Analysis on the Pew study of Baltimore media (and why it's important)

Blogger and innovation coach Steve Buttry has done a thoughtful analysis of the Pew study on media in Baltimore. The study itself has been getting a lot of national attention. (But not so much attention by the media in Baltimore. I wonder. Why is that?)

Buttry points out that traditional media has been taking the study as validating their role, since the Pew study found most of the local stories originated in the traditional media.

The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, editorsweblog and more tweets than I could count trumpeted the finding that most news originates with newspapers and those upstart blogs contribute barely a trickle of original news. The favorite fact cited was that 95 percent of stories reporting fresh information came from the endangered old media, newspapers primarily.

In fact, as Buttry also points out, the Pew study missed many potential new media sources of news that may in fact have contributed original reporting, including this blog. (Buttry noticed my blog and posted an update citing me as someone who in fact had done original reporting on The Senator story, but was not included in Pew's sample.)

The more disturbing thing that was more buried in the Pew study, and which should not be giving the traditional media much comfort, is also noted by Buttry. Most of what was reported as "news" was driven by official government sources (63% in the overall study, 94% in the case of The Senator). The fact that the Pew study was flawed by leaving out some new media sources does not detract from this conclusion being essentially accurate. What might change if a larger sample of new media was used is the percentage, but probably just a bit.

I've seen first hand how much damage can be done when the press, which ought to be a watchdog on the government, acts instead as its publicist.

Here's the core of what happened with media coverage on The Senator:

City officials gave the newspapers inaccurate information. The general wisdom that politicians often lie is not somehow different in this case.

The newspapers repeated the inaccurate information, without bothering to check it. There are many specific cases where what was reported on The Senator and about Tom Kiefaber could have been shown to be false by anyone who had done their homework.

Chief among the lies that were given to the media by the city government was the idea that the city had invested a lot of money in The Senator. Simply not true. In fact, ALL of the money that the city spent on The Senator in the past 10 years ultimately went into acquiring the building in a forced auction sale at a cut-rate price far below the theatre's estimated value. Nothing went into keeping the theatre open and operating under Tom Kiefaber's stewardship in 10 years. Not one dime. This can be verified by anyone who actually bothers to sort through where the money actually came from, and where it went.

The newspapers repeated the lies. The TV news cited the newspapers. Other blogs cited the newspapers. (I cited them too, but usually to point out that they were wrong.) Very little original reporting was done by anyone except me and Tom Harris at the Friends of The Senator blog (another person who actually took the time to find out what was going on).

This media echo chamber that served to perpetrate lies coming out of city government had tragically harmful effects on some really good people. Tom Kiefaber put all of his resources, passion, and relentless hard work into doing something good for future generations of Baltimoreans. As a result of the media echo chamber of falsehoods, everything he has worked so hard for might now potentially be lost, his family's financial picture is bleak, and a large number of Baltimoreans who should be recognizing him for his monumental efforts instead vaguely believe he has done something wrong.

So let's see...94% of the reporting on The Senator's auction was driven by the city government (as taken into account by the Pew study). Is it any wonder that 94% of what 94% of the people in this city think they know about The Senator's situation (and about Tom Kiefaber) is 94% wrong?

Of course I hope the wrongs that have been perpetrated on Tom and his family can somehow be put to rights. At the moment, though, the past is the past and what's done is done.

The very real situation now, however, is the future of The Senator is at stake. Of the four proposals on the table, two are seen as credible by many and were popular at the public meeting on the RFPs. The problem is, credible industry experience and data from all over the country shows that one of these proposals is essentially on the right track (WTMD/Towson's proposal, which would have the theatre owned by a non-profit connected to proven fundraising powerhouse WTMD), and similarly credible industry experience and data from all over the country, including the statistics on how many single screen historic theatres have been lost, should prove to anyone who investigates it that the single screen movie theatre business model is dead and cannot be resurrected.

Putting a new operator into a failing business model is not going to change the fact that it's a failing business model, and a business model that has failed all over the country. Single screen theatres that continue to stay open under a for-profit model are extremely rare statistical anomalies. The Cusack/Charles Theater proposal for The Senator simply cannot work without considerable subsidy on a level of financial commitment from the city or others that Tom Kiefaber simply has not enjoyed. In other words, if Mr. Cusack is awarded the right to operate The Senator with his current plan, we will almost certainly be right back where we are now within 5 to 10 years, unless someone gives him a whole lot of money he does not have to repay.

