"More important, though, is a point that Garance doesn't state as bluntly as I'm about to, but which I take to be the main point of her article: Edwards talks about poverty with race (and gender) left out of it."

This is completely false. Absolutely 100% false. Edwards has repeatedly commented on the fact tjat all too often the face of the oor in America is a woman's face, or a black face.

In supporting Garance's argument, you really should not adopt her knee-jerk reactions to any pro-edwards story. garance hates Edwards and cares little for the facts if they get in the way of a good rhetorical zinger.

Sorry to see you adopt the same approach.

You judge a man's sincereity by the racial makeup of his audience?

You think he would be a more compelling advocate for the poor if he stood up and denied that there were any poor white people?

Come on.

Would speaking of poverty in terms of race and gender really increase Edwards support among poor whites? Given the history of race relations in this country and the pitting of low income whites against blacks (and now illegal immigrants) this seems unlikely. By keeping his appeal race neutral he may be trying to broaden it to include everyone who is struggling. In fact his target audience may be lower middle class voters who have been hit hard by the increasing economic insecurity in the country rather than the very poor.

The more I read this post the angrier I get.

You are in essence calling for Edwards to marginalize poverty in American politics as a problem of minorities. Guess what? That's the very approach that has enabled American politicians to ignore poverty issues for the last 30 years.

Garance's position, and yours stated so clearly above, is a shockingly racist and sexist position

You are not satisfied with an approach that says "yes, the impact of poverty is decidedly tilted against black people and women, but let's look at the root causes of economic imbalance - and they are consistent across the spectrum, whether you are talking about rural poverty in Appalachia ( which affects predominantly white rural folks) or Northern Arizona (which affects predominantly Native Americans) or New Orleans (which affects African Americans). The problem is lack of economic opportunity. The problem is a government and a population that doesn't give a shit as long as we are able to continue to get and protect ours."

That is a liberating message in the context of an America that promotes and celebrates inequity.

Instead, you want today's politician to identify poverty as a black problem. That would allow the rest of us to continue to ignore it.

If I am misunderstanding you, perhaps you should clarify.

The issue of whether the Edwards campaign is catching fire is quite separate from the issue of whether he is addressing poverty in a 1960's manner or a manner more appropriate for 2007. I would attribute the lack of enthusiasm or balance which you see (but I don't) in his audiences to the more blatantly political problem of a media that can only focus on two candidates at a time. The media has tried from the outset not to take the Edwards campaign seriously. Therefore the people that watch the media tend not to either.

But despite that, with a campaign of real substance, Edwards has managed to continue to wedge himself into the picture. Because where people pay attention to Edwards, and where they get a lot of exposure to him, they like him.

He also says the right things and puches the right policies in a way that republcans and independents have consistently indicated they will vote for.

I expect that will continue.

I'll have the plate of crow ready for you in January 2009.

In fact his target audience may be lower middle class voters who have been hit hard by the increasing economic insecurity in the country rather than the very poor.

I think that's right. And I think it's also very, very hard to talk boldy about racial inequality in today's society, at least if you want to win office. It's hard to be a moral crusader and a winning politician, unfortunately, but Edwards wants us to see him as both. Gore's evolution suggests that Edwards might be bolder -- and hence a more effective champion for the cause of his life, as he calls the poverty issue -- if he weren't running for office.

And another thing. Get your Carolinas straight.

Edwards was born in South Carolina. He grew up in, and talks constantly about, a mill town in North Carolina.

NORTH Carolina. Not the land that brought you Calhoun and Thurmond.

The land that brought you Frank Porter Graham and Terry Sanford and Harvey Gantt. A land with a proud progressive populist tradition (into which Edwards fits quite nicely) to go along with the more unsavory regressive elements represented by Jesse Helms.

It's a much more complicated and politically divided place than our unfortunate neighbors to the south.

"Gore's evolution suggests that Edwards might be bolder -- and hence a more effective champion for the cause of his life, as he calls the poverty issue -- if he weren't running for office."

Which would be exactly what you and the rest of the DC press corps would like to see, rather than a Presidential candidate (and, I hope, a President) that deals with these issues with the power of the government behind him.

It is profoundly sad to read purported progressives arguing that these issues can't be addressed in modern American politics.

I think your problem is in mixing up poverty in perhaps the classic sense you are used to thinking of it, with being impoverished. I suggest you read his book on poverty, if you do, you will see that his fight is not just against those that live below the poverty line. It is a fight to help all of us who grew up in working poor families, who didn't qualify as living in poverty, but were impoverished nonetheless. It's the reason he fights for universal health care, because even though you might not be in poverty, you can't afford the care you need - you are impoverished.

Why does he need to convince you of anything?

Edwards has plans to help change America for the better.

What have you done lately?

Jesse Jackson was fond of pointing out that, based on sheer numbers, there are more poor whites than blacks in America. Because Jackson was interested in de-marginalizing poverty as an issue, an agenda you and Garrance apparently don't share.

"It would be a lot easier to think of Edwards as the candidate who cares about poverty if he seemed to be leading a grassroots movement that had actual poor people in it."

Well, ACORN loves John Edwards. They're a grassroots movement of actual poor people. I'm sorry that poor people aren't mobilizing en masse behind any candidate; I can't imagine why they would be politically disaffected after Clinton and then Bush and a media that's more focused on who they'd like to have a beer with and haircuts than on the actual problems affecting America and candidates' solutions.

