The Alligator

While the L/G/B/T community in California is adroit at organizing; this year the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Conservative U.S. Christians see California’s gay marriage issue as a defining battle that could set the stage for a national showdown and get the vote out for the Republican Party in the November presidential election especially in California. “People feel like this California fight is for all the marbles,” Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, told Reuters at the SBC’s annual meeting in Indianapolis.

Remember 2004? Anti Gay Marriage initiatives were on the ballot in many of the states that are considered “swing states” for the Presidential election. They played a role in President George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election as they brought Republican conservative religious voters to the polls especially in Ohio – the state that was critical to Mr. Bush’s “success”.

As good and as talented as our community is at getting out the vote and educating the public, the other side is often just as, if not more, successful. That is why a recent conference call the Obama campaign had for some members of the LGBT community worried me.

The call was quickly put together not long after Senator Obama became the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party and I thought the call would be a pep rally for Mr. Obama. As a long time supporter of Mr. Obama, I was looking forward to the pep rally; but instead it was a “community healing” call. I knew that there were many in the LGBT community that supported Senator Clinton but I did not realize the extreme passion and the depth of disappointment held by many.

Former Human Rights Campaign Executive Director Elizabeth Birch who led the organization when I served on its Board of Governors spoke about the night when she heard the news that Mr. Obama clinched the nomination. She said that she was in San Francisco having dinner with some of our local power gays when the news came in and she burst into tears. She described her searing disappointment and told those of us on the call that for those in our community that supported Mrs. Clinton in the primary season it would take some time to heal.

In all due respect to Ms. Birch, Senator Clinton’s supporters in our community had better take a crash course in grieving and healing. We have a battle on our hands here in California. If the radical right out organizes us and is successful, it is plausible that not only would we see gay marriage become unconstitutional but we could see California’s Presidential Electoral College Prize of 55 votes go to Mr. McCain. I know that many think that a McCain victory in California is unlikely, but I am concerned that if we feel too secure we could very well be surprised.

Our community doesn’t have a moment to lose, Mrs. Clinton’s supporters need to buck up and become eager participants in this year’s fights for both gay marriage and for an Obama presidency. Moreover, many of my friends living in California who aren’t fans of the two parties- Democratic and Republican- have had the luxury of voting their “conscience” by voting for the Green Party or another “third party” because it is safe to assume that the Democrat will win the state and thus they wouldn’t be inadvertently helping a Republican presidential candidate by their vote. This year that choice is not an option. While we may think California is safe for Mr. Obama, we cannot and should not underestimate the political prowess and organizing skills of the radical religious right.

 My partner and I are planning to get married in September at the time of our 20th anniversary as a couple; and for those of us getting married between now and the November election I have a request.  Instead of registering at Pottery Barn, have your friends and family make a donation to the umbrella coalition that includes civil rights, faith, choice, labor and community of color organizations that will be leading the fight against the anti-gay amendment initiative- Equality for All  (www.equalityforall.com/weddingregistry). There is no better way to celebrate our marriages than by providing a profound legacy for LGBT’s in California and throughout the world.

It is critical that our community, in all of its glorious diversity, be united and be active in this year’s election. The stakes for our community, our state and our nation have never in my lifetime of 50 years seemed so high.

In February 2008, Senator Barack Obama wrote an “Open Letter to the LGBT Community”. Penned weeks before the Senator’s historic speech on race, the open letter is as eloquent and nuanced as that speech and he thoughtfully addresses the issues of discrimination faced by LGBT Americans as he did with the issue of the racial divide in America. Senator Obama doesn’t just offer platitudinal promises to the LGBT community, but talks honestly about the uphill battle it will take to achieve equal rights- how difficult it could be to change the hearts and minds of many Americans.

He also addresses with remarkable understanding how stigma often tied to homophobia is a factor that must be addressed in order to steam the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

There is little I can add to the reason why the LGBT community should support Senator Obama than to quote the eloquence of the Senator’s own words as written in his letter to the LGBT Community.

I’m running for President to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all – a promise that extends to our gay brothers and sisters. It’s wrong to have millions of Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation. And I ask for your support in this election so that together we can bring about real change for all LGBT Americans. Equality is a moral imperative. That’s why throughout my career, I have fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBT Americans. In Illinois, I co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation.

In the U.S. Senate, I have co-sponsored bills that would equalize tax treatment for same-sex couples and provide benefits to domestic partners of federal employees. And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.

Unlike Senator Clinton, I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.

The next president must also address the HIV/AIDS epidemic. When it comes to prevention, we do not have to choose between values and science. While abstinence education should be part of any strategy, we also need to use common sense. We should have age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception. We should pass the JUSTICE Act to combat infection within our prison population. And we should lift the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. In addition, local governments can protect public health by distributing contraceptives.

We also need a president who’s willing to confront the stigma – too often tied to homophobia – that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. I confronted this stigma directly in a speech to evangelicals at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, and will continue to speak out as president. That is where I stand on the major issues of the day. But having the right positions on the issues is only half the battle. The other half is to win broad support for those positions. And winning broad support will require stepping outside our comfort zone. If we want to repeal DOMA, repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and implement fully inclusive laws outlawing hate crimes and discrimination in the workplace, we need to bring the message of LGBT equality to skeptical audiences as well as friendly ones – and that’s what I’ve done throughout my career. I brought this message of inclusiveness to all of America in my keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention.

I talked about the need to fight homophobia when I announced my candidacy for President, and I have been talking about LGBT equality to a number of groups during this campaign – from local LGBT activists to rural farmers to parishioners at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Dr. Martin Luther King once preached. Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary. Americans are yearning for leadership that can empower us to reach for what we know is possible. I believe that we can achieve the goal of full equality for the millions of LGBT people in this country.

To do that, we need leadership that can appeal to the best parts of the human spirit. Join with me, and I will provide that leadership. Together, we will achieve real equality for all Americans, gay and straight alike.

Over the past few months I have made reference to Mr. Huckabee as being a man with whom I have fundamental differences, but whom I respect for a sense of integrity and his fair spirit when it comes to issues on immigration and poverty. I never ever would vote for the man or even give it a passing fancy- but I can admire people with whom I fundamentally differ as long as we can respectfully agree to disagree and if there is a mutual respect for the rule of law.

All those nice things that I said about Mike Huckabee- I take it all back.

This man is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He is a dangerous man. Sure I knew that he was anti-choice and was against gay marriage- but he isn’t the only one and it seemed to me that he had the sort of spirit that although he fundamentally disagreed with these issues, he understood the distinction between religion and civil law. He seemed to say some of the right things to make me feel less concerned about his religious zealotry.

I thought that he said just the right thing in response to the Baptist canon that “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband,” and “serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.” Many Southern Baptists understand that to mean that just men are meant to occupy certain leadership roles like church pastor. But in a debate last week in Myrtle Beach, S.C., Mr. Huckabee said the position required no subordination at all. It meant, he said, both husbands and wives “mutually showing their affection and submission as unto the Lord.” “Biblically,” he added, “marriage is a 100-100 deal. Each partner gives 100 percent of their devotion to the other.” Maybe he wasn’t a literalist when it came to the interpretation of the Bible like so many others of the Christian radical right. I guess I forgot that he raised his hand when Wolf Blitzer asked the Republican candidates in one of those CNN sham debates about Evolution and divulged he is one of those Creationists.

Of course what made me see Mr. Huckabee’s true colors was his comments about the Constitution. Speaking to a not-particularly religious crowd near Detroit on Monday, before the Michigan primary, he slipped into an argument to amend the Constitution to ban abortion and same-sex marriage, “so it’s in God’s standards, rather than try to change God’s standards.” SAY WHAT?

Does the smiling guy with the dimples who charms the pants off of people with his folksy charm and who has said all the right things to assuage the concerns that a Baptist preacher would be in the position to affect secular policy really have an nefarious Christian agenda? I guess so. It sounds to me eerily like Mr. Huckabee is interested in seeing the United States as a theocracy.

Sure these statements are Republican red meat and were about abortion rights and gay marriage. But his remarks are troubling on so many levels.

First- I don’t understand how any fair-minded “Christian” person, even if they fundamentally disagree with choice and gay marriage, could consider writing limitations to rights and liberties into our constitution. Amending our constitution to limit rights and liberties is antithetical to what we believe that document inherently protects.

Second is just the idea that secular law has to line up with someone’s definition of God’s law. Who is the arbiter of what Biblical laws should be the model for our Constitution.

Are we talking about the fundamental laws of the Bible- the Ten Commandments? If so, neither abortion nor gay marriage is relevant.

Remember those Commandments?
1: ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.
2: ‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
3: ‘You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4: ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5: ‘Honor your father and your mother.
6: ‘You shall not murder.
7: ‘You shall not commit adultery.
8: ‘You shall not steal.
9: ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.’
10: ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.

Well I guess we should take the rights away of our citizens who commit adultery? Well I guess that would take out most of the Christian right. They seem famous for their sleazy sex scandal. I guess we should take away the rights of children who do not honor their parents who beat and abuse them. I guess any Buddhist or Hindu or any person not from the Islamic-Judaic-Christian tradition (Never forget that these three religions are tied to one another and all can trace their beginnings to Abraham) would lose their rights. I also think that this country seems to conveniently forget the relationship between Islam, Judaism and Christianity.