Now, I am speaking in generalities here, but the information is out there. Single screen movie theatres used to be all over the place, about 150 of them in Baltimore alone. They hardly exist anymore. Why? The business model is just not viable, because of industry factors that are slightly complex, but not so complex that they can't be understood by someone who takes the time to do their homework. I've attempted to explain some of them on this blog in the past, and I continue to try to pull together that research into a tighter, more comprehensive explanation.

There are some noted anomalies. The Uptown Theater in Washington, DC is a widely known, highly regarded for-profit single screen theatre with a very high profile (although Mr. Cusack indicated in the recent public RFP meeting that he had never heard of it). Why does it work? Well, you may find a clue to this in the fact that the full corporate-branded name of the theatre is AMC Loews Uptown 1. In other words, it is owned by one of the most powerful theatre chains in the entire country. I've heard rumors that it is nevertheless struggling financially and my guess is the other theatres in the chain actively subsidize it, but at this time that is just an informed hunch.

The more important point, however, is that the vast majority of historic theatres that are currently open and operating on a daily basis and preserved to historical standards are owned by non-profits, which can use capital campaigns to raise the considerable sums needed to restore and maintain these very expensive architectural gems. Without that non-profit advantage, it's a constant struggle to see a profit, and expensive building preservation and maintenance falls by the wayside when making a profit is the focus. This is not because for-profit owners of historic theatres are bad business people. It is because they are constantly fighting an uphill battle against industry trends that are only getting worse for them.

To bring this back around to the main point about the Pew study: active, intelligent investigative reporting on the RFP proposals on the table could play a vital role in ensuring that the proposals are fully vetted and the one that makes logical sense based on the preponderance of industry data wins. With most media echoing the newspapers, however, that would mean that newspaper reporters would have to do some legitimate research into industry trends and industry realities, and not just report what someone at city hall or the BDC told them to say.

Good reporting still could ensure that The Senator is preserved and protected for future generations of Baltimoreans. If the trends noticed by the Pew study continue, however, this important role the fourth estate could play will likely go unfulfilled.

Sun Fails to Illuminate Tragedy: Does It Matter?

Now that the auction of The Senator Theatre has been over for a while, I think it's time to reflect on some of the media coverage of the event. This is not to fight about the outcome, but just to raise the question of whether cultural literacy about symbolism matters in today's press.

On the day of the auction, the folks at The Senator had set up the auditorium, where the auctioneer had previously requested the auction to take place, with a Tragedy mask on the podium. I wouldn't have thought I had to explain to anyone with a basic education what this might look like, but it seems that I do. It looked like this:



The Baltimore Sun described it as [Kiefaber] "had hoped the proceedings would take place in the 900-seat auditorium, where he had set up a rostrum adorned with a giant frowning mask."

Now, I ask you. Is it really too much to expect that reporters for a major newspaper who are reporting on the auction sale of a theatre would understand that this "frowning mask" is called Tragedy and represents the concept of Tragedy and, together with its counterpart and opposite, Comedy, has adorned theatres since Ancient Greece? If so, I expect it's way too much of a stretch for them to also understand the symbolism, or the concept of Tragedy itself as defined in Aristotle's Poetics.

In classical tragedy, a noble hero who you'd think has a lot going for him is always brought low by one fatal flaw. In a more general, non-classical definition of tragedy, the requirement for it to be some grandly important downfall of a hero is gone, and a tragedy can become any story with an unfortunate ending.

Now, in this instance I don't care what side of the issue you find yourself on with regards to The Senator, whether you think, as I do, that Baltimore City has manipulated the situation inappropriately to seize control of something they don't fully understand, or whether you think, as the BDC and most of the media seems to, that it's all Tom's fault because he's a bad businessman. I think we can ALL agree that the fact that The Senator had to go to auction is a Tragedy.

So does it matter that the Sun completely missed the symbolism here? Or am I being a snob to think the reporters should have understood a concept I learned in junior high school drama class?

Maybe Progressives Won after All

As you might imagine, I have been quite depressed about the failure of Democratic voters to see through the media spin and elect the real progressive candidate, John Edwards, as their nominee. The other day, a good friend of mine, Random Factor, forced me to see a little bit differently.

