UPDATED VIDEO: Invite from Elizabeth Edwards: Ask your question, she'll answer here

Hi Elizabeth,

I have a Master's in Public Administration and spent the last ten years working on child care policy, particularly strategies that can assist in creating more quality child care slots that are affordable for middle- and low-income families. I was very impressed by how well you knew the child care industry (very few do in my my experience), but I want to address something that you said. You said that to increase the supply of child care, we need to increase competition.

In my experience with child care, "competition" does not effect this industry. It is an imperfect market, ridden with exceptionally high cost due to its labor-intensive nature and further driven by the cost of real estate. Quality child care requires many trained bodies and lots of space. In urban markets, that puts the cost of care at over $12,000 per child for preschool age children and $15,000 for infants and toddlers. The reason there is no supply is because very few parents can afford the cost!

The only way to address this is to treat child care and early education the way we do other public education. We need to invest in infrastructure (appropriate buildings for young children are expensive to build) and people (child care staff with the same degrees as elementary school teachers earn significantly less money, get fewer benefits like health care and retirement accounts, and get less vacation) on a large scale. Our current child care subsidy system is woefully inadequate - the income ceiling is pathetically low at that, and still only one in seven eligible children receive assistance.

"Universal" child care may not be the answer, but a real child care and early education system has clear benefits. The Federal Reserve Bank of Minnesota has done several studies showing that every dollar invested in quality child care has up to a $17 return. The real question is, why aren't we investing more in young children, our most precious national resource?

Suzanne ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne ), BlogHer Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender ( http://www.blogher.com/topic/feminism-gender )
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS)& Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

Thanks for the question, and sorry for the delay in answering. I have had family in for our renewal.

Now the fuller answer is on John's website, JohnEdwards.com and I think there is also information on MoveOn.org, where John got more support than any other candidate for his position on this issue. But the short answer is that we need to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050, and John does this primarily by ratcheting down the emissions each year and auctioning off the right to emit carbons. The proceeds of the auction would be used to develop energy alternatives -- solar, wind, geothermal, cellulose based biomass) and the industries to support their use (which will dovetail with John's plan to add "green-collar" stepping stone jobs for new and hard-to-employ workers). Some of the proceeds would also go to Detroit to support the transition to higher CAFE standards so the most fuel efficient cars in the world will be built here in the US with union labor.

Please check out John's website for more information.

First of all, I was inspired and touched that you attended the conference. It made me realize how important this BlogHers Act initiative is.

I combed through the John Edwards for President site earlier today looking for information on the campaign's position on public transportation but didn't find much. Would a John Edwards presidency promote mass transit as a way to reduce carbon emissions and slow climate change? If so, what kinds of policy measures would help promote the increased use of public transportation? What arguments would be used to help convince Americans to use it?

----
Jen
http://yawwblog.blogspot.com
http://angryfatgirlz.blogspot.com
http://toledolefty.blogspot.com

Mrs Edwards, it was a privelege and a pleasure to hear you speak on Saturday. I appreciate the opportunity to follow up with you here on BlogHer.

I will preface my question by saying I am a Canadian. I do not wish to be seen as "sticking my nose" in to the business of America. But sometimes, it does take an outsider to point out an issue, and I hope to do that here.

As a Canadian, there is one issue that I am truly surprised is not "bigger" in the minds of American Women. That is the issue of maternity and parental leave.

As far as I'm aware, American women are granted by law anywhere from 6-12 weeks of job protected leave after giving birth, although generally it's sick leave as opposed to any actual leave granted for recovery and childcare after childbirth. This is among the lowest in any First World country. As a person who has the right for up to 50 weeks parental leave with at least a portion of my salary available to me during that time, I wonder why America does not have similar policies. Protecting the right of the parent to care for the child for the first several months of their life is not only healthy for the family, but would also take significant pressure off the "finding childcare" challenge.

Could you address whether you believe that this is an issue for American women and families, and whether Mr Edwards has considered making improved parental leave part of his platform?

Thanks for letting me stick my Canuck nose in to your discussion.

ThreeSeven ( http://www.threeseven.ca )... attention deficits at work.

I understand your concern, Marilyn. In speaking later in the session about Internet communities, Mrs. Edwards noted how someone like the homeless man she had mentioned earlier would have a greater chance to be heard in a discussion group on the Internet (presumably because he wouldn't be stereotyped and outcast by appearance).

with the way that I phrased that, actually. I had in mind the hardcore homeless who, because of some impairment, will always be difficult to reach, as a fellow I had in mind in Raleigh who used to stand on a corner near my office speaking loudly and totally incoherently. He was sweet when you confronted him but he was not the pamphleteer of colonial times who had a political message to convey and had chosen the town square as the logical place to do so.

There are many reasons for poverty and homelessness, and one of the reasons I was so unhappy about having drawn the portrait I did there was that John and I have been pressing the point you make: that a large portion of those who live in poverty actually work every day. Thank you for giving me a chance to clarify that I was referring to a very narrow sliver of the poverty and homeless population.

