David Bonior Announces Edwards's 'Road To One America' Tour

Earlier today David Bonior held a conference call with media to announce John Edwards's Road To One America tour kicking off next Sunday with a walking tour of the 9th Ward in New Orleans and continuing through 8 states and 12 cities over 3 days. Edwards's purpose is to raise awareness of poverty in America with the stated longterm goals of elevating 12 million people out of poverty in 10 years and eradicating poverty altogether within 30.

A couple things stood out me about Bonior's statements on the call.

First of all, Bonior made a point to note that none of the stops on the tour would be in an early primary state nor would any of the events throughout the tour be for the purpose of fundraising. This seemed pretty significant to me considering it's a presidential primary campaign, but as you might expect, some of the media immediately pounced with the obvious political questions: "What does Edwards hope to get out of this politically?" "What is the strategy behind this tour?" Yeah, it's a presidential campaign and you can't separate anything the candidates do from the political theatre of the campaign trail and everything they do to raise their own profile is inherently self-serving, but the cynicism that oozed from the questions (not to mention from the comments over at NYTime Caucus blog) was a bit sickening. Is it too much to believe that Edwards' super secret plan is to raise awareness of an issue that doesn't get nearly enough media coverage simply because he feels "it's not ok" that "1 in 8 Americans wake up in poverty?" At some point, you gotta think Edwards's sheer persistence would wear the media down. It'll be interesting to see if they can manage to cover the tour without mentioning haircuts or hedgefunds.

I was also intrigued by the straightforward yet deferential tone Bonior took with the media on the call. He seemed genuinely appreciative of the participation of those that joined the call -- he said it was a great turnout -- and that they're looking into getting a media plane to go along with the tour and invited everyone to join for a leg or the whole thing. While I've always liked Edwards's somewhat combative tone with the media, I wonder if Bonior might be trying to take a softer approach in hopes of less antagonistic (to put it mildly) coverage. I actually think the Edwards folks have done a pretty decent job of managing the media narratives (especially vis a vis fundraising) but the haircut thing does seem to have gotten away from them. And that's not to say, by the way, that his appreciation wasn't genuine, I suspect it was. He made a point of saying that Edwards's years long advocacy on the part of the poor was one of the reasons he joined the campaign.

It's easy enough to bash the media, of course, but Edwards is challenging us as well. Poverty, New Orleans, the plight of rural Americans and those left behind in our devastated cities are people, places and things we all can be writing about more and I'm glad Sen. Edwards is giving us and the media that opportunity.



Display:


Re: David Bonior (3.00 / 4)

Thanks for putting this on the front page. Edwards is trying to call attention to the plight of Americans in poverty. He has my undying support in this crusade, and his campaign!!


by RDemocrat on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 11:30:47 PM EST

Re: Edwards's 'Road To One (3.00 / 3)

A few points.

" At some point, you gotta think Edwards's sheer persistence would wear the media down."

No I don't expect that and nor should anyone else. The media loves narratives that they think will sell copies, and 'slick' 'fibbing' 'elite' Democrats is a meme they have had for a few decades now. Why should it change now?

As for your point about not being antagonistic to the press- that's exactly the approach they should take. Here's the deal- did you ever see Nancy Pelosi's daughter's documentary about Bush in 2000? I did and I got the chance to meet her.

What was striking to me- and I am sure that Ms. Pelosi may have missed this point- is that it was all about how the press liked Bush. How Ms Pelosi liked him. Not what he stood fo rmind you or what he was going to do in office- but that they liked him. They didn't like Gore. She said at the time- that she didn't like Kerry either because he came off to the press following him as standoffish. This is what the press is like.

If you want to get them to start reporting good things about you- you butter them up. Make jokes. Make them think they are on the inside track with you. It's sad, but true. THis is the level of politics in this country.

It won't guarantee that you can overcome a meme but if one is smart over time one can.

