be done to level the playing field for the American worker once again, and create One America for everyone. I want to look at some of those ideas now.

First again, Edwards identifies the problem he wishes to solve:

With Washington dominated by powerful special interests, it is no coincidence that the benefits of economic growth are enjoyed by increasingly few individuals. Over the last 20 years, American incomes have grown apart: 40 percent of the income growth in the 1980s and 1990s went the top 1 percent. The top 300,000 individuals now make more than the bottom 150 million. [EPI, 2006; Saez, 2007]

Are there any takers on arguing this point? To those Clinton supporters who dream of going back to when Bill run the show I say, sure Bill Clinton was the best President in my lifetime. (1970) However, as seen by these numbers very little got accomplished for the average working American during those years. In fact we lost ground with NAFTA opening the door to other foolish lopsided trade agreeements. His whole second term was marred with who was blowing him, if they were blowing him, and whether he lied about getting blown. We got nothing accomplished accept keeping him from being impeached. I do not want to go back to that. I want to accomplish Democratic goals for Democrats!!!

Now, before I am roundly demonized for talking bad about Slick Willy, I did say he was the best President we have had since I have wandered around this mortal coil. As a Progressive dedicated to the cause of the working man however, I feel his Presidency was a huge missed opportunity in which little of the goals we had were truly accomplished. Why anyone wants that again puzzles me.

Anyway, back to the Edwards plan to respect American workers again, and create One America for all. His first idea has had some play in the last couple of days:

Raise the Minimum Wage to $9.50 an Hour: Edwards will set a national goal of a minimum wage that equals half the average wage. He will raise the minimum wage by 75 cents a year until it reaches $9.50 in 2012. He will also restore the minimum wage for tipped workers to half the full minimum wage—the minimum wage for these workers has stood at $2.13 since 1997—and extend wage and hour protections to home health care workers.

Some will argue this as is their right. It is my right to agree. As more and more middle-class jobs get replaced with lower-paying service type jobs, the wages simply must move up if America is to maintain a middle-class which is essential to her survival. The last part is just a no-brainer. Every American should have wage and overtime protections. Next Edwards goes on to address a worker's right to unionize:

Strengthen Workers' Right to Organize: Edwards believes that unions are essential to building the future middle class. The right to choose a union is poorly enforced, full of loopholes, and routinely violated by employers. He will enact the Employee Free Choice Act, vigorously enforce labor laws and ban the use of permanent replacements for striking workers.

I hope I don't have to argue this paragraph with any Democrat. If I do, I fear for our party. We must defend actively a union's right to exist. We must pursue policies that expand the middle-class. The Employee Free Choice Act is desperately needed. A union's right to strike desperately needs to be upheld. John Edwards understands this and can be depended on to fight for us in Washington!!

Edwards goes on:

Help Low-Income Families Find Work and Join the Middle Class: Edwards has set a national goal of eliminating poverty within 30 years. He will cut taxes on low-income workers by expanding the earned income tax credit for single workers and reducing its marriage penalty. He will create 1 million Stepping Stone jobs to help people struggling to find jobs gain skills and work experience. He will also expand affordable housing near good jobs, rather than concentrating it in high-poverty neighborhoods far from opportunity.

Now, these are all excellent ideas. The EIC has shown it is an effective poverty fighter, and a friend to the middle-class. The Stepping Stone Program shows a lot of promise, and the idea to expand affordable housing is genius. Edwards really shows he can relate with the problems of working Americans, and will fight for the things that help them. Next he moves on to college availability:

Make College Affordable for Everyone: College tuition and debt is escalating. To help students work their way through college, Edwards will pay one year of public-college tuition, fees, and books for more than 2 million students who take a part-time job.

I have already diaried this plan in its entirety here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/23/114234/875

So now we can move along to the next point. This one is a big one:

Enact Smarter Trade Policies: Trade deals need to make sense for American workers, not just corporations. Edwards will insist on strong labor and environmental standards, vigorously enforce American workers' rights, and help workers and communities hurt by global competition.

This statement is simple, yet profound. With the flood of trade deals, it seems that everyone is happy but the American worker. We are falling further and further behind. More than any time since FDR, the American worker needs a President who will fight for them. Edwards would be the most labor-friendly President in over a generation, and this statement shows why. He just gets it.

Now this one has been talked about for a while, and can be found here:

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070206-universal-health...

Here is the quote:

Guarantee Universal Health Care: Edwards has a truly universal health care plan that will guarantee affordable coverage to every family. Employers will have to help cover their employees, the government will make insurance affordable with new reforms and subsidies, and all Americans will buy insurance.

I know much arguing has been done over healthcare plans but I truly believe Edwards plan is better because it allows for flexibility and universality. Lastly, Edwards would adress Predatory lenders:

Fight Abusive Debt and Help Families Save: Edwards will crack down on abusive credit card companies, predatory mortgage lenders, and payday loan shops that take advantage of working families. To help families save, he will provide matched savings accounts for low-wage workers.

http://www.johnedwards.com/about/issues/rewarding-work-fact-sheet

He has many ideas on cracking donw on predatory lending here:

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/building-one-america/

These are just some of the reasons I think John Edwards would be the best President for working America since FDR. He came from a working family and he understands the everyday problems that working Americans face. Better yet, he has the courage and conviction to stand up against big business and fight for them against all odds. A John Edwards Adminisration would truly be a godsend to working Americans everywhere!! Please join us in creating One America for us all!!

John Edwards in 08- The Only Choice for Working Americans!!