Speaking of substance, I'd take this argument a lot more seriously if you'd known that Edwards grew up in NORTH Carolina, not SOUTH Carolina.

So, why can't Edwards convince you? Doesn't seem like it's because of the reasons you're citing. Maybe because your mind is already made up and you like Obama better?

I do know my Carolina's apart, and I also know that Edwards' family moved to North Carolina when he was either 12 or 13 (I've seen both cited.)

This baseless anti-Edwards shit on TAPPED has gone beyond ridiculous.

Thanks for addressing the easiest and least important criticism first.

Now how about the rest?

This post is complete and utter BS.

Edwards does have poor people in his movement. Ask the folks at ACORN who work with him. Ask the people at the various organizations he went to on his poverty tour.

Furthermore, he also does talk about race and gender discrimination as one aspect that contributes to poverty, although it is truthfully only one of many.

You seem determined to disbelieve that Edwards is committed to ending poverty, or you haven't been actually listening to him. I can't tell which.

I was with him on Tuesday for part of the Road to One America Tour and I have also seen him many times in the past. He is passionate about this issue and profoundly committed to it. We need him as President of the United States.

In the world of this post:

Obama gets credit for mentioning cities in a speech.

Edwards, however, is insincere when he actually goes to communities in the Mississippi delta.

Hmmmm...

Well your first mistake right out of the gate is relying on GFR's work and your poor geography skills.

It would be a lot easier to think of Edwards as the candidate who cares about poverty if he seemed to be leading a grassroots movement that had actual poor people in it.

So the only way Edwards can be more credible is if he had more poor people in his movement? Sweet niblets, what a maroon.

I think the poor have higher priorities than joining a political movement. If they had that kind of time to give to a grassroots movement, they wouldn't be poor now, would they?

And I cannot let this stunning observation from GFR go unanswered:

It's hard to be a moral crusader and a winning politician, unfortunately, but Edwards wants us to see him as both.

I believe this is Barack Obama's strategy. Is that why Edwards can't follow it?

I'll take Mark Schmitt's comments seriously, thanks to a so many excellent posts, though not Franke-Ruta's.

Mark, you do seem to cross the line of imagining what is in Edwards' head.

And I don't think Al Gore has "evolved" one bit; believing this is merely buying into a phony narrative, just like the "edwards isn't real narrative." Gore is a brilliant guy who is good at talking policy and bad at retail politics. Nothing has changed - I've heard this from people who've seen him in small rooms of large donors.

What Corinne said (about a blindingly obvious alternative explanation for the lack of "actual poor people" in the Edwards anti-poverty movement).

Mark, how many "actual poor people" do *you* know?

And how many are, or can be, politically involved?

On an unrelated note, you're lucky Steve Gilliard isn't around to kick your ass for being so dense on poverty/race issues.

Mark

i think a lot of this is unfair to Edwards.

you say this about Obama:

"He doesn't talk about race a lot, but it's an imminent presence, even in the invocation of names of communities: 'the streets of Compton and Detroit, and throughout the mining towns of West Virginia... the 9th Ward and the rural Gulf Coast.'"

But, when Edwards launches his campaign from the 9th Ward in NO, and, repeatedly references Bernard Parish, this somehow doesn't count as referencing race?

This seems an odd double standard to me.

Also, you claim he changed his story, but, I've never heard Edwards tell the story of his mill-worker father as anything but one of somebody who used a union job as a ladder to the (modest) middle-class. You seem to be implying that he often talked about growing up in outright poverty, but, I've never heard him say this.

Lastly, as AJ notes above, you may not like it, but, it's far from clear to me that framing poverty as a stand-alone issue is a reactionary endeavor. He may well have made the calculation that traction on it is best made when it's not framed overtly in terms of race.

May not be the right way to go, and, obviously it's incomplete in any serious historical/sociological sense but, the idea that it clearly reflects blindness or ignorance his part, and, is not just a (possibly flawed) strategic choice, seems to be, again, an awfully ungenerous interpretation.

Mark

i think a lot of this is unfair to Edwards.

you say this about Obama:

"He doesn't talk about race a lot, but it's an imminent presence, even in the invocation of names of communities: 'the streets of Compton and Detroit, and throughout the mining towns of West Virginia... the 9th Ward and the rural Gulf Coast.'"

But, when Edwards launches his campaign from the 9th Ward in NO, and, repeatedly references Bernard Parish, this somehow doesn't count as referencing race?

This seems an odd double standard to me.

Also, you claim he changed his story, but, I've never heard Edwards tell the story of his mill-worker father as anything but one of somebody who used a union job as a ladder to the (modest) middle-class. You seem to be implying that he often talked about growing up in outright poverty, but, I've never heard him say this.

Lastly, as AJ notes above, you may not like it, but, it's far from clear to me that framing poverty as a stand-alone issue is a reactionary endeavor. He may well have made the calculation that traction on it is best made when it's not framed overtly in terms of race.

May not be the right way to go, and, obviously it's incomplete in any serious historical/sociological sense but, the idea that it clearly reflects blindness or ignorance his part, and, is not just a (possibly flawed) strategic choice, seems to be, again, an awfully ungenerous interpretation.

