Edwards: The only honest choice

Yeah, Hillary has clout/Bill;
and, Obama has Oprah/ego and hype;

But, John Edwards has something that will serve average Americans for decades to come ---

Compassion and a belief in fairness ...

that none of the other candidates have proven/supported so far -

otherwise I agree with most everything else.

Has anyone talked about the fact that Republican candidate Romney was born in Mexico? Only US born citizens can run for President according to the Constitution. Demand the law be observed regarding this guy.

Correction: Now I see his record says he was American born. What is the truth?

think Edwards should change about his plan?

not private insurance which has failed us with their greed. We are 35th in the world. Govenment health plans are cheaper and better. It cuts out the middle man and everyone gets the same. The elite have to be part of the plan or it won't work.

I can go on and on about bad things happening in America since Reagan de-regulated and stopped over sight by our government. I know so many Americans losing their homes is shameful in a rich country like ours. We treat our disabled, old and very young badly. Shame on us.

Telling the HMOs upfront that they are out of business will get billions of free GOP advertising. Edwards is right on this. If you have a public heath insurance plan as part of a 'health mart' competing with private insurance, and the public health plan is efficiently