John Edwards understands that the backbone of a free society is a thriving Middle-class. He has been fighting for those who desperately hope to remain in the middle-class and those who strive to attain it. He has fought to raise wages for thousands of workers, and to help them organize into unions. Stamping out poverty and making sure Americans get an honest day's wage for an honest day's work has become the mission of his life. Not to mention making healthcare affordable to all who work.

I wanted to share a little bit of an excellent article by Rick Perlstein in The Nation, to which I am a very satisfied suscriber. It is an article called "Will the Progressive Majority Emerge?", which I believe offers keen insights into our party, and what we most need to do to win the White House and retain Congress. While this article was not written as a pro-Edwards pitch and doesn't mention any candidate to endorse, I think it gives keen insights into why John Edwards could really break through in the election of 08 if he gets the nomination. I hope you will read on...

Perlstein first sums up beautifully the problem I myself have noticed in my lifetime, but he says it so much better:

For as long as I can remember, there's been a generally accepted story about the recent history of Democratic Party fortunes, a neat little morality tale that goes something like this: The New Deal majority fell apart when the party was taken over by forces outside the mainstream of American life. Getting blindsided by Reaganism was the party's just deserts. And if Democrats wanted the country back, they would just have to learn to become mainstream again.

For as long as I can remember, liberals have been complaining about awkward, self-conscious attempts to recover this "mainstream" sensibility and how they have paradoxically weakened the party. They forced Democratic politicians to become obsessed with polls. That, in turn, boxed Democrats into an identity the public--the mainstream--found the most off-putting of all: Democrats became timid. They couldn't pursue a bold public agenda because they were too hemmed in by polls. Very recently, among progressives, a new dictum has emerged: Hug close to the polls, worship the polls, be the polls.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070709/perlstein

Surely the two of us aren't the only ones who have noticed this. Our leaders have become so worried about polls and opinions that they have lost the gumption to do what we got them elected to do, pursue a Democratic agenda. They have been so tied up in the centerist craze, they forgot who they are and who they served. They looked to polls to tell them. During this time too, apparently views have shifted on the American people's attitudes towards the role of government:

Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007, a massive twenty-year roundup of public opinion from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, tells the story. Is it the responsibility of government to care for those who can't take care of themselves? In 1994, the year conservative Republicans captured Congress, 57 percent of those polled thought so. Now, says Pew, it's 69 percent. (Even 58 percent of Republicans agree. Would that some of them were in Congress.) The proportion of Americans who believe government should guarantee every citizen enough to eat and a place to sleep is 69 percent, too--the highest since 1991. Even 69 percent of self-identified Republicans--and 75 percent of small-business owners!--favor raising the minimum wage by more than $2.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070709/perlstein

This paragraph is incredible. One wonders why Democratic politicians seem so timid on pursuing a Progressive agenda, when the American people are so against it. For everyone who thinks John Edwards is running such a bad campaign, look at these numbers. His message is a message that the American people truly believe, no matter what the MSM might say. Look at that last sentence, Edwards is right in step with the American people with his minimum wage proposals.

Perlstein goes on to quote more figures that seem to put the American people on the same page as John Edwards.

The Pew study was not just asking about do-good, something-for-nothing abstractions. It asked about trade-offs. A majority, 54 percent, think "government should help the needy even if it means greater debt" (it was only 41 percent in 1994). Two-thirds want the government to guarantee health insurance for all citizens. Even among those who otherwise say they would prefer a smaller government, it's 57 percent--the same as the percentage of Americans making more than $75,000 a year who believe "labor unions are necessary to protect the working person."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070709/perlstein

Now, look at those statistics. 54% agree with Edwards on the debt. 66% on healthcare, and 57% agree with him on labor unions. Judging from these polls, I think Edwards is right in step with the majority of the American people.

Perlstein then goes on to give more numbers from more studies that agree with a Progressive tilt in America. These two paragraphs are of particular note:

You suspected it all along. Now it just might be true: Most Americans think like you. Nearly two-thirds think corporate profits are too high (30 percent, Pew notes, "completely agree with this statement...the highest percentage expressing complete agreement with this statement in 20 years"). Almost three-quarters think "it's really true that the rich just get richer while the poor get poorer," eight points more than thought so in 2002.

If only there was an American political party that unwaveringly reflected these views, as a matter of bone-deep identity. You might think it would do pretty well. Which leads to the aspect of the Pew study that got the most ink: "Political Landscape More Favorable to Democrats," as the subtitle put it. When you compare Americans who either identify themselves as Democrats or say they lean toward the Democrats with Republicans and Republican leaners, our side wins by fifteen points, 50 percent to 35, the most by far in twenty years. As recently as 2002 it was a tie, 43 to 43.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070709/perlstein

I think these two paragraphs effectively show that if we just have candidate that ran as a true proud Democrat and put forth Democratic ideals that the American people are ready to accept that. John Edwards has definately shown that he is more than willing to do that.

Perlstein then goes on to outline the serious danger that faces modern Democrats:

Here's a riddle: What's an "independent"? More and more, it's an American who holds positions we associate with Democrats but who refuses to call himself by the name. Why? Part of the reason is that people say to themselves, "If only there was a party that thought like me--that was for harnessing the power of government to help the needy and protect the middle class; for reining in business excess; for fighting overseas threats through soft power instead of reckless force." But they don't find today's Democrats answering to the description. A Washington Post/ABC News poll published in early June proved it on Iraq: It heralded the emergence of what might be called "antiwar independents," who'd like nothing more than to find a party determined to end the war but don't see enough difference between Congressional Republicans and Democrats for the latter to earn their loyalty. Fueled, the Post suspects, by the failure of Congress to change course in Iraq, independents gave Congressional Democrats a 49 percent approval rating in April but only 37 percent in June.

