Why is Edwards doing it?

He is using this tour as an appeal to the media to bring attention to what he calls his "purpose in life." One cannot deny that getting media attention will also help a presidential campaign, but look at what issue he decides to do this with. He isn't using a 74% agree message, like "Bush sucks" or "We need to get out of Iraq." Those are important, but they are already on the mind of the American media and public.

What about poverty? Why interrupt a campaign for this cause?

Todd Beeton


***

John Edwards Set to Embark on Poverty Tour with Renee Montagne, NPR


Todd Beeton continued



John Edwards does what a president would need to do to win support for his ideas and plans. He is arguing with us. He is telling the American public and the media that we need to change.

If the media doesn't get this idea from all of his speeches and all of his plans and campaigning, then he kicks it up a notch.

In Rural Poverty Fight, Showing Up Is a First Step by Dee Davis, NPR


Edwards starts 8-state poverty tour in N.O. from USA Today


Edwards' Tour Highlights Poverty from ABC News


A poster or two has criticized John Edwards for taking out time from campaigning to concentrate on poverty, suggesting that he is only going to make it harder on himself by not collecting money on the road tour. Well, some things are more important than money. John Edwards is in a unique position to be able to do more for fighting poverty than just donating. He is able to put a spotlight on what has been under the American rock. We all saw this during Katrina.

John Edwards Set to Embark on Poverty Tour with Renee Montagne, NPR


We shouldn't wait for the next natural disaster to pay attention to the lessons from last one. John Edwards is refocusing our attention back to where it was in September 2005. Lets remember and realize that the fight has yet to begin on both fighting poverty and rebuilding New Orleans.

On "Road To One America" Tour, Edwards Unveils New Initiatives To Reward Work


The Road to One America: Building One America Starts in New Orleans



While John Edwards may not be taking money on the tour itself, he is asking for a symbolic $8 contribution and a commitment to end the national disgrace of 37 million Americans living in poverty.

Update:
Found a good CNN article about this very question.

With poverty tour, Edwards emphasizes morality over politics


(Posted at: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/17/145556/710 )

Considering the field of candidates, he stands out as the candidate representing the democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

Granted, it's an interesting approach for a candidate, but dammit we need to bring attention to poverty in this country. I remember arguing with a neocon a while back, she would not accept that there are children going to bed hungry "In this Great Country of Abundance".

NoFederales

Might be interesting.

He could teach everyone about how to get out of poverty. All they have to do is join a Hedge Fund.

Then presto- changeo, no more poverty!

I found your comment and the one before it distasteful. Jim Hightower was a friend of Molly's and Ann Richards and he thinks Edwards is great. Liz Carpenter has endorsed Edwards, I might add.

This is a very good diary. Edwards understands the issue of poverty very well and is empathetic. We could use some empathy in the WH.

is a great platform to run on, since he can't run on his warmongering stance.

Speaking of Molly, I listened when she said, Watch what they do, not what they say.

Might work.

in tandem w/his poverty bs.

The polling--and the actions (or more accurately, their lack of actions) of dozens of presidential candidates over the past four decades--show that advocacy for the poor is not a winning political issue. Edwards is simply doing the right thing. Other candidates do not even bother to mention poverty, except rarely when in front of audiences their pollsters tell them to mention it to with generic rhetoric, but no plans. Edwards mentions it everywhere and it is a fundamental part of his platform for president.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

What Fill is in?

:rofl:

Thanks in advance. I look forward to seeing it.

I've kept up w/his political history since 1997. Have you?

Thanks in advance.

you wouldn't need to ask, "List of votes?"

It is refreshing for someone to admit they do not know the history of the candidate they support.

I could provide boatloads of info on his history. But since YOU are the one that is supporting him AND doesn't know his history, I believe it would behoove you to learn.

OR

You can check the 2004 primary archives here to learn some of his history. Of course it will say nothing about his sincere :sarcasm: platform on poverty. SINCE HE DIN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT IT UNTIL HE DECIDED TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT. AGAIN.

