Sorry for the silly question, but who do you think will do more for the poor? Hillary or Obama?

[annie1]

Poor people in the city, and poor people in rural areas. thanks for any input.

[MadBadger]

1. Edwards...

Im guessing that will be the major response.

[annie1]

2. he would, yes, but btwn the 2, hil and Obama. what do you think?...

i get nervous when i don't hear either candidate mention them.

[piesRsquare]

10. Neither.

They're both paid for and owned by corporate interests. Especially the "healthcare industry".

Both of them support sending 90,000 more kids to war.

Neither support an overhaul in higher education costs.

You *should* be nervous.

Go Edwards!

[ellisonz]

32. "owned by corporate interests."

[JDPriestly]

45. Edwards owns interests in corporations.

But the corporations do not own an interest in him. There is a huge difference.

[ellisonz]

56. In Soviet Russia, car drives you!

[cali]

36. only one candidate has actually done anything real for the poor

Obama. I suggest also, that you find the post that someone did yesterday PROVING that Obama,percentage wise, has taken no more from the corporate world than Edwards= who is all talk and no action.

[JDPriestly]

46. Edwards has done a lot for the poor.

First, who do you think plaintiff's attorneys help? The rich simply hire their attorneys. Plaintiff's attorneys help middle class and poor people who have been injured or harmed.

He and Elizabeth donate a lot to charity.

Democratic hopeful John Edwards reported earned income of $1.25 million, the biggest single source of which was a hedge fund that employed him part time. He and his wife, Elizabeth, reported $29.5 million in assets, including millions invested in the hedge fund — the Fortress Investment Group.
. . . .

Edwards received about $395,000 in paid speeches — most of them at colleges — and was paid $40,000 salary for work at the University of North Carolina Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity.

The Edwards family donated more than $350,000 to charity, including the International Rescue Committee and Habitat for Humanity.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273133,00.html

Snow Hill, North Carolina – At Greene Central High School in Snow Hill, North Carolina, Senator John Edwards today announced his plan to make college more affordable for millions of students. Edwards' College Opportunity Agenda includes a national "College for Everyone" initiative, which would pay for one year of public-college tuition, fees, and books for any student who is willing to work hard and stay out of trouble.

"The chance to go to college meant everything in my life, and I want every young person to have the same chance," said Edwards. "Unfortunately, for too many families, this chance is out of reach. College for Everyone will open the door to a higher education for millions of young people, so they have the opportunity to realize the American Dream. Every young person who is willing to work hard should have the chance to get an education and get ahead."

The initiative is based on the College for Everyone pilot program in Greene County, North Carolina, that helps pay for the first year of college for young people who agree to work at least 10 hours a week. Edwards first talked about the idea in his 2004 presidential campaign. The program was launched in the fall of 2005 by the Center for Promise and Opportunity Foundation, a North Carolina nonprofit organization, and has already helped dozens of Greene Central High School students go to college. Edwards was in Greene County today to talk to Greene Central seniors participating in the College for Everyone program. More than 125 students from this year's graduating class are expected to go to college in the fall with the help of College for Everyone. The projected college-going rate for Greene Central seniors has increased from 54 percent before the program started to 74 percent today.

In addition to College for Everyone, Edwards proposed a series of initiatives to help students prepare and apply for college as part of his College Opportunity Agenda. Edwards would:

* Help simplify the application process for student aid and would help every low-income high school eligible for Title I hire a new college counselor, helping students choose college-track courses and navigate the admissions and financial aid process.
* Require all students to borrow directly from the Department of Education, which would eliminate bank subsidies on student loans and free up almost $6 billion a year to make college more affordable.

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070511-college-opportunity/

Edwards has done a lot for the poor. It is just nonsense to say that he hasn't. It has, in a sense, been his life's work. You have fallen for the corporate media's portrayal of plaintiff's attorneys as gold-diggers. It isn't necessarily true.

I have not heard of specific work that Obama did for the poor. I hear that he was an organizer, but then, I suppose I am too. Many people are. Almost anyone who works for a non-profit that serves low income or no income people would be considred an organizer.