The pattern--Democrats losing because they don't look enough like Democrats--is nothing new: During the 2002 election Democrats did such a poor job of selling themselves as better protectors of middle-class interests that Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research found only 34 percent of voters saw a difference between Democrats and Republicans on prescription drug benefits to seniors. That year, when the party was handed a once-in-a-generation shot to prove itself as a protector against runaway greed (the corporate accounting scandals), DNC chair Terry McAuliffe called the swindling firm Global Crossing a "great company."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070709/perlstein/2

This is the danger we as Democrats are facing. Independents actually want to be Democrats, but don't think Democrats are Democrats!! That is why I was so disgusted at the capitulation on the funding bill. Independents saw it as that also. It is time once again for us to distinguish the Democratic and Republican agendas to Americans. John Edwards does this well as his numbers against Republican candidates and approval ratings show.

The greatest point Perlstein raises that Edwards has really been good at is here:

But the more profound lesson is that the greatest politicians create their own issues, ones that no one knew existed. Was the mood in California favorable for Reagan's conservative message in 1966? Obviously, or else Reagan wouldn't have won; he wasn't a magician. But he was--yes--a great communicator, confident of his gifts. By listening and interacting with ordinary people, and sniffing out where his own sense of right and wrong dovetailed with what he heard, he divined a certain inchoate mood. It had to do both with a fear of breakdown of the social order and resentment of liberal elites. Finding those frequencies sounding via the trope of "Berkeley," he was able to turn that mood into a political appeal. In that regard, his pollsters could only hurt him. All they knew was that Berkeley wasn't an "issue."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070709/perlstein/3

This is one thing that I think really sets Edwards apart from the others. Nobody was talking about poverty. Nobody was really paying much to the plight of the working American and re-building of our unions, and the evening of the global playing field for the American worker. John Edwards cared about these issues and although everyone advised him against it, he made it his own and has now created an issue noone knew ever existed as millions of people like me are fighting for these things again. That shows the mark of a true leader.

This was an awesome article by Rick Perlstein in The Nation, and no matter who you support for President I hope you will read the whole thing and consider the arguments and advice contained therein. I agree completely with his assessments of the recent past, present and future of our party.

I don't have to tell any of the pet owners who lost a member of their family about the evils of our deepening dependence on imported food supplies. I also don't have to tell anyone who has become sick from eating food imported from places that have lax food standards. Well, all this has not been lost on John Edwards either. He is taking the lead once again on an issue that should be important to all Americans, the quality of food we feed ourselves and our pets. Today, John Edwards released a new policy proposal to Protect our food supply, and require country of origin labeling. This is an idea that is well past due. Lets look at this plan in-depth.

As always, Edwards begins his policy proposal with an overview of the problem:

In recent weeks, a series of tainted products from China have exposed gaps in America's food safety protections. Today, John Edwards outlined his plan to make food safer by taking on the big food companies and food importers on behalf of American consumers and producers. First he would finally implement country-of-origin labeling so families can learn the source of their food and have the option of choosing domestically-raised and grown food. He would also strengthen the Food and Drug Administration's oversight over the safety of American and imported food.

Now, it was bad enough that many Americans lost pets to this tainted food supply, but human beings have also been exposed to tainted food from third-world countries. All so big food companies and importers can sweeten their bottom line. I don't think any company should be allowed to profit off endangering the American consumer. John Edwards agrees. After all, what kind of America do we have when we cannot even trust the food we eat!!??

Edwards then goes into these problems in detail:

Neglect of Food Safety: Breakdowns in food safety cause 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths each year in the U.S. The General Accountability Office recently added our nation's food safety system to its list of "high-risk" operations. [CDC, 2007; GAO, 2007]

Now, these numbers are staggering. 76 million illnesses? 5,000 deaths? All for profit. The thought of that makes me sicker than tainted food!!!!

It only gets worse. Equally as shocking and disturbing:

Growing Reliance on Food Imports: Americans eat about 260 pounds of imported foods a year, on average, and the Food and Drug Administration inspects only 0.7 percent of imported food products. Following reports of tainted pet food, contaminated livestock feed and seafood, China recently admitted that 180 food processing facilities had been caught putting industrial additives into a range of food products. An investigation found 23,000 food-safety infractions. Unfortunately, the recent wave of tainted products from China is only the latest in a series of import-related crises over the last decade. Hundreds or more people became sick from Guatemalan raspberries in 1996, Mexican strawberries in 1997, Mexican cantaloupes in 2000, and Mexican green onions in 2003. [AP, 4/16/07; NY Times, 4/30/07; WSJ, 6/30/07; CSPI, 2007]

Again, it is tragic that Americans must risk their, and their pets lives so things can be done on the cheap. Why in the world would we import foods from China, Guatemala, and Mexico if we can't even insure their safety? It is simply a disgrace!! Unfortunately it gets even more disgraceful than that:

Agribusinesses Blocking Country-of-Origin Labels and Other Food Safety Steps: Five years ago, Congress passed a law giving consumers the right to know where their meat, produce and nuts came from. However, implementation of the law has been repeatedly delayed by special interests. The USDA is now preparing to allow chickens raised, slaughtered, and cooked in China to be sold here without labels showing their origin. [Center for Food Safety, 2007; Boston Globe, 5/9/07]

This should enrage all American consumers. Although it is a legal right that the American consumer should know where their food has come from, since Washington is in bed with special interests Americans lose a right provided them by law. Now, the USDA is going to sneak Chinese grown chickens on unwitting American? I personally do not want to eat one morsel of food grown or produced in China right now. Thanks so much Sen. Edwards, for bringing this issue to the fore-front!!