I had a long conversation with Random Factor on the phone the other day. I told her about my frustration and despair that had resulted from the loss. To my surprise, she took me a little bit to task for looking at it so negatively.

She gave me a passionate pep talk about how surprised she had been that a completely grassroots campaign, ignored and marginalized by the media, had managed to gain 10% to 15% support nationwide in the polls on the strength of grassroots action alone. Not only that, but as a result of that strong showing, Edwards was able to set the agenda for the other Democratic candidates, make them fight for his endorsement, and force them to move to the left.

Random Factor told me in no uncertain terms that she thought Edwards supporters should be proud of what we have accomplished.

I have to admit, she's right. Edwards controlled the message in this primary season, in spite of the fact that the media tried their best to ignore him. The fruits of his labor and our labor may not be immediately apparent, but it's hard to say what their seeds may bear in time. We may have sown the seeds of real change here.

Preparing the Field for 2012

At the risk of sounding like Cassandra (a prophetess who spoke the truth but was never believed) or Eeyore (a donkey who was always depressed), Democrats are not going to win the presidential election in 2008. I will celebrate if I'm wrong, but perhaps I'm making this post right now because I want to have at least bragging rights if I'm right.

There are multiple reasons why I believe I'm right about this. For one thing, we need to have a candidate that appeals to rural, southern, and red state voters. Failing to embrace this fact again and again, Democrats always seem to choose someone with solidly blue state appeal. Sadly, I also very much doubt that we have overcome sexism and racism to the point where they won't be factors in the general this time around, though on this, especially, I would like to be proven wrong.

One of the very saddest reasons that I believe the Democrats won't win, however, is that we have become so timid that we tend not to nominate candidates who stand for anything. We had a candidate this time around, John Edwards, whose ideas were so bold and progressives that he had a strong hand in setting the agenda for the other candidates. Unfortunately, he is out of the race, and now we're left with two candidates so timid and triangulating that they seem to have few ideas of their own and have adopted the mildest of his.

You might not believe Cassandra, and you might not believe polls either, but there are already polls out showing both Clinton and Obama losing to McCain, and that is before the Swift boating and cheating starts.

I'm so convinced that we won't win in 2008, that I'm already starting to think about how we win in 2012, and win with a real progressive.

It was clear from the media coverage of Edwards, or more specifically, lack thereof, that there are certain things that you cannot talk about in a presidential campaign without being marginalized by the media, and that those taboo subjects constitute some of the most fundamental reasons our democracy doesn't work. It was also clear that the media itself is a big part of this problem, and is undermining our democracy by actively trying to tell people who they can and cannot vote for.

Some of the things that Edwards talked about that got him shunned by the mainstream media, but loved by many progressives, were corporate influence on our government, lobbyists corrupting the system, campaign finance reform, election reform, and the problems with media consolidation. Edwards told us that the system is rigged, and the fact that his progressive message was so thoroughly shut out of it proves his point.

So how do we make it possible that a real progressive like Edwards could win in the future? Here are some of the things I think we need to do:

Elect progressives to positions of importance below the presidency within the Democratic Party, so that the party insiders are progressives. This means Congress and other positions (like those positions that currently are the superdelegates). Kick the DLC (the corporate wing of the party) out of the Democratic party to the extent that it's possible. Having more Democratic Party insiders who are actually on our side will create the infrastructure for a progressive win.

Demand fair, unbiased, and intelligent media coverage, and equal coverage of candidates. This takes exposing the problems with our media and maybe boycotts of bad media. It means opposing media consolidation and rolling back the media consolidation that has already happened, so that more voices are heard. It also may take developing media outlets of our own. Blogs are a small but important step.

Enact strong campaign finance and election reform. Get rid of the lobbyists, enact effective public campaign financing, and make sure election results can be verified.

All this may seem like a Catch-22. We couldn't elect a presidential candidate who talked about these things, therefore we will have trouble making these reforms. We will have trouble making these reforms, therefore it will be difficult to elect leaders who can help us. Nevertheless, this is what needs to be done.

All of the above will be exceedingly difficult, and it won't all happen before 2012. With luck and persistence, some of it will happen before 2012, increasing the likelihood of electing a real progressive president. The more progress we make on these issues, even if it's a bit at a time, the more likely it becomes that someone like John Edwards, a candidate who stands for something, could succeed.

