Poverty Czar: A Job For Edwards?
John Edwards claims he can continue to come in third and get enough delegates so that someone notices him at the convention. I’m not so sure. There comes a point when third becomes last and last becomes an irritant. If I were Obama, I would be cutting a deal with him now for his support.
But what is there for Edwards to do? He would probably want to be Attorney General, but that is too big a prize. He doesn’t have any qualifications for the other major cabinet posts, State and Defense, so a position needs to be created for him. My suggestion is to make him “poverty czar”. Edwards claims it is his passion and personal life’s work. So I would give him an office in the White House and put him in charge of putting his anti-poverty ideas to work. Edwards would report directly to Obama. More importantly, he could break down all the silos the various agencies and departments have built over the years in the name of “fighting poverty”. Because of the complexity of poverty, this would be a major undertaking, with major national and international political overtones, and real practical benefits to real people in need at home and abroad.
At the same time, it would show people that Obama is starting to think about the kind of administration he wants and the kind of administrative innovations he plans to bring to government. By doing so, Obama would distinguish himself further from Clinton and build a real bridge with Edwards’ supporters.
As the Obama slogan goes: Change we can believe in.
Posted: January 29th, 2008 under Uncategorized.
Comments: 11
Comments
Comment from timr
Time: January 29, 2008, 11:46 am
Josh, I do believe that once more the polls were a wee bit wrong in SC. Obama was more than 20 points ahead of Clinton, none of the polls suggested this. I wonder just how correct they will be in Fl tonite. If you factor in the Keith Factor(keith olbermann) the race is almost a 3/4 way tie.
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: January 29, 2008, 12:32 pm
Timr, I don’t know what you are referencing about South Carolina?
Comment from Umous Akwitt
Time: January 29, 2008, 1:23 pm
” So I would give him an office in the White House and put him in charge of putting his anti-poverty ideas to work. Edwards would report directly to Obama.”
If you would have him report directly to Obama, why wouldn’t you set him up in an office in Chicago, or would you have them converse by phone, before reporting to Hillary in the oval office ?
Comment from Sasha
Time: January 29, 2008, 5:04 pm
“He would probably want to be Attorney General, but that is too big a prize. ”
Why? Who would be better?
(I am opposed to any “czars.” I have had quite enough of the war metaphors and the monarchy metaphors. How about a republic for a change?)
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: January 29, 2008, 6:14 pm
Clinton 1 appointed more minorities and women to jobs in government, including the judiciary, than any president, but he did not appoint minorities to key positions in government. Presidents Bush, 41 and 42, have him beat.
Key appointments are not about the best qualified, but the best connected or the best leveraged. Thomas to the Supreme Court is the classic case in point for Bush 41.
Bush 43 has made it difficult to appoint minorites to key cabinet positions: a male and female black to State and an Hispanic to Justice. What’s left? An Asian to Defense or Arab to State? In my booking, Obama can go white on State and Defense, but he would miss a big opportunity not to go Black on Justice. Hey, I’m not a poet.
Comment from Sasha
Time: January 29, 2008, 6:56 pm
If he does a minority at AG it should be a woman. Dodd for VP, Biden at State. I’d even do Edwards at HHS.
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: January 30, 2008, 7:15 am
How soon we forget Janet Reno! Obama needs to go outside the senate for a VP. Corzine for VP: ex-marine who voted against the war while in the senate; former head of Goldman-Sachs, so he would be big on the economy; governor of a big state grappling with real issues; endorsed Clinton so there is a bridge there; folksy so he fits Obama.
Comment from Sasha
Time: January 30, 2008, 9:28 am
Corzine ? 
Comment from timr
Time: January 30, 2008, 10:12 am
Josh, the fact that Obama came in quite a few points more ahead of Clinton than the polls predicted. Just came across this AP story on TPM, what the actual truth is I don’t know
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/01/john_edwards_to_quit_president.php
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: January 30, 2008, 10:37 am
timr, well the first thing we know about the South Carolina polling is that there was no “Bradley Effect”. Same was true in Nevada. The Zogby tracking poll released the day before the election in SC had Obama up 15 percent, if I recall correctly. Most polls, taken a few days before the primary had him in the 10 percent range. The fact that none of the polls predicted the exact percentages, as they had in Iowa, is a function, I believe, of the way the race card was playing out, right up to and including the day before and day of the election. As I have said repeatedly, polls are snapshots of moments in time. When a race is as dynamic as the South Carolina one, then polls pick the winner but not the margin. In Florida both McCain and Romney were virtually tied, within the margin of error. A last minute blast by McCain on Romney is credited with his win, that plus the effect of the governor’s last minute endorsement and the muscle he was able to put into getting the vote out for McCain.
Comment from Willis Webb
Time: April 4, 2008, 6:55 pm
Sen. Clinton’s idea of a Poverty Czar is essentially phony, reactive, and pessimistic. I noticed that she limited her conversation to Black people, when, in fact, M.L.K. and others of the Movement were targeting the poor and working families of all creeds and races. The idea that we need another “Do Nothing, Sound Good” U. S. agency or department to decrease and/or eliminate poverty points to either a deficiency or unwillingness of our governmental system to treat all of our people fairly, is disingenuous.
All that we and our leaders must do is to ensure that our constitution and governmental systems & levers work fairly for all peoples. Clearly, 40 years after King’s (and RFK’s) assassination(s), our SYSTEM is not working as boasted. There are more Black female-led families; a higher number and percentage of (especially, young) Black men in prison; more drop-outs in proportion to available labor jobs; and still two-times more Blacks un-employed than others in all economic cycles before and since King’s death.
Write a comment