You are so right about his not getting his deserved media coverage.
The press seems bias. Even Letterman opened with Hillary.
I hope educators see him as a better choice than Hillary.
And he's got a great line about excessive testing in the schools: "You don't make a hog fatter by weighing it".
He hits all the right notes, doesn't he? What a speech. No wonder the corporate media ignores him.
It used to be that the pundits, when they mentioned Edwards at all, made fun of his expensive haircut. Now they call him angry. I've even heard him compared to Howard Dean (whose "yell" clearly wasn't an angry yell, but it made for a much more titillating story for the press to pretend it was).
Edwards isn't angry. He's passionate about the grip corporations have over our government, and rightly so.
Thanks for posting this. Thought it was great.
Best wishes,
Miguel Guhlin
Around the Corner-mGuhlin.net
http://mguhlin.net
I've always been impressed by Edwards and what he stands for-bringing democracy and less stressful lives back to the middle and working classes. He also doesn't stand for corporatized education; I'm not so sure about Hillary, who appears to be letting Randi tag along for the ride. I hope he hangs in there even if he loses New Hampshire. I'd love to see how he'd fare in a state like New York, now that he's getting more media attention and not being treated as much like a distant third place candidate.
Funny, though, that he never talks about the grip that trial lawyers have over legislators. They may not be a "corporation" per se, but as a group, their lobbying power is tremendous and, some might say (myself included), detrimental to the common good.
Personally, I'm an Obama guy, but I'd definitely get behind an Elizabeth Edwards campaign. She's as competent and as politically savvy as anyone running this year.
Under Bush, people cannot sue HMOs for denying proper treatment and letting them die. While some lawsuits may be frivilous, others that are now being regulated are not.
I hope Edwards starts rethinking how he can get media attention and get his message out there. The fact that he blew Hillary away in Iowa is not being reported.
Clinton is also a lawyer and Randi's BBF.
I read on another blog where Randi is toying with the idea of letting ATRs get blasted with LIF and not being able to protect them. She is doing everything possible to get the Republicans to approve a seat on the cabinet if Hillary is elected.
Umm - sorry, but Edwards did not blow Hillary away in Iowa. He basically tied for second with her. The story was that Obama blew them both away, which is what was reported.
What do you think about Obama and education? I've noticed he consorts with Wal-Mart-backed, voucher supporting, faux-democrat Cory Booker, and great "reformer" Michael Bloomberg. Education is a big issue for me, and these things kind of freak me out.
He also supports merit pay, which I think is a bad idea. Personally, I'd prefer not to see those without merit teaching at all. He told the NEA, "I won't do it to you, I'll do it with you."
It seems to me, though, he's already made up his mind to do it without consulting them. Or you or me.
All three of the major Democratic candidates consort with people who support vouchers, school choice, etc. Obviously the Republicans do, too.
Given that there ARE teachers without merit who are teaching in our schools, and our unions make it nearly impossible to get rid of them, why do you object to paying the good teachers more?
First of all, I've seen no sign of Edwards consorting with any such people. More importantly, I've not heard him speak of merit pay, for example, as Obama has.
Can you point to evidence otherwise?
Well, tenure wouldn't be around if not for unions, and schools don't always have the luxury of deciding in the first couple years of a teacher's career whether or not the teacher will have merit, as you put it.
As for Edwards, I definitely do know of some people that he's hanging out with who are big-time into education reform and who love all that charter, voucher, merit stuff. I'm not going to connect the dots for you but the world wide web will get you a few clues if you're good. I'm not saying that Edwards himself is in favor of those things - my point is that we can't draw that conclusion from Obama hanging with Booker or Bloomberg either. As a supporter of those measures, I wish that we COULD draw that connection so that I can support Obama in good conscience. With the amount of anti-NCLB union-pandering he does, however, I'm not convinced.
I really liked the "you don't make a hog fatter by weighing it" line for its irony. I know that Edwards meant that, if you're a farmer who wants a hog to get fatter, weighing it won't make that happen, but it could also be construed to mean that if you want the bloated slob of an education bureaucracy to get even fatter and less flexible, you'd better not weigh it.
