NPR's Montagne suggested Edwards is wrong to target poverty, given widespread concern with Iraq
During an interview with presidential candidate and former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) that aired during the July 13 edition of NPR's Morning Edition on the topic of Edwards' "Road to One America" tour, which highlights the issue of poverty, co-host Renee Montagne asked: "[V]oters rank the war in Iraq at the top of their list of concerns right now. Why make fighting poverty a central theme of your campaign?" In response to Edwards' assertion that "there's a difference between looking at a poll to see what voters care about and only talking about those issues and leading," Montagne said: "I realize this is an ongoing issue, poverty in America, but it isn't just a poll with the Iraq war. It is a hugely momentous feeling across the country. It's not just a poll. It's a big issue for many, many, many people." Despite Montagne's suggestion that the war in Iraq is not a "big issue" for Edwards, while Edwards' tour focuses on poverty, he has issued numerous statements about the Iraq war and has a "Plan to End the War in Iraq" on his campaign website.
According to "John Edwards' Plan to End the War in Iraq": "Senator John Edwards believes that every day this war goes on it is worse for Iraq, worse for our troops and worse for our country. We cannot wait for the next president to end the war in 2009, we must act today." The website states that Edwards has offered a "comprehensive proposal to end the war in Iraq," which "calls on Congress to use its funding power to block President Bush's escalation, immediately begin withdrawing troops by capping funding and requiring complete withdrawal of all combat troops in 12 to 18 months."
Edwards has also issued a series of press releases concerning the Iraq war and his position on it, including three statements in July alone before kicking off his poverty-focused tour on July 15. Most recently, on July 12, in response to President Bush's press conference, Edwards released a statement criticizing Bush for "trying to link Iraq and 9/11 - a rationale for the war that virtually everyone except Dick Cheney has now recognized was false." On July 10, Edwards released a statement calling on Congress to "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." Edwards also issued a statement on July 7 "urg[ing] all Americans to ask their Congressional representatives to take actions to end the war and bring our troops home to the heroes' welcome they deserve."
As Daily Kos diarist chuckles1 noted, Montagne "simply brought up in order the right-wing talking points about ... John Edwards."
From the July 13 edition of NPR's Morning Edition:
MONTAGNE: Just finally, voters rank the war in Iraq at the top of their list of concerns right now.
EDWARDS: Yep.
MONTAGNE: Why make fighting poverty a central theme of your campaign?
EDWARDS: Well, there's a difference between looking at a poll to see what voters care about and only talking about those issues and leading, and trying to --
MONTAGE: Well, let me -- I realize this is an ongoing issue, poverty in America, but it isn't just a poll with the Iraq war. It is a hugely momentous feeling across the country. It's not just a poll. It's a big issue for many, many, many people.
EDWARDS: As it is for me. It's a huge issue for America. It's a huge issue for the world. I wasn't for a second downgrading the importance of the war in Iraq and ending the war in Iraq. My point was that you can't just focus on one issue. The person who's running for president of the United States has to focus on the things that they believe should be the priorities of America. The war in Iraq is certainly at the top of the list. Universal health care. So is addressing what I think is a crisis in climate change. And including millions of people who live in poverty. And because New Orleans has faded from some people's memory and because I believe it's important for America to focus on this issue, I just want to make sure that this is among the things that we, as a nation, are addressing.
Yeah, screw the poor, we've got a war to fight! Sacrafice everyone!
Oh, wait, did they ask us all to sacrafice for this one? I forget.
Edwards voted for the war (and his subsequent recantation came as soon as public opinion swung the other way). Talk about courage! That being said, he is focusing on poverty because he is quite the expert on it - having created quite a few more poor through his advice and stewardship of Fortress Investments - one of the largest predatory lending hedge firms in the country.
You're cynical analysis is dazzling. Anything but the issue of poverty in America. You know FDR was quite a fat cat when he took office too, turned out to be a flaming liberal for the people and saved capitalism, and defeated the Nazis and the Japanese and put the hurt on poverty too. I like Edwards despite his few flaws. But hey keep on keeping on dude. One can find fault in any one if they look hard enough or surrender enough common sense.
Bing - your posts indicate that you are a blatant liberal but a fair one. Why don't you try to explain John Edwards' hypocrisy on Fortress or his 50000 speeches? Do you really think this guy is interested in eradicating poverty? If so, why be a star in one of the country's leading predatory lending fims? Os is his campaign merely a cynical attempt to use a populist wedge issue?