At the end of the day, it all comes down to getting legislation passed.

For a long time, racializing economic issues has been a really good way for Southern conservatives to derail progressive economic proposals. If Edwards wants to deal directly with the economic issues without bringing up race and playing directly into the hands of his enemies, I don't see why we should complain.

for the record, i have never bought robert kennedy's late in life concern about poverty either. when he was a congressional aide, he was more concerned with blacklisting liberals and leftists who wanted to do something about poverty. in his brother's administration, they dragged their feet on civil rights and never proposed the sorts of anti-poverty legislation that LBJ later had the imagination to endorse. he also immorally and disgustingly ordered the tapping of the phones of the single greatest anti-poverty crusader of the era, dr. martin luther king.

RFK was a complete phony.

John Burns,

What do ya really think. No really, well said.

Also some at TAP don't think we can be trusted to make up our own minds so they try to 'help' us. Too bad.

Garance, Edwards does not shy away from tackling controversial issues - he repeatedly cites unionization as a key strategy forlifting the working poor out of poverty.

You think that's a politically convenient stance for a white southern politician to take?

I've got to agree that the Edwards-bashing on this site is getting pretty egregious.

Let's face it folks - as Democrats we've got to get behind Edwards.

HRC's negatives are way too high, and she won't win a general because the MSM and the wingnuts will have a jolly old time reprising the late 90's. She'll get even worse treatment than Gore or Kerry
Obama - the sad truth is that this country will not elect a black man President in 2008
Gore - he's not gonna run, no matter what ridiculous shit Maureen Dowd spouts.

Unless we want President Romney, or even worse, President Guiliani, we gotta get behind Edwards.

Personally, I think the country could vote for Obama as president. My problem with him is that he keeps shying away from genuine progressive commitments, either on the specific or the general level.

The above commenters' points about Edwards starting his campaign in a predominantly black area of New Orleans are very well taken. There are lots of videos from the launch of the campaign where Edwards is talking to us with an entirely black group of supporters behind him.

John Burns says:

"Thanks for addressing the easiest and least important criticism first. Now how about the rest?"

OK, your first point was, "This is completely false. Absolutely 100% false. Edwards has repeatedly commented on the fact tjat all too often the face of the poor in America is a woman's face, or a black face."

In his major, very long speech on poverty at the National Press Club last fall, here's the only thing Edwards said about race: "Many neighborhoods were once segregated by race; now segregation by wealth is common, often with a racial dimension." That's it. And nothing at all in his New Orleans speech.

On another point, I should have acknowledged the strong relationship Edwards developed with ACORN, and with Maude Hurd in particular, and I'll update the post accordingly.

Finally, on the more fundamental criticism, you suggest that Edwards is saying, or should say, "the root causes of economic imbalance ...are consistent across the spectrum... The problem is lack of economic opportunity."

But in fact I don't think that's true. I think the root causes of urban black poverty are related to isolation, history, racism and culture, as well as "lack of economic opportunity," in all the ways that Obama described yesterday. It is different from rural white poverty, in part because it has a different history. It may be better politics (safer politics) to pretend that all poverty is the same, but it is not reality. That's the basic difference here.

Oh, man. The piece is so bad it's hard to know where to begin.

First of all, this notion that all Edwards does is talk about poverty and worker's rights...He's spent three years fighting for poor people and workers. As the cover story of In These Times says, "John Edwards does more than talk the talk on workers'." That's why labor activists and poverty activists from ACORN and other grassroots organizations (Even black ones!) like him. I could give you a hundred quotes testifying to his committment.

And it's pretty amusing, if annoying, to see two moderate-ish armchair Dems like Mark and The Garance write thumbsucking posts questioning his sincerity while people working on the frontlines are, by all accounts, impressed by the work he's done organizing workers and fighting for minimum wage bills. If that support has failed to translate into huge poll numbers among the poor, that's hardly a surprise given that low income voters are also low information voters, and that the relatively little media attention he's gotten has been haircut-based. And have I mentioned that it's very early in this campaign?

As John Burns has pointed out, it's ridiculous to say that Edwards's talks about poverty without talking about race. It is true, though, that he talks about poverty as a universal problem that doesn't have a skin color, and that he doesn't talk about racial divisions without talking about class. He goes to great lengths to link the two, as Trippi's recent missive aping Kanye West aptly demonstrates: "George Bush doesn't care about poor people."

I guess Mark wishes Edwards talked more directly about racism and racial barriers to progress. Fair enough, but that strikes as a disagreement about political strategy. If Edwards talks more about poverty in general rather than racism in particular, it's not a sign that he doesn't care about poor people, or black people. I don't think it's healthy or politically advantageous for poverty to have black or brown face, does Mark? Of course, Bill Clinton, whom Mark praises, had no such misgivings about playing to racial fears. Billy Ray Rector, anyone? How bout welfare "reform" and his lecturing the poor about being responsible.

Edwards absolutely refuses to push those buttons. Poverty is a national problem, our problem. It's also a myth that Edwards has recently started talking about poverty; he did so in 03-04, when it was a deeply unfashionable thing to do. Does Mark have a problem with this speech from 2004 because Edwards doesn't mention racism:

"Tonight—tonight—somewhere in America a 10-year-old little girl will go to bed hungry, hoping and praying that tomorrow will not be as cold as today because she doesn't have the coat to keep her warm; hoping and praying that she doesn't get sick as she did last year, because it means 24 hours waiting in an emergency room to try to get medical care; hoping that her father, who lost his job when the factory closed and has not been able to find steady work, will actually get a job that allows him to provide for his family. She's one of 35 million Americans who live in poverty every single day, unnoticed, unheard. Well, tonight we see her, we hear her, we embrace her, she is part of our family and we will lift her up."