Weigh that pig, I say, and bring some accountability, discipline, and efficiency to its eating habits.
So essentially, you offer no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. Pardon me if I fail to find it persuasive.
That's fine. I like Edwards, too, so I'm glad he has your vote. His record is strong on the anti-reform education measures that you support, so he's a safe choice on your part.
My point is only that you can't infer that Obama supports the reforms that his friends support. I have plenty of evidence that Many of Edwards' friends and supporters are great fans of school choice and the like, but I don't feel the need to help you figure out who they are, so I guess I'll just have to let it go. You're right, Obama is a huge voucher advocate and a wolf in sheep's clothing due to his association with the undercover Klansmen Cory Booker and Michael Bloomberg, and Edwards is a status quo-apologist loony that you can be safe feeling has never shook the hand or visited the home of a wild-eyed supporter of education reforms that actually work.
I regret you cannot support your claims. It now appears you cannot read my mind either.
Did you see Michelle Obama condemning NCLB for strangling our urban schools with standardized testing?
Her commitment is real.
Check out Obama's platform. It reads like the John Hopkins drop out program's proposal. The architechs of NCLB sought to replicate "best practices" across the nation. They did not understand, however, that the methods for increasing student performance in effective schools are not approprate for turning around high poverty schools. So, they gambled everything on "the Head" and not recognizing the role of "the Heart" in education.
Obama, a former community organizer, understands that education is a people business.
The other Dems are excellent, but as in the case of Iraq, Obama gets it right from the first.
And no, Obama doesn't support vouchers. His team apparently does listen to the wisdom of Brad Jupp in Denver. Did you hear the NPR report on that plan?
I have serious doubts about performance pay, but they do not weaken my confidence in the Obamas.
DT
Obama's an impressive speaker. Edwards seems to be as well. I haven't really made up my mind yet, but I don't think I'll vote for Hillary.
If Edwards had half the charisma of Obama, he would have had higher numbers. I wish they would get fresh blood into the campaign instead of just writing cliches like "we are Seabuscit".
Obama supports merit pay based upon standardized testing, he supports year round school, longer school days and longer school years. He supports high stakes testing. If you are a public school teacher who would like to see change in public education, Obama is going to give you some change all right - longer days, longer years, no summer and merit pay nation-wide.
Thanks for the Obama endorsement, RBE, that's exactly what I wantfor all of our students. But then again I'm one of these crazy people who believes that schools are for the children and not the teachers.
If the guy who feeds the hog is unhappy, he could feed the hog in ways that will make it weigh more but not be the best tasting meat.
I just love the "schools are for children, not for teachers" line. We hear that from Klein all the time. Teachers teach children and unsatisfied teachers do not make for good ed policy. Part of the "interchangeable" teacher policy, which is not good for children either.
Does anyone believe that schools are really for children under the current ed reform climate?
And the "bloated slob of educational bureaucracy" which comes from the patronage politicians who control education have to give out. Just check the BloomKlein bloat. Business models, indeed.
If schools were for teachers, meaning they had some control, they would cut the bloat faster than anyone else would. If only for self-interest in making their jobs more manageable.
The true ed reform that would work would be to use the self-interest of teachers by giving them control of some schools and use it to make schools work. That this experiment has not been tried is indicative of the the interests of the business model ed reformers. As a result of ed "reforms' teachers have less control over what they do.
I watched the Democratic debate last night. One of Edwards' main points was about the disappearing middle class, and about how our children will have to live in the world we leave them. That really resonates with me. Based on what I saw, I like him better than the other dems.
But the others all seemed preferable to four more years, which I think is what we'd get from the GOP candidates.
I agree. I like Richardson, too, but the media has given him even less of a chance than Edwards. He's, experienced, has been a successful and creative diplomat, is against NCLB and excessive testing, and actually seems human. Obama is also intriguing, and he seems to be a good enough "listener" that he may not automatically go along with the advice of the so-called "reformers" without considering the implications. But I'll take any of them at this point.