Oh, final point- NY Times is HRC territory- not all that surprising that you will see her supporters and others use the space to trash other candidates. I would've been more surprised if they hadn't.


by bruh21 on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 11:31:26 PM EST

Re: Edwards's 'Road To One (3.00 / 1)

All of the establishment media is Hillary territory.  Almost every "Democratic pundit" working for the networks owes their careers to the Clinton White House, since they were only taken seriously in the first place because they worked for the Clintons.  When you look at all of these Democratic pundits on televison who have endorsed or openly say that they support Clinton, you should understand that that's one of the main reasons why the media are pushing her, and why she will never "lose...lose" a debate if the media has anything to say about it.


by OE on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 12:35:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards's 'Road To One (none / 0)

And of course the Hillary-Murdoch merger gives her a HUGE advantage!
After the media's escapades with Bush - I'm not too keen on having a president in bed with the media.

Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 12:50:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards's 'Road To One (none / 0)

I don't believe thats the case. I think that this is about being smart enough to woo the press.


by bruh21 on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:00:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards's 'Road To One (none / 0)

WOO the Press. Exactly. That's exactly what Anne Frank just said and that is exactly what Hillary has done. She has wooed Murdoch and wooed the Corporate media.


by yann123 on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:09:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards's 'Road To One (none / 0)

its just smart. you get nothign by bitching about how unfair the press are. yes they are-b ut thats the reality- campaigns have to deal with it or die gtrying to ride into town ont he horse backwards.


by bruh21 on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:10:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards's 'Road To One (none / 0)

The difference is that this is about raising up an issue to prominence that the press neither 'gets' nor covers.

Hillary did it by being a corporate shill and cover for Murdoch's kind in the Senate.


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 09:22:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards's 'Road To One (none / 0)

Oh please, everyone who knows much of anything knows that the same corporate factions that backed Bush are backing Hillary Clinton, and that includes the media.  The media is establishment, the Bush and Clinton families are establishment.


by OE on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 07:48:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: David Bonior Announces Edwards's 'Road To One (3.00 / 1)

I'm glad he's stepping up the effort to reach out to the folks most of us pretend aren't out there. This trip can have multiple positive effects: show the rest of America what their nightly news and 'reality' shows don't, encourage the people in these communities to feel more connected and a part of the election process, provide the push in the media that Edwards deserves.  Even if the trip only does one of these or only a part of these, it will be a success.


by edgery on Mon Jul 09, 2007 at 11:57:47 PM EST

Re: David Bonior Announces Edwards's 'Road To One (3.00 / 1)

Good for Edwards, and I like the slogan "Road to One America." I have to say that my opinion of Edwards has improved considerably these past few months. At first I assumed that Edwards was in the race just for the Presidency, which is certainly what occurred in 2004. This time around though the two superstars have taken all the oxygen out of the room, and Edwards seems a lot more freed up to do his own thing, damn the political consequences. And of course there's the fact that his wife is dying of cancer. It's not clear to me how much John Edwards really cares about winning the Presidency anymore, as opposed to his other priorities. Ironically, it is Elizabeth Edwards that seems the more driven of the two.  

Here's a good quote from USA Today on David Bonior's role shift in the campaign:  

The former Michigan congressman has had no previous experience running a national campaign. In an interview in December, asked why he named Bonior to manage his campaign, Edwards told this blogger it had a lot to do with Bonior's offer to move to Chapel Hill, N.C. and help the campaign:

"There was nothing in it for him. He was doing it because he believed in the cause. That was a huge factor in my decision," Edwards said. He also said Bonior "represents the way I want people to be treated who work with us. I know he'll treat them well, with dignity and respect."

Asked specifically about Bonior's strategic skills, Edwards replied: "They seem pretty good. I don't know. I'm probably not as interested in that as I should be."

I think I believe him... though I guess I don't really want a President that isn't as interested as he should be in results.

I agree Edwards is challenging all of us.


by Korha on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 12:06:21 AM EST

Re: David Bonior Announces Edwards's (none / 0)

You're making a judgement of someone on one statement???  Jeeeez!
The way the media has "transformed" Edwards statements - it could have been a joke while Bonior was standing here.

Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:11:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

1968 >>> 2008 (3.00 / 3)

I hate to sound like a fluffer and since I am a big Edwards supporter and activist, there is certainly some small degree of that here, but...

How effing cool is it that John Edwards is doing a semi-re-creation of RFK's poverty tour from 1968?

Clearly, this campaign is about something bigger than the candidate.