Hillary's work for "the poor" has been mostly at a managerial level. She served on boards -- while working for a corporate law firm.

Edwards on the other hand worked to help individual people. He was not just directing the lawsuits. He was actually representing his clients. He has looked at the reality of the lives of individuals and families that he represented. Edwards got to know the concerns and the real situations of the middle class and poor people he represented.

And, most important, of the three top Democrats, Edwards is the only one who grew up in lower middle class America. His father was not a professional. Obama's mother was an academic. Obama's grandmother was vice president of a bank. And Hillary's father was a businessman. So, Edwards is the real deal when it comes to understanding poverty and the problems of the middle class. And he has done a lot for the poor. Certainly more than Obama who has been a government employee for most of his working life.

[AmBlue]

13. Edwards is already working for the poor and the voiceless.

Take a look here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2638089

Unfortunately, as I posted here, both Hillary and Obama are taking MILLIONS from large drug, insurance corporations and the military industrial complex. They both will be paying back "debts" to those big donors if they are elected. John Edwards won't be obligated to any corporations. He will represent The People. If you read my post you'll see he's already doing it.

[Occam Bandage]

3. Both have a very good record, both in activism and in votes cast. I give Obama the edge.

Any man with Obama's talents who spends years of his life working tirelessly as a community advocate (with a salary of 10k/yr) for one of the most impoverished districts in America, and who upon getting his degree returns to that same community and focuses on civil rights, housing, and labor cases...that is a man I believe will continue to help the poor.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. There Would Be Very Little Substantive Difference Between The Two Administrations IMHO

~

[LaPera]

18. Edwards without a doubt with his agenda & platform, no question about it. It's why the rich &

the republicans despise him so. The rich and the corporations have everything and they want more. Edwards certainly won't give them more, but will make them pay their fair share they hate that.

[2rth2pwr]

5. Give me an example of doing something for the poor.

What do you mean exactly?

[annie1]

7. I don't know. Probably ...

the budget and rules for welfare, public schools, federal credits for heating, stuff like that.

[AmBlue]

14. How about jobs for people who have lost them?

Edwards opposes these trade deals that send American jobs overseas. College kids are having tougher and tougher times finding work after investing so much time and effort in getting their degrees. Edwards is endorsed by the most unions because they know that he will stand by them and help them either keep their jobs or get their jobs back. The best way to fight poverty is to keep people from falling into poverty to begin with.

[annie1]

19. i trust HRC for that more. that is going to be skill and drive..

the more jobs she can for the US, the better her record.

[AmBlue]

23. Again, Edwards is already doing it by working with unions.

Hillary is also taking money from big corporate agribusiness that is putting family farms out of business and Bill Clinton passed NAFTA that sent thousands of jobs overseas.

And btw you can ask Edwards your questions on his website:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJnfDzF7rPw

[sandnsea]

30. China and India

Please explain to me how we ended up with so many industries in those two countries. Do you know the sequence of events? Do you know the CEO's and who they give money to?

[CyberPieHole]

6. Clinton...

she has spent her life fighting for the poor.

[MadBadger]

8. How so?

Sounds like her whole "35 years" spiel, but what does that mean?

[BootinUp]

9. The answer is based on political skill not desire to do something

Because I think both would have similar policy proposals.

So which of the two can push their agenda more successfully? Personally, I think this is where experience in DC and in the WH gives HRC a leg up in that debate.

I think one can also say that Obama appears to have positioned himself slightly to the right of Hillary on certain issues. It can be argued as Krugman has done, that this would make it harder for him to push the Democratic agenda in some areas (healthcare being one) since his own arguments from this campaign would be used by our opponents.

[annie1]

12. yeah.

i think so too on the skill part. then i think maybe he might be better for getting more dems in the house to approve what he whats, people might fight her tooth and nail on everything. hmmm.