Edwards: WaPo misunderstands lobbyist issue

If you think about it, it's hardly surprising that a mainstream media newspaper reporting in a town run by lobbyists misunderstands (perhaps willfully) the issue about lobbyists controlling Washington. Perhaps predictably, the Washington Post ran a column today that completely misses the point.

One thing I like about John Edwards is that he's not afraid to state what should be obvious to everyone, especially when it seems many others are afraid to (or won't) say it. Edwards is completely correct that lobbyists are running Washington and have rigged the system against you and me.

In a statement released just a little while ago, Edwards had this to say about the Washington Post's rather bizarre column:

"My campaign is about giving every American the same chances to succeed that I've had - but that can't happen while powerful interests and their lobbyists run Washington. They write our laws to give themselves every break imaginable, while regular families struggle to get by, let alone get ahead. If we are going to build One America, we need to end the money game in Washington.

"I've called on the Democratic Party and all candidates for federal office to stop taking money from Washington lobbyists. A column in today's Washington Post misunderstood the issue. Reforming our party isn't a substitute for changing our laws; it's a critical addition to changing our laws - a huge step we can take today to show the American people that we're the party of the people without waiting for Washington to catch up.

Edwards went on to re-iterate his call to Obama and Clinton to join him in this effort to pressure Democrats to stop accepting lobbyist dollars. Some have accused Edwards trying to force Obama to look like he's following Edwards by pressuring him to join Edwards's effort. I noticed that this time, Edwards is freely giving Obama a way out of this dilemma by mentioning his support for Obama's legislation. Edwards seems to be saying, in effect, nobody is following anybody, but let's just get the job done.

"There are two ways to reform our system. The first way is to pass legislation. I have publicly supported Senator Obama's plan for ethics and lobbying reform. I am also a strong supporter of public financing, and when I am the Democratic nominee for president, if the Republican nominee agrees, I will accept public financing of my campaign. But, as we have seen over and over again, every time we are actually able to pass a new law, all of the lobbyists find loopholes to keep the system rigged.

"The other legitimate path to reform is for our party, the Democratic Party, to reform itself by refusing to take money from Washington lobbyists. By doing this, we are telling Washington lobbyists that their money and their agenda are no good here anymore, and exposing for the American people who the Republican Party is working for - and it's not them. Refusing Washington lobbyist money is a huge step in the right direction - that we can take today - to return our country to a government of, by and for the American people.

"Both ways of reform are legitimate and important. But the real question is if Senator Obama and Senator Clinton really care about reform, which I believe they do, then why will neither of them join me and support both paths?"

Here's an excerpt of the letter that Edwards sent to Obama a few days ago:

Last week, I sent you a letter asking you to join me in taking a stand for millions of working and middle-class American families by calling on the Democratic Party to stop accepting campaign contributions from federal lobbyists and help put an end to the money game in Washington once and for all. Let me be clear, I am not calling on any campaign or candidate to return what has already been legally contributed. But I am proposing that we, as Democrats, stop accepting donations from federal lobbyists from this day forward. It's a bold challenge – and one that has drawn fire from more than a few Washington insiders. But that's why it's all the more important for us to make sure it happens.

I have never taken a dime from Washington lobbyists, and I am proud that you have stopped taking money in this campaign – in fact, it's why I asked you to join me in leading this important effort to help ensure that no DC lobbyist will stand in the way of real change.

I'm glad that John Edwards is staying with this issue. I hope other Democrats will join him.

John Edwards Wants to Lower Your Taxes

The word "your" in the title of this article refers to everyone who makes less than $200,000 a year. If you make more than that, chances are you're not paying your fair share now, and Edwards will raise your taxes. But let's be very clear about this. For almost everyone who will read this article, Edwards wants to lower your taxes.

Here are a few statistics about income inequality in America today:

An Economy Only Growing at the Top: Income inequality is at its greatest level since 1928. American families are growing apart: 40 percent of the economic growth over the past 20 years has gone to the top 1 percent of families. In 2005, income grew by leaps and bounds for the top 1 percent – 14 percent in one year – but it was stagnant for the bottom 90 percent. The top 300,000 taxpayers now make more than the bottom 150 million. If all Americans were sharing in economic progress as they were nearly 30 years ago, families in the bottom 80 percent would be earning $7,000 more a year.

John Edwards sees the unfairness in this situation.