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 12:07:57 AM EST

Re: 1968 >>> 2008 (3.00 / 2)

Edwards has said that his campaign would be about more than just getting elected.  He was going to use the campaign to change things now.  He has done that in bringing UHC to the fore front of the presidential campaigns, his position on Iraq has meant the others have had to be more clear on their positions, his support of unions has made labor be more visible and his position on poverty has brought attention to an ignored problem.

I hope that the media can see the need to highlight this topic.  Thanks for sharing your impressions of the conference call.


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 12:34:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1968 >>> 2008 (none / 0)

In my comments on another thread, I made this point as well.  Even though I'll be busting my ass to get John Edwards the nomination - and in particular to win Wisconsin for JRE2008 - I know that when this is all said and done, even if John is not the nominee, he'll have had a tangible, measurable, long-term impact on American politics in a manner similar to (but on a different track from) Howard Dean.

Dean helped re-ignite the work to build a national, grassroots Democratic Party and to build a people-powered progressive movement - more philosophical than ideological.

Edwards' campaign will re-ignite a debate on economic fairness in a way that alters the conversation in this country in a way similar to what we had in the Progressive and New Deal eras - this isn't to say it's a re-tread, but instead in that today closely mirrors the conditions and situation of those days, there is room to have discussions about fairness, security, and shared prosperity growth in a similar context.

The Edwards campaign ignites some new ideological dimensions into political discourse that lay out clearly the differences between conservatives and liberals when the American people are ripe for hearing comparisons and contrasts between the two ideologies/world-views and governing philosophies.

That will likely be the greatest contribution Edwards can make right now - short of winning the presidency and establishing a stronger social democracy.


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 09:32:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 1968 >>> 2008 (none / 0)

yes, good point, I think that element of the trip is worth exploring in a subsequent post. there have been several moments this campaign season that have harkened back to the 60s whether it be the march in Selma or Dodd's national service plan that recalls his joining the peace corps b/c of JFK or even Melissa Etheridge's call to revolution at Live Earth yesterday. it's a very interesting subtext to the whole political environment right now.


by Todd Beeton on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:19:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Road To One America (3.00 / 3)

Why is it that so many people have such a hard time understanding that people ARE politics.  He is attracting POLITICAL attention to a HUMAN problem.  Is it politicaly self serving?  Of course, but only to the point where that helps him get elected to help the HUMAN problem.

It is like saying he is not allowed to feel good for donating money to a charity.  Some people believe in that Ann Rand stuff and existential thought taken to the extreme where one can never do something for someone else without doing for themselves as well.


by jsamuel on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 12:31:24 AM EST

Cynicism and hate... (3.00 / 2)

Check out The Politico.  The right wing hates Edwards, fueled by the media's narrative.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 707/Edwards_to_announce_poverty_tour.htm l

The comments are disgusting and, indeed, scary to see.  How much hate is there in America?  We must confront it.

This animus tells me Edwards scares the haters, that is on the right path, speaking for those with the faintest voices among us and proposing solutions that will benefit society and bring out the best of us.


by citizen53 on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 12:47:21 AM EST

I noticed that all over (none / 0)

on sites carrying this story. In the negative comments, its all just personal attacks. Really really vicious. There is no actual substantitive criticism.

Although I hope Edwards wins, even if he doesn't he has done an incredible service to the democratic party by focusing on this issue and others as well such as health care and global warming


by okamichan13 on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 12:53:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cynicism and hate... (none / 0)

He scares the wingers .. but he also scares Wall Street .. I think "Mad Money" Cramer is a bit of a charlatan .. but I believe him when he says Wall Street fears Edwards


John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 12:54:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

a great comment from NYT Caucus blog (none / 0)

Tell me what candidate doesn't get expensive hair cuts, expensive wardrobes, or expensive make up jobs as CAMPAIGN EXPENSES in preparation for major events like debates or television interviews?

All of the ones who can afford it do. It's only a story when John Edwards gets this "NORMAL" campaign expense because the media are trying to tear Edwards down. It's funny to me, and infuriating, that they are manufacturing scandals against John Edwards based on things that all candidates do.