Slavery is just fine in the Bible. A father has the right to sell his daughter into slavery. Exodus 21:7 states, “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. Even Jefferson Davis hid behind the Bible when defending slavery for the Confederacy. “Slavery was established by decree of Almighty God…it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation…it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts,” said Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. Leviticus 25:44-46 states that “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”

Here’s a little gem from Deuteronomy 21-24: Then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house , and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father’s house ; thus you shall purge the evil from among you. If a man is found lying with a married woman , then both of them shall die , the man who lay with the woman , and the woman ; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel . If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man , and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death ; the girl , because she did not cry out in the city , and the man , because he has violated his neighbor’s wife . Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

So in fact what Biblical laws are the ones that our Constitution need to reflect? As a gay man I have always found the Biblical arguments against homosexuality rather specious and very selective. If you truly believe that the Bible is God’s law and everything in it should be taken literally. Why are these other issues that are considered heinous- slavery and killing young girls who are not virgins- in contemporary society conveniently forgotten but the two or three references to homosexuality are hauled out of the morality chest when discussing gay issues?

Biblical interpretation- even among the most ardent literalist- is always conveniently weighted to their own specific prejudices and agendas. The Old Testament – the testament that defined most Biblical laws was written thousands of years ago for nomadic tribes living in the desert- not for the contemporary world.

So Mr. Huckabee’s desire to see the Constitution line up with God’s law is again one of those great hypocrisies that feed into hate and prejudice that conveniently extracts portions of the Bible as the final word on an issue. I had thought that Mr. Huckabee’s views were more those of Jesus- love, tolerance and charity and less about the draconian and millennially outdated laws of a nomadic people wandering through the desert.

Sadly I was wrong- Mr. Huckabee is just another one of those wolves in sheep’s clothing. More dangerous than Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell because he is so folksy and “appealing” in his “shucks I’m just a guy” sort of way that hides that evil prejudice and he can make many people, including myself, think that he was a Christian in the model of Jesus, not in the model of Falwell and Robertson. That is scary!

Two months ago today- I wrote a piece endorsing John Edwards for President. On Friday, I cast my ballot, by mail, in California’s Democratic Primary which is part of the February 5th “Tsunami” Tuesday for Senator Barack Obama.

My views about Mr. Edwards have not changed- his policies and his positions are nearly exactly the same as mine. His anger about corporate greed and the problems of the new Gilded Age resonate for me. The influence of corporate lobbyists, the oil companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the banks and the health care industry has indeed put a strangle hold on this country.

His views on health care are in synch with mine. All the Democratic candidates hold similar positions to mine on most issues that are important to me including L/G/B/T issues, HIV/AIDS issues, health care, the enviornment, and influence peddling in government.  Mr. Edwards embodies much of what I would want to see in a President. So why did I change my mind? The reasons are complicated and more esoteric than most political decisions I would make- but I’ll try to explain.

As I wrote in my November 12th endorsement of Mr. Edwards, “I think any one of the three leading Democrats- Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and former Senator Edwards- would be acceptable. There are things to like about all of them and things that are somewhat problematic but they are all smart, committed public servants.”

Senators Obama and Edwards probably hold views closer to mine than does Mrs. Clinton. I admire her intelligence and her tenacity- but although she said she found her voice in New Hampshire during the recent primary, I would disagree. I honestly think that Mrs. Clinton found her voice when she became a member of the United States Senate. She is a good legislator and has developed respect from colleagues on both sides of the aisle- inclduing many who publicly loathed her as First Lady.  Mrs. Clinton would be an awesome Senate Majority Leader.  Her skills are at their best in the legislative branch.  

Mrs. Clinton talks a great deal about her 35 years of experienece. To her credit she has worked as a staffer in Congress, as First Lady of Arkansas, as First Lady of the United States and as a United States Senator on progressive issues that have helped improve the lives of women, children and people of color. Mr . Edwards has decades expereience fighting the good fight for the little guy against big corporate interests as an attorney. He is a “trial lawyer” which the radical right like to equate to being a member of a Satanic cult, but trial lawyers often fight on behalf of people who have been kicked around by the system and by big corporations; they are not all ambulance chasers. Clearly Mr. Edwards was one of those zealous advocates for the little guy- not an ambulance chasing sleaze bag.

Mr. Obama is the youngest of the front running Democrats and has a little different of a background- it is one of community organizing and teaching law as well as time spent in the Illinois State Legislature and a short time in the United States Senate. As I mentioned in my piece on December 17th, Mr. Obama’s political resume eerily mirrors the political resume of another Senator from Illinois who became president- Abraham Lincoln. Both have just about the same amount of experience at both the federal and state level of government.

In my original endorsement for Mr. Edwards I stated “Mr. Obama shows a lack of experience and reticence that makes me a little nervous. I don’t know if he has the gravitas to be President right now. He brings a fresh face to politics, but I haven’t really seen a lot of substance behind the rhetoric. I think that 8 years from now he would be an awesome candidate. I just don’t think he is quite ready yet.” Over the past few months I have looked at the “experience” factor more closely.

It wasn’t until the “experience” issue was raised ad infinitum by Senator Clinton’s campaign that I truly looked at the issue of experience as it relates to our nation’s best and worst presidents. James Buchanan who came to the presidency with 29 years of experience as a representative, senator, ambassador and Secretary of State was arguably one of our worst. Abraham Lincoln with experience nearly identical to Mr. Obama’s was inarguably one of our best.  My piece Presidential Candidates: Is “experience” a real issue? Just look at Abraham Lincoln addresses this issue in more depth.

So while experience is a factor it doesn’t seem to be a proven factor of presidential achievement so should it be the final arbitor in my decision making? I decided that while expereince is important – expereience varies and many other factors should be considered. 

 Mr. Obama’s experience community organizing in inner city Chicago is something that should not be ignored and give him a unique perspective.  His experience in federal government seems to bode well when looking at former Presidents

In my original endorsement of Mr. Edwards I cited concerns about Mr. Obama’s reticence and I wasn’t sure if he had that fire in his belly that is necessary for a presidential candidate and gives that person the gravitas that is so often talked about as essential for a president.

Somewhere in the last months Mr. Obama has turned my concerns about his reticence on its head.  He is hardly reticent and he shows that “fire in the belly” that is essential for any serious presidential candidate. To borrow language from Mrs. Clinton- he truly has found his voice.

I have also poured over his positions on issues and there is indeed a great deal of substance to his views. Again- those views may vary slightly from Mr. Edwards’ and Mrs. Clinton’s but they are substantially similar with the most striking similalrities being between Senators Obama and Edwards.

So with the original concerns I had about Mr. Obama off the table and my clear admiration for Mr. Edwards, what factors were at play as I cast my vote for Mr. Obama after endorsing Mr. Edwards?

Is it the change factor? Maybe a little- but the term “change” has been so over used in this campaign that I could vomit. If you want a real candidate of change vote for the former Governor of Massachusetts Willard “Mitt” Romney. He has changed his position at least once if not twice on every issue. Now that’s change!

What sort of change might Mr. Obama bring that might allude the efforts of Mr. Edwards or Mrs. Clinton?

First is generational. I am at the tail end of the baby boom generation and it seems that my generation has mired itself in a partisan red state / blue state debate that will take someone with a fresh approach in order to extricate the nation from this partisan inertia.

Second is racial. I would not vote for Mr. Obama just to see the first African American president nor would I vote for Mrs. Clinton because she would be the first woman president although either would be historic.  However Mr. Obama has approached race in a completely different way than it has been dealt with in our nation since the Civil Rights movement. It is more of a uniting theme and less a divisive one. During the Civil Rights era that divisive fight was necessary to create change. Now- forty years later- racism still haunts us and manifests itself in different ways than it did before the landmark victories of the Civil Rights moement and it will take a new approach to move forward. Mr. Obama’s role as a uniter is exactly what this nation needs at exactly the right time as we continue to wrestle with racial tensions and inequities. 

Race has haunted this country since its founding. Racism was enshrined into the original words of our Constitution, the document that we hold as the paragon as liberty and equality, in Article 1, Section 2 – the enumeration clause where the Constitution outlines how members of the House of Representatives will be apportioned to the states. Slaves were counted as three/fifths of a human being.  No matter how you try and spin it- racism has been part of our nation since before its founding. Slavery is a legacy that our nation has never truly dealt with openly, appropriately and rationally.

Mr. Obama seems to offer a new direction for racial relations in the United States- not only because he would be the first African American president but because he approaches the issues surrounding race in a new and fresh way; an approach that seems, at least to me, to be the natural next step in the vision of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Mr. Obama’s mixed racial background and his personal story may resonate world wide as well in a way that could have much of the world rëvaluate the tradional view of United States’ arrogance and imperialism. The rest of the world might wonder if the American people have finally emerged from our cocoon.

