Second, I think the thing that will hold Edwards back is he is too pretty. He looks young. Heck, I’ve even wanted to pat him on the head, and I’m way younger than him. Best thing that could happen to him would be a bicycle accident leaving him with some strategic scars. “Man him up” a bit.

Lawyers, like most significant political contributors, tend to hedge their bets (issues be damned!). Republican candidates Giuliani, McCain and Romney have received each received about $1.1 million. (See: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=K010.)

Point 2: Why is it so difficult to accept the idea that a rich man wants to work on the behalf of the poor? This is a nation that believes in giving: According to onPhilanthropy, “Over the last thirty years, the United States has seen a virtual explosion in the amount of philanthropy provided by its citizens and corporations. Adjusted for inflation, total philanthropic giving has grown from $91 billion in 1965, to a staggering $260 billion in 2005, a sum greater than the entire gross domestic product of Israel, New Zealand and Jordan combined.” (See: http://www.onphilanthropy.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7099.)

Point 3: What (filthy rich) presidents in the 20th century worked on behalf of the poor? It’s an impressive list. Make up your own.

Point 4: For me, the important consideration regarding Mr. Edwards (or any candidate) is how he will demonstrate before I vote that he will be able to do what he says he wants to do. Points 1, 2 and 3 pale in comparison to that.

Thanks for pointing out the ridiculousness of the distraction technique, and enumerating some counterarguments.

I was fortunate enough to grow up in the 1960′s when John Kennedy, another rich man who wanted to help the less fortunate was President. I was the beneficiary of Lyndon B Johnson’s social policies that put corporations into a “help the people who work for them” mode. The textile company my dad and mom both worked for (he as skilled labor, she as an office manager) made grant and scholarship money available for the children of employees who showed smarts and merit.

There was a concerted effort BY CORPORATIONS to put education into the hands of people who might otherwise not have been able to obtain it. This was considered good business – help people get educated and some of them would come to work for you – and the goodwill you created with your practice would make employees loyal customers as well as employees. There weren’t many homes in my home town where the towels, sheets and blankets didn’t come from Fieldcrest, the home town textile giant….

I was smart. I could earn merit. I did. As a result I was able to get scholarships and grants. Fieldcrest paid for the bulk of my undergraduate education. Because the Federal Government actually supported education in those days (in tangible ways rather than through UNFUNDED MANDATES DESIGNED TO ENRICH THE GODDAM COUSINS OF THE PRESIDENT WHO OWN TEST PUBLISHING BUSINESSES NOT TO MENTION THE PRESIDENT’S GODDAM BROTHER WHO’S IN THE TEST PREP BIZ), I was able to get money for graduate study and earn both a master’s and doctorate. I’ve had a successful career in the academy as a result.

But by the time I earned my doctorate in the mid 1980′s (after spending time “giving back” as a public school teacher – and, of course, as a musician), the Feds had changed their practices. The Reagan administration put the squeeze on colleges and universities to stop them from offering fellowships and grants to deserving students -via the IRS who audited tens of thousands of students (including me) to make sure we weren’t “buying stereos” (remember that goddam lie?) or otherwise wasting our money on frivolous stuff like that – when most of us were living on Ramen noodles to get our degrees.

At the same time “merger mania” and “takeovers” took off and “investment bankers” like Michael Milken and KKR (who took over one of the most benevolent corps. in history, RJ Reynolds and turned it to a money grubbing shit in five years) grabbed control of corporation after corporation. And THE FIRST “efficiency” change they made was to terminate educational assistance programs. Sure, companies still help people with tuition – IF the employee swear an oath of allegiance to the company that usually involves the blood of a first born child.

So the “social conscience” money for education and betterment was gone. Then, to save more money, corporations who had been mainstays of communities for decades were moved to impoverished nations where manufacturing could done ON THE CHEAP. And those loyal employees with industry specific skills were left to either go back to school (to a tech school to learn another trade that might get off-shored) or to sink into poverty.

When Edwards talks about “Two Americas” he’s talking about the America where he and I had the chance to become somebody even though our folks worked in textile mills vs. the America we have now which sees people as the Emperor saw the Roman Mob – as animals to be amused, used, and abused as necessary.

THAT’s the Two Party system we have now – not the Republicans and Democrats but the Patricians and the Plebians. It’s “Republican” Rome. Power in the hands of a wealthy few – and they with far more weapons at their disposal to hold down us Plebians than those ancient Roman Bushes had.

Edwards opposes that – so he’s a target. Hillary and Obama don’t – so they’re not. That Clinton and Obama would even consider using Patrician tactics against Edwards says all that needs to be said about them as candidates OF THE PEOPLE.

Can Edwards be a complete success? No – but neither were FDR and JFK/LBJ. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t support him. I’d remind you of the Sir Phillip Sidney quote:

“Who shoots at the mid-day sun, though he be so sure he shall never hit the mark, yet as sure as he is, he shall shoot higher than he who aims at a bush.”

What’s Edwards aiming at? What are the other presidential candidates aiming at? That’s a valid question.

I like what Edwards is aiming at – I’m supporting him….

It’s real easy, people.

Let’s put up a list and knock-em-down or prop-em-up depending on how good the ideas are. Poverty, by the by, is not a disease or some sort of socio-economic malaise. It is a very distinct symbol of a system that isn’t functioning correctly.

Like a heart-attack is a fantastic indication that one should consider laying off the Big Macs for a while and trying some salad. Yet we never hear about a “War on Heart-Attacks”. So what’s this thing about poverty? Poverty is the symptom. Lets discuss some causes.

The theme is all too familiar. Clinton allegedly had an expensive haircut while holding up other planes on the tarmack. Kerry was rich and, therefore, a hypocrite. Gore invented the internet and was a hypocrite. Hillary is shrill. Obama is, alternatively, a member of a racist church or part Muslim, etc. etc. It is more important for the Republican machine to make their base (and anyone else they can snare up) hate the Democrat than to love their guy (whomever they may decide upon). If you hate or distrust the Democrat you may not vote for the Republican, but you’re sure not to vote for the Democrat. Works every time.

I certainly hope that Clinton or Obama is not behind this, as Smith perhaps suggests. It smells too Republican to me.