All candidates charge expensive hair cuts to campaigns. Hillary Clinton's campaign paid for $6,000 worth of hair and make up for her to make one appearance. You don't hear about it because it's normal, and her name isn't John Edwards. Tell me one woman that you know who gets a $3,000 hair do?

All candidates live in big houses. HOW...IN...THE...WORLD is it a scandal that John Edwards lives in a big house? Shows just how stupid those Americans are who think that it is. Heck, John Edwards has a lot less money than the Kennedy family and FDR did, and no one questions their sincerity, but everyone wants to call John Edwards a phony, when Edwards is THE ONLY ONE I JUST MENTIONED TO COME FROM POVERTY, when your freaking family has to borrow money to get you out of the hospital back during 1950s prices.

R.L. Jackson needs to get a clue. John Edwards has always worked to help the poor, even long before he even thought about getting in to politics. Helping the poor has always been a part of who John Edwards is, whether it was dressing up like Santa Claus and passing out toys to poor children in the projects, buying a truck load of supplies and taking them down to Hurricane Hugo victims, working with Urban Ministries to help the homeless, building learning labs with computers for children who didn't have computers at home, and so on.

For you to call John Edwards a phony proves just how gullable you are. What? You believe every manufactured lie you get from the media?


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:00:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: a great comment from NYT Caucus blog (none / 0)

It's not gullability, it's a desire to find ways to tear down other candidates and build their candidate up.  

No one campaign's supporters is not guilty of this.  But the difference is in who picks up the MSM's framing (and their adoption of the right-wing framing) of the meta-politics and story of 'haircuts are an issue' and/or substantive vision for this country.  


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 09:38:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

saw that yesterday (none / 0)

Yeah i saw that yesterday...may be partially because drudge linked to it. The sheer ridiculousness and persistence of those people was insane. I have never seen one group of people consistently spew the same narrative over and over again. It shows that the right wing attack machine is still very effective and dangerous. They are going to be VERY propagandistic this election - check the video of Romney basically telling a fairy tale about American history and ending by calling Hillary a Marxist (anyone that knows a thing about marxism realizes how hilarious/ironic this is).

I think the lesson is that although the right wing attacks are b.s they cant be ignored and gaffes that lead to a canidate being succeptable to such a strong narrative must be avoided - although i admit this is partially playing into the right wing propaganda's game, the power of this edwards narrative is too strong to ignore. The question is really whether or not its purely talk radio listening drudge reader fringe people listening to this or if it has really taken hold with the "mainstream". Either way, it makes me want to vote for Edwards.


by jed on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:35:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hatemongers and bullies must be confronted... (none / 0)

and exposed.  Same for the bullshit that appears in the media.  That is how the mainstream will become aware and, hopefully, come to understand the manupulative process at work.

Another sad fact is that these same things get repeated on blogs like MyDD and DKos for purely partisan reasons.  And they do, too much!


by citizen53 on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:44:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

comment from the NYT Caucus blog (none / 0)

A Most CON-cerned Citizen wrote: "He made his fortune by suing doctors for malpractice. I have never heard that he wants to bar incompetent doctors from practicing, which would make the health care system safer. He just wanted to make a fortune from the misery of others who encountered disasterous medical care."

Well, actually, John made a lot more when the people that he represented SUED CORPORATIONS who were negligent or wreckless in their behavior, like the fact that the largest award that he ever won on behalf of his client was when an irresponsible swimming pool drain company (Sta-Rite) didn't put a "20 CENTS" screw on a swimming pool drain despite knowing about the problems with the drains, and it ended up sucking the intestines out of a little girls. He won $20-30 million for that girl's family, when the corporation could have saved money and injury by recalling the drains in the first place. This case is ironic considering the fact that the same thing just happened last week to another little girl.

http://www.twincities.com/allheadlines/c i_6293513

As far as suing doctors is concerned, if a doctor messes up, then there are times when they deserve to be sued just like anyone else. If that doctor gets put out of business because they got sued for ruining someone's life, what's worse? Them being put out of business and not ruining anyone else's life, or them not being held accountable and botching the delivery of someone else's baby or prescribing the wrong drugs to another patient, or removing the wrong leg from another paper, or leaving something inside of another patient? Which is worse?