Usually, when people make claims they can back them up with evidence. Why is this so difficult for you? ;)

He is the sole candidate who actually worked in someone else's shoes for one day and had the first health care plan out there.

http://www.walkadayinmyshoes2008.com/edwards-walks-a-day/

WOW!

And he was walked for workers' rights to organize, everywhere.

I sure as hell haven't seen him anywhere near my state.

Are you serious? One day? Have you any idea how foolish that sounds (and is)?

As someone who likes Molly Ivins, who was a populist, then bashes Edwards. Edwards was the only person to mention Molly's death at the Winter DNC meeting, and again not long ago at Austin, TX "small change for big change" fund raiser.

Edwards has been to Oregon a few times in the past year, but Mrs. Edwards made the most recent appearance.

Here's a post I did about Oregon residents who are supporting his campaign:

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/3/20/17812/4455

Please do not besmirch her memory by comparing him to her.

Molly walked the walk.

johnnyboy doesn't even know what that means.

A couple, actually. First, Edwards has chosen to take his campaign into states that the others aren't competing in at the moment, which is more cost effective for his campaign.

Second, I believe that most of the states he's targeting have open primaries, meaning that a person doesn't have to register Republican or Democrat. So by targeting a group which normally votes Republican for religious reasons, he might have a chance to flip them to his column in the primaries, thus creating votes the others aren't even paying attention to--aside from cursory attention.

Third, the South tends to vote as a group, so if he can win a majority of the Southern states in a close three-way election with Clinton and Obama, he could wind up with a lot of delegates and a bit of buzz going into the convention.

Fourth, he is still a Democrat, and by campaigning in the South--his home turf--on issues that will resonate with a lot of people who have been voting Republican even though it goes against their issue, he has a decent shot of making gains in the South. Match this to Dean's 50 state strategy, and look at the demographics of the deep south where he is campaigning. Mississippi, for instance, is a third African-American, a group which votes overwhelmingly Democrat. They are angry at BushCo over Katrina, at least on the Coast, so there are Republican votes that may be a bit shaky now (true also in Florida, Louisiana, and Alabama). Combine this with the high level of poverty, the high number of agricultural jobs, and the fact that this region was solidly Democrat until Civil Rights, and you have a region which could begin to flip back to our column.

The only factors that make the South vote Republican now, against all self-interest, are God and guns, and a general distrust of non-southern things. Edwards is a southerner. He sounds southern--and you Yankee bastids have no idea how far that will take you in the South. If he can drive home his message that he will fight poverty, and that the Democrats are friends of the farmers, he might have a chance to set aside the god and gun fears. Southerners really aren't all fundamentalists--there are a lot of Christians who do not like the James Dobson/Pat Roberston version of Christianity.

Fifth, the anger over the government's reaction to Katrina is more vivid in the South than other places. You really have to be a Southerner to understand. We are the land once invaded by the United States. There are still reminders everywhere that we were once conquered by the US. During Civil Rights, we were again invaded, with troops, to be forced to change our world. While the majority of Southerners, I think, would admit that we were in the wrong, that the US had to do these things, there is still a sense of distrust of the Northern government that I don't think non-southerners can understand. It's part of the weird dichotomy of a Southerner waving both the American flag and the Confederate flag side by side.

Reagan managed to use this distrust of the northern, federal government to win the South for the Republicans. What Katrina did was, at least in Louisiana and Mississippi, convince people that the Republicans weren't interested in helping the South, either. They are a little less solid down here than they used to be. I'm not saying Edwards can win the South for himself, or for the Democrats. But I am saying it's worth a try, especially for a campaign that is, lets face it, on the brink of elimination.

