Melissa,

I too will miss John Edwards’ discussion of New Orleans on the campaign circuit. While I’m not sure that I ever fully bought into his anti-poverty shtick –29,000 square foot mansions and $400 hair cuts make him seem more like Jim Baker than Bobby Kennedy-- at least he offered lip service to the plight of America’s poor. With Hillary and Barack as the only Democrats left standing, it seems like we have to look to Brad Pitt for principled leadership in New Orleans.

Your point about our nation’s indifference to the suffering of poor black people is on the money. Rather than using the Katrina disaster to spotlight issues of racialized poverty, the Democrats used it as a political football to advance their own political agenda. As you mentioned, this agenda had more to do with accumulating Congressional power and gaining leverage on Iraq than fighting structural poverty. For me (and here’s where we differ), this is why John Edwards’ candidacy was so significant and Obama’s so dangerous.

Only Edwards and (Dennis Kucinich) articulated a clear and viable plan for ending poverty through governmental intervention and wholesale social reform. His 30-year anti-poverty plan, by liberal standards, was as full and comprehensive of any “serious” candidate in years. Unfortunately, by positioning Obama as the only viable alternative to Hillary, the DNC (and, more subversively, the DLC) ensured that these issues would not be brought to the forefront. Now that Edwards has officially bowed out, we are guaranteed that a Democratic president will not be a significant threat to the neo-liberal economic reforms that have crippled Blacks in New Orleans and around the nation.

Now, I have a question for you. Based on everything that we’ve said, why did you choose to support Barack Obama over John Edwards?

Marc.

Marc Lamont Hill is an Assistant Professor of Urban Education and American Studies at Temple University.