"It's time for us to put our economy back in line with our values," said Edwards. "It's time to end the president's war on work. And it's time to restore fairness to a tax code that has been driven badly out of whack by the wrongheaded rules of the Washington establishment – more wealth for the wealthy and more power for the powerful. In America, when the middle-class makes money from hard work they shouldn't pay higher taxes than when the rich make money from money."

Let's get into the nitty-gritty of what this means for most of us. (Quotes in italics come directly from the fact sheet provided by the Edwards campaign.)

• A "Get Ahead" credit would help millions of families. The Get Ahead Credit will expand the Savers Credit to match savings up to $500 a year, providing as much as an additional dollar for every dollar of savings. The credit will refundable to low-income families and be phased out with income and families earning up to $75,000 would receive a credit.

• Work Bonds would help low income families save. More targeted than the Get Ahead credit, Work Bonds will supplement the Earned Income Tax Credit to match the savings of low-income workers up to $500 per year. Together, the two tax breaks would let the lowest-income families set aside as much as $1,000 a year. The Work Bonds will be directly deposited into a savings account.

• The first $250 in investment income would be exempted. Edwards will exempt from taxes each family's first $250 in interest, capital gains, and dividends.

• You could save your child tax credit for the future. Edwards will allow families to deposit part or all of their child tax credit into a tax-free saving account. The funds could be withdrawn for any use when the child turns 18. A family that deposited the entire $1,000 every year would have $31,000 for college and their future after 18 years.

• Better child care credits for middle-class families. To help millions of families with their child care expenses, Edwards will expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit to pay up to 50 percent of childcare expenses up to $5,000 and make it partially refundable to benefit low-income working families. He will also allow stay-at-home parents to get the credit to help pay for child care for newborn infants.

• Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit. Edwards will offer more than $1,200 to poor single workers, tripling the current EITC, and it will give 4 million low-income workers an average tax cut of $750. He will also cut the marriage penalty in the EITC. Edwards believes that we must cut the EITC marriage penalty. His proposal will cut taxes for 3 million couples by about $400 a year.

• Eliminate estate taxes for the middle class, small businesses, and family farmers. He will also eliminate estate taxes for the middle class, small business owners and family farmers, while keeping these taxes on the few families with large estates above $4 million in value.

Most people reading this article can find one or more of the tax changes above that would benefit them. But let's be realistic. This creates a shortfall that has to come from somewhere else. So whose taxes would be raised? The answer is that if you make over $200,000 a year, or if a significant portion of your income comes from investments, rather than work, you're going to be paying more under an Edwards administration.

• Tax wealth as much as work. Edwards will raise the top tax rate on long-term capital gains to 28 percent for the most fortunate taxpayers, the same rate signed into law by President Reagan. The 28 percent rate will ensure that high-income investors will pay taxes on their investment income at a similar rate to what regular families pay on their earned income.

• Repeal Bush tax cuts for people making over $200,000 a year. More than half of the Bush tax cuts – $132 billion – will go to the top 1 percent of taxpayers in 2010. Edwards will repeal the Bush tax cuts for the highest-income households.

• Declare War on Tax Havens: About $300 billion a year in taxes go unpaid, and about $1.5 trillion in personal assets of U.S. taxpayers are held offshore. These unpaid taxes increase the share of the tax burden shouldered by honest taxpayers. Edwards will end the abuse of foreign tax havens: low-tax countries that facilitate American corporations and wealthy individuals seeking to avoid U.S. taxes.

• Close the Hedge Fund and Private Equity Loopholes: Some of the most highly paid people in America are the managers of hedge funds and private equity funds, some of whom make hundreds of millions of dollars or even billions a year. Although most of their income, like other earned income, is nothing more than payment for the work they do, they pay only the 15 percent capital gains rate rather than the ordinary income tax rate. Edwards will close this loophole and also ensure that publicly traded private equity and hedge funds pay corporate taxes.

• Cap Executive Pensions: Top executives at large corporations commonly receive deferred compensation packages that allow them to put off indefinitely the payment of taxes on much of their compensation. They have in effect unlimited IRAs or 401(k)s, without the limits that apply to other workers. Edwards will limit the amount of money that can be put into these funds to $1 million a year.

Now quite frankly, what Edwards is proposing is a lot more equitable than the tax code we have now, and it will help the majority of Americans while preventing the wealthiest from getting a free ride. Getting it done won't be easy. The wealthy people that Edwards wants to raise taxes on are exactly the people that control the media. You're going to hear a lot of spin about this proposal, most of it untruthful. You're going to also hear a lot of personal attacks on John Edwards as a result of this. Watch this video, and you'll get an idea of how strongly Edwards will fight for tax equity.