Basically my point is that, while Edwards may very well be sincere (I have no reason to believe otherwise), he ain't no dummy when it comes to politics. And his focus on poverty, especially in the South, especially involving Katrina, might yield him a lot of votes, and maybe a lot of delegates. Even if it does nothing to improve his chances in the primaries, it could improve his chances to wield some power at the convention, or even to wield some power with the nominee. I don't know if he'd want another run at VP, but there are other jobs in any administration. And, as Edwards has seen in his time off (and as Gore and Carter have shown), not all power and influence come from the government.

Just my observations. Sorry so long.

Why aren't HRC and Obama running on poverty? What about the others? What about all the Democratic candidates since RFK?

Long and thorough points were made which piece by piece debunked my arguments.
:sarcasm:

but it took him a while to find out that the poverty card worked well for him then. Now he knows.

Is he sincere about eradicating poverty in these United States? Most likely.

Would he be able to get it done? Probably not.

Will this upcoming presidential election be about eradicating "poverty"? I don't think so.

Considering the news all day today, and the news since 2001......this election as the previous one will be about national security. The GOP/media will make sure of that.

So at the end of the day, it doesn't so much matter "why" John Edwards wants to "do this".....what matters is that John Edwards' is the weakest candidate on national Security....and would not win the GE, period. That is a problem for John Edwards, and by extension to Democrats.....IYAM.

"Two Americas" refers to the gap between the wealthy and everyone else. Poverty is a separate thing. There is no polling evidence that poverty is a burning political issue. If it was, the other candidates, both this time and in the past, would have focused on it.

==Would he be able to get it done? Probably not.==

Neither did LBJ's "war on poverty." Guess what? It cut poverty by 50%, though. Even if JE's plan does not successfully eliminate poverty it will reduce it substantially. The same cannot be said about other candidates who do not dare to mention poverty (because they are aware of the polling data and the fact that poverty is not a political winner).

==what matters is that John Edwards' is the weakest candidate on national Security....and would not win the GE, period.==

The first is based on your opinion, which is influenced greatly by one Edwards advisor in 2003 daring to utter an opinion about a former colleague. The second is also opinion. I have asked you numerous times to provide actual evidence to support your claim that Edwards is a very weak GE candidate. Will you finally produce some evidence? The polling suggests that Edwards is the most electable candidate we have...

Observations of his to and fro......From Hawk to Dove on Iraq, all done in sinc with polling results in this country....beginning with his extreme support and co-sponsorship of the IWR to his total denouncement 3 years later (November of 2005), AFTER the war had fallen out of favor with the majority. The same on Iran just recently, first he came out as a hawk, and backtracked when the netroots exploded with the news. If you think that these shifts in stances shows any acumen, foresight, or good judgement on International issues, I would disagree with you.....because it seems to usually happen after the fact of a disaster, military or in public relations perception.

"his national security credentials had to be remade. As the Iraq war turned sour in 2004, Edwards was among the first to say he should never have supported it in the first place. That decision has earned him much kudos in the party as a brave move. As the Democrats excitedly examine their presidential field, Edwards' denunciation of the war has played much better than Hillary Clinton's equivocation (which of course has meant she has started to sound less equivocal). But was it really such a brave move to speak out against the war two years after he had supported it? How brave is it of someone who holds no elective office to say that he no longer holds an unpopular view? If that's courageous, I'm a Medal of Honor candidate."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/john_edwards_gets_a_makeover.html
NOTE: Factually, Edwards didn't see the real err of his ways until Late 2005, not 2004 as stated in that piece.

Google what will be used in the GE against John Edwards - War on Terror is a bumper sticker. Maybe out of context, but it was said, and there were cameras rolling at the time.
http://www.google.com/search?q=JOHN+EDWARDS,+NATIONAL+SECURITY,+bumper+sticker&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&start=0&sa=N



His chief foreign policy guru continues to be his longtime advisor Derek Chollet, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington. Edwards also said that his views have also been shaped more recently by a reading list that includes Hard Power: The New Politics of National Security by Kurt Campbell of CSIS and Michael O'Hanlon of Brookings, and and The Good Fight: Why Liberals---and Only Liberals---Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again by Peter Beinart.
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/05/my_john_edwards_problem_and_at.php




"I actually have several distinct John Edwards problems, but only two of them are worth taking seriously, and this one the more serious of them. The estimable E.J. Dionne writes that "Edwards has decisively thrown in his lot with the party's antiwar wing." This is true on the question of the preferred legislative strategy during the 2007-8 period. On the broader question of national security policy, however, Edwards has, to a remarkable extent, stayed right in the same wing he was in back in the day even though his political persona has transformed from "fresh-faced moderate" to "awesome liberal."

