John Edwards suspends campaign

Today John Edwards ended his campaign for the Democratic nomination for president. A Time.com analysis entitled "Why Edwards Never Caught On" argues that the reason Edwards campaign did not catch on despite the fact that he "arguably won a majority of the debates" was because Senator Obama filled the outsider, anti-establishment role: "Suddenly Edwards was running against a version of himself in 2004: the young, fresh, optimistic face, the Washington outsider with a thin resume but lots of charm."

It may be true that Obama's success is the reason for Edwards withdrawal. But I believe the underlying reason that Edwards campaign did not catch on has more to do with how the media plays a large role in determining which candidates should be taken seriously. I supported Edwards because I believe he stood for progressive values and policies that could be supported by the American public. If the media reported more on the issues and where the candidates stood, then maybe Edwards would still be in the race. Instead, the media circus treats the election as a sporting contest by focusing on which candidate raised how much money, got which celebrity endorsement and how many points in a poll.

Despite the distraction away from substantive issues, I hope the focus that Edwards brought on issues such as poverty, health care and withdrawal from Iraq will have an impact that lasts longer than his campaign.

Update: I hope there is a "Edwards Effect" as Krugman puts it.

Economic Stimulus For the Rich

Due to its payment structure, the economic stimulus plan passed by the U.S. House of Representatives fails to either help those who need it most or to effectively stimulate the economy. It is well acknowledged that the people who will most quickly spend the money are the people who have the least of it. Yet this plan effectively phases out payments to those on the bottom end of the income spectrum and excludes those, such as many low-income seniors, who do not file income tax returns. Although this plan is better than the Bush Administration's proposal in which only 11% of the rebates would go to households with incomes below $30,000, the 23% of the value of the rebates that would go to households with incomes below $30,000 is not enough. Instead of giving rebates to those who earn more, the U.S. government should increase food stamp benefits, unemployment benefits, and funding of social programs that will be facing cut-backs due to state spending cuts.

Related Articles:

• "An Analysis of the Rebate Proposal in the Announce Stimulus Deal" (Aviva Aron-Dine, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)
• "Who gets stimulated?" (Paul Krugman, New York Times Blog)
  

Left Notes announcement: blogging again!

If you are reading this, then you have noticed that I started blogging again. I have abandoned my earlier intentions of building LeftNotes.org as a left-wing blogging/news portal. Instead, I will pick up where I left off, by writing about my opinions on current events. I will continue to have this hosted by Blogger. I've given it a new design and will be working to clean up the formatting of old entries.