I think most people would sue a doctor if he cut off your right arm when your left arm was supposed to come off, and now both of your arms are gone because your left arm still has to come off.

Folks, here's the truth about the "I hate lawyers" crowd. Almost everyone hates a lawyer...UNTIL THEY NEED ONE. That makes them the hypocrites, not John Edwards.

Here's another piece of truth. John Edwards was a good lawyer who represented his clients in courtrooms AGAINST THE BAND OF LAWYERS THAT REPRESENTED THE OTHER SIDE (corporations and doctors that messed someone up). Apparently the juries agreed with John Edwards' argument, and the judges agreed that Edwards' clients had legitimate grievances because he beat the other side so much and the cases were allowed to go to trial in the first place.

What we have are special interests on the other side who still have sour grapes because John Edwards destroyed them in case after case, and they still haven't gotten over it.

-- Posted by OE


Hillary/Obama08
by annefrank on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 12:58:23 AM EST

Re: comment from the NYT Caucus blog (none / 0)

Speaking as someone that works in the world of healthcare and who has family members and close friends as physicians, anyone that tells you that John Edwards is bad for medicine I can tell you is full of crap.

Physicians will carp about bad physicians who shouldn't be practicing for two reasons.  First, they give good doctors a bad name.  Rotten apples, one barrel, etc.  Second, they raise malpractice insurance premiums for other physicians because insurance companies hedge on pooled risk.  

Speaking of which, insurance companies are the problem with med-mal issues and their relation to healthcare costs.  While judgment amounts in total and on average for med-mal cases have been going down and insurance co's own estimates of their necessities of paying out med-mal claims are going down, they have raised rates for docs along the same time "tort reform" and the like were able to be created as 'issues' in healthcare by the right-wing.  Trial attorneys have no impact on insurance and healthcare costs.  The specter of trial attorneys bankrupting docs and healthcare orgs, which is fals, have everything to do with a concerted right-wing effort.  But I digresss.

Edwards' care-delivery cases established standards in North Carolina, a lightly-regulated state when it came to healthcare standards.  He fought for people who were effed over by negligent doctors (you can't dispute the facts of the case) and negligent science, wronged and not able to attain justice without someone who could make the law and the courts work for them.  

I would be hard-pressed to think of one example where a lawsuit against a negligent physician put them out of business or sent them into bankruptcy.  Their transgressions that brought on a lawsuit might have put them out of business by having their license suspended or being disgraced as a care-giver.  


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 09:45:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Good post, Todd (none / 0)

I think this is a good move by Edwards, for both moral and political reasons. A cookie to the first journalist who discusses Edwards's focus on poverty without mentioning his hair.

I hope Edwards starts to challenge the other candidates, especially Hillary, on policy. It's time to play offense.


by david mizner on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 07:00:38 AM EST

The MSM does not (none / 0)

cover poverty anymore.  This just shows the disconnect between the reporters who live a privileged life and the rest of America.

Good post, Todd.


by littafi on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 08:32:08 AM EST

Re: The MSM does not (none / 0)

It's not that they don't cover poverty, they don't cover inequality and economic fairness issues in general, some things of which poverty is a result.

Poverty doesn't exist just because.

It exists because of societal conditions, cultural realities, and government policies and business practices.  The former are begat by the latter.  And discussing 'class'-like issues in the MSM is off-limits - because challenging power and the status quo is.


Help build a stronger and more progressive Democratic Party from the grassroots on up
by Peter from WI on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 09:46:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Great Move (none / 0)

Edwards isn't my first choice for the nomination this time around, but I'm glad that he's out there working hard on issues like this that really matter.  At the very least, he's forcing people to talk about poverty, which no one with a high profile has done in a looonng time.    


by HSTruman on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 09:29:38 AM EST

Re: David Bonior (none / 0)

Sorry, but this seems like a ploy for "free press" from someone who doesn't have a lot of money to spend.  I saw a comment page for this and they were brutal with him about it- saying if he wants to find poverty, just leave his mansion and turn right or left and he can find it- people think he's a hypocrite and good or bad, this is only going to reinforce that for many people.


NY TIMES ENDORSEMENT: "Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.... She would be a strong commander in chief."
by reasonwarrior on Tue Jul 10, 2007 at 01:03:09 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.