I believe schools are for students too, Lead Teacher. I also believe students need teachers who are role models and do not let themselves be exploited and scapegoated by a failed system and a bunch of failed politicians.
Extra days, extra time, merit pay based upon standardized test scores, additional standardized tests, for that matter the "lead teacher" position - these "reforms" have not brought any real improvement to the NYC school system and the NAEP test results show that.
Going federal with the Obama "reforms" (basically the Bloomberg/Democrats for Educational Reform/Fordham Foundation reforms) will certainly socialize children to think school is a year round thing, the work day is 10 hours and the work week six days. But that's not progress and it's not educational reform.
Unfortunately that is exactly what is behind the Obama/Bloomberg/Democrats for Education Reform/Fordham Foundation movement - big business and big business interests socializing a country to think progress is working longer and harder to make less than the generation before them did.
As for Bill Richardson, even though he's a minor character: In Armed Madhouse, Greg Palast slams him on a number of issues, which made be believe he's not all what he's cracked up to be:
1. The Public Service of New Mex. got sued by California for "conspiring with Enron to rig the Calif. power market."
Richardson was Clinton's Energy Sec. at the time and advocating deregulation of the energy market, which, Palast says, is connected to what was happening back home in this industry.
2. Palast also talks about Richardson's active particpation in election fraud in his state. From www.gregpalast.com/recipe-for-a-cooked-election:
"New Mexico’s Secretary of State, Rebecca Vigil-Giron, seemed curiously uncurious about Hispanic and Native precincts where nearly 1 in 10 voters couldn’t be bothered to choose a president. [Rhey voted for other offices, but not for president].
"Vigil-Giron, along with Governor Bill Richardson, not only stopped any attempt at a recount directly following the election, but demanded that all the machines be wiped clean. This not only concealed evidence of potential fraud but destroyed it. In 2006, New Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled the Secretary of State’s machine-cleaning job illegal — too late to change the outcome of the election, of course."
And on p.256 of the book, Palast writes:
"I was told that it was Richardson himself who encouraged Sec. of State Vigil-Giron to reject the $114,000 payment from concerned Democrats. The Governor was too busy to speak with me. Halting the 2004 recount wasn't enough for Gov. Bill, however. He demanded the legislature pass a 'reform' law that would require anyone wanting a recount...to put up a bond of over one million dollars. As a result, 'free and fair elections' are now effectively outlawed in New Mexico."
etc.
While everyone has some skeletons in their closet, this info on Richardson does shake my opinion of him. But given that he is a minor character, I've been planning to vote for Edwards in NY anyhow. I had been concerned about how genuine he was, but his speeches are passionate and at least seem heartfelt, and he's been pretty clear with his stand on educational issues, opposition to NCLB, support for teachers, etc.
GB, I too was leaning his way before I read all this, and like you, have since settled on Edwards.
Well, the Palast comments certainly knocked me off the Richardson train. I had been supporting him on the word of one of my childhood best friends who worked for Bill at DOE. His take was that Bill was a mensch. Mensch or not, I think Edwards is our last best hope.
Edwards was wonderful in last night's debate. And he said it over and over that he does not take special interest money.
Richardson came across weak on national security. And I will never vote for anyone Randi supports (she also supported Pataki and Bloomberg by not supporting Weiner)
Edwards was great last night. The corporate media will do everything so he won't win. Why don't all the teachers who read this blog endorse him?
Charlie Gibson made some snide comments to him also. I love the way these so-called objective journalists try to sway public opinion. George Steponopolis (?) on the other hand praised him at being the best in the debates.
Even the NYTimes gave him only a few postitive sentences. The rest of the coverage was about Hillary and Obama.
Questions:
Which candidate has the greatest record of attacking corporations? and
What kinds of entities have been buying up the media?
Edwards is great but can't win the nomination. He is tied to public financing and therefore can't spend beyond a limited amount (I think a few million until August). Except for these early states that everyone is watching, he has no standing nationally to win. It will be Obama or Clinton. The questions which of these 2 will you choose?
Commenting by HaloScan