Third is inspiration. There is no doubt in any one’s mind, from the most conservative to the most liberal, that Mr. Obama is an orator unlike any we have seen in more than a generation. I have often thought of former Governor of New York Mario Cuomo and President Bill Clinton as gifted orators and they are; but they are no match for Mr. Obama. Watching both Mr. Obama’s victory speech in Iowa and his concession speech in New Hampshire brought tears to my eyes. How many times can a cynical old liberal admit to crying at a political speeech? Not since Robert Kennedy has there been someone on the public stage that seems to move and inspire people like Mr. Obama.

More than any time in recent memory, this nation needs a leader that inspires us. For too long we have been electing men for their competence. Competence is important but we are not electing a CEO of a corporation we are electing a leader for the nation as well as the free world. That role requires someone who can inspire us and move us.  It is clear to me that Mr. Obama is certainly bright, visionary, savvy and able to lead. 

Inspiration alone is not a good enough reason to vote for someone.   Eloquent oratory is laudable but it must be combined with vision and the inspiratrion to engage us- the citizens of the United States- to join in a movement to reinvigorate the greatness of its people.

Mr. Obama emphasizes the connections between people, the networks and the webs of influence. These sorts of links are invisible to some of his rivals, but Obama is a communitarian. He believes you can only make profound political changes if you first change the spirit of the community. In his speeches, he says that if one person stands up, then another will stand up and another and another and you’ll get a nation standing up.

The key word in any Obama speech is “you.” Other politicians talk about what they will do if elected. Obama talks about what you can do if you join together. Like a community organizer on a national scale, he is trying to move people beyond their cynicism, make them believe in themselves, mobilize their common energies. It is clear that we need a leader that will stir the American people to change- not just “offer” change in Washington DC.

It was reading a piece by Michael Kinsley in the New York Times (“Stirred, Not Shaken”, January 6, 200 that ultimately swayed me towards Mr. Obama.

“Americans say they want change, and think they want it, but there is room for doubt. Change is scary. What are the candidates actually promising? As often as not, it is protection from change. They will not muck around with your Social Security. They will make sure that you don’t lose your health insurance — and that you will always be able to keep your own doctor. The world is changing fast, but they will protect you from any dire effects. They won’t let the country get flooded with poisonous toys from China or workers from Mexico or (a Mike Huckabee offering) terrorists from Pakistan. A fence, that’s what we need. A fence to cower behind, to keep out change, or at least to slow it down.

There is nothing contemptible about a reluctance to change. Most of us have it pretty good in this country, and can’t be blamed for wanting things to stay that way. For that to happen, though, will require some wrenching changes. The list isn’t surprising, or really very long, compared with the list of our blessings. We need to use less energy and borrow less money. We need to fix our schools and reform our health care system. We need to end a stupid war.

Is this what people mean when they demand “change”? Are these things what the candidates have in mind when they promise to deliver it? If so, great. But all of these (except, maybe, ending the war) will require some changes that are unpleasant. We as a society have shown no tolerance for unpleasant changes, and politicians have shown no enthusiasm for trying to persuade us that they might be necessary. If all you want is happy changes, you really don’t want change at all.”

Thinking about all of the candidates and thinking about which ones might be visionary and able to lead the nation into change by demanding our sacrifice and challenge us to unite to make a better world- it seems to me that Mr. Obama is the best choice.

A leader who can inspire us with the sort of words that haven’t been heard with such clarity since President John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address on January 20, 1961- nearly a half a century ago.

“And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”

A few leaders have inspired the American people to do difficult things at difficult times, to make difficult choices and make some sacrifices and to dream beyond our imagination- all the way to the moon. Mr. Obama has convinced me that he is that leader at our particular time.

Hey folks it is 26 years into the epidemic and HIV/AIDS is still a huge problem in the United States. In all due respect to those men, women and children suffering and dying in Africa and elsewhere in the world- it is still a problem in this nation and it is simply not being addressed adequately. Much attention will rightfully be focused on the global epidemic and the horrendous toll it has taken in Africa on today’s World AIDS Day events.  It is my intention here to shine a bright light on our epidemic at home- while acknowledging that our efforts globally are also inadequate. 

 Increasingly HIV/AIDS is a disease of poverty in this nation and can only be adequately combated by addressing poverty. Increasingly people living with HIV/AIDS have a smorgasbord of heath issues that is exacerbated by the “graying” of the epidemic, the fact of decades of ingesting toxic anti retroviral medications, the need to address HIV/ AIDS as one component of overall health for many population and can only be adequately combated by addressing overall health care reform. HIV/AIDS cannot be adequately addressed without treating poverty and the broken nature of our national health care system.

HIV/AIDS has been with the world since 1981. My entire adult life has been informed by this epidemic- from the day I read a New York Times article on July 3, 1981 by Larwence Altman- “Rare Cancer Seen in 41 Homosexuals” when I was 23 years old. Now, I am 50 years old and I have been HIV positive for somewhere around 20 years and full blown AIDS for nearly 9 years.

Some things have changed but sadly many things have not changed. In the early days it was perceived as a “gay” disease and now in the United States impacts all populations with disproportionate impact on African American women, men who have sex with men- specifically young men of color.

Let’s look at a quick snapshot of HIV/AIDS in my city of San Francisco as well as nationally and globally. The statistics at all levels are sobering and are a clarion call that we must remain vigilant.

San Francisco
Today, San Francisco continues to have the nation’s highest per capita prevalence of cumulative AIDS cases, and AIDS remains the second leading cause of premature death in the city. The number of persons living with AIDS in San Francisco has increased by 43% over the last decade alone - a percentage that does include more rapidly escalating non-AIDS HIV cases Through December 31, 2006, a cumulative total of 26,991 cases of AIDS had been diagnosed in San Francisco, accounting for nearly 3% of all AIDS cases ever identified in the US (n=925,452) and nearly 20% of all AIDS cases diagnosed in California (n=139,019), despite the fact that San Francisco County contains only 2% of the state’s population.

In San Francisco- one out of every four gay men is HIV infected. One in every 37 residents of the city of San Francisco is living with HIV/AIDS (2,713 cases of HIV per 100,000). As of December 31, 2006, the incidence of persons living with AIDS per 100,000 in San Francisco County (1,292.1 per 100,000) was over five times that of Los Angeles County (217.1 per 100,000) and nearly double that of New York City (757.0 per 100,000).

USA
Here are the statistics for the USA according to the Kaiser Family Foundation:
Number of new HIV infections each year: 40,000
Number of people living with HIV/AIDS: 1.2 million, including more than 400,000 with AIDS
Number of deaths among people with AIDS in 2005: 17,011
Percent of people with HIV/AIDS not in care: 42%–59%
Percent of people infected with HIV who don’t know it: 25%

Globally
UNAIDS and the WHO indicate that between 2001 and 2007:
The number of people living with HIV/AIDS globally rose from 29 million in 2001 to 33.2 million in 2007, due to continuing new infections, people living longer with HIV, and general population growth;
The global prevalence rate (the percent of the population with HIV) leveled over this period at 0.8%;
Annual deaths increased from 1.7 million in 2001 to 2.1 million in 2007, but have declined in the last couple of years due in part to antiretroviral treatment scale up;
New HIV infections are believed to have peaked in the late 1990s, and declined between 2001 and 2007 from 3.2 million to 2.5 million. The decline is attributable to natural trends in the epidemic itself and to prevention efforts. Still, in 2007, there were more than 6,800 new HIV infections each day;2
Women represent half of all people living with HIV/AIDS, as they have since the mid-1990s;
HIV is among the leading causes of death worldwide and the number one cause of death in sub-Saharan Africa;
Most people with HIV are unaware that they are infected.

The world’s focus has shifted from the epidemic in the industrial world to the epidemic in the third world- specifically sub-Saharan Africa. It is appropriate to pour resources into the epidemic in Africa. But it is vital to address the epidemic at home as well.

President Bush has pledged billions of dollars to combat AIDS in Africa- that is commendable. But he has at best flat funded programs for HIV/AIDS and other health care issues and often he has slashed them. Most recently Congress added more funding for HIV/AIDS to the Labor/ Health/ Education bill but Mr. Bush vetoed it. Mr. Bush has also vetoed other health issues- most notably a needed expansion in the SCHIP program.

My message to Mr. Bush and his Republican friends in Congress and the Presidential candidates is that HIV/AIDS is still a very real problem in this nation.

I am supporting John Edwards for President for a variety of reasons- but a critical reason for my support is his platform on addressing HIV/AIDS at home and his emphasis on poverty as a critical issue for this country. Poverty is co-morbid with HIV/AIDS.

John Edwards was the first presidential candidate – Democratic or Republican – to take on the big insurance and drug companies and propose a plan for quality, affordable health care for every man, woman and child in America that offers everyone the option of a public plan. Today, John Edwards builds on his plan for true universal health care with specific proposals to lead the fight against HIV/AIDS at home and around the world. He will include a comprehensive new national strategy to fight HIV/AIDS, including:

Calling for universal access to HIV/AIDS medicine across the world, investing $50 billion over five years to meet that goal;

Changing the policies that protect big drug companies, at the expense of people dying of HIV/AIDS in developing countries.