And to end on a meta note, it's telling that two bloggers on a leading progressive blog are trying to chip away at the moral foundation of the most progressive top-tier campaign in years. Why are they doing this? My guess is that they have a visceral preference for other candidates (Obama in Mark's case, Hillary in The Garance's). Which is their right, of course, but they shouldn't try to justify their failure to support the most progressive candidate by lying about him.

"In his major, very long speech on poverty at the National Press Club last fall, here's the only thing Edwards said about race: "Many neighborhoods were once segregated by race; now segregation by wealth is common, often with a racial dimension." That's it. And nothing at all in his New Orleans speech."

This from the guy who not 2 hours ago, gave Obama credit for mentioning Anacostia once.

Mark, thanks for responding, but I don't buy it. You say:

"In his major, very long speech on poverty at the National Press Club last fall, here's the only thing Edwards said about race: "Many neighborhoods were once segregated by race; now segregation by wealth is common, often with a racial dimension." That's it. And nothing at all in his New Orleans speech."

This from the guy who not 2 hours ago, gave Obama credit for mentioning Anacostia once.

Anonymous was me. Sorry for the double post. Overly quick trigger finger.

One more thing, and then I have to get to work.

Mark, you call into question whether Edwards's background really gave him the necessary experience to speak to modern blacks about poverty. Rather, you imply that, while framing the point in the context of whether or not that background explains th lack of African American enthusiasm for his candidacy.

(I think that lack of enthusiasm, if it exists, is more a resut of the fact that he is in a race against a longtime prominent Democratic politician with a name that has been on democratic ballots for years and a black candidate with a chance to win. Simple numbers, not a verdict on Edwards's sincerity.)

Assuming your point to be valid, that a person's background can determine the sincerity of their views on urban poverty (or the perception among black voters of that sincerity), let's run with it a bit.

I ask you, who do you think will be viewed as having the more authentic experience with American poverty / working class life? The guy who grew up from mill town to mill town in the 1950's and 60s? Or the guy who attended the tony prep school in Honolulu? I don't mean to belittle Obama. Far from it. But if you want to play that game, you need to play it with every politician out there.

I like Obama, I think he'd be a great President, and his election would be a watershed event in American history. I just don't think he'd be as good a president as John Edwards, and I am disappointed that he runs into the arms of Liebermanesque "centrism", rather than taking up real progressive causes and fighting to make them unifying themes for America.

I appreciate a lot of the comments here, which are thoughtful and give me a lot to think about.

I'm frustrated, though, by the dismissal of my points as "Edwards-bashing," motivated by support for Obama, or in Garance's case, her support for Senator Clinton. I've supported Edwards in the past, I've written enthusiastically about his tax policies and health plan, and I've never written critically about him before. If Obama has overtaken Edwards in my subtle ranking of Dem presidential candidates (which currently goes Obama/Edwards/Clinton/Dodd, although the differences are small enough that Joe Lieberman would call it "a four-way tie") it is because I think Edwards' view of poverty is kind of thin, rather than the other way around.

But as one comment here says, "why should Edwards have to persuade you of anything?"

I appreciate a lot of the comments here, which are thoughtful and give me a lot to think about, and I may revisit this post.

I'm frustrated, though, by the dismissal of my points as "Edwards-bashing," motivated by support for Obama, or in Garance's case, her support for Senator Clinton. I've supported Edwards in the past, I've written enthusiastically about his tax policies and health plan, and I've never written critically about him before. If Obama has overtaken Edwards in my subtle ranking of Dem presidential candidates (which currently goes Obama/Edwards/Clinton/Dodd, although the differences are small enough that Joe Lieberman would call it "a four-way tie") it is because I think Edwards' view of poverty is kind of thin, rather than the other way around.

But as one comment here says, "why should Edwards have to persuade you of anything?" Which is fair enough.

"Edwards may have been near-poor by national standards, but in the world of mid-century South Carolina, his family, merely by being white, and with a father steadily employed in the mill, were royalty."

Near-poor = royalty

John Burns: "Obama gets credit for mentioning cities in a speech. Edwards, however, is insincere when he actually goes to communities in the Mississippi delta."

Ouch.

I appreciate a lot of the comments here, which are thoughtful and give me a lot to think about, and I may revisit this post.

I'm frustrated, though, by the dismissal of my points as "Edwards-bashing," motivated by support for Obama, or in Garance's case, her support for Senator Clinton. I've supported Edwards in the past, I've written enthusiastically about his tax policies and health plan, and I've never written critically about him before. If Obama has overtaken Edwards in my subtle ranking of Dem presidential candidates (which currently goes Obama/Edwards/Clinton/Dodd, although the differences are small enough that Joe Lieberman would call it "a four-way tie") it is in part because I think Edwards' view of poverty is kind of thin, rather than the other way around.

But as one comment here says, "why should Edwards have to persuade you of anything?" Which is fair enough.