I don't know about you, but my money's on John Edwards.

Debate: John Edwards Comes out Fighting

It can easily be argued that John Edwards gave the strongest performance in the Democratic debate last night. Especially in moments when he took on Washington special interests and the sad state of health care in America, he showed himself to be the kind of fighter who will not rest until he does his best for the American people, which would be a big change from any president I can remember. (This is not to say that the two Democratic presidents I remember, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, weren't somewhat helpful, because they were. But, I don't remember Carter very well, and I know that Clinton made a lot of compromises he should not have made, such as NAFTA.)

In the debate last night, there were moments when Edwards was breathing fire. Most politicians sold us out long ago, and we the people need someone who will put up a good fight on our behalf. Edwards is that guy, and I hope at last that is becoming clear to everyone.

Before I get into the high points of the debate, I should take a moment to mention the new Edwards campaign video that everybody's talking about. The campaign obviously has had enough of a vapid mainstream media that can't seem to talk about the issues, because they are so obsessed with John Edwards's hair. In a powerful juxtaposition of comedy and tragedy, the Hair video asks us what is really important. The choice of music from the anti-Vietnam musical Hair is brilliant. It reminds us that then, as now, America fought a pointless war with obscure goals that our leaders seemed incapable of ending.



It would be nice to think that the reporters who have been perpetuating the hair story in the media are smart enough to know that they've just been roundly and justly insulted and decent enough to feel some shame over it. Time will tell.

During the debate itself, Edwards answered directly every question he was asked. His answers were blunt and to the point. Here are some highlights:

But I think the question is -- the question is: What is going to be done to stop this war?

The other people have raised the question earlier. And in fact, Senator Obama spoke just a minute ago about the White House agreeing that the parliament, the Iraqi parliament could take a month-long vacation because it was too hot, while our men and women are putting their lives on the line every day.

Here's my question. While the Iraqi parliament is on vacation, is George Bush going to be on vacation in Crawford, Texas?

What we need to do is turn up the heat on George Bush and hold him responsible and make this president change course.

(APPLAUSE)

It is the only way he will change course. He will never change course unless he's made to do it.

If you listen to these questions, they all have exactly the same thing, which is how do we bring about big change?

And I think that's a fundamental threshold question. And the question is: Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't.

I think the people who are powerful in Washington -- big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies -- they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power. The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them.

(APPLAUSE)

And I have been standing up to these people my entire life. I have been fighting them my entire life in court rooms -- and beating them.

If you want real change, you need somebody who's taking these people on and beating them over and over and over.

And just this past week -- in fact, you were with me on the third day -- I went on a three-day poverty tour in America.

The last day, I was with a man in western Virginia, in the Appalachian mountains -- 51 years old, three years younger than me.

He'd been born with a severe cleft palate, and he was proud of the fact that someone had finally volunteered to correct it. He had not been able to talk -- I want to finish this. He had not been able to talk until it was fixed.

Here was the problem. It was fixed when he was 50 years old. For five decades, James Lowe lived in the richest nation on the planet not able to talk because he couldn't afford the procedure that would've allowed him to talk. When are we going to stand up and do something about this?

We have talked about it too long. We have got to stand up to the insurance companies and the drug companies that Barack just spoke about. It is the only way we're ever going to bring about real change. We should be outraged by these stories.

Asked by one of the YouTube members who submitted a video question whether the candidates would be willing to work for minimum wage while in the White House, Edwards answered with a direct and simple "Yes." Now, I recognize that John Edwards has money and so this would not be the same as a low income family surviving on minimum wage, but it is still an important symbolic gesture if, as president, he would accept the same wage that's earned by some of our nation's poorest workers.

Asked by another YouTube member whether he would protect the rights of atheists and nonbelievers, this was his answer:

As president of the United States, we will embrace and lift up all Americans, whatever their faith beliefs or whether they have no faith beliefs, as Stephen just spoke about. That's what America is.

Now, my faith is enormously important to me personally. It's gotten me through some hard times, as I'm sure that's true of a lot of the candidates who are on this stage.

But it is crucial that the American people know that as president it will not be my job -- and I believe it would be wrong -- for me to impose my personal faith beliefs on the American people or to decide any kind of decision, policy decision, that will affect America on the basis of my personal faith beliefs.