Now we get to the good part. All of this so far is very disturbing, and really makes me ashamed of my government. That has been nothing new lately. That is where I think the Edwards campaign stands out, not only does he make fancy speeches to show disgust and critisize, but he offers real solutions to these problems with specific proposals and being honest with the American people about just exactly what he would do to address the real concerns that confront everyday Americans. I would say the safety of our food eclipses just about anything. To me, this issue and the issue of Iraq are paramount in this election. If we can't even trust the food we eat, what makes us a super-power?

Edwards pulls no punches in this first paragraph, and it is refreshing that someone is taking a strong, moral stance on this issue:

Providing Consumers with Country-of-Origin Information: Despite increasing concern about the safety of imports from countries like China and interesting buying local produce, implementation of country-of-origin labels has been twice blocked by large meat packers, agribusiness lobbyists and retailers like Wal-Mart. Consumers are not required to be told where these categories of food come from. As president, Edwards will end the delays and start enforcing mandatory country-of- origin labeling, giving Americans the information they need to choose the best food for their families. This will also help domestic farmers and ranchers by giving consumers the option of choosing safe, American-raised meat, and it will motivate foreign producers to make safety a priority and move our food supply system toward fuller accountability for the safety of what we eat. [USDA, 2007; The Hill, 4/7/05; National Family Farm Coalition, 2007]

Democrats everywhere must demand to know what our candidates think about this issue. If they will not take the stand that John Edwards is taking against the Agri-business lobby and corporations like Wal-Mart, then they do not deserve a single Democratic vote. Having a President who enforces these laws is not only the right of the American consumer it is the moral thing to do. I have the right to know where my food comes from. The last part of this paragraph just makes sense. Edwards is committed to reviving rural America, which includes our farmers and ranchers, and personally, I would always buy American grown food if I just knew which was grown here and which wasn't. I would even pay a higher price to support American industry, and eat food I felt was safe. Edwards should be commended for taking a strong stance for Americans no matter who you support.

This next paragraph is a really good idea too:

Integrating Food Safety Rules and Enforcement: Fifteen different agencies are charged with regulating some part of our food supply, enforcing 35 different laws. Different agencies regulate meat lasagna and vegetable lasagna. An open-faced ham-and-cheese sandwich is inspected by the USDA while a closed-face ham-and-cheese sandwich is inspected by the FDA. The USDA and FDA inspect imported food at 18 U.S. ports, sometimes in separate facilities and generally without sharing assets. President Bush's solution—a "czar" with the bureaucratic rank of assistant commissioner—is not nearly enough. Edwards will strengthen the FDA and rebuild our food inspection system within the beefed-up agency, giving one regulatory body clear responsibility for ensuring the security and safety of the food we eat. [National Academy of Sciences, 1998; GAO, 2007; CSPI, 2007; Government Executive, 6/19/07]

I believe that government does have a role to play in people's lives. That being said, we should strive to make our government as effecient and effective as possible. This is just another statement I believe that shows John Edwards just gets it. He would run a streamlined government which gets the most out of every taxpayer dollar. This is an excellent idea that would not only save money, but it would increase the effectiveness of the effort to insure Americans eat safe food. People can say what they want about money, polls, and haircuts, but this is the mark of an effective leader. One we desperately need in the White House.

This next one is simply a no-brainer. It is a shame a major candidate for President had to include it in a policy proposal. I think that shows the disdain our elected leaders have for us that he does:

Getting Unsafe Food off the Shelves: Unlike the Consumer Products Safety Commission, neither the USDA nor the FDA has the power to order mandatory recalls of the food products they inspect. The agencies are not even equipped to monitor how well companies carry out voluntary recalls. Edwards will establish the power to order mandatory recalls and provide the resources to make sure they are quickly carried out. [GAO, 2007]

This again shows Edwards qualifications for leadership. We here all this talk about keeping us safe, but what about our food? If we get sick and die from eating, or lose our pets by feeding them, how in the hell are we safe? We are running up on a trillion dollars blown away literally in Iraq, but not one red cent to keep unsafe food off our shelves? How are we safe if al-Queda can just taint our food supply? Again, we need to know exactly where these candidates stand on these issues!!

Again, this next paragraph shows leadership and a true concern for the safety of the American consumer:

Increasing Inspections of Imports: Less than 1 percent of imported food is inspected, down from 8 percent in 1992. Eighty percent of imported food automatically bypasses inspection. Following the recent wave of tainted imports, big corporations are scaling up their inspections of Chinese products, but American families have no choice to rely on an under-resourced and neglected government agency. Edwards will provide the resources for the FDA to do its job. [NY Times, 5/16/07; NY Times, 7/1/07; GAO, 1998]

Again, this is disturbing information. What is wrong with our government when the rich and corporations get huge tax breaks, but we cannot trust the food we eat. Why in the name of all that is holy if we are going to neglect a government agency is it the one that ensures the safety of our food!!!?? I'm sure George W. Bush knows exactly where his food comes from, and so do the talking heads in Washington. It is good to know Edwards thinks the American consumer has that right too!!

This next paragraph shows the mark of a true leader also:

Requiring Safety Systems Abroad: The U.S. cannot put inspectors in all of the 130 countries that sell us food, but we can insist that these nations take their responsibilities seriously. Edwards will require countries exporting food to the U.S. to have safety systems certified by the FDA as equivalent to our own. This level of protection is now given only to meat, poultry and egg products. This added protection will supplement, not replace, inspections by U.S. officials at ports of entry. [CSM, 5/807; GAO, 2004]

We need a President who cares more about the safety of the American people than allowing corporations to exploit the third world. Edwards is serious about doing this. Certain standards should have to be met for us to import food from any country. This is just common sense. It is good to see that Edwards gets it yet again.