Yes, I believe that he is serious about eradicating poverty. His speaking fees pale in comparison to other politicians and making money not disqualify you from wanting to do something about poverty. As I have said FDR was considered a rich fat cat when he won the Democratic Nomination. He did more for the poor than any President before or since.
You are free to cling to the speaking fees and the Hedge fund accusations as proof he is a hypocrite if you wish, I don't. I don't feel the need to explain away everything either. No one's perfect, especially politicians. I think he's a genuine guy with genuine concerns and it'll take something more substantial to change that opinion than what the media has pounced on so far.
One could say Bush and his family are pretty rich too. What has he done for them lately besides get a lot of the killed in an illegal unnecessary war?
At least he's not talking about the haircut.
Oops. He is a she. Doh!
Edwards remains consistent in his message. The media just hate that about him.
He is the one major candidate who is not a corporate tool (at least not completely, although far more centrist than *I* like - gimme a Kucinich with electability, thank you). That is why I keep sending him money, and advocating for him on MMFA and other sites.
He is not a corporate tool because he is a tool of the trial lawyer/tort lobby.Be careful about the hard-earned money you send him. It is good people like you whose money this fellow wastes on high-priced haircuts.
The irony of the public distrust of lawyers distrust of lawyers is multifaceted. Everyone hates them until their own lawyer wins a case for them. I'll worry about lawyer jokes when mom's don't want their kids to be one when they grow up. But the concept of Tort Reform is a political red herring being used much as the terrorism and gay issues to foment sufficient fear to provide financial and other support to political and religious groups whose only real interest is power.
Please don't make the mistake of forming your opinions on political sound bites. You are rephrasing a myth. Do some limited research. In about 5" I pulled up this information. The most compelling entry is fom the Heritage Foundation.
Average baseball salary 2.6 million http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7409653/
...[P]layers with the New York Knicks made median salaries of $5,500,000 in 2005. Players with the Los Angeles Lakers earned a median salary of about $3 million. And this doesn't even begin to reach the salary heights. Miami Heat player Shaquille O'Neal earned $20 million in 2005. Chris Webber, with the Philadelphia 76ers earned more than $19 million. Plenty of other players in the NBA earned salaries of more than $12 million a year. http://www.careerprospects.org/briefs/P-S/SportsBasketball.shtml
Earnings of administrative services managers vary greatly depending on the employer, the specialty, and the geographic area. In general, however, median annual earnings of administrative services managers in May 2004 were $60,290. The middle 50 percent earned between $42,680 and $83,510. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $31,120, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $110,270. ...In the Federal Government, mean annual salaries for engineers ranged from $100,059 in ceramic engineering to $70,086 in agricultural engineering in 2005.
http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm#earnings
Average trial lawyer income: the median income of all lawyers in 2004 was $94,930, i.e., half of all lawyers made less than that. By comparison, the median income for doctors ranged from $156,010-$321,686, depending upon specialty, and $129,920 for dentists.1 But if any lawyers are making excessive income on average, it’s corporate lawyers, not trial lawyers: 85percent of partners in corporate law firms earned more than $200,000 in 1995.2 ... In 1986, James Gattuso, then with the conservative Heritage Foundation, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal entitled “Don’t Rush to Condemn Contingency Fees.” He stated the truth about contingency fees -- that the contingency fee system both ensures that injured persons who could not otherwise afford legal representation obtain access to the legal system, and, “rather than encourage baseless lawsuits, the contingent fee actually helps screen them out of the system.” On the other hand, defense lawyers are paid by the hour. They are the ones motivated to increase their hours by conducting unnecessary discovery, filing frivolous motions, or refusing to participate in meaningful settlement negotiations until immediately before trial.4 http://www.centerjd.org/MB_2007lawyers.htmBack to the thread: Edwards is a populist whose skills as a trial lawyer put him in a financial position to do something about issue that are important to him. When he made his fortune, he did it providing access to compensation awarded by people in the same community as the injured men, women and children he represented - amounts that were considered reasonable by the jury that gave it, the judge the reviewed it for unreasonableness, and any appellate courts that the insurance company or corporate defendant wanted to pay to review the cases. Now, he's following up trying to move from individuals with great need for a helping hand to populations with great need for a way out: including the Katrina victims, people from Appalachia near my home, ghetto dwellers, the homeless. As a trial lawyer and successful politician he knows the importance of appearance (reminding me of Matlock shining his shoe soles because he just knew while he was making the most important point of his cross exam or closing statement, some juror was going to be looking at the spot he missed...) so others in this thread need to lay off the haircut issue.