[GreenTea]

11. Edwards, is a social progressive, an FDR liberal. Moderates keep status quo not quite as bad as

the cold-hearted republicans, still, moderates for certain don't have an agenda as progressive as liberal ideology.

[AmBlue]

16. self-delete

[GreenTea]

22. A bit of perception.....

would help out immensely...when one doesn't double check.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Obama

If you think Clinton's welfare reform helped Black folks, that GOP bill, I don't think so.

[emilyg]

17. There are poor white people, too.

[FrenchieCat]

24. Yeah......

and it didn't help them either.

[BootinUp]

40. I guess you missed where Obama has praised it. nt

[annie1]

20. i know it didn't. that was sad. i think that's what i was thinking too...

when i asked, b/c that hurt. :(

[BootinUp]

41. Obama has talked about

Welfare reform and praised Clintons reform work. Just an FYI. ;)

[hfojvt]

21. Obama by default - simply follow the money

Both Obama and Hillary have had fundraisers in the Kansas City area. Obama gave a speech to about 5,000 people for a $25 ticket ($15 for seniors or students). Hillary had a $500 a plate dinner. Hillary's base is the big money donors and the bigshots who endorse her. Her administration is far more likely to be "of the rich people, by the rich people and for the rich people" just like Bill Clinton's was. The DLC and the Clintons are economically conservative in rhetoric and in action. Thus, even the Democratic party talks the "fiscal conservative" talk, which was once a hallmark of Republican rhetoric. Our party is also now on the tax cut bandwagon. Also once a hallmark of Republicans.

Second, Hillary thinks a person making $110,000 a year is "middle class" even after Obama tried to set her straight by pointing out that that's more money than 94% of American's make.

Third, Hillary is more likely to fire up the Republicans and thus elect more Republicans to Congress. Her adminstration is more likely to have to deal with a Republican Congress than Obama's would.

Fourth, who will be in the cabinet? Robert Rubin? Someone like the late Lloyd Bentsen? Wall street sympathizers. Not working class sympathizers. That was Bill's cabinet, isn't Hillary likely to be the same?

[liberalla]

25. Edwards. Clearly.

[Barack_America]

26. The actual choice is between Obama and the Republican candidate...

Considering Hillary can't be elected. I think that makes the choice clear.

But the best choice is undoubtedly Edwards, for that particular issue.

[JDPriestly]

27. Edwards will do the most for the poor and for the middle class.

That's why you don't hear about him. The very, extremely wealthy want it all for themselves.

[Digit]

28. Edwards will n/t

[sandnsea]

29. Obama understands low income living

Living low income with food stamps and medicaid and housing is way different than working class neighborhood with mom and dad and dependable income, food, heat, clothes. Near poverty living wears you down, it wears the hope out of you. I've read his proposals and some of them really hit the problems, from teen fathers to Promise Neighborhoods to the check box to appy for college aid. He has also identified rural problems including small business, schools and medical care. He gets the real obstacles and has simple solutions to make a very big difference.

[AmBlue]

39. Obama never in his life lived it.

Edwards watched his whole home town lose hundreds of jobs when the mill closed. His dad had to borrow $50 to bring him home from the hospital! I'd say that's "near poverty." And he earned his own way through college.

Obama never lived it. He was sent to prestigious schools from an early age, then attended Harvard. Get real people.

[sandnsea]

43. Not the same thing

EVERYBODY borrowed money to pay hospital bills. My parents did and my dad had a job. That's not the same thing, not near the same thing, as project housing poverty. I've lived both. I know.

Obama lived it when he organized in Chicago for 3 years and lived on $1,000 a month. He gets it. If you had lived it, you'd know the difference.

[Dawgs]

51. Sorry, but you're talking out of your ass here.

I've been to hundreds of places in the country, and I've never seen anything as scary as what I saw in South Chicago in the late eighties. Obama chose to work there at that time making very little money.

I can guarantee that the poverty Obama saw, and worked to fix, was every bit as scary(probably much more so) than anything Edwards saw when he was younger. Obama chose to do this community service after and during college.