To finish up, Edwards sums up how this coincides with his Rural Recovery Act to help our nation's family farmers:

Building on Edwards' Agenda for Family Farmers: Today's announcement builds on earlier efforts to create fairness for family farmers and help them create a healthy, abundant and safe food supply:

Strictly enforcing laws against anticompetitive mergers and unfair pricing.

Passing a national ban on packer ownership to stop the spread of large corporate hog interests.

Passing a national moratorium on the construction and expansion of hog farm lagoons.

Limiting farm subsidies to $250,000 per person and closing loopholes in payment limits.

Expanding conservation programs that help farmers preserve the land.

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070710-food-supply/

Most of these things are just common sense that don't get to be done because of the corporate control of the White House and our Congress. John Edwards believes the American people should have someone in the White House who cares about the interests of the American people over big Agri-business and Wal-Mart.

As I said above, although it is not getting as much air-time, I believe this issue to be at least close in importance to Iraq. I think we need to know what every candidate running thinks about this issue, and more importantly what they will do about it. Any candidate that cannot support the common-sense proposals put forth by John Edwards simply does not deserve our support.

Once again, John Edwards has taken the lead on an issue of dire importance to every American with more than speeches and promises. I hope Democrats everywhere will join me in electing a true leader who wants to have a more efficient, effective government that fights for the interests of everyday Americans over those of big Corporations. John Edwards is the leader to take America into the new century with common sense!!

Even more distasteful to the young, as it has been to moralists for thousands of years, is the ethic that judges all things by their profit. Robert Kennedy- To Seek a Newer World

No matter who supported what when, and voted for what when, I think John Edwards has owned up to his mistake and is now talking more sense on Iraq. Check out his quote from today:

"It is more important than ever for people all across the country to let Congress know that we expect them to act decisively to end the war in Iraq. Congress should no longer facilitate the President's stubborn allegiance to his failed strategy. It's not enough to talk a good game any more. It is time to act. The one way to support our troops and bring them home is for Congress to exercise its constitutionally mandated funding power, force an immediate drawdown of 40,000 to 50,000 troops and require withdrawal of all troops within about a year."

Now, I know many may disagree, and I can respect that. I personally feel, and it is my opinion that this is what we need to be doing to get our troops home in an orderly fashion. We do owe some responsibility because we invaded these people and threw their country into chaos. However, it is time the committment comes to a close. Edwards has the most sensible plan to do this in my opinion.

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070710-iraq/

Check out this article today on al-Queda's ever increasing abilities despite five years of the neo-con "War on Terror":

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/07/12/712867....

Now, lets look in-depth at a few things that this report quotes:

WASHINGTON - A new threat assessment from U.S. counterterrorism analysts says that al-Qaida has used its safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border to restore its operating capabilities to a level unseen since the months before Sept. 11, 2001.

A counterterrorism official familiar with a five-page summary of the document _ titled "Al-Qaida better positioned to strike the West" _ called it a stark appraisal. The analysis will be part of a broader meeting at the White House on Thursday about an upcoming National Intelligence Estimate.

The findings suggests that the network that launched the most devastating terror attack on U.S. soil has been able to regroup despite nearly six years of bombings, war and other tactics aimed at dismantling it.

Of course none of this effects our Idiot-in-Chief, lets look what he has to say about it:

At his news conference Thursday, President Bush acknowledged the report's existence and al-Qaida's continuing threat to the United States. He said, however, that the report refers only to al-Qaida's strength in 2001, not prior to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The group was at its strongest throughout most of that year, with well-established training camps in Afghanistan, recruitment networks and command structures.

"Because of the actions we've taken, al-Qaida is weaker today than they would have been," he said. "They are still a threat. They are still dangerous. And that is why it is important that we succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq and anywhere else we find them."

Now, just what world is Bush living in? NeverNever Land, or Wonderland? It is plain to see that this administration's idiotic diverting of our resources to Iraq from Afganistan not only let bin-Laden escape, but now has allowed al-Queda to regroup, and they are as strong now as they ever were. Look at this assessment from the counter-terrorism official that blew the whistle on this report:

Al-Qaida is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," the counterterrorism official said, paraphrasing the report's conclusions. "They are showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States."

The group also has created "the most robust training program since 2001, with an interest in using European operatives," the official quoted the report as saying.

At the same time, this official said, the report speaks of "significant gaps in intelligence" so U.S. authorities may be ignorant of potential or planned attacks.

What he is saying is that this "War on Terror" has been just what John Edwards said, a slogan to keep anyone from speaking out against the War in Iraq. All the while, this administrations diversion of troops and resources to Iraq has allowed al-Queda to regroup, and now they have the ability to strike in Europe and America, just like on 9-11 and just like before. Not to mention that they allowed bin-Laden to dance away scot-free, dialysis machine in tow. Bush and Cheney and their PNAC handlers have also failed miserably in shoring up our intelligence. In other words, because of their use of the "War on Terror" bumper sticker slogan to stifle debate and find real solutions to the threat of al-Queda not only was incompetent, but today we face just as much of a threat from these people as we always did. John Edwards was right when he said the "War on Terror" is a slogan, and actually has made us less safe.

