I think most of us are waiting for Clark to present some actual positions and defend them in public. He's certainly not doing well with that in the so-called "debates" or in the free media.

Personally, Edwards is more appealing than the rest of the Democratic candidates.

AS PRESIDENT:

FOR JOBS,
He would roll back tax breaks on companies that move their headquarters overseas. This could be important for the whole nation, where the unemployment rate has dramatically increased.
He would also plan tax breaks for U.S. companies that manufacture here in the states. That means more jobs, more money and a better economy for our nation.

FOR EDUCATION,
He would help create a "College for everyone" program which would help the underprivileged through their first year of postsecondary education in a public institution. Who's going to pay for it? The students would have to be willing to work part time in exchange for a chance to become successful. This is a win-win situation--for our youth, for our taxpayers and definitely our nation!

FOR HEALTH CARE,
He would guide his proposed program that provides low-cost, efficient health care to EVERY child in America. Not just "most" children but ALL children. We need his plan and motivation that is different from any other politician that truly meets the needs of our future--our American children.

FOR A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT,
He would push for water quality in our nation and abroad through lowering Arsenic levels and reducing toxic waste in our ecosystem.
He would push for the continuation of offshore drilling moratoriums that restrict risque drilling operations on America's coastline and in America's waters.

AS A NOMINEE:

-He would work the Republican strongholds in the South and Rural America, two areas in the nation which proved testy for Al Gore in 2000.

-He is a fresh, handsome face who would appeal to moderate voters through his bright, untiring and cheery ideas.

-Polls show him leading in South Carolina and gaining ground in Iowa, New Hampshire and the Western states.


John Edwards is the only Democrat whom I believe could beat Bush in '04. Please join the camp for a winning team! www.johnedwards2004.com

One position that annoys me with Edwards is his pandering to unions. Specifically, his position that -- if elected President -- he would take away the ability for union shops to hire "scabs" to replace striking union workers. He's mentioned this position in a couple of the debates, although I can't find it on the web site.

This position is one of those that will trigger "the law of unintended consequences". If you tilt the balance too heavily in favor of unions, those union shops will relocate outside the USA where they won't have those strong union rules. Short term, it's a good line to appeal to the unions in Iowa and the Carolinas; long term, it's going to lose us more jobs. At least the "scabs" are local (to the USA) folks and not, say, Indonesians working on the other side of the world.

OnTheIssues: John Edwards



Here it is!

I'm not familiar with Edwards and his position on labor. I know that Gephardt would introduce an international minimum wage(IMW) that would be indexed according to a given nation's economic climate, currency, and other considerable factors(i.e.-Vietnames workers won't get paid $10.00 an hour) I think international agreements on labor could be worked out and I'm for such provisions such near slavery and sweatshop conditions need to be dealt with in a serious manner.

Would you expand on why you believe an international minimum wage would be accepted by other countries? Here is an article on China that basically proves that they would never agree to such a plan. They are only one example. I could give you dozens more.

To revalue, or not to revalue

Basically not a single one of the Democratic candidates are worth doo doo. I don't see anyone...besides mabe Clark that can actually lead rather than pander to special interests groups. It's the same tired rhetoric again and people are sick of it. Please, promise me everything once again...I've forgotten over the last couple years and once again cite Bush's evil empire of neo-con's and evil war that wasn't consented to by the UN. Please.......grow a pair.

cusbilla

Of course they are pandering to special interest groups. So do the Republicans. Did you think this was some sort of Democratic specialty? The key, when choosing a presidential candidate you like (and it is unfortunate, but it is also reality), is choosing the candidate whose "special interests" are ones you also share. Do you really think Bush, who set a precedent when it came to installing corporate interests into cabinet positions and at many, many government departments, is somehow not extremely guilty of this? I'll take Democratic special interest groups anyday over someone whose energy policies are drafted by oil companies, who staffed the EPA with people who have spent careers representing polluters, who staffed the Interior with people who lobbied for Lumber companies... the list really does keep on going.

An IMW would be beneficial to other nations in more than one way. First, by guaranteeing an IMW, countries who are home to many industries would be guaranteed that they would not lose employers to other areas of the world that beat them to the "race to the bottom" Granted, differences would still exist, but perhaps it would be leveled out to such an extent, that a company would deem it not worth moving jobs out of a given country. Secondly, a country would not mind an IMW because a multinational would be paying a wage that is slightly above what other people in that nation make. That means they pay more taxes to the government, which is something that I'm sure they wouldn't mind. The employees would also spend that money for other businesses and services, helping their economies out even more. Third of all, a country would love an IMW because as people make money and are paid reasonably well, they would be less likely to take part in radical movements that would throw a nation into periodic upheaval. Take the people out of the slums and pay them generously, and you have a market for t.v.s, cars, and housing loans. You will no longer have impoverished young people clashing with police in the streets. Lastly, it would be great for us because as multinationals expand, we could counter a key ingredient of terrorism.....poverty which breeds resentment.

Would China go along with it? Like all things, new ideas take time. Old leaders come and go, and who knows, China might be ready for more reforms in the coming years. once they saw that an IMW fits into everyone's best interests, I doubt they would be against a plan that would guarantee them wealth and a lengthy, peaceful existence with their populace.