The John Edwards Effect on Clinton, Obama and the DNC

According to the NY Times, John Edwards' policies are running for President. Ironically, Universal Health Care may be more his legacy than Obama's or even Clinton's.

As the architect of these policies, Edwards deserves a place to bring them to reality. He has the ability and courage to do this.

To understand the extent of the Edwards effect, you have to think about what might have been.

At the beginning of 2007, it seemed likely that the Democratic nominee would run a cautious campaign, without strong, distinctive policy ideas. That, after all, is what John Kerry did in 2004.

If 2008 is different, it will be largely thanks to Mr. Edwards. He made a habit of introducing bold policy proposals — and they were met with such enthusiasm among Democrats that his rivals were more or less forced to follow suit. It’s hard, in particular, to overstate the importance of the Edwards health care plan, introduced in February.

Before the Edwards plan was unveiled, advocates of universal health care had difficulty getting traction, in part because they were divided over how to get there. Some advocated a single-payer system — a k a Medicare for all — but this was dismissed as politically infeasible. Some advocated reform based on private insurers, but single-payer advocates, aware of the vast inefficiency of the private insurance system, recoiled at the prospect.

With no consensus about how to pursue health reform, and vivid memories of the failure of 1993-1994, Democratic politicians avoided the subject, treating universal care as a vague dream for the distant future.

But the Edwards plan squared the circle, giving people the choice of staying with private insurers, while also giving everyone the option of buying into government-offered, Medicare-type plans — a form of public-private competition that Mr. Edwards made clear might lead to a single-payer system over time. And he also broke the taboo against calling for tax increases to pay for reform.
Suddenly, universal health care became a possible dream for the next administration. In the months that followed, the rival campaigns moved to assure the party’s base that it was a dream they shared, by emulating the Edwards plan. And there’s little question that if the next president really does achieve major health reform, it will transform the political landscape.

* * * *

Furthermore, to the extent that this remains a campaign of ideas, it remains true that on the key issue of health care, the Clinton plan is more or less identical to the Edwards plan. The Obama plan, which doesn’t actually achieve universal coverage, is considerably weaker.

One thing is clear, however: whichever candidate does get the nomination, his or her chance of victory will rest largely on the ideas Mr. Edwards brought to the campaign.

* * * *

If Democrats manage to get the focus on their substantive differences with the Republicans, ... polls on the issues suggest that they’ll have a big advantage. And they’ll have Mr. Edwards to thank.

Sacrificing Science and Consumer Health

Toxins, Trailers and Unsafe Toys allowed by the administration:

Delay Of Report Is Blamed On Politics

CHICAGO -- The lead author and peer reviewers of a government report raising the possibility of public health threats from industrial contamination throughout the Great Lakes region are charging that the report is being suppressed because of the questions it raises. The author also alleges that he was demoted because of the report. Chris De Rosa, former director of the division of toxicology and environmental medicine at the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), charges that the report he wrote was a significant factor in his reassignment to a non-supervisory "special assistant" position last year. The House Committee on Science and Technology is investigating De Rosa's reassignment, in light of allegations that it was related to the Great Lakes report and his push to publicize the possibility of a cancer risk from formaldehyde fumes in Federal Emergency Management Agency trailers housing victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Product Safety Regulator Hobbled by Decades of Negligence

The nation's premiere consumer product regulator, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), has been crippled by budget cuts and staffing losses that now span decades. Every president since Gerald Ford has proposed cutting the agency's budget at least once, and Congresses controlled by both parties have obliged.

Recent attention surrounding massive product recalls, including contaminated Christmas toys this past year, prompted Congress at the end of 2007 to give the agency one of its biggest funding boosts, and lawmakers are considering additional legislation to ensure consistent long-term funding. President Bush's FY 2009 budget request, announced Feb. 4, proposes level funding for the agency.

Compare Clinton and Obama: Just two candidates with equally popular messages?

The media coronated Hillary early on ("Hillary Looks Like a Winner") when she won New Hampshire and Michigan. Clearly they were hoping for the ratings and circulation that would be created by a Hillary bash-fest, just as William Randolph Hearst hoped when he told his photographers "You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war."
In January, Hillary was "the winner in the race for coverage."

Edwards won points for honesty in his presentations, but lost the batttle for free airtime minutes in the news. Running with federal spending limits against two candidates with no limits and Senate campaign funds to borrow from, he also lost the battle of dollars that would have enabled him to buy airtime. The decision by the FEC not to match ActBlue funding hurt his campaign more.