Mark,
I appreciate you joining in on the comments and taking them seriously.

Part of the reason your post is being criticized as Edwards-bashing is that posts like this have become near daily occurrences. So I would imagine that some of the disappointment in your post (tho just some, since there is much in it that disappoints) is cumulative. Call it the garancing of argument.

I don't think you are Edwards bashing. I think you're just incorrect. I think the basis for your comment is wrong.

Garance, however, engages in regular Edwards-bashing. I don't apologize in the least for saying that.

You can actually discuss Edwards (and have a lot in the past - quite approvingly) without reflexively mentioning hair, houses, or his former career as a trial lawyer.

Garance hits the Easy button in nearly every post.

John,

The analysis you provide -- "yes, the impact of poverty is decidedly tilted against black people and women, but let's look at the root causes of economic imbalance - and they are consistent across the spectrum, whether you are talking about rural poverty in Appalachia ( which affects predominantly white rural folks) or Northern Arizona (which affects predominantly Native Americans) or New Orleans (which affects African Americans). The problem is lack of economic opportunity. The problem is a government and a population that doesn't give a shit as long as we are able to continue to get and protect ours." -- is great, but it's not something I've heard Edwards say. I've never heard him give a speech tying together all the different forms of American poverty. If you're quoting something, please forward the link. I'd also appreciate it if you could please explain to me why it is that the people "the population" doesn't "give a shit" about tend to so often share the characteristic of being under-represented in elected positions. Might not those two things be connected?

I'm not saying poverty is a black or a female problem. What I was saying is that a lot of likely Democratic primary voters (55-60 % of whom overall will likely be female, and nearly 50% of whom will be black in SC, though not Iowa, NH, or Nevada) are excited by the prospect of democratic change that Clinton and Obama -- two very qualified candidates in their own right -- represent, and that we can't discount the appeal to members of historically disenfranchised groups (who have disproportionately high poverty rates) of having a democracy where they also get to represent themselves in positions of power and determine their own policies, for good or ill, in consultation with others. Is not self-representation the bedrock philosophy of our national system of government? I have no doubt that if this country had had more than 2 percent female members of Congress and 2 female Supreme Court justices since its founding, its policies today would look very different. Ditto for other groups who have lacked access to the reigns of legislative influence. Why is it so wrong to note that people might want that kind of change, too? Or that they might see their economic prospects and community problems connected to larger questions of the representativeness of our representative democracy?

Edwards has a great and comprehensive plan for addressing poverty, should he win office. And maybe he has to talk tepidly about the power-structure issues than underlie the economic problems many communities have so as to avoid seeming inordinately inflammatory. Certainly neither HRC nor BO are addressing this stuff all that much more directly, either (I disagree a bit with Mark on this), because the moment you do you get into arguments like this one, and how unpleasant is that? It's the last thing leading Dems would want to do --JRE, HRC, and BO inclusive -- because, as people above have noted, it takes you back to a different and more divisive time in the anti-poverty conversation. One advantage HRC and BO have here is that they don't have to make certain arguments explicitly in order for people to hear them. They get to practice dog-whistle politics in this area, and people with ears tuned certain frequencies get their more subtle messages, loud and clear.

Also, as someone who was fed by the school breakfast and lunch programs, whose parents benefited from the EITC, and who went to college thanks to Pell grants and subsidized government loans, I'm pretty aware of the fact that white people are the majority of the low-income, too, and that anti-poverty programs have to be pitched as broadly as possible in order to avoid stirring up resentments, and also for simple fairness reasons.

Thanks,
GFR

Regarding Edwards' so-called "silence" on race as a factor in poverty:

If Edwards is nominated, you would, I assume, prefer that he wins over any Republican clown, right? So if Edwards consciously leaves race out of his language on poverty, and in so doing attracts the votes of a number of Southern white males who take that as a wink and a nod that Edwards is ok to cross over for, would you be upset or would you be pleased that he won?

John Burns says, "Assuming your point to be valid, that a person's background can determine the sincerity of their views on urban poverty (or the perception among black voters of that sincerity),..., who do you think will be viewed as having the more authentic experience with American poverty?"

Actually, that's not my point at all. I don't think background has anything to do with it at all, and of course the presidents who did the most about poverty, besides LBJ were the patricians FDR and JFK. What's puzzling to me is that Edwards seems to take a deracialized/purely economic lesson from his upbringing, whereas poverty in both Carolinas at that time was absolutely, strongly racialized and tied to white power.

Obama chose after college, when he could have done a hundred lucrative things, to move to Chicago and organize poor communities. That is a significant bit of his background, and by choice rather than accident. And I think that's why his discussion of poverty yesterday seemed so full and nuanced, whereas (I think) Edwards' is a little thin.

Mark said: "It may be better politics (safer politics) to pretend that all poverty is the same, but it is not reality."

As you surely know, Edwards is the ONLY candidate with a plan to address rural poverty, which demonstrates that he knows all poverty isn't the same.

I'm still confused by your post. Are you actually arguing that Edwards doesn't know that race and racism play a big role in poverty? So I repeat: if he doesn't mention race as often as you'd like, that's not a sign that he doesn't care about poverty, it's a sign that he's taking a different political path (you say safer, I say smarter) than you'd have him take.