[AmBlue]

54. It's different when you know you get to leave. n/t

[ellisonz]

31. Obama.

He doesn't have 50+ million in personal wealth. 7-8 years ago he could have been your neighbor. He knows what its like to live paycheck to paycheck these days first hand.

Hillary isn't particularly sincere and Edwards can't deliver.

[Naturyl]

33. Neither will do very much.

Edwards would do more.

[Bitwit1234]

34. Hillary HAS SUPPORTED AND HELP PASS more bills for the poor and

the people of her state than Obama. I think the people with sense, the older people have looked at the fact that Obama misses most of the votes, is not passionate about anything but prancing on a stage. If he had a record to run on, if he had been passionate about the poor and needy instead of listening to Liberman, he might stand out as one who would help the poor. The fallacy here is just because he is black he would be more for the poor and needy than any one else, but Obama has shown he is more for special interest. That thing about those lobbyist in his campaign has thrown a lot of people. And his trying to say he was poor 7 years ago and then they find out he bought a 1.5 million dollar home less than a year later makes you wonder about the story.

[magatte]

37. Bitwit1234 - One more LIE- TWO more LIES.... do I hear THREE?

"people with sense, the older people".... I see, seeing that the under 65 age group doesn't support heartily Hillary this means they are misinformed... I see, very pertinent!

"Obama misses most of the votes, is not passionate about anything but prancing on a stage." - Wow that is Barack to the T. Don't even know why he even bothers.

"those lobbyist in his campaign" - Again WOW! Where is that chart again, the one showing that you dear candidate (Hillary) takes MORE lobbyist money than ALL the candidates combined!

Still flaming and triangulating out of you ass...

[Skittles]

35. Edwards

although I do think any single Dem cares more for the poor than all the repukes put together

[magatte]

38. Obama.

He has been in the street working with low-income communities. And he is still not far removed from a modest living himself, which is not something you can say of the Clintons and the Edwards...

[readmoreoften]

42. Edwards. /nt

[Blue_In_AK]

44. Only Edwards has really taken on this issue

to any real degree, from what I've seen.

[redqueen]

47. Edwards. (nt)

[William769]

48. Depends on who you ask on DU or look at how the people voted in New Hampshire.

[antiimperialist]

49. Clinton will do this for the poor in other countries: blow them up

through unjust wars.

[no name no slogan]

50. Unless they roll back 1996's welfare "reform"...

AND the Financial Services "Reform" act of 1999...

AND the tax breaks given to the rich by BushCo...


Then I would have to say neither, sadly enough.

[ChiciB1]

52. JOHN EDWARDS... So Many HERE At DU Seem To Understand It....

he generally comes in first on most polls here, STILL MSM doesn't WANT him... THEREFOR, you get what THEY want!

JMHO! It will be EDWARDS on NOTHING!!

[Dawgs]

53. Obama, because he has and lived around real poverty.

And, anyone that went through South Chicago when Obama worked there would understand.

[jlake]

55. I think that all of our top 3 candidates will do ALOT for the poor.

The pissing contests I see are stupid. "Only my candidate has ever done anything for the poor" blah blah blah.
They will all help. I trust Hillary to get the most done.

[Renew Deal]

57. No members of the Wealthy Ruling Class will. Hillary won't do anything.

Except collect their votes.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. Obama. Why?

He was against the bankruptcy bill. And he's got plans to fight predatory lending. See his Credit Card Bill of Rights.

[Desertrose]

59. None of them.

They may talk it up but I seriously doubt they would do that much.

Best thing they can do is give us single payer healthCARE.


Does Hillary go along with Bill's ideas of welfare?


There is NO EXCUSE for anyone to be homeless and hungry in this country and I don't see any of these guys doing a heck of a lot to actually CHANGE that, despite what they say.


Sorry. Wish I could believe them.

[LanternWaste]

60. So the best answer I can give you is...

I think both would work tirelessly to reinstate and strengthen the social programs that Bush has gutted, in addition to (I hope I hope I hope I hope I hope) trying new ones, too. So the best answer I can give you is... Both