I don't know if I'll vote for Edwards or not because I can't get an answer on his real position about NAFTA like agreements, but he's way ahead of Clinton and Obama in looking out for middle and underprivileged Americans and the soldiers produced by those sections of our country, his short-sighted vote to prematurely authorize combat in Iraq notwithstanding.
The trial lawyer lobby, that's rich. Hey gheghis or whatever, if your intestines get sucked out due to a manufacturers defective drain in you pool, I suppose you'll be a good American and not sue them. Of all the things to get worked up about, being a trial lawyer, that's hilarious! AS I said keep on dude.
I've actually been a hot air balloon called 'The Corporate Tool.' It belongs to the Forbes family. I think they call all of their excess items corporate tools. It's their ironic pseudo-self-deprication, I suppose. It's a little off topic, I admit. It just comes to mind whenever I hear the phrase.
While I'm not a fan of Edwards I think he & the other candidates can walk & chew gum at the same time.
Iraq is a burning issue...but it's not the only thing we need to focus on. I'm sure the candidates can handle more than one problem at a time.
Acute observation! If our candidates could not handle more than one issue at a time, other than occasionally being right, they would be no better than Bungle.
Montagne said: "... but it isn't just a poll with the Iraq war. It is a hugely momentous feeling across the country. It's not just a poll. It's a big issue for many, many, many people...
But here is what Bush has to say about this momentous feeling across the country as Montage puts it.
From a wsws article:
He(Bush)then declared that the occupation of Iraq will continue regardless, and attempted to defend this policy by appealing to the military as against the general population. “If our troops thought that I was taking a poll to decide how to conduct this war, they would be very concerned about the mission,” he said. “If our troops said, well, here we are in combat, and we’ve got a commander-in-chief who is running a focus group...
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jul2007/bush-j16.shtml
Bush is calling this momentous feeling across the country a focus group. Yep 75 percent of the nation is a focus group in Junior's eyes. What Junior forgets is this is our money that he is flushing down the toliet via lies getting us into this mess.
The MSM, now with NPR, to get out those tough thought stains.
The Daily Show is right the press is like a cat with a ball of tin foil.
Come on, the worst thing about this interview is that Montagne interrupted Edwards before he had an opportunity to clarify his answer. The interruption may have, in fact, helped him to better state unequivocally what he was trying to say in the first place.
Isn't Edwards running a distant third in the polls? (Fourth if you include Gore) I'm just sayin...
How he is running is compounded of two aspects of the media coverage he gets. While there is occasional mention of the fact that he is "running against poverty", that mention is almost always tied to the accusation that "folks" don't pay $400 for haircuts, and therefore, Edwards is a "hypocrite". Combined with the notion that he is the "Breck girl" in the campaign, again, hammered home at every opportunity, the result is that not many people are seeing past those Corporate Media misinformations to the truth.
Edwards is the least "Corporate" of the major candidates from either party. Edwards is truly "self-made" in a sense that none of the other major candidates can approach, rising from actual poverty himself, and rising by taking the side of the "little guy" against the well-to-do and the Corporations. Remember that almost all his cases as a lawyer required him to front the funding on speculation that he could win the case. Realize that he took down corporate misdeeds which afforded no recourse except his suits, including several fatalities in at least one of those cases.
Never mind that the theme in the Corporate Media is false on each count. Never mind that Edwards has remained true to his positioning throughout his campaigns to date. Never mind that his proposals are better documented than any of the other major candidates, and better for the majority of the population. The media focus remains steadfast upon whatever negatives they can fit into the brief accounts of the Edwards campaign that are produced.
While I wish that his healthcare proposal were more robust (too much appeasement of the Corporate interests for my taste), I find John Edwards to be the best potential President among the electable field for 2008, and about even with another whom I am sure the media despises equally, Al Gore. So it is that I have diverted some of my contributions to various (liberal) blogs, and some that would have gone to Michigan Dems, to the Edwards campaign.
Edwards would make a great president, good for America, a wonderful change from the incompetence and corruption and avarice of the past six years of Bush.
Bush has been a TERRIBLE President, horrible for America, and getting WORSE.
Hillary would make a great president, as would Obama or Gore. The Democrat field is tremendously strong, and ANY who might win will be a win for America.