In any case, it's not as if he ignores race, far from it. Here he is when he released his plan to intergrate schools, which he framed as partly a response to the SC's recent decision.

"We still have two public school systems in America, and millions of children are separated from opportunity by their race or their class," said Edwards. "

And, yes, I think a post questioning a candidate's sincerity and commitment to an issue he says he cares about is indeed "bashing."

But ah, I see you're already backing off the claim, from not caring about poverty to not fully understanding it.

Big difference. I'll consider you chastened.

For the record, Mark, Edwards turned down a lucrative and high paying job with a major law firm when he left the state supported law school he went to, and he joined a small firm down the street that did predominantly plaintiff's work.

As the son of a divorced school teacher, who also went to school on Pell grants and scholarships and student loans, I can tell you that I would have liked to have been able to make the choice Obama made, but I had to pay back my loans. I'm still paying.

I only hear one candidate talking about that particular issue, and it ain't Obama or Clinton.

Garance, thank you for your comment. Would but that you could write about this candidate that way all the time...

There's no doubt that folks want to vote for people like them. No doubt at all. But to jump from that undeniable, perhaps unfortunate, fact to a discussion of how sincere edwards is (i.e. "a little thin" on poverty, as mark puts it) is a leap too far.

Well, *I* liked it, but I'm an Obama-gal. Anway, to get beyond the specifics a little, I think this is a rather sticky point in current political discourse, especially among white liberals who are not "the poor". There are certain people, some conservatives certainly, but also white liberals who feel ready to move "beyond race" because they really haven't experienced the scars of racism up close and imagine they are gone or past history. For them, the mantra is "class", as if race weren't a key component in WHY certain groups are disproportionately represented in the "poor class". And the comments make clear that we, at least (I don't know about Edwards) aren't even sure who we are talking about when we talk about "the poor". Is it inner city black people on welfare or rural whites working three jobs and still deep in debt? And if it's not white people, the thinking goes, forget it because nobody (ie white people) will pay attention to that--but that is exactly why they should pay attention.

Poverty in this country is in many ways NOT color blind. While the end result may appear the same, the sources and solutions can be quite different between a blighted inner city, a failing rural community, a border town, etc. Anyone wanting to take on poverty as it really is will need to deal with that reality.

But in fact I don't think that's true. I think the root causes of urban black poverty are related to isolation, history, racism and culture, as well as "lack of economic opportunity," in all the ways that Obama described yesterday. It is different from rural white poverty, in part because it has a different history. It may be better politics (safer politics) to pretend that all poverty is the same, but it is not reality. That's the basic difference here.

He is trying to get elected not canonized, so isn't taking the safer political course the way to proceed? While your objection would make an excellent thesis for a PhD in political science, as a prescription for electoral success not so much

"Poverty in this country is in many ways NOT color blind. While the end result may appear the same, the sources and solutions can be quite different between a blighted inner city, a failing rural community, a border town, etc. Anyone wanting to take on poverty as it really is will need to deal with that reality."

Read John's book. he sees this. he has the depth and sincerity in his approach to tackle these things differently.

"...isn't taking the safer political course the way to proceed?"

maybe, but if so, I'm not giving him any extra points for courage. That's my entire point.

I'm not giving him any extra points for courage. That's my entire point."

No, your entire point, at least when this started, is that you don't believe Edwards cares about poor people.

Do you stand by that claim?

That's not your entire point, Mark. Or if it is, you sure took a long way around your elbow to get to the seat of your pants.

There is a lot more to your post than a simple criticism that Edwards is not being brave in his speeches on poverty.

I can't speak to poverty everywhere, but RFK had the support of poor people in Appalachia because of his brother, whom had been very decent to the people of WV during the primary campaign and was gunned down on the streets in a way that people who live on the margins understand that violence is a real force that changes lives.

I'm not sure he would have had it on his own. Would Ted Kennedy have it today? No. When RFK's daughter made a documentary of Appalachia with HBO a few years back, the media outlets loved it. Appalachians, poor or otherwise, did not.

"maybe, but if so, I'm not giving him any extra points for courage. That's my entire point."

Really? Then why did you write this?

"WHY CAN'T JOHN EDWARDS CONVINCE ME HE CARES ABOUT POVERTY?"

Mark, I don't think you know what your point is.

What irritates me most about TAPPED's apparent obsession with bringing down Edwards is that a) so few of these posts (and none of GFR's) have any actual data to support the assertions, and b) none of these posts actually discuss the substance of Edwards' proposals. This is silly and you need to stop it.

"I can tell you that I would have liked to have been able to make the choice Obama made, but I had to pay back my loans. I'm still paying.

I only hear one candidate talking about that particular issue, and it ain't Obama or Clinton."

Can't let this go by: Obama, like Edwards and unlike Clinton, has proposed completely eliminating the bank subsidies in the student loan program and using the $6 billion in savings to increase Pell Grants and reduce borrowers' costs. In introducing the plan, Obama said that he and his wife had not finished paying off their student loans until after he was elected to the Senate.

More on Mark's "point:"

"In fact, the more I hear, the less persuaded I am that Edwards has any instinctive feeling about poverty at all."

Um ... what did you say your point was, Mark? And what on earth does this have to do with the substance of Edwards' proposals (or lack thereof)? This is all about you, not about Edwards, and it reveals quite a lot about you.

"It would be a lot easier to think of Edwards as the candidate who cares about poverty if he seemed to be leading a grassroots movement that had actual poor people in it."

Oh, good grief. Talk about a Catch-22: he doesn't care about poverty because he doesn't have a "grassroots movement" of poor people, but he can't get a "grassroots movement" of poor people because news organizations insist he doesn't care about poverty!

And just what the hell does that paragraph have to do with, well, anything?! This is your idea of reasoned political analysis? You should be ashamed of yourself. And Edwards isn't even my first choice!

This is like watching a train pile up.

"For the record, Mark, Edwards turned down a lucrative and high paying job with a major law firm when he left the state supported law school he went to, and he joined a small firm down the street that did predominantly plaintiff's work."

There's no confusion about my point if you read it without blind rage about something that someone else wrote.

Edwards presents himself as someone who cares so much about poverty that he's going to learn about it and talk about it regardless of the political benefit or cost. And I think the fact that in the end he talks about it in a way that is politically safe -- disconnected from realities of race and power -- makes it not so courageous and thus makes me question whether he really is speaking from personal passion.

I may be wrong in that doubt (obviously a majority here think I am) but I'm not unclear about my point.

Not to pile on, but, in addition to the fact that it doesn't matter how Edwards secretly feels about the poor if he advances policies that will help them, I have to say (even as someone who supports Obama, ultimately) that calling the white poor "royalty" and suggesting they were part of the privileged class Edwards describes in his "two Americas" narrative is somewhere between deeply ignorant and simply offensive.

Believe it or not, even during the times of overt segregation, there were still white people with more serious economic difficulties than the inability to afford fine dining. Now I assume you know that, Mark, but you suggest otherwise by arguing that this is the only problem Edwards could have faced with his whiteness and maleness as your only evidence. I can tell you as a poor white male student working between 60 and 80 hours a week over the summer just to afford necessary dental care that we do, every now and then, have real problems -- and though we are privileged in comparison to poor black people, we are hardly "royalty."

me like.

I am going to hold off on my comments, since I was once a "recognized" expert on poverty.

Ultimately, the proof will be found at the bottle of the cactus juice. Yup, will Edwards come visit us on the Rez-Yaqui-Apache-Ft.McDowell-Maricopa-Dineh? How about Richardson? Oh, he has already come and gone.

However, I am still waiting for Clinton and Obama. Thus, if I were a betting person, I would put my money on Edwards for his visitation to any Rez, and prior to Clinton or Obama.

Moreover, in a contrasting context, Bush has never set a solid foot on a Rez in the past six years. Small comfort to those of us who generally prach our politics in English-our usual second and third language despite the proclivity by the many who think of us as the dummies while being fearful of jumping in with both feet to address the racial issues affecting the many, but the Democrats will do better, and if not, well, there always another election, where the BS will just get higher.

Jaango

He practiced very briefly in Nashville. He then moved to Raleigh, where he was offered a job from Hunton & Williams. He instead chose to work for Tharrington Smith, which had only a few lawyers at the time.

My apologies for not editing my comments from above.

Jaango

"There's no confusion about my point if you read it without blind rage about something that someone else wrote."

LOL... Nice ad hominem attack. You really ought to be above such things. So it's our fault you wrote a clumsy piece and buried your point? And we must have misconstrued you because of "blind rage?" Heaven knows it couldn't be because of clumsy writing, now could it?

Sorry, Mark, but there is indeed confusion about your "point" because it was a muddled mess of a post. That's why it's getting so much attention.

"And I think the fact that in the end he talks about it in a way that is politically safe"

And had you said something like this, you might have had a point, particularly if you had bothered to support it with real evidence. You did neither of these things. Instead you buried that "point" in a single sentence in the fourth paragraph, and it wasn't even really that point, since you worded it thusly: "And I just don't see any indication that Edwards understands or appreciates those inequities, or if he does, he doesn't have the nerve to talk about them.." And the rest of that paragraph was completely bogus, not to mention irrelevant to any point you thought you were making. Why on earth should he not talk about poverty as he experienced it?! What the hell is so "disturbing" about it? All politicians talk about their own personal experiences!

"disconnected from realities of race and power -- makes it not so courageous and thus makes me question whether he really is speaking from personal passion."

As I said, that makes it all about you, not about Edwards, not about his proposals, not about his political support or lack thereof -- you. When you introduce yourself into the story, Mike, you invalidate the story.

"I may be wrong in that doubt (obviously a majority here think I am) but I'm not unclear about my point."

Yes, Mike, I think you are, since what you now claim is your point is not what you wrote in that post.

This is beyond pathetic. You repeatedly introduced yourself into the story, you got a couple of quite key data points entirely wrong, the rest of it is all just a mishmash of supposition wholly unsupported by any actual data. What is it with you guys and Edwards??

At the end of the day, the Shrum wing of the party just doesn't get it.

Politics is about affirmation for them, not about getting things done for the folks who live in this country.

It's the same way his Bill Bradley tried to stand in the way of universal health care in the early 90's because he just didn't think the Clintons were the right kind of folks.

I'm sure Mark thinks he is doing the right thing when he writes nonsense like this, but he's just a poor soul who's lost sight of the forest for the trees.

One should approach with pity, not anger. We're going to stomp these peoples' heads in at the ballot box, and without camps, they're going to have to re-educate themselves. They'll figure it out eventually. I have faith.