Now, lets look at Edwards statement released today in response to the newly rebuilt and equally dangerous al-Queda:

"Today's report that Al Qaeda has rebuilt its operating capability to a level unseen since just before 9/11 is an unsettling reminder of the failures of President's Bush's 'War on Terror' doctrine. Months ago, John Edwards stepped up as the only major candidate to call the 'War on Terror' doctrine what it is -- a sledgehammer that the Administration uses to beat down their domestic political opponents, a bumper sticker to distract from a host of policies that have compromised our moral leadership of the world, and a military doctrine that has badly backfired against terrorism -- as today's report reveals.

"The report proves that a real effort to arrest the spread of terrorism is needed to replace the Administration's bumper sticker. John Edwards has proposed a bold new 'smart power' anti-terror strategy that would shut down both the effects of terrorism and its root causes. As president, John Edwards will apply the full extent of our security apparatus to protect our vital interests, to take measures to root out terrorist cells, and to strike swiftly and strongly against those who would do us harm. He will also launch a sweeping effort to eliminate the conditions that generate instability, radicalism, and violence toward the U.S. and our allies."

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070711-al-qaeda-capabil...

I think it is time to give credit where credit is due. It took guts for John Edwards to stand up and denounce this propoganda ploy for what it is, a means to stifle debate and keep our country locked into the failed PNAC policies of this administration. We need more than slogans and the questioning of people's patriotism to eleviate the threat posed by terror societies such as this, we need a real leader who addresses the problem realistically, not to satisfy some neo-con think tank that has been wrong every step of the way. John Edwards deserves much credit for standing up and telling the truth to power. I wish all our top tier candidates had the common sense and courage to call this "War on Terror" for what it is, garbage!!

I invite everyone to look once again at a plan that would really fight the root causes of terrorism without questioning anyone's patriotism, and without depending on childish themes that reek of propoganda:

http://www.johnedwards.com/about/issues/military/terrorism-plan-fact-sheet/

Once again, history is proving John Edwards to be right, no matter how much heat he has taken for denouncing the phony "War on Terror". Edwards deserves our thanks for making a brave stance in debunking this neo-con fantasy and coming up with a real plan to fight terrorism and make us all safer. Again, this shows that Edwards has the most maturity, common-sense, and courage to lead our country in a direction we can all be proud of.

It appears the media is actually giving Edwards trip to highlight poverty some air time. Check out this story:

http://www.comcast.net/news/politics/index.jsp?cat=POLITICS&fn=/2007/07/...

Of course they couldn't resist the temptation to try and paint him as a hypocrite, which he is not:

The eight-state tour shifts the spotlight to an issue that has been the focus of Edwards' campaign since his first run for the White House four years ago. In recent weeks, publicity about his personal wealth _ $400 haircuts, construction of a 28,000-square-foot house, hundreds of thousands of dollars in salary to speak about poverty and advise a hedge fund for the superrich _ has opened him to charges of hypocrisy and threatened to undermine his message.

Haircuts, houses, and hedgefunds. (sighs) I don't see any mentions in Hillary or Romney's articles about their lavish personal hygeine fees, now do I? This article has also failed to mention that Edwards has come out talking about how these hedge funds should be taxed.

However, the Edwards campaign is not just sitting idly by while he is unfairly smeared by journalists who worry more about sensationalism than real news, like informing voters of the policies proposed by Edwards:

Edwards' advisers argue that hair cuts and square footage shouldn't undermine his candidacy when the nation has far greater concerns such as the Iraq war, nearly 44 million uninsured and 37 million living in poverty. They note that nearly all the leading candidates running for president in 2008 are wealthy, as well as those in the past who have championed poverty.

"I think voters understand that whether it was Franklin Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson or Bobby Kennedy, there's been a lot of people interested in issues that don't fit their own financial situation," said Edwards pollster Harrison Hickman.

Just because someone is wealthy doesn't mean they cannot champion the poor. Why don't we hear about the poor from these other wealthy candidates? Because they don't care!! Most of them were born rich and didn't have to work and make their own money like Edwards did. At least he remembers the people still stuck where he used to be.

It goes on to tell how instead of ingnoring or changing the subject he tackles it head on:

Edwards isn't changing the subject as much as he is taking it head on. When the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing Wednesday to discuss how hedge fund managers avoid paying taxes on much of their compensation, Edwards embraced it as a chance to decry the abuse of the tax code even though he has, in the past, provided consulting services for some of those managers.

At least they don't fail to mention that Edwards is discussing how the hedge gund managers should pay taxes, but they fail to mention that he worked for these hedge funds to find their usefullness in fighting poverty.

Of course the campaign realizes they will be smeared yet again by the media for this trip:

Edwards advisers say they fully expect the poverty tour will revive more questions about his finances verses his message and he is prepared to answer them.

This doesn't bother Edwards though, I love his response:

He frequently talks about how he was born into a working-class family and has been able to live the American dream. But the tour is an attempt to show that the debate shouldn't be about him but about one in eight Americans living in poverty.

"Let them attack," Edwards said in a letter to supporters, asking for symbolic $8 campaign donations to support his effort. "We know what's right. And we will keep fighting to end the national disgrace of 37 million Americans living in poverty."

Edwards cares little about the unprofessional talking heads in the Media who fear an Edwards Presidency and wants to draw the attention to the millions who live in poverty. Notice how unlike other candidates who are begging for and recieving big money contributions, Edwards just asks for $8. Is this the mark of a opportunist? I think not.

At least this story does point out the risk Edwards is taking in calling attention to poverty:

Taking the trip also is a risk since it is a significant detour from campaigning in early states and raising money. But his campaign hopes the tour will provide visuals of the candidate addressing concerns of the poor that will stick throughout the campaign.