I thought John Edwards had by far the strongest answers in the debate, but you don't have to take my word for it. Here are some samples of what others had to say...

Roger Simon at The Politico:

“FIRST PLACE: John Edwards. Analysis: John Edwards has found a theme: He is angry and he is on your side. He is bold and he will use his boldness for you. Here was his key response, his voice rising as he went along: ‘Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't. I think the people who are powerful in Washington -- big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies -- they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power! The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them!’”

John Dickerson at Slate.com:

...Edwards pressed his populist case as passionately as he has at any previous debate, presenting himself as the only one who would take the fight to banks, mortgage companies, insurance companies and other special interests. His genuine outrage was readily apparent which was a far more effective way of showing his passion than when he merely speaks about how passionately he cares about things.

CNN's Randi Kaye:

“The biggest spike of the night went to John Edwards. He may be trailing Clinton and Obama but on health care, one of his key issues, the meter movers thought he was tops.” The moment was when Edwards said, “We have got to stand up to the insurance companies and the drug companies that Barack just spoke about. It is the only way we are ever going to bring about real change. We should be outraged by these stories.” Said Kaye, “Take a look at that, did you see that? The meter hit 90, all the way up to 90. That was the most favorable reading of the night.” CNN’s group of viewers was comprised of undecided Democrats and non-partisan independents in New Hampshire.

MessageJury.com's New Hampshire focus group said it was "very much an Edwards night."

A plurality of our group (four of 12) thought Sen. Edwards won the debate. And we heard a word used to describe him afterwards that any campaign would want to be associated with their candidate: “genuine”. When asked, most of this group thought he was, indeed, “genuine.”

The questions in the debate, submitted by YouTube viewers, were often more pointed and more insightful than those offered in previous debates by reporters. Nevertheless, it seemed Edwards just couldn't get enough of answering questions. In a live webcast after the debate, Edwards answered additional questions, including the top 2 questions voted on by users at CommunityCounts.us.



It's kind of nice to see a presidential candidate who actually listens and responds.

New York Times sinks to new lows with hit piece on Edwards

Refuses to interview beneficiaries of his work

The New York Times published a hit piece on its front page today that tried to suggest through innuendo that there was something tainted about John Edwards's work to raise awareness about poverty. Closer analysis of the piece reveals that no serious allegations have been made.

The logical reaction to the New York Times's nontroversy was expressed by Jonathan Prince, Edwards's deputy campaign manager.

“One of the Center for Promise and Opportunity’s main goals was to raise awareness about poverty and engage people to fight it,” Jonathan Prince, deputy campaign manager, said yesterday. “Of course, it sent Senator Edwards around the country to do this. How else could we have engaged tens of thousands of college students or sent 700 young people to help rebuild New Orleans? It’s patently absurd to suggest there’s anything wrong with an organization designed to raise awareness about poverty actually working to raise awareness about poverty.”

“Of course, some of the people who worked for Senator Edwards in the government and on his campaign continued to work with him to fight poverty and send young people to college,” he added. “Perish the thought: people involved in politics actually trying to improve peoples’ lives.”

You'd think a paper with a reputation like the New York Times has would have more than innuendo before publishing allegations against a public figure on its front page. You would think that they might have done things like interview people who had benefited from Edwards's work before publishing such a piece. Apparently, if you thought that, you'd be wrong.

TPM Café is reporting that the New York Times refused to speak with any of the beneficiaries of Edwards's anti-poverty work.

But we've just learned something new and surprising about the story. The Edwards campaign has just told us on the record that The Times refused the chance to talk to any real, live beneficiaries of Edwards' programs.

So much for the "liberal" media.

Reviving my blog

It's been a long time since I've posted on this blog, but I've decided to revive it, because it's just nice to have a place of your own.

I've been posting on a lot of other blogs. They comprise my media empire. I plan to give Rupert Murdoch a run for his money and single-handedly take back the "liberal" media.

I've become rather single-minded in my blogging. That's because I've decided that we have one good chance in the foreseeable future to get America back on the right track, and his name is John Edwards. I've put a lot of other things in my life on hold to do all I can as a volunteer for his campaign. The way I see it, I'm most likely to be effective if I'm helping to get the word out, so that's exactly what I'm doing.

Another woman blogger for John Edwards!