On the other hand, the GOP field is pitiful. Rudy, McCain, Romney, Thompson or God forbid any of the others would make TERRIBLE presidents. The voters see this, and UNNAMED OTHER wins every poll where that is an option.
The Rightwing had their time in the sun, to rule with absolute power; the White House, both houses of Congress, and ever more stocked with "conservatives" in the Judiciary. The Rightwing had the power and the time to create America in WHATEVER IMAGE they desired ... and the result is disaster in every quarter.
The last time the GOP were "in the wilderness" and out of power, it lasted 40 YEARS ... two generations ... to reestablish themselves as fit for "leadership".
After Bush, there may never come a time a Rightwinger will be trusted with a vote in America. Not ever again.
The Republicans have no chance in 2008. You are absolutely right.
Don't underestimate the sliminess of the GOP, or the exceptional ability of the DNC to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I think you're right Tex, as usual. Edwards would make a great President and we can thank George Bush for effectively killing conservatism in American politics for decades. I feel bad for George Will. Not really.
You have stated your support for Edwards and that's fine. But I think it's fair for the interviewer to ask the question about campaign strategy when the candidate is running pretty far behind in the polls. We are talking about Democratic voters here, not the entire voting public. The haircut stuff and the Breck girl stuff are nice fodder for Republicans to poke fun at Edwards with, but wouldn't serious Democratic voters ignore that stuff?
If Edwards has the best ideas and is the least corporate of the Democratic candidates, then where is the support? That should be a home run combination with the Democratic base.
I agree BRUCE. I firmly believe the reality is that Hillary can not win. Nominating her is effectively giving the election to any Republican.
Even a conservative corporatist like Hillary Clinton will beat a conservative Republican corporatist. Bush is synonymous with Republican ergo a Republican has no chance to win 08.
I would hope so BING but I still believe the reality is that Hillary cannot swing the "Reagan Democrats" needed to win a general election. she has the base but I fear her candidacy would suffer in the heartland and certaintly in "guns, god, and gay's" south. Nevertheless, I would be tempted to vote for her anyway against any of the GOP candidates. Maybe.
I dunno, Bing. I want to believe that, but I’m not sure America is willing to vote for Hillary or Obama at this time. Though I respect all three top-tier candidates, Edwards is the only one who I believe is dedicated in curing deep poverty and the educational system in this country, and that interests me greatly. He’s also less calculating and abstract about his policies than Hillary and Obama. There’s no doubt in my mind if he wins the nomination and is up against folks like Thompson, McCain, Romney, Gulliani, etc., he would easily win the election being that he’s a Democrat and a Southern white male. If anything it’s Edwards that the Republican Party are afraid of more than Hillary and Obama.
Excellent post Preston. I couldn't agree more.
Wow, my arch adversary Chris is agreeing with me?! The apocalypse is near! Just kidding. Thanks for the kind words, man. :)
There are no more Reagan Democrats. I think you would be hard pressed to find one who admitted to voting for the SOB. Hindsight being 20/20 and living through the Bush Sr. hangover, I think Reagan lost all the converts. Clinton won them back and despite Bill's infidelity he still had high approval and probably could have won a third term. I just don't feel that Hillary is as polarizing as the right would like her to be. The mood of the electorate is changing, I think many folks are frankly tired of being polarized, maybe becoming apathetic. When Republicans are apathetic they don't vote and that's a good thing for us.
Edwards is my guy, don't get me wrong, but Hillary would trounce any of the Republicans. As she has shown in New York, if given an opportunity she can win many people over.
Its about the electoral votes in these states..Florida, Ohio and this next election..New York and Pennsylvania because of Rudy and Hill. A loss of any 2 by the Dem's = Republican win. Hill cannot win....at this time....any 1st semester statistician can tell you that if 17% of Democrats will NOT vote for Hill no matter what with the following givens that the country is split 30% Repub's, 30% Dem's, 30% Indy's and using the data obtained in the last election as to the breakdown for who voted for whom. Simply counting the voters who will NOT vote for her makes it statistically impossible for her to win the popular vote. Subject to change of course.
but she has strengthened in the latest zogby poll, leading all the republicans. obama leads too.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1338
they are out there BING. I think you could just ask John Kerry, but, I see your point. I guess one could call them the "independent vote" now. I just don't see Hillary clearing that hurdle nationally, nor Obama. Call it sexism, racism, or whatever but the unfortunate thing is that I think it is nearly imposible for a woman or black man to win the majority of the vote. I would hope I am wrong. I would be extremely happy if that were the case. I like Preston's take on this issue. To me his view is the reality.