Guaranteeing Treatment for Everyone with True Universal Health Care by 2012. People with HIV/AIDS who don’t have health insurance or who have inadequate insurance are significantly more likely to die from the disease. That’s the tragedy of the two health care systems in this country today – one for people who can afford the very best care and one for everyone else. True universal health care must be the foundation for a national HIV/AIDS strategy. Edwards’ plan will ensure every person in America living with HIV/AIDS gets the care they need, when they need it. His plan will also transform chronic care with a new patient-centered “medical home” approach where a primary care physician will make sure patients are getting effective treatment from a coordinated team, including palliative care. [Bhattacharya, 2003] Edwards supports the Early Treatment for HIV Act which will expand Medicaid to cover HIV-positive individuals in every state before they reach later stages of disability and AIDS. Currently, in most states, individuals must receive an AIDS diagnosis to receive services under Medicaid even though research shows that the sooner individuals living with HIV receive treatment the better the outcomes. [Porco et al., 2004]

In 2001, the CDC set a national goal of reducing the annual number of new infections in half by 2005, but the actual number of infections has barely budged. A 1998 presidential initiative set a goal of eliminating racial disparities in HIV/AIDS by 2010, but disparities are as bad today as they were then. Our disappointments can be explained in part by the failure to create a national strategy, backed by necessary funding and with clear and bold goals, specific action steps, real accountability and broad participation and buy-in from stakeholders both inside and outside of government. As president, Edwards will develop a National HIV/AIDS Strategy through an honest, comprehensive and fast-tracked process that involves stakeholders from the public and nonprofit sectors. The National Strategy will coordinate the various agencies within and outside of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that affect HIV/AIDS policy. He will hold his HHS Secretary accountable for issuing an annual report on HIV/AIDS that charts progress towards our national goals, and he will appoint a strong director of the White House office of AIDS Policy to keep these issues visible at the highest levels of government. [CDC, 1999, 2001, 2007; HHS, 1998]

About two-thirds of all new HIV/AIDS cases are diagnosed in African Americans and Latinos. African Americans are infected at nearly 10 times the rate, and Latinos at more than three times the rate, of white Americans. A 2005 study of African-American men who have sex with men in selected cities found that almost half are infected with HIV, and 67 percent do not know they have the disease. Latina women are six times more likely than white women to have HIV/AIDS. Any serious effort to end the HIV/AIDS epidemic must begin in the African-American and Latino communities, including among the incarcerated population, and address their prevention and treatment needs. We must also continue to work intensively with important overlapping groups like gay men. [CDC, 2007; KFF, 2007]

Enacting true universal health care will ensure patients have access to care, but fully funding the Ryan White CARE Act will remain essential to ensure that culturally-competent care is available for the special needs of people living with HIV/AIDS. These programs include outpatient HIV early intervention services, support services like transportation, case management, substance abuse and mental health treatment, nutrition, family-centered care for children, access to clinical trials and delivery to hard-to-reach populations. Maintaining delivery of outreach and treatment services to the LGBT community, for example, is dependent on these programs. Edwards will also put an end to waiting lines for HIV drugs — for example, more than 300 people with HIV/AIDS are on a waiting list for medication in South Carolina – and increase funds for the Housing for People with AIDS (HOPWA) programs, only federal program that provides comprehensive, community-based housing for people with HIV/AIDS. [NASTAD, 2007]

Preventing HIV/AIDS with Scientifically-Proven Strategies, Not Political Ideology
The CDC has identified the three most reliable ways to prevent HIV/AIDS infections. Yet the Bush administration focuses on only one of them – abstinence. As president, Edwards will promotes all reliable prevention strategies, including comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education to ensure young people learn all the facts about preventing HIV/AIDS and harm-reduction programs that provide high-risk individuals with access to clean syringes. He will lift the ban on federal funding for needle exchange initiatives. In addition, Edwards will support community and public education that encourages testing. [CDC, Undated; Bush, 2005]

Mr. Edwards addresses another issue in his campaign that must be addressed- poverty. Trying to fight HIV/AIDS without addressing poverty is counterintuitive.

Without addressing HIV/AIDS as part of overall health reform- a critical issue for all Americans- not just those infected and at risk for HIV/AIDS, without addressing HIV/AIDS without addressing poverty, without addressing HIV/AIDS without addressing the larger issue of health disparities, and without addressing HIV/AIDS at home as well as globally- we will, I am afraid, be emptying the ocean with a teaspoon.

Please note- my more recent post:  Why I voted for Senator Barak Obama

I am endorsing former John Edwards for President. For months I have been in a quandary about who I wanted to support for President. I think any one of the three leading Democrats- Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and former Senator Edwards- would be acceptable. There are things to like about all of them and things that are somewhat problematic but they are all smart, committed public servants. My endorsement of John Edwards has to do with a mix of his stance on issues and some of the problems I have with Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. At the outset, I think that any one of the three would make a good President; I just think that Mr. Edwards would make a better one.

Why not a Republican?
Why not endorse a Republican? The obvious reason is that I am a Democrat, but I would cross party lines if there was someone who resonated with me. Congressman Ron Paul appeals to many Independents because of his stance on the war in Iraq. I agree with his stance on the war in Iraq, but his über Libertarian views would ultimately decimate any safety net for the poor in this country and that is unacceptable to me.

The rest of the Republicans are parroting the Bush doctrine – which shocks me, nevertheless they are. Former New York City Rudolph Giuliani seemed like a social moderate/liberal. He seemed pro-choice, pro-gay rights (after all he relied on the kindness of a gay couple and lived with them when he was going through his last divorce), and anti-gun (although he has pandered to the NRA too). Giuliani always had ego and hubris, but it has simply gone amok. He has capitalized on the tragedy of 9/11 both politically and financially (through his consulting firm) that I find him immoral. That immorality was completed when he welcomed an endorsement from Pat Robertson. Doesn’t he remember Robertson and Falwell waxing philosophic about the cause of 9/11 being the gays, lesbians, pro-choice Americans and the ACLU? Rudy is just a reprehensible hypocrite who plays fear almost as good as, if not better than, President Bush.

The other front running candidate- Mitt Romney is just a hack. He has no moral compass and will say anything and promote any policy if he thinks it will get him elected. He rails about Senator Clinton’s health care plan- but it is eerily like the one he signed into law when he was Governor of Massachusetts.  He courted the gay community when he was running for Governor of Massachusetts and now he villifies us.

Both Romney and Giuliani talk about their management skills and how Senator Clinton, in particular, and Senators Obama and Edwards have never run a city, state or business. Remember the last MBA President we had— or should I say have? George W. Bush, has a  Harvard M.B.A. (do you think Poppy had anything to do with his getting into either Yale or Harvard? But I digress) and is a former Governor of Texas. How’s that workin’ for the country? Hmmmmmmmmmm?

The only one in the ragtag crew of Republicans that I admire is Mike Huckabee because he has integrity and seems to have a sense of social justice. However his view about gays and lesbians is something I just would never be able to reconcile.

Why not Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton?
As I stated either of them would make a good President; I just think that Mr. Edwards would be better.

Mr. Obama shows a lack of experience and reticence that makes me a little nervous. I don’t know if he has the gravitas to be President right now. He brings a fresh face to politics, but I haven’t really seen a lot of substance behind the rhetoric. I think that 8 years from now he would be an awesome candidate. I just don’t think he is quite ready yet. But I will reiterate that I think he is a better choice than any of the candidates in the other party.

Mrs. Clinton is brilliant. She is disciplined and would also make an excellent President. I was actually leaning towards Mrs. Clinton for months. I feel that at the moment the gridlock that is Washington would not change. It might if Congress overwhelmingly had a Democratic majority, but barring that- Mrs. Clinton is viewed as too partisan. I think it is an unfair characterization because she has proved as a Senator from New York that she can work very well across the aisle. But in the Presidency- it is policy and leadership. Leadership is a mix of reality and perception and in the perception arena- Mrs. Clinton has some problems. If she becomes the nominee- I will vigorously support her, but I think that Mr. Edwards is running a campaign about change and I believe him. I also thinks that he embodies – more than the other two- my values and is a true defender of those that have no voice in our society.

The case for John Edwards

On every issue that matters to me, Mr. Edwards makes compelling arguements and has sound policy positions. While this may seem tedious, I want to address each issue and Mr. Edwards’ way of addressing each one.

Iraq

There is no military solution to the chaos in Iraq. Instead, the Iraqi people must solve the problem politically by taking responsibility for their country. By leaving Iraq, America will prompt the Iraqi people, regional powers, and the entire international community to find the political solution that will end the sectarian violence and create a stable Iraq. We must show the Iraqis that we are serious about leaving by actually starting to leave, with an immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 troops and a complete withdrawal within nine to ten months. We should leave behind in Iraq only a brigade of 3,500 to 5,000 troops to protect the embassy and possibly a few hundred troops to guard humanitarian workers.