It's important to recall where Edwards was back in 2003-2004, namely left of Joe Lieberman on Iraq but right of John Kerry or Hillary Clinton and running a campaign full of wonky centrist policy proposals including the creation of a domestic intelligence service. No non-Lieberman Democrat still supports the war these days, but Edwards has cast his regret of his support narrowly in terms of bad intelligence rather than broadly in terms of changing his doctrinal view about unilateral preventive war."
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/05/my_john_edwards_problem_and_at.php

I can't help but throw some words in for Kucinich here. Whatever Dem is nominated, the terror card will be played. Kucinich has a very consistent record here.

I thought this would be a weakness for Kucinich. After watching an interview on Fox where terror was the subject du jour, Kucinich was strong.

Also, on the internet the choice seems to be between Kucinich and Ron Paul. They are both liked because they are not intimidated by the terror war and their consistent stand against the war in Iraq.

Nobody here is armed like you are with knowing your shit and backing it up. Always impressive. Just thought I'd say so.

while the too recent past is flushed down a memory hole! :hi:

Thanks. You have shown you simply have a theory but no evidence that Edwards is the weakest candidate on national security and use that to claim that he is the weakest GE candidate--even though polling data has consistently shown him to be the strongest GE candidate.

:rofl:

good, bad, sincere or not, it's part of his primary campaign.

I want this child to have the same opportunities I had, and Edwards does too.

to have been sent to Iraq benny, and I wanted the NIE document read with NO votes cast for the IRW. It comes down to a question of judgment, and voting records, not photo-ops, or rhetoric for me.

But I also take Edwards' word that he made a mistake in his vote. There are many who don't, but I'm one of those who took his apology to heart. He is a candidate that has evolved a lot since the last election.

civilly, this board seems ready to self-ignite lately. I think that's the main difference between those who support Edwards and those who don't. And it's understandable that there would a difference when it comes down to something very personal like issues of whether to trust; or is this person sincere? Very subjective topic and hard to argue from either side, I think.

23 Senators figured out in 2002 that giving Bush unilateral authority to invade Iraq was a bad idea. Most of the Democrats who did vote for the IWR have all but admitted that they didn't want to give Bush the authority, but voted YEA anyway for political reasons. Then there's Edwards who comes out with a heart-felt apology and is sticking to the story that he genuinely did what he believed was right. If he genuinely believed that giving Bush unilateral authority was right, then he isn't qualified to be President.

If you think we need another leader like GWB who never says he is wrong, then we have differences of attitude. I prefer someone who is willing to admit mistakes, and think of ways to lead and govern better. It means that Edwards admits he needed to listen to himself first, but also listens to the people and will make things happen that will benefit our troops and our national security.

Unfortunately people like Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Dick Durbin, and Barbara Boxer have been deemed "unelectable" and the guy in my avatar is not only "unelectable" but he's also dead.

Edwards is doing something good by talking about poverty, but, please, could Edwards's supporters stop thinking we are stupid.

Of course, it is a part of his campaign. Good for him to make his campaign on something useful, but it is still part of his campaign.

The candidate who is running on poverty issues makes a poverty tour and it is not a part of his campaign.

No surprise that I do not trust Edwards anymore. His team should stop insulting my intelligence.

... as long as for once since LBJ poverty actually gets some fucking attention in this country.

Political reasons or not, good for John Edwards for actually focusing on it. It's more than I can say for most of the country.