Edwards has decided to buck traditional wisdom in order to fight for what he believes in. If onlyl ewe had more politicians who were equally as dedicated.

Like RFK before him, Edwards deeply cares about the Americans that are not as fortunate as him. Like RFK he has the moral compass to go and visit these people that noone else seems to care about. He is not doing this for personal gain, but because it is the right thing to do. No matter what you think of Edwards the man is no hypocrite and is willing to risk his campaign to fight for the poor in this country who have been ignored every since that tragic night when RFK died for what he believed in.

Thank you so much Sen. Edwards, for keeping the spirit and what RFK fought for alive. You have my undying support, and my undying admiration, the same as RFK.

We all know that global warming has become a huge issue. Those of us who care about the planet we will leave to the next few generations realize that we simply must do something to halt the spread of global warming and limit the amount of damage human beings do to our planet. Now, we all realize that it will require some sacrifices to truly do this. It is a multi-faceted problem that must be confronted in many different areas.

That is what I like about John Edwards plan fighting global warming and creating a new energy economy. His ideas don't just call for sacrifice, but if enacted could help bring about a whole new energy economy and provide cheaper energy for all Americans, and high wages and benefits for Americans who train and work in this innovative new field.

Well, no need for me to ramble on, lets look at some of this plan in detail. First the full overview from his site:

Global warming is a crisis that could fundamentally change our planet, but it also presents an opportunity to rebuild America's economy based on clean, renewable energy and good jobs. John Edwards has proposed an ambitious plan to cap global warming pollution and reduce it by 80 percent by 2050. At the same time, he will sell carbon pollution permits to build a New Energy Economy Fund to bring struggling family farms back to life, revitalize America's manufacturing base, and harness American innovation. Today, he described how he will ensure that workers have the needed skills to build the new energy economy and that it creates good job opportunities for everyone.

Edwards' investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency technology will create more than 1 million new jobs. Many of these jobs must be performed locally and cannot be offshored. However, it will take a concerted effort to ensure that America's workforce is well-trained for the new energy economy, that these jobs are good jobs, and that the economic opportunity is broadly shared. Today, Edwards outlined his "Green Collar Jobs" initiative to train and employ at least 150,000 workers a year in new energy economy jobs. He will dedicate 50,000 Stepping Stone jobs—subsidized employment that form part of Edwards' anti-poverty plan—to energy-related occupations. In addition, the Green Collar Jobs training initiative will work with employers, unions, community colleges and high schools to prepare and engage the next generation of workers.

I will let most of those comments speak for themselves. I would just like to add that during my lifetime I have constantly heard about us needing to be independent from foreign oil. They have talked and talked. During that time, the "independence fairy" hasn't come down and granted our wishes. I think that we can be completely energy independent. I think American ingenuity and innovation can come up with that one big breakthrough that makes some kind of bio-fuel feasible and marketable at better prices than we currently pay for other types of fuels. If we ever expect to do this, we simply must have a leader who is going to quit talking about the need and doing nothing to aleviate it. Edwards is fully committed to fiding a way to do this. It is time for Americans to be patriotic about something besides war....

Well, lets look now at some of the proposals for doing that, and creating countless high-paying jobs in an exciting new industry:

The New Energy Economy Needs Workers: Nationwide standards and significant increases in research and development of renewable energy, energy efficiency and carbon emissions control will spur new economic activity and create over 1 million new jobs. Already, "clean tech" has become the hottest new area of venture capital funding. Edwards' investments in renewable fuels will generate new jobs in rural America farming, processing and transporting biofuels. His national 25 percent renewable electricity standard can reenergize America's manufacturing sector with increased demand for wind turbines, solar panels and biomass engines. His emphasis on distributed generation will drive consumers and businesses to new businesses that can market, install, and service on-site power production. To freeze our demand for electricity, workers will be needed to design, construct, weatherize and retrofit energy-efficient buildings and homes. Many of these jobs must be done locally. [Newsweek, 6/21/2006; Apollo Alliance, 2007]

Now please, I don't care who you support, PLEASE read that last paragraph again. Republicans are always saying how Democrats oppose fair markets, but here Edwards wants to start a whole new market for investers to make money in. Think of the endless possibilities that investment in research of bio-fuels would bring once a breakthrough was found. I worked for a great Congressional candidate in the primary last year who just couldn't get his message out, and this was one of the things he really wanted people in our area to know. Here in rural Kentucky, we could take the lead in researching and developing the fuels of the future. He wanted to research and develop the fuels of the future right here in Kentucky and open our closed down factories and re-fit them to refine and ship these fuels of the future. This could seriously uplift our region and provide high-paying jobs and industry.

And its not just in Kentucky. No matter who ends up winning this primary, I desperately want to convey to anyone who reads this that this is simply not something we can not do. This is something we can do. We could create endless jobs and opportunities in many areas all over the country, and provide cheaper energy to all Americans. We must tackle this problem now. I think Edwards has shown he is the leader that has a real plan to do that. Oops, sorry to rant, lets move on:

Green Collar Jobs Will Require New Skills: Without a major strategy to prepare America's workforce for these new jobs, the new energy economy will be slow to take off, and the climate cannot wait. Experts have already anticipated a dire skills shortage: the National Renewable Energy Lab concluded that insufficient skills and training are major barriers to the rapid adoption of renewable energy and energy efficiency. The existing energy industry is getting older and half of current utility workers will retire within the next decade. Unfortunately, there has been no major effort to work with businesses and unions to identify the needed skills, create certification and training programs, and connect job-seekers to new energy economy jobs. [NREL, 2007; APPA, 2007]

I think this just speaks to the inaction of our government in the last several decades. The "Pass the Buck" mentality. Lawmakers on both sides don't have the stomach to just do what it takes to solve this problem. Edwards will be the leader in the White House who will spurn Congress to take action and solve these problems.