Well she beats every Republican in just about every poll and is leading the Democrats in just about every poll. Take it for what it is but the writing on the wall says landslide for the Dems especially if she is the candidate.
Then why does she beat every possible Republican running, and all the Democrats too?
In comparing the richest to the poorest we are reaching a division within which the richest have more of the money thsn before. This compares to the gilded age, with the robber barons, and more recently 1928/1929 with the collapse of the stock market and the great depression. So, rather than focus on these inequalities we should focus on the war. The war could be a distraction to poverty.
This isn't dishonest. It's just her opinion about Edward's emphasis. You're picking on her just because you disagree and that's not what this site claims to be about.
The implication by Montagne is clear: Edwards is ignoring the Iraq War problem.
He is not ignoring that problem (as MMFA documents) His campaign is rich with opposition to continuation of the occupation. This criticism of the invasion and occupation of Iraq is one shared with most of the Dem candidates, however, and not a difference-maker in determining the Dem nominee.
The Edwards campaign is alone in its focus on the poverty problem, and the concentration of wealth in ever-fewer hands. Edwards' attack on the use of government to enrich the rich is unacceptable to the Corporate masters of the Corporate media, and must be undermined - an undertaking that Montagne is assigned and attempts to execute.
Lately the thread topics here are far less about monitoring, analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation, and far more about subtle manipulation and steering questioners and questions to promote the Democratic political agenda.
I still don't buy that analysis.
Tommy,
Really? It's sad that addressing poverty issues is only a Democratic agenda item, it seems that all Americans should be concerned with this and it should be an agenda item for us all.
Lynn,
I wasn't addressing the validity of addressing the issue of poverty, I was expressing my opinion on why MMFA insists on 'telling" the media what they should cover and what questions they should ask.
As for poverty, it absolutely is an important issue and I would very interesed to see how each candidate addresses it with or without huge tax increases on an economy that is already taxed enough. In my view, higher taxes suppress economic growth and that is no way to eliminate or reduce poverty in our country. So Edward's plan seems to contradict it's stated goals.
But that's my opinion and why his poverty tour is an admirable election year strategy, even if I don't support it.
"addressing poverty issues is only a Democratic agenda item, it seems that all Americans should be concerned with this and it should be an agenda item for us all."
It is an agenda item for us all. From what I've observed, democrats prefer to set up government programs to care for the poor and republicans prefer to set up private programs to care for the poor. Both side contribute through religious groups as well.
If you hear republicans saying, don't help the poor, then you are hearing wrong. What they are saying is, don't help the poor through government programs. I personally say, don't help the poor in a way that makes them dependant on you for the rest of their lives.
That liberals depend on government to solve societal ills is merely a Republican fabrication that polls well with the victory at all costs wing of the GOP.
It is predicated in any contract, in this case the social contract between we the people and the government we own, that all signatorees fulfill their responsibilities to the gaurantee. Liberal policy flows from the broader context of participation, cooperation and empathy. The success or failure of programs that promote the general welfare hinge upon the earnest effort of people to help themselves.
The very idea of dependency is a slap in the face to every salt of the earth, hard-working laborer who toils to make ends meet. Go ahead thrash the tenets of good government, but it's shameful, and frankly un-American, to hold fellow working citizens in such low esteem.
i dont think its a concerted effort though tommy i think its just a natural swing in threads with alot of posts this is a political website the big issue in politics right now is the presidential elections therefore i believe any thread is going to swing that way it swings democrat because the vast majority of posters think that way
It doesn't need to be dishonest to be note worthy or misinformation. I don't care why she is implying that Edwards is ignoring the Iraq war by focusing on poverty. I care that she is. And I assume so does MMfA.
And Bob Edwards was replaced by this nitwit?
Renee says it's not just a poll, then describes what could be the results of...tadaaa...a poll! Simply brilliant!
Well, at least she was half right. It isn't just a poll. It's people being disabled or dying.
MONTAGNE: Why make fighting poverty a central theme of your campaign?
I think it is a good question. It is fine that Edwards want to be a champion for the poor, but he won't become president with that as his central theme. Poverty in America just isn't a big problem. Not when compared to poverty in the world.
That you would suggest that poverty in America isn't a big problem is exactly why Edwards is talking about it. Because it IS a big problem.
Poverty is alway a problem, it is always going to be there because people will always compare themselves to the Jones'.