We can only achieve these steps through legislative action. Edwards strongly supports the supplemental spending bill passed by both Houses of Congress and vetoed by President Bush that funds the troops with a timetable for withdrawal. He has called for Congress to respond to the President’s veto by sending back the same bill—and doing this as many times as it takes for the President to end the war. Edwards supports the following specific steps:

• Stop the Escalation and Immediately Start the Drawdown
  Edwards opposed President Bush’s “surge” and supports immediately drawing down 40,000 to 50,000 combat troops.
• Require Troops to be Ready
  We should prohibit funding for any new troops that do not meet real readiness standards and that have not been properly trained and equipped. American tax dollars should be used to train and equip our troops, not to escalate the war.
• Clarify the Lack of Legal Foundation for the War
  The 2002 authorization did not give President Bush the power to use U.S. troops to police a civil war. Edwards believes that Congress should make it clear that President Bush exceeded his authority long ago. The president now needs to end the war and ask Congress for new authority to manage the withdrawal of the U.S. military presence and to help Iraq achieve stability.
• Withdraw Combat Troops within Nine to Ten Months
  Edwards believes we should completely withdraw all combat troops from Iraq within nine to ten months and prohibit permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. After withdrawal, we should retain sufficient forces in Quick Reaction Forces located outside Iraq, in friendly countries like Kuwait, to prevent an Al Qaeda safe haven, a genocide, or regional spillover of a civil war.
• Take Additional Steps to Stabilize Iraq
  Edwards believes we should intensify U.S. efforts to train the Iraqi security forces. He would also step up U.S. diplomatic efforts by engaging in direct talks with all the nations in the region, including Iran and Syria, to bring a political solution to the sectarian violence inside Iraq, including through a peace conference.

Iran

John Edwards believes it is of the utmost importance that we prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons. Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a politically unstable leader and an open supporter of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons could also set off a regional nuclear arms race in an unstable region in the world, which would directly threaten US interests. As president, Edwards would take aggressive steps to resolve the situation and to protect the United States and our allies.

• Uniting the International Community
  We must do everything in our power to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions through diplomatic measures that will, over time, force Iran to finally understand the world community will not allow it to possess nuclear weapons. Every major U.S. ally agrees a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. This is a positive sign, and we should continue to work with them to isolate Iran.
• Directly Engaging Iran
  We need to engage Iran directly. As president, Edwards will negotiate with Iranian leaders who have met a number of criteria, such as recognition of the international rule of law, recognition of the rights of Jews and the state of Israel, and a commitment to the promise of diplomacy.
• Marginalizing Extremists
  Thousands of young and moderate Iranians are natural friends of America and the West and want to see Iran succeed economically. Edwards will take steps to expose Iran to democratic culture and ideas and will use diplomacy to separate extremists from leaders more inclined to stabilize Iran’s relations with the world.
• Leverage through Increased Pressure
  Stabilizing Iran will require the use of both “carrots” and “sticks”—pressure and incentives. While the sanctions already in place provide some leverage over Iran, they have had limited success. As president, Edwards will pursue a new course of targeted sanctions both for American companies and for foreign companies.
• Encouragement through Incentives
  The United States has more leverage than many think over Iran through incentives that could encourage Iran’s leadership to abandon extremism and comply with international rules. As president, Edwards will draw Iran into compliance through incentives including increased refinery capacity, modification of the embargo, membership in multilateral organizations, and the creation of a fuel bank.
• Direct Negotiations with China and Russia
  China and Russia both recently voted with the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran. As president, Edwards will reach out to China and Russia to work on reaching their economic objectives through alternatives that do not assist Iran’s military nuclear capability.

HIV/AIDS

John Edwards was the first presidential candidate – Democratic or Republican – to take on the big insurance and drug companies and propose a plan for quality, affordable health care for every man, woman and child in America that offers everyone the option of a public plan. Today, John Edwards builds on his plan for true universal health care with specific proposals to lead the fight against HIV/AIDS at home and around the world. He will include a comprehensive new national strategy to fight HIV/AIDS, including:
• Guaranteeing health insurance for every American – including HIV/AIDS patients — the care they need when they need it and expanding Medicaid to cover HIV-positive individuals before they reach later stages of disabilities and AIDS.
• Fighting the disease in the African American and Latino communities, where the harm is now greatest.
• Calling for universal access to HIV/AIDS medicine across the world, investing $50 billion over five years to meet that goal.
• Changing the policies that protect big drug companies, at the expense of people dying of HIV/AIDS in developing countries.

• Fighting HIV/AIDS At Home
  HIV/AIDS is still a crisis in America, particularly in African-American and Latino communities. The number of new HIV infections in the U.S. has not fallen in 15 years. As president, Edwards will help end the HIV/AIDS epidemic in America. [CDC, 2005]
• Guaranteeing Treatment for Everyone with True Universal Health Care by 2012
  People with HIV/AIDS who don’t have health insurance or who have inadequate insurance are significantly more likely to die from the disease. That’s the tragedy of the two health care systems in this country today – one for people who can afford the very best care and one for everyone else. True universal health care must be the foundation for a national HIV/AIDS strategy. Edwards’ plan will ensure every person in America living with HIV/AIDS gets the care they need, when they need it. His plan will also transform chronic care with a new patient-centered “medical home” approach where a primary care physician will make sure patients are getting effective treatment from a coordinated team, including palliative care. [Bhattacharya, 2003]  Edwards supports the Early Treatment for HIV Act which will expand Medicaid to cover HIV-positive individuals in every state before they reach later stages of disability and AIDS. Currently, in most states, individuals must receive an AIDS diagnosis to receive services under Medicaid even though research shows that the sooner individuals living with HIV receive treatment the better the outcomes. [Porco et al., 2004]
• Creating a National HIV/AIDS Strategy
  In 2001, the CDC set a national goal of reducing the annual number of new infections in half by 2005, but the actual number of infections has barely budged. A 1998 presidential initiative set a goal of eliminating racial disparities in HIV/AIDS by 2010, but disparities are as bad today as they were then. Our disappointments can be explained in part by the failure to create a national strategy, backed by necessary funding and with clear and bold goals, specific action steps, real accountability and broad participation and buy-in from stakeholders both inside and outside of government. As president, Edwards will develop a National HIV/AIDS Strategy through an honest, comprehensive and fast-tracked process that involves stakeholders from the public and nonprofit sectors. The National Strategy will coordinate the various agencies within and outside of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that affect HIV/AIDS policy. He will hold his HHS Secretary accountable for issuing an annual report on HIV/AIDS that charts progress towards our national goals, and he will appoint a strong director of the White House office of AIDS Policy to keep these issues visible at the highest levels of government. [CDC, 1999, 2001, 2007; HHS, 1998]
• Focusing on Disparities
  About two-thirds of all new HIV/AIDS cases are diagnosed in African Americans and Latinos. African Americans are infected at nearly 10 times the rate, and Latinos at more than three times the rate, of white Americans. A 2005 study of African-American men who have sex with men in selected cities found that almost half are infected with HIV, and 67 percent do not know they have the disease. Latina women are six times more likely than white women to have HIV/AIDS. Any serious effort to end the HIV/AIDS epidemic must begin in the African-American and Latino communities, including among the incarcerated population, and address their prevention and treatment needs. We must also continue to work intensively with important overlapping groups like gay men. [CDC, 2007; KFF, 2007]
• Supporting Ryan White CARE Act Programs and HOPWA
  Enacting true universal health care will ensure patients have access to care, but fully funding the Ryan White CARE Act will remain essential to ensure that culturally-competent care is available for the special needs of people living with HIV/AIDS. These programs include outpatient HIV early intervention services, support services like transportation, case management, substance abuse and mental health treatment, nutrition, family-centered care for children, access to clinical trials and delivery to hard-to-reach populations. Maintaining delivery of outreach and treatment services to the LGBT community, for example, is dependent on these programs. Edwards will also put an end to waiting lines for HIV drugs — for example, more than 300 people with HIV/AIDS are on a waiting list for medication in South Carolina – and increase funds for the Housing for People with AIDS (HOPWA) programs, only federal program that provides comprehensive, community-based housing for people with HIV/AIDS. [NASTAD, 2007]
• Preventing HIV/AIDS with Scientifically-Proven Strategies, Not Political Ideology
  The CDC has identified the three most reliable ways to prevent HIV/AIDS infections. Yet the Bush administration focuses on only one of them – abstinence. As president, Edwards will promotes all reliable prevention strategies, including comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education to ensure young people learn all the facts about preventing HIV/AIDS and harm-reduction programs that provide high-risk individuals with access to clean syringes. He will lift the ban on federal funding for needle exchange initiatives. In addition, Edwards will support community and public education that encourages testing. [CDC, Undated; Bush, 2005]
• Strengthening America’s Research Agenda
  It used to be that more than four out of 10 requests for National Institutes of Health grants were approved. Now less than two out of 10 are approved, and existing grants are being cut back. One of those rejected requests might have led to a breakthrough on HIV/AIDS treatments. Edwards supports substantial increases in funding for the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, including for microbicides, as well as measures to ensure transparency in funding decisions, accountability for results and aligning research with outcomes. [NIH, 2007]
• Fighting HIV/AIDS Around The World
  While the Bush administration initially increased funding for the global fight against HIV/AIDS, funding has now flat-lined. We must do more, and do it better. The fight against HIV/AIDS is a fight for people’s lives, but President Bush’s way has us fighting with one hand tied behind our back. One-third of prevention funding goes to abstinence-only education that has been shown not to work. The U.S. has also refused to fund medicine approved by the World Health Organization, even though requiring FDA approval means the U.S. sometimes pays up to three times more for drugs. This means fewer people receive treatment, as the profits of drug companies are protected. [Goldberg, 2007; Carpenter, 2007; Love, 2007]  To restore our moral standing in the world, Edwards believes that America must be a global leader in the fight against poverty and disease. Fighting global poverty and addressing global health crises is a moral imperative, but it is also a security issue. As president, John Edwards will fundamentally transform America’s approach to the world and bring high-level attention to the fight against global HIV/AIDS by:

1. Providing Universal Access to Treatment Globally
   A $4 dose of medicine can help prevent a mother from transmitting HIV to her newborn at childbirth. In developing countries, HIV/AIDS medications cost as little as $140 per patient a year – but, by mid-2006, fewer than one in four people who needed it had access to treatment. As part of a comprehensive plan to also fight TB and malaria around the world, Edwards has set an ambitious goal of providing universal access to preventive and treatment drugs for the three “killer diseases” by 2010, investing $50 billion over five years to meet that goal. This includes fulfilling our moral responsibility to help strengthen public health systems and health care workforces in developing nations. While we can make current spending go further by being more aggressive with the pharmaceutical industry, Edwards will ensure the U.S. contributes its traditional fair share toward the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which has proven itself as an innovative, effective model to fight disease. [UNICEF, 2005; U.N. Millennium Project, 2005; WHO, 2007]
2. Using Trade Policy to Save Lives
   Edwards will enact trade policies that save lives, rather than protect the profits of big drug companies. He will ensure that U.S. bilateral trade agreements respect the rights of countries to access and use generic medicines consistent with the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health. We must expand poor countries’ right to safe, affordable generic drugs to treat HIV/AIDS. The increased distribution of generic drugs has been a step in the right direction. However, as millions of people develop resistance to these drugs, we must be prepared to facilitate access to more effective medications. As president, Edwards will support efforts to increase the importation and production in developing countries of second-line and pediatric drugs. He will also re-assess the Bush policy that forces us to pay higher prices for drugs that have been approved by the FDA, when less expensive drugs have already been approved by the WHO and their safety is reliable. WHO safety standards are relied upon by leading international organizations, including the Global Fund.
3. Expanding the Role of Multilateral Organizations
   America’s reluctance to engage the world through multilateral organizations under President Bush has hurt our ability to combat poverty and fight HIV/AIDS. Edwards believes multilateral institutions like the Global Fund can be far more efficient at using taxpayer dollars than bilateral agencies like the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, with far lower overheads. As president, Edwards will support efforts to increase the role of multilateral institutions like the Global Fund in distributing funds to fight HIV/AIDS, rather than just bilateral aid agencies and their contractors.
4. Rescinding the Global Gag Rule
   In 2001, President Bush signed an executive order barring U.S. family planning aid to foreign non-profits that offer abortions, except in the case of a threat to a woman’s life or incest, that provide abortion counseling or that lobby to make abortion legal. This “gag rule” stifles free speech and forces non-profits to choose between vital U.S. funds and providing essential health services. The “gag rule” has hurt efforts to ensure access to contraception methods that can prevent the spread of HIV. Edwards will overturn this order and restore support for effective family planning.
5. Creating a Cabinet-Level Post on Global Poverty
   Despite its importance to our national security and international standing, America still lacks a comprehensive strategy to fight global poverty. Our foreign aid programs are fractured and uncoordinated, delivered by over 50 separate government offices. As a result, bureaucrats fight over overlapping jurisdictions and resources are not tied to any government-wide priorities. As president, Edwards will create a new cabinet-level position that will coordinate global development policies across the federal government and be a voice for the fight against global HIV/AIDS.
6. Promoting Women’s Rights and Universal Education
   Strengthening the rights of women and increasing education will help change social roles that underlie the spread of HIV in many countries. Reducing violence against women and expanding education are both proven means of preventing HIV. Edwards will aggressively support political and economic rights for women where they do not exist and support efforts to reduce violence against women and children. He will also lead the world toward a primary education for every child, endorsing the goal of achieving universal basic education by 2015. As part of a significant increase in overall funding for poverty-focused development assistance, Edwards will lead a worldwide effort to raise $10 billion to fund this cause. [UNAIDS, 2005; World Bank, 2002]
7. Supporting Debt Cancellation
   Debt owed to Western lenders prevents many poor countries from making the kinds of investments in health and education that can help prevent the spread of HIV and other diseases. Edwards will take the next step on debt relief by eliminating bilateral debt owed to the United States by the world’s poorest countries, freeing up resources for these countries to invest in health and education. He will also call on other lender nations and agencies to follow our lead.

Gay and Lesbian Issues

Edwards believes that all couples in committed, long-term relationships should have the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities, whether they are straight couples or same-sex couples. He supports civil unions to guarantee gay and lesbian couples the same rights as straight couples, including inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, equal pension and health care benefits, and all of the 1,100 other legal protections government affords married couples. Edwards supports the full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. He also believes same-sex families should be treated in the same manner as other families by our immigration laws. Edwards believes the right president could lead the country toward consensus around equal rights and benefits for all couples in committed, long-term relationships and he opposes divisive Constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriages.

• Workplace Discrimination
  Workers should be judged by the quality of their performance, not their sexual orientation or gender identity. While in the Senate, Edwards cosponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. He also believes that stronger enforcement is necessary to prevent employment discrimination by federal agencies.
• Military Service
  Edwards opposes the current “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on gays and lesbians serving in our military. The military ought to treat all service members equally and in a way that promotes national security, without regard to their sexual orientation.
• Adoption
  Edwards believes that gay and lesbian parents should be able to adopt children just like any other parents. There are over 120,000 children waiting for homes in our nation’s foster care system. Adoption placements should be decided by judges and adoption agencies based upon the best interests of the children. Both members of a same-sex couple raising children together should be able to form a legal relationship with their children.
• Hate Crimes
  Everyone is entitled to live in dignity without fear of violence. We should strengthen the ability of law enforcement to investigate and prosecute hate crimes based on race, gender, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity. While in the Senate, Edwards cosponsored legislation to give law enforcement agencies the tools they need to investigate and prosecute hate crimes.

Healthcare Reform

John Edwards has a bold plan to transform America’s health care system and provide universal health care for every man, woman and child in America.
Under the Edwards Plan:
• Families without insurance will get coverage at an affordable price.
• Families with insurance will pay less and get more security and choices.
• Businesses and other employers will find it cheaper and easier to insure their workers.
The Edwards Plan achieves universal coverage by:
• Requiring businesses and other employers to either cover their employees or help finance their health insurance.
• Making insurance affordable by creating new tax credits, expanding Medicaid and SCHIP, reforming insurance laws, and taking innovative steps to contain health care costs.
• Creating regional “Health Care Markets” to let every American share the bargaining power to purchase an affordable, high-quality health plan, increase choices among insurance plans, and cut costs for businesses offering insurance.
• Once these steps have been taken, requiring all American residents to get insurance.
Securing universal healthcare for every American will require the active involvement of millions of Americans

Poverty

In a speech at the National Press Club, Edwards called poverty “the great moral issue of our time” and challenged our country to cut it by a third in a decade and end it within 30 years. To get there, he has proposed major new initiatives to reward work, break up high-poverty neighborhoods, help families save, and encourage families to act responsibly. In his vision of a “Working Society,” everyone who is able to work will be expected to work and rewarded for working. Edwards also called on communities to discourage the reckless behavior that threatens the future of many young people.

 End Poverty by 2036- Edwards believes that ending poverty should be a goal our nation actively pursues. A national goal will rally support for the cause and help us measure our progress. In 1999, Tony Blair announced a 20-year goal to end child poverty in Great Britain and he has already reduced child poverty by 17 percent. Today, Edwards called for a national effort to:
• Cut poverty by one third within a decade, lifting 12 million Americans out of poverty by 2016.
• End poverty within 30 years, lifting 37 million Americans out of poverty by 2036. [Census Bureau, 2007]

Reform the Poverty Measure- The poverty measure excludes necessities like taxes, health care, child care and transportation. It also fails to count some forms of aid including tax credits, food stamps, Medicaid, and subsidized housing. The National Academy of Science has recommended improvements that would increase the count of people in poverty by more than 1 million. Edwards believes we need to measure poverty honestly, evaluate our performance, and hold politicians accountable for policies that change the number of people suffering hardship. He supports revisions along the lines recommended by NAS. [Census Bureau, 2005; NAS, 1995]

Creating a Working Society
Edwards has outlined a Working Society initiative to lift 12 million Americans out of poverty in a decade and beat poverty over the next 30 years. In the Working Society, everyone who is able to work hard will be expected to work and, in turn, be rewarded for it. The initiative includes major new policies in the areas of work, housing, education, debt and savings, and family responsibility.

Rewarding Work:
• Make Work Pay: Edwards will increase the reward for working by raising the minimum wage to at least $9.50 an hour by 2012 and then indexing it, tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for adults without children and cutting the EITC marriage penalty. In 2001, a $1 increase in the minimum wage alone would have lifted an estimated 900,000 people out of poverty. [Sawhill and Thomas, 2001]
• Create One Million Stepping Stone Jobs: Every American should have the chance to work their way out of poverty, but some willing workers cannot find jobs because of where they live, a lack of experience or skills, or other obstacles, like a criminal record. Edwards will create a million short-term jobs to help individuals move into permanent work.
• Create Opportunity in Rural America: Nearly 90 percent of America’s poorest counties are rural. Edwards will invest more in rural community colleges, link training to actual business needs, and support rural small business centers. [Rural Poverty Research Center, 2006]
• Strengthen Labor Laws: Union membership can be the difference between a poverty-wage job and middle-class security. Federal law promises workers the right to choose a union, but the law is poorly enforced, full of loopholes, and routinely violated by employers. Edwards supports the Employee Free Choice Act to give workers a real choice in whether to form a union.
• Enforce Workplace Protections: To help protect workers, Edwards will create a new Labor taskforce to target the industries with the worst abuses of minimum wage and overtime laws. He will step up enforcement of the misclassification of employees as independent contractors and strengthen workplace safety rules.

Overhaul Housing Policy:
• Create a Million New Housing Vouchers: Our current housing policies concentrate low-income families together, isolating willing workers from entry-level jobs and children from good schools. Edwards will create a million vouchers over five years to help low-income families move to better neighborhoods. At the same time, he will phase out housing projects that tie families to certain locations and are often lower quality and more expensive than private sector alternatives.
• Revitalize Devastated Neighborhoods: Edwards believes that it is better to invest in struggling neighborhoods than abandon them. He will reform and expand the HOPE VI program to replace dilapidated housing in areas of concentrated poverty.
Fight Abusive Lenders and Help Working Families Save:
• Create New Work Bonds: Edwards proposed a new tax credit to help low-income, working Americans save for the future. The credit would match savings up to $500 per year.
• Expand Access to Bank Accounts: As many as 28 million Americans don’t have bank accounts. Edwards will subsidize bank accounts for working families. [Federal Reserve, 2007]
• Defend Homeowners against Predatory Mortgages and Foreclosure: Edwards will pass a strong national law to prohibit the worst abuses in the mortgage market. The law will strengthen underwriting standards to ensure that borrowers receive affordable loans suited to their means and reach non-bank lenders and mortgage brokers. To help the estimated 2.2 million families already facing foreclosure, Edwards will create a Home Rescue Fund to help families get into more affordable mortgages and let families shed excess mortgage debt that exceeds their home’s value through bankruptcy. [Center for Responsible Lending, 2007; New America Foundation, 2007]
• Protect Families from Abusive Financial Products: Families need someone on their side to help them get a fair deal from lenders and investment companies. Edwards will create a new Family Savings and Credit Commission to protect consumers. It will review all financial services products marketed to consumers and oversee all types of financial institutions, whether chartered under federal or state law. [Warren, 2007]
• Limiting Irresponsible Credit Card Practices: Edwards will restore balance in the credit card market through a Borrower’s Security Act that creates a late payment grace period, limits penalty interest rates to new purchases, and ends the practice of universal default. [Demos, 2003; GAO, 2006]
• Banning the Most Abusive Payday Loans: After the Pentagon concluded that exploitive payday loans undermined military readiness, Congress capped interest rates on payday and other loans to military families at 36 percent, a cutoff that many states use to prevent loan sharking. Edwards will extend this cap to all payday loans, which now average over 300 percent APR. He will also encourage states, local non-profits and responsible lenders to offer low- or no-interest emergency loans. [Center for Responsible Lending, 2006

Strengthening Our Schools:
• Strengthen Public Schools: Edwards proposed expanding access to preschool programs, investing more in teacher pay and training to attract good teachers where we need them most, and strengthening high schools with a more challenging curriculum.
• Promote Economic Diversity: Our nation has two school systems, segregated by race and economic status. While not a substitute either for racial integration or improving schools in every neighborhood, Edwards will promote economic diversity within school districts and across district lines by giving bonuses to middle-class schools enrolling low-income students and double current federal magnet schools funding to attract middle-class suburban students to high-poverty urban neighborhoods.
• Create Second-Chance Schools for High School Dropouts: As many as one-third of all students drop out of school, and the rates are even worse for poor and minority students. Large majorities of recent dropouts regret their decision. Edwards will create second-chance schools to help former dropouts get back on track. [Civic Enterprises, 2006; Manhattan Institute, 2006]
• Expand College Opportunity: Edwards will enact a College for Everyone program to pay public-college tuition, books and fees for students who agree to work part-time during their first year at a school. Additional student aid can make the greatest difference in the first year of college. [Dynarski, 1999]

Support Responsible Families:
• Encourage and Reward Responsibility from Fathers: Welfare reform required mothers to work and helps them find jobs, but it failed to do the same for fathers. Edwards will help fathers find work, require them to help support their children, and increase child support collections by more than $8 billion over the next decade and use those payments to benefit children.
• Fight Teen Pregnancy: The U.S. has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the industrialized world. Edwards believes we should have more support for teenagers struggling to beat the odds.
• Home Visits for New Parents: Home visits improve prenatal health and the quality of care-giving after birth. Children receiving nurse visits are cognitively more advanced, have fewer behavioral problems, and are less likely to be abused or neglected. John Edwards will invest in home visits by registered nurses to low-income new parents, providing matching grants to states to serve 50,000 families. [AAP, 2004; RJWF, 2006; NFP, 2006]
• Invest in Family Literacy: Thirty million American adults have very limited literacy skills; the children of functionally illiterate parents are twice as likely to be illiterate themselves. John Edwards will restore funding for family literacy programs, which address the educational needs of both parents and children, and give them the support they deserve. [National Center for Family Literacy, Undated; National Even Start Association, 2007]

 Civil Liberties

America must do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism, but securing a lasting victory will take moral as well as military strength. President Bush’s failure to respect the Constitution and our commitment to the fundamental rule of law has badly damaged our security and our standing in the world. President Bush has sent a message that torture and other human rights violations are acceptable, creating a precedent of disregard for the law that is being exploited by terrorists and repressive governments across the world. We must restore our moral leadership in the world, and we should begin here at home. If we want to spread democracy abroad, we must strengthen democracy in America, including our constitutional freedoms and the rule of law.

• Say No to Torture
  The Bush-Cheney Administration has undermined our standing in the world and endangered our own troops by sanctioning the use of interrogation techniques long considered torture. Edwards will protect our troops and our values by upholding the Geneva Conventions anywhere American security forces—military or civilian—are engaged. He will issue an executive order setting clear guidelines for interrogations and prohibiting torture. He will also ban the shameful practice of outsourcing torture to other countries through “extraordinary rendition.”
• Restore Habeas Corpus and Shut Down Guantanamo
  The Bush Administration has claimed the power to seize and indefinitely detain anybody it labels an “enemy combatant” with no due process and no lawyer, even if they were seized here in America. It built a prison at Guantanamo Bay outside the reach of our courts, creating a symbol that galvanizes our enemies and alienates our allies. As president, Edwards will shut down Guantanamo and work to resolve the status of the detainees, hundreds of whom have been held for years without being charged. He will also restore the writ of habeas corpus to reinstate judicial review of detention, rather than allow unchecked executive power.
• Protect Americans’ Privacy and Freedom
  Our government should protect the privacy, communications, and personal records of Americans—not spy on them without court supervision as the Bush Administration has done. Edwards will end the warrantless wiretapping of Americans’ phone calls and e-mails and the data-mining of Americans’ communications and personal records, restoring judicial review to surveillance of American citizens. He will fix the Patriot Act by restoring important safeguards to the provisions most susceptible to abuse: the “sneak-and-peek” delayed-notice searches, National Security Letters, and the business and library records provisions. He will also end racial profiling by law enforcement.
• Defend the Constitution
  Edwards will end the practice of issuing presidential “signing statements” that claim the administration can ignore the law. He will respect the proper roles of the Congress and the courts. He will not shroud the actions of the White House in secrecy. He will not abuse the executive privilege to hide information from Congress and the courts. And he will not interfere with the professional judgment of attorneys at the Justice Department or impose a partisan agenda on their interpretation of the nation’s laws and Constitution.

Terrorism

President Bush’s record and his approach to terrorism have been disastrous for our relationships with other countries and have made America and the world a less safe place. As the recent National Intelligence Estimate showed, Al Qaeda has remained entrenched in Pakistan and the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan. Terrorist cells are multiplying throughout Europe. And a recent study by the New York City Police Department demonstrated that even individuals in the U.S. are increasingly vulnerable to recruitment by radical extremists. [NYPD, 2007]

We must replace the so-called “war on terror” doctrine with a real strategy to unify our intelligence and security efforts through closer international cooperation. As president, John Edwards will enact a comprehensive strategy to ensure that intelligence is used to root out and shut down the scourge of terrorism and to unite the world against violent extremism. We must match 21st century threats with 21st century tactics and replace Cold War thinking, designed to defeat a single, implacable enemy, with new world thinking for a multi-national, diverse, and often hidden foe. Edwards will put in place a counter-terrorism strategy that is strong, fast, and hard enough to stop terrorists, but also smart, honest, and prescient enough to draw people away from terrorism in the first place.
THE EDWARDS PLAN
John Edwards suggests that we must be prepared to respond militarily to terrorist threats in progress. But he believes we also must root out and shut down emerging terrorist threats. The synergy between intelligence and partner cooperation are central to this goal. America cannot root out and shut down terrorist cells alone. We face the threat of homegrown radical extremism here at home, and we and our allies are also under threat from cells abroad, whether located in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, or Europe. Repairing our strategic partnerships and strengthening cooperation between U.S. law enforcement and national security agencies and those of our friends and partners around the world is key to effective counterterrorism. Edwards’ plaform on terrorism is:

• Lead a new global compact against terrorists
  Terrorist cells are multiplying throughout the world, both in friendly countries and in those with whom we have challenging relationships. The entire world community of nations has an interest in defeating terrorism and restoring legitimate government. As president, Edwards says he will create a modern-day equivalent of NATO for terrorism: the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization (CITO). CITO will focus on high-level political and diplomatic engagement between a wide range of nation partners on all dimensions of the problem of terrorism, and operational programs like intelligence-sharing and cooperative security operations by partner nations. It will also allow the creation of a new international alliance of partner nations who clearly state that terrorism is unacceptable, and the identification and isolation of those nations who refuse to join this cause.
  CITO’s national and multilateral partners will include partners in all continents, including Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe, who will cooperate on sharing and improving intelligence and security against terrorist cells, while respecting individual nations’ sovereignty and security interests.
  Going beyond institutions designed for an earlier age like NATO, the U.N. Security Council, and Interpol, while finding areas for progress, CITO will build on these institutions and meet today’s new threats by providing members with much more complete interconnection and sharing of intelligence, financial, police and customs and immigration data than currently exists, enabling member nations to track down terrorists nodes of support, travel, communication, recruiting, training and financing.
  CITO will establish allied response cells comprised of security professionals from member nations to work on intelligence and security assessments and that can take action against imminent terrorist threats.
  Improve human intelligence
  The U.S. needs to be able to root out terrorist cells both here and in other countries using increased human intelligence capability, both to support American operations and to support the operations of our partners and allies. Here at home, Edwards will establish 1,000 new two-year $20,000 annual scholarships to improve language skills, through expanded programs for teaching Arabic and Middle Eastern dialects, of students who agree to go into careers in intelligence or diplomacy.
  Bolster support for foreign counterterrorism
  According to a recent GAO report, many U.S. agencies lack guidance on how to support counter-terrorism operations in other countries. There also are very few standards in place to judge the effectiveness of these support operations. Within six months of taking office, Edwards will direct the Secretary of State, working with the Attorney General and other national security officials, to launch comprehensive “Counter-Terrorism Support Strategies.” He will further professionalize our corps of ambassadors and place them in charge of the implementation of these Support Strategies, as well as the coordination of all efforts of law enforcement, intelligence, and civil and military programs with operations in their countries. [GAO, 2007]
  Shut down WMD transfers
  Any international transfer of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or unauthorized material that could be used to create WMDs is unacceptable. As president, Edwards will strengthen multilateral efforts such as the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), U.N.S.C. Resolution 1540 to improve cooperation to identify and interdict weapons of mass destruction being transferred from hostile nations to terrorist organizations, and the Comprehensive Threat Reduction program. He will also accelerate efforts to provide states-in-need with financial and technical assistance to safeguard their nuclear facilities and nuclear scientists, and well as to improve their border controls.
• Escalate efforts against homegrown radical extremism
  We must also work hard here at home to ensure that extremist ideologies do not take hold among in our own Muslim communities—and we must do so in a way that respects diversity and civil liberties and avoids practices like racial profiling against both Arabs and Muslims. We must encourage American Muslim participation in public life. As president, Edwards will work toward these goals with new resources to engage the American Muslim community, empower local mosques to counter extremist ideas, and work hand-in-hand with Muslim communities to identify and isolate threats before they materialize.
• Make our domestic agencies as effective as possible
  A recent report revealed that if our agencies had cooperated better before 9/11, the attacks could possibly have been prevented. We have recently taken some steps to correct the flawed system that failed to uncover the 9/11 attacks. But we must do more. As president, Edwards will hold the Director of National Intelligence accountable for taking concrete steps to integrate and transform our intelligence community. And Edwards will strengthen cooperation between federal, state and local agencies on domestic threats by creating a Deputy Director of National Intelligence responsible for coordinating information-sharing and joint operations between federal agencies and state and local law enforcement. [CIA OIG, 2007]
• Achieving energy independence
  Reducing our reliance on oil from instable parts of the world will force Middle Eastern regimes to diversify their economies and modernize their societies. Fighting global climate change will reduce global disruptions that could lead to tens of millions of refugees and create massive new breeding grounds for desperation and radicalism. As president, Edwards will lead an effort to achieve energy independence through creating a new energy economy fund, investing in renewable energy, transforming the auto industry through higher fuel economy standards and innovation, and opening the electricity grid to competition.

Energy and the Enviornment

The Edwards Plan halts global warming, achieves energy independence and jumpstarts a new energy economy by:
• Capping greenhouse gas pollution starting in 2010 with a cap-and-trade system, and reducing it by 15 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050, as the latest science says is needed to avoid the worst impacts of global warming.
• Leading the world to a new climate treaty that commits other countries—including developing nations—to reduce their pollution. Edwards will insist that developing countries join us in this effort, offering to share new clean energy technology and, if necessary, using trade agreements to require binding greenhouse reductions.
• Creating a New Energy Economy Fund by auctioning off $10 billion in greenhouse pollution permits and repealing subsidies for big oil companies. The fund will support U.S. research and development in energy technology, help entrepreneurs start new businesses, invest in new carbon-capture and efficient automobile technology and help Americans conserve energy.
• Meeting the demand for more electricity through efficiency for the next decade, instead of producing more electricity.

Trade

John Edwards proposed what he refers to as smart trade policies: insisting on pro-worker provisions in new deals, holding trade partners to their commitments, investing more in dislocated workers and communities, and ensuring that imports are safe. He believes that the U.S. should not enter any new trade deals that do not meet these tests. His agenda is based upon three principles:

• Help Workers as Well as Corporations: Trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO include special privileges for corporations, such as strong remedies for commercial rights and unprecedented rights to challenge environmental and health laws. Edwards believes that trade agreements should be judged by their effect on regular families and include strong rights for workers.

• Lift Up Families Around the World: Building the global middle class will promote balanced trade relationships and, by reducing poverty, make us safer and more secure. Edwards supports trade and foreign aid to ensure that workers around the world share in the gains from trade.
• Build on Other Efforts to Share Prosperity: Trade policy alone will not address the needs of American workers. As president, Edwards will also lead the country toward universal health care, better schools, stronger unions, and investments in innovation and skills to improve competitiveness and create new jobs in industries like clean energy and the life sciences.

More specifically, Edwards deals with the current account deficit exceeded $850 billion in 2006, which is 6.5 percent of our economy. An estimated 5 million jobs have been sent offshore under President Bush, and economist Alan Blinder estimates that 30 million to 40 million jobs are potential candidates to be sent offshore in the coming decades. Even when jobs are not moved offshore, competition from cheap labor overseas holds down wages and benefits in the United States. [MarketWatch, 3/14/2007; Wash. Post, 5/6/2007]
• Be a Tough Negotiator, Unafraid to Reject Bad Deals: The American position in trade negotiations has been formulated behind closed doors with help from corporate lobbyists. Under the “fast track” procedure, Congress could not amend the resulting deals. Not surprisingly, trade deals include special privileges for American multinational corporations but not protections for worker rights. For example, while the core NAFTA agreement failed to include any labor standards, its Chapter 11 gave corporations sweeping rights to challenge national laws in secretive tribunals, putting investor profits ahead of American sovereignty and protections for health and the environment.
o Insist on Benefits for Regular Families: Edwards believes that the true test of a trade deal is not its reception on Wall Street or contribution to the gross domestic product. Instead, his primary criterion for new trade deals will be simple: considering its impact on jobs, wages and prices, will it make most families better off? He rejects President Bush’s use of trade agreements to encourage countries to support his foreign policy, rather than to strengthen our economy.
o Demand Strong Labor Laws: Many overseas workers work 12 to 16 hours a day in dangerous conditions for poverty wages, without the right to form an independent union. Requiring our trade partners to adopt and enforce basic workers’ rights will prevent a global race to the bottom and help build a global middle class. Edwards believes that all of our trade partners should be required to enforce at least the core labor rights defined by the International Labor Organization: the right to organize and bargain collectively and prohibitions against forced labor, child labor, and discrimination. Edwards will pursue these goals through linkage to U.S. trade preference programs,