Elizabeth,

I was not at the conference. I just finished watching the video clips of your address posted here. I couldn't help but be struck by one of your initial comments when speaking about the blogosphere being the new town square. You noted that we seldom see pamphleteering in town squares anymore and that when we do, it's typically some homeless person rather than someone who's thought things out. Given that the cornerstone of your husband's work and campaign is to battle poverty, it made me wonder how you view the homeless. In recent years when I've passed by someone shouting on a street corner in a pamphleteering fashion, it typically wasn't someone I've perceived to be homeless. Rather it's often been someone who seemed to have what some would consider extreme religious views.

Homelessness continues to be a very real issue in my state of Calfiornia. There's a homeless services operation a block from my home. Often when I leave for work in the morning, a homeless man who sleeps behind the office across the street is also heading out for his day. I mean no disrespect when I say that I would hope that you would steer clear of generalized stereotypes about the homeless.

Thank you.

Marilyn Maciel
Davis, CA

California Fever ( http://marilyn.typepad.com/california_fever/ )

Co-Founder of Bloggers for Darfur ( http://bloggersfordarfur.blogspot.com )

Let me preface by saying that I did really enjoy listening to you speak, in person, on many many issues of importance to women, to Americans and to people all over the world. I quickly said, as you left the ballroom, that you did well - and I mean that. You did very, very well and I have no doubt that everyone in the room (or in Second Life) would agree.

The one issue that I was puzzled about was the "mandatory education for pre-school age children". I'm not sure you said the word "mandatory" but that's what I heard. It's what a few others I spoke to later heard as well.

It's not always easy for those of us who choose homeschooling to make that happen, the legal hoops we have to jump through can be daunting. The fear that someone is going to try and stop us from educating our children in the way we believe is best for them can be overwhelming. I cannot imagine having to jump through those hopes and deal with those feelings two or three years earlier - when the child is a pre-schooler. I worry that mandated early education is just one more attack on homeschoolers.

How do you reconcile your support for this type of program, I believe you did use the word "structured" education, and the desire many parents have to homeschool or unschool their children?

Can you ease my mind on this issue?

Thank you,

~Denise
Fast Times @ Homeschool High ( http://fasttimes.clubmom.com ) & Flamingo House Happenings ( http://www.flamingohouse.net</a )

My number one issue is health care. But you didn't have a chance yesterday to talk much about my number two issue: global warming and environment issues. What measures do you (and your husband) think should be taken to reverse the environmental damage we have caused to our planet? I'm interested in both individual behavior, corporate behavior, and governmental regulation and leadership.

http://www.webteacher.ws/
http://first50.wordpress.com/

John does talk about the poverty in a global context -- both poverty worldwide (3B people live on less than $2 a day) and the need to create good-paying jobs here that are immune from out-sourcing like service jobs and to create cutting edge industries and jobs that rely, as American jobs traditionally have, on industrial and innovative leadership, such as alternative energy "green collar" jobs and biomedical jobs depending on advances like stem cell research, both of which as you point out will depend heavily on an educated workforce. And John talks about the economic benefits domestically of eliminating poverty. Poverty drains the resources of our cities and causes our rural communities to wither. There is, frankly, some disagreement about the value of this from a "Wall Street" perspective. The chairman of the Federal Reserve said that he would like to see a high rate of unemployment as a curb against inflation because he sees full employment and maximum productivity as adding to inflationary pressure. You are right, of course, that elimination of poverty would also eventually mean reduction of government expenditures to assist those in poverty, but that -- as we talked about -- is tomorrow's benefit and "today's-sacrifice-for-tomorrow's-benefit" has been an argument that too many politicians fear making. But the real reason, the reason that exists today and tomorrow to address poverty is simply that it is wrong. That reason won't change with people's economic perspectives and will draw in those from different political perspectives as well. Jim Wallis, the author of God's Politics, is found of saying that if you took the references to the poor out of the Bible you would have a slim volume indeed.

I think I was exceeded by so many in that room. It was inspiring to me to see so many women who not only have something to say but have found a way to say it.

Ms. Edwards,

I appreciate the time you spent with us at BlogHer, today. You were great. Could you encourage your husband to speak a little more simply and succinctly about the link between poverty and America's role in the global economy? I'm not sure if people understand that we won't need to buy cheap, Chinese imports and shop at union-busting Wal-Mart if we create a universal healthcare program and have a better trained/educated and higher-paid workforce.

What does Wall Street say about John's positions? I see John's call for 'poverty elimination' as something that should be attractive to investors on Wall Street because it frees up dollars in the marketplace for innovation, research, and expansion.

Very simply: I'm not sure that John's poverty elimination strategy always makes it from the aspirational to the practical.

All the best to you & your family,

Laurie Ruettimann
http://laurieruettimann.com
http://blondeadvice.com

Mrs. Edwards, you were so impressive at Blogher. I have never had the opportunity to hear you speak at length and thus I was so grateful that Blogher gave me that chance. Your command of social and political issues, not to mention your knowledge of social media, was wonderful. I shared my impressions with many of my friends already.

All love and prayers for a continued recovery. I hope you run for office soon!

celeste w, studio 501c
http://inprogress.typepad.com/studio501c