However, it is going to be hard to convince me that poverty is a BIG problem in the USA when there are 21 million illegal immigrants living here. These people are choosing to live in "USA Poverty". They work the lowest paying jobs. And yet they are choosing it.
Poverty in our country must not be so bad. It just depends on who you are comparing against.
With all due respect, that's a complete and utter cop-out -- as long as someone is worse off than we are, we don't need to take care of our problems at home? No wonder we're participating in a global drive to the bottom -- as long as people like yourself can point to a third world country somewhere, politicians in any first world country have an excuse to cater to business interests instead of serving the people who elected them.
We've about 15.6 million people in this country that live in extreme poverty, which is defined as living at half of the income of the poverty line, or less, and if you've seen the poverty charts, they're ridiculously low (in the 2004 chart I looked at, an individual who makes 10,000 years is not living in poverty, according to the US Gov't). This is a problem, and it's largely a silent problem, which is why so many of us who are aware of these things are so happy to see at least one candidate who would like to see it addressed.
I'm not saying that poverty isn't a problem, or that it doesn't need to be given constant attention. I budget money and give to the poor each month because it is important. I also trust the charity I donate to, to do a better job with my donated money than the state and federal gov does.
That doesn't mean I shouldn't do more. But world poverty vs. US poverty it is a valid comparison, it is not the only comparison that matters, but it does factor into how good or bad our country deals with poverty.
Hunger and malnutrition are the big deal. They create a self-sustaining downward spiral. All I'm saying is that I don't think that poverty is the first, second or third largest problem we have because we already do a great job with it.
If you want to tackle world poverty you have to tackle domestic poverty first. I think that poverty transcends just poverty. It effects our healthcare sytstem, illegal immigration is a factor, our national security etc. Poverty is the root of many more problems than just taking care of poor folks. If you disagree that's cool I respect it.
While I see MMFA's point on this, I think it's a little unfair to Montage, who, very well could have been a little unfair to Edwards. That being said, it was the candidate who was implying that to focus on the war is to be concerned primarily with poll numbers. I don't think he means it, but it was the way it was coming across. He may have saved himself without the need to be interrupted. He certainly saved himself after he was interrupted.
...and the media chorus grows, how dare a politician try to discuss issues and not the distraction du jour the media has proclaimed. How dare Edwards talk about Poverty when a perfectly good boondoggle is being perpetuated by the main stream media! How dare he! He isn't playing by the rules!
John Edwards is the only candidate with a plan to address poverty and the War in Iraq (in addition to having well-formulated plans to address global climate change, health care and energy). Anyone who has heard him speak about the Iraq War knows that his conversion is based in fact and his concern for people living in poverty is heartfelt.
Some would love to crown Obama or Clinton before a vote is cast, but that is not based on the issues, it is based on the perception that woman president = good or a African American president = good. But, paraphrasing Martin Luther King, judge any candidate on the strength of her/his character, not the color of their skin, religion, sexual orientation or gender.
I believe John Edwards represents what is great about America, to accomplish things through hard work, difficulties, and perserverance. John Edwards is a good person and will be a great president. He is not a perfect human being, but he is honest and educatable, our current president is neither.
Gark, I agree, let's try electing a president who is way above the median or average in intelligence, work ethic, honesty and integrity; rather than an "average joe". Keep reminding everyone we are electing the leader of the USA, not the secretary for our home brewing club or bowling league. One thing Edwards is not, is sock puppet for whoever he would select as his running mate.
I'm a big Media Matters fan, but as a journalist, this is my quibble: the role of journalists is to be a devil's advocate. We ask questions to elicit informative responses. Montagne's question got John Edwards to clarify why he's on an anti-poverty campaign. Simply asking a question about why he's doing so in light of concerns about another issue doesn't mean she believes he's wrong to do so -- she did not disclose her personal feelings, nor should she. That Media Matters said she "suggested Edwards is wrong" is an admission that it is on shaky ground. There are plenty of real outrages in mainstream media coverage; this doesn't count.
I also feel MMFA is being a bit over-sensitive here, but I will point out that she asked the question and then, instead of allowing him to answer that question she interrupted him and brought up something else. It would be nice if journalists would stop picking up on pundits' bad habits and allow a question to be addressed before they plow on.
After reading through this thread and seeing many of my favorite posters throwing their support to John Edwards, it gives me a real nice sense of good company.
Keep it up, folks. Keep fighting the good fight.
Despite what the conventional wisdom of the punditocracy may say, the nomination is still wide open.