Now that Obama is racking up victories of his own, the media wants to make this a war for the crown. And the reasons seem clearly grasping. Never admitting their initial Presidential predictions might have been premature, they have to find some way her candidacy imploded, or else - gasp - admit they were wrong, or worse, self-serving and opportunistic.

Maybe Clinton and Obama are two people who want to be President, want to accomplish their own goals in their way, and are willing to offer themselves up before the electorate, to be rejected or not. How many people have the determination and perseverence to do that? Why isn't that news?

Either Hillary or Obama would be a great president. Compare their policies on healthcare, abortion, Climate Change, Immigration, Iraq, Iran and the Economy without the screeching media bias on the NYTimes website.

Beltway Primary Today

Good stories here on DKos.

DKos Maryland here.

Sample ballot here. League of Women Voters info here.

Montgomery County Dems site here. Voter info here.

Where is the DCC sample ballot for our counties? Does anyone know?

Compare the Candidates: Edwards, Clinton, Obama

Any two of these candidates will make a winning Prez-VP ticket, but for those who want to chose their favorite, the NYT election guide 2008 stacks their positions side by side to make a comparison easier than before. Here are the highlights for Edwards, Clinton, and Obama. The NYT analysis includes all the candidates from both parties.

Before we get to that, here's a humorous observation from the ultra-conservative Wall Street Journal: The "major domestic ambition this campaign season is the government takeover of the healthcare industry," according to an editorial in WSJ. They neglected to point out what a lousy job the healthcare industry is doing at protecting public health. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ Subscription Required)

Health care:

• Edwards: Would require health insurance for all. Require employers to provide insurance or contribute to cost, with subsidies for low-income people. Create regional nonprofit pools that offer private plans and at least one public plan like Medicare. Expand Medicaid and State Children’s Health Insurance Program to serve adults below the poverty line and children and parents below 250 percent of the line.
  
• Obama: Would not require health insurance for all. Would provide subsidies for low-income people. Create purchasing pool with choice of competing private plans and one public plan like Medicare. Expand Medicaid, State Children’s Health Insurance Program.


• Clinton: Would require health insurance for all. Require large employers to provide insurance or contribute to the cost. Provide tax credits to small businesses and subsidies for low-income people. Create a pool of private plans similar to the program for federal workers and one public plan similar to Medicare. Plans are portable from job to job. Expand Medicaid, State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Reproductive rights:

• Edwards actively opposed John Roberts's nomination, partly based on his abortion views.
  
• All three candidates say they support Roe v. Wade that ruled childbearing decisions including decisions to terminate pregnancy were protected from government interference unless there was a compelling state interest. All three candidates criticized Supreme Court decision that upheld ban on partial-birth abortions.

Climate Change:

• Edwards and Obama state the U.S. must lead global efforts to reduce emission; would set targets for capping greenhouse pollution.
  
• All three candidates support a mandatory cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Immigration:

• Edwards: Supports only a limited border fence. Clinton and Obama: Voted for the boondoggle fence along Mexican border.


• All three candidates support a path to legalization for illegal immigrants that includes learning English and paying fines; toughen penalties for hiring illegal immigrants.

Iran:

• Edwards: Engage in low-level diplomacy; tighten economic sanctions with international cooperation; military option not off the table; has said a non-aggression pact is a possibility down the road.


• Obama: Engage in direct diplomacy; tighten economic sanctions with international cooperation; would meet with the Iranian president with no preconditions; military option not off the table.


• Clinton: Direct diplomacy without preconditions; use economic sanctions; would not meet with the Iranian president; military option not off the table, but would not consider without congressional approval.

Iraq: [see Senate Joint Resolution 45 below]

• Edwards: Voted in 2002 for the Resolution, now opposed; opposed troop increase; withdraw 40,000 to 50,000 combat troops immediately and all troops within nine to 10 months.


• Clinton: Voted in 2002 for the Resolution, now opposed; opposed troop increase; start phased withdrawal within 60 days of taking office, with the goal to have most troops out by the end of 2013.


• Obama: Not a Senator at the time, but opposed the invasion from the beginning [although did not necessarily oppose the Resolution and seemed conflicted for much of the war’s first years]; opposed troop increase; withdraw one or two brigades a month to finish within 16 months.

The Resolution states that military intervention in Iraq is authorized in certain circumstances, including if the President determines that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.