The Least of These Have Become Least Important to Democrats

Progressive Nashville attempts to call us away from the high-minded speeches and the low-brow politics of this campaign back to a primary issue at the heart of progressivism:

[John] Edwards has been talking about the poor, those in need and the rest of us who don't have the financial resources to protect us against whatever challenge life may bring.

He has been criticized for this, being called a pretty millionaire, but if his goal were simply to be elected, he made a poor choice of campaign themes ... and Edwards is smarter than that ....

But when Edwards leaves, who will be left to speak for the poor and those in need. Members of Congress, even those with poor constituencies, can't push through important issues like health care and a hike in the minimum wage that actually allows people to live a decent life. So divided has the Democratic Party become from wedge issues generated by the GOP, that its vision of prosperity for all has been all but abandoned.

When Edwards departs, Obama will talk about hope and Clinton will talk about experience, but neither has spoken about those who most need those qualities in a new leader unless the issue was forced upon them.

Indeed, whomever is our eventual nominee: if he or she fails to deal in word and in action with poverty and America's growing underclasses outside of empty platitudes and Reaganesque trickle-down policies, then he or she is not worthy to be called "progressive."