Its not like Americans don't need a better job pool to select from. Nowadays, in many regions of the country even college grads struggle to find work equvilant to their skills. Edwards speaks on that here:

American Workers Need Better Jobs: The nation has over 1 million long-term unemployed adults. In the first few months of 2007 alone, 640,000 workers were affected by mass layoffs. In urban centers and rural towns, hundreds of thousands of youth are out of school and out of work. And one in every four American workers holds a low-wage job with few benefits and little hope for advancement. [BLS, 2007; USA Today, 7/14/2006; CSS, 2007; Shulman, 2003]

That goes to show that this economy ISN'T working for everyone. Its not just unskilled, uneducated people that are working low-paying jobs either. A lot of skilled, and college educated workers nationwide are working for low wages in jobs that they didn't need a college degree for.

Edwards goes on to talk about his plan for creating the skills for a new "Green Collar" worker:

Linking the New Energy Economy, Workers and Good Jobs: The Green Collar Jobs training initiative will connect over 150,000 workers a year with skills certification and living wage jobs in the new energy economy, meeting the industry's need for qualified workers. States, businesses, labor unions, community groups and educators will train and employ new energy economy workers together. Green Collar Jobs grants will help partnerships create training curricula and certificate programs. They will also support partnerships' efforts to recruit, train and place participants: unemployed workers, community college students, veterans, and others seeking a way to build their skills for the new economy. Successful labor-management partnerships like these exist in many sectors and regions of the United States: states use economic development incentives to attract high-road employers in a specific industry, and employer associations or joint labor-management programs develop training programs and hire local job-seekers. [Ella Baker Center, 2007; Fitzgerald, 2006]

Now, if you think about it this is a very innovative proposal. It develops the skilled workers for a new industry, as the industry develops. Many people all over the country could benefit from this Green Collar jobs training initiative.

In order to do this it is going to take participation from many people, and organizations and Edwards goes on to touch on that:

Working with Businesses and Unions: The best job training and workforce development programs have the full involvement of employers and labor organizations. Industry groups and unions will help analyze necessary job competencies and develop curricula and provide training. As a result, the resulting credentials will be transferable and have real value in the workplace. Employers and unions may also participate by sharing their expertise as trainers and educators. [AECF, 2004]

Not much I can add to that. Edwards now discusses the role of Community Colleges in the process of creating a New Energy Economy:

Working with Community Colleges: Community and technical colleges provide important vocational and education services to 11 million students a year, but their curriculum is often disconnected from industry needs. The Green Collar Jobs grants will encourage community colleges to partner with businesses and unions to develop new energy economy education curricula that can be used by any students seeking to improve their job skills at community colleges, as well as direct participants in the training program. [AACC, 2006, Fitzgerald, 2006]

Now, I like this idea because it involves the technical schools also. I connects them with businesses and unions and makes sure to match graduates with needed skills. Many of these skills can be oriented to the New Energy Economy.

But Edwards thinks the creation of these skills should go further back still. Here he discusses what can be done in our High Schools:

Creating Career Academies in High Schools: The new energy economy will produce many skills-intensive jobs requiring solid foundations in math and science. In addition to improving math and science education in America's public schools nationwide, Edwards will support a network of Green Career Academies in high schools. Career academies are small learning communities within high schools that use a college preparatory curriculum with a career theme and engage employers, unions, and local colleges to participate. John Edwards will encourage the next generation of career academies across the country, building on the curricula designed by the Green Collar Jobs partnerships. [MDRC, 2005]

This is also an excellent idea. Everyone knows our students have been consistently falling behind in math and science worldwide. This program could motivate many students and get them on the path to a rewarding career, rewarding for them and their country.

Lastly, Edwards talks about using this New Energy Economy to give many of our fellow citizens a new lease on life:

Lending a Hand Up with Green Collar Stepping Stone Jobs: Many willing workers cannot find jobs because of the place they live, a lack of skills, experience, and references, or other obstacles like a criminal record. Up to 18 percent of former welfare recipients do not have a job. Too many welfare-to-work and employment service programs have slotted people into easily available jobs with low pay, few benefits, and no room for advancement. Edwards will create 50,000 government-subsidized Green Collar Stepping Stone jobs for hard-to-serve job-seekers. Green Collar Stepping Stone jobs will not be dead-end jobs. Workers will receive on-the-job training and work toward a training credential. Studies have shown that skills certification programs are critical for lower-skilled workers' efforts to move up. Employers who hire Stepping Stone graduates and offer living wages and benefits will be eligible for existing Work Opportunity Tax Credits and given preference in public contracts. [Turner, Danziger and Seefeldt, 2006; Osterman, 2005; Urban Institute, 2007]

http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/environment/green-collar-jobs/

This would help break the cycle of unemployment for Welfare recipients and give them real hope at independence. It will also help people who have made mistakes and need a second chance. In One America everyone should be able to share in the prosperity of an exciting new industry.

I think this proposal further demonstrates why John Edwards is the most qualified candidate to be President. He knows it is time to stop talking about needing to be Energy Independent and start doing something about it. As other candidates across the country have pointed out, it is not only the right thing to do, but with a little sacrifice, it could pay huge dividends in the future. Please join me in supporting John Edwards in the Democratic Primary and creating a New Energy Economy for all Americans!!