Oh, and Mike? Care to tell us just why it's a bad thing to talk about a serious issue in a "politically safe" way?

Here you go, Mike: here are John Edwards' proposals to fight poverty. Isn't it long past time for TAPPED to actually look at those proposals and contrast them with Obama's and Clinton's?

Oh, and Mike? I'm irritated not because I support Edwards, but because I'm at a loss to figure out why TAPPED just cannot bring itself to say anything of substance about him. The fact that you're buying into, and helping to propagate, the Republican talking points about Edwards is just icing on the cake.

When you review those proposals, Mike, the question you need to ask yourself is: Will Edwards' proposals actually help the community you claim he's ignoring? If they will not, then show this. If they will, then why on earth is that less important than how he chooses to present them?

Being the crusty young philosopher here, I'd point Mark to a doctrine of Aristotle's -- courage is a mean between two extremes. If you're not willing to endanger yourself at all for the greater good, that's cowardice. And if you're willing to endanger yourself much more than the greater good requires, that's recklessness.

I don't see how the greater good would be advanced by addressing race much more explicitly than Edwards is doing it. He hasn't shied away from the issue, as the people citing the locations from which he campaigned have made clear. But insofar as Mark is saying that Edwards has made himself the poverty candidate, not the poverty 'n race candidate, he's right.

I just don't see why the greater good is served by having a candidate who ends up relinking poverty and race. Ezra makes this point in his post, and I've made it too above. In fact, I think it's damaging to progressive interests to tie those things together. It allows Southern conservatives to race-bait your economic proposals to death. Better to actually help poor black people by telling stories of poverty that leave the racial backgrounds of the characters unclear, and then using the sentiment that results to help the poor, who are disproportionately (though not mostly) black.

If there's a reason why you're less concerned than us about relinking race and poverty, Mark, I'm curious to hear it. I just don't see a greater focus on race would help us go down the path towards anything useful. And to endanger oneself for nothing useful isn't courage, but recklessness.

(BTW, thanks for the updates above.)

"I'm irritated not because I support Edwards, but because I'm at a loss to figure out why TAPPED just cannot bring itself to say anything of substance about him. The fact that you're buying into, and helping to propagate, the Republican talking points about Edwards is just icing on the cake."

This is silly. I wrote a feature-length profile of Edwards for the magazine focusing almost entirely on his economic populism. Yesterday, on Tapped, Dana laid out his plans for the economic integration of schools. I disagree with Mark (yes, Mark) on this, but it's not true that this site doesn't deal substantively, and at times, positively, with Edwards, or that Mark is some sort of GOP operative invited on here to bash the third most popular Democratic candidate.

I'm late to this particular party, but I have to say something. Like John Edwards, I grew up in a South Carolina mill village. His family and mine were strikingly alike in their trajectories; my dad,like his, was limited by a high-school education but was nonetheless able to catch the postwar escalator that bore many poorer white southerners up into the ranks of middle managers and ultimately sent their children into even better futures. I'm quite well aware that blacks suffered disablities that I didn't; indeed, as someone who teaches and writes the history of the American South, imparting that to my students is an important part of what I do. As for Edwards--well, gee, a Democrat who's won a statewide election in a southern state has probably picked up on that point as well, even if he somehow strangely missed it growing up there.
So what am I to make of a posting whose principal "evidence" for the assertion that Edwards lacks an "instinctual" understanding of the reacial dimension of poverty is the fact that his background is exactly like mine? I have as a matter of fact written a fair amount on southern poverty--on this telling, though, I guess it's all worthless because I'm a white male who grew up in John Calhoun's and Strom Thurmond's South Carolina [Never mind that I loathe Calhoun, and spent much of my growing-up years waiting for the opportunity to cast my first vote *against* ol' Strom]. Sorry, but the reason you can't be convinced that Edwards really cares about black poverty is simply that to you he's not a real person, but a stereotype--and a stereotype no less pernicious for being a"liberal" one.

I'd like to say Paul's inability to distinguish between "Mark" and "Mike" is weird, but most people think my name is Mark for a while after meeting me. It seems the names are indistinguishable to many.

"I disagree with Mark (yes, Mark) on this"

Mark's political compass is massively overrated.

He seems like a good guy. He seems like he'd be fun to have a drink with. He writes many interesting things. He doesn't attack Edwards in the underhanded way that GFR does, and thus gets intellectual honesty points.

But political compass? Bill Bradley? Defending the filibuster?

There are smart folks in the world with a political tin ear, and Mark is exhibit A.

I don't see why anyone who considers poverty and rising inequality as a serious problem in the US would want Edwards to focus on the racial dimensions of said poverty and equality. The Democrats who have concentrated on "work and wages" have a much better electoral record than those who have stressed racial inequality. As long as most Americans are white and the majority of the poor are also white, it seems reasonable for a candidate whose number one issue is poverty to campaign on poverty instead of racism.

PS - Free lunches and Pell Grants - are you kidding me? They mean your parents were poor not that you were poor.
Growing up in poverty and being a poor adult are vastly different circumstances.

I don't know, Petey... "It's not what you say about the issues, it's what the issues say about you" is one of my favorite pieces of general political advice ever. And I really like Mark's stuff about how the Senate works.