Liberal College Kid

Presidential prospect John Edwards is on a mission this presidential season. He wants to end poverty in America. In my mind, Edwards is making poverty an issue the way Al Gore has become the champion of combating global climate change. Edwards’ website states:

End Poverty by 2036: John Edwards believes that ending poverty should be a goal our nation actively pursues. A national goal will rally support for the cause and help us measure our progress. In 1999, Tony Blair announced a 20-year goal to end child poverty in Great Britain and he has already reduced child poverty by 17 percent [Washington Post, 4/3/2006]. Edwards calls for a national effort to:
Cut poverty by one third within a decade, lifting 12 million Americans out of poverty by 2016.
End poverty within 30 years, lifting 37 million Americans out of poverty by 2036.

Currently the former Senator from North Carolina is in third place for the Democratic race trailing Obama and Clinton. The cool news though, is that should Edwards win the nomination, he would still beat any of the Republican challengers! The Edwards campaign has not done a good job of being able to really break out of the third place trap they’ve been in seemingly since people started announcing their intention to run.

Should Edwards not win the nomination, or the Vice Presidential nomination (I’m hoping for Bill Richardson as VP) he may be able to transcend the political spectrum to make poverty a values issue rather than a political one. Much like global warming, it’s hard to imagine that Republicans could really say that they are pro-poverty, which could make Edwards’ plans realistic regardless of who is in the white house. Then again, this is the party who has leaders who don’t believe in evolution… Wake up Walmart suporter = AWESOME!

Maybe one of these fights with Ann Coulter will push Edwards out in front of Obama or Hillary. Regardless, Edwards has made poverty the central issue of his campaign, and I fully believe it will become a central issue in America for the future regardless of who the next President is. You can read more about Edwards and his plan to end poverty in America at http://johnedwards.com/issues/poverty/

• Leave a comment... (9)

I’m not going to go into the whole “Mann Coulter” or “Look at her Adam’s apple” thing. For me, that kind of speech has its place in conversations amongst friends but not in a public forum. I don’t really care what any pundits or authors look like. What I do take issue with, however, is the fact that Ann Coulter uses ugly hateful language in her pursuit to discredit those on the left. I’m all for political dialog and disagreement. That’s part of the fun of talking about politics. However, with Coulter things just get ugly. Rather than defending her positions or talking about real issues she says things like:

“I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I’m - so, kind of at an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards, so I think I’ll just conclude here and take your questions,”

The fact that that speech ended in applause is perhaps even more disturbing. I’m not really sure what one should expect from the Conservative Political Action Conference, but to applaud someone for calling a presidential candidate the most derogatory term for gay man just seems over the top. This is a perfect example of intolerance promoted by conservatives.

We can’t stop there, though, because there’s more. In 2003 Coulter said of Edwards:

“If you want points for not using your son’s death politically, don’t you have to take down all those “Ask me about my son’s death in a horrific car accident” bumper stickers?”

What does that have to do with the issues? Attack someone for being pro-gay rights, or pro-choice, or favoring higher taxes to pay for socialized medicine but don’t mock someone’s dead son! This is exactly the kind of thing Elizabeth Edwards was talking about when she called into Hardball this last week.

Here was a woman, struggling with cancer, who politely asked Ann Coulter to stop verbally attacking the Edwards’ and their dead son. What does Coulter do? She tries to defend herself by saying she wrote something years ago. I suppose time heals all wounds, but just the day before Hardball she said on Good Morning America:

“If I’m gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

Who is this woman? In my mind, she is the perfect example of the American media’s goals for their programming. If they have someone on the air that is going to say something grossly unprofessional and inappropriate it will break up the manotany of talking heads babbling on about the events of the day. It’s entertaining and makes people want to watch but how does that make it alright? Does the media not have a responsibility to try and promote truth? To show the populace what is happening in their world so that they can make informed decisions at the ballot box?

Or does it simply exist to give hateful people a vehicle to spread their hate? Ann Coulter is certainly an argument for the latter here, and it seems as time passes and our media deteriorates even more, we can most definitely expect to see more like her in the years to come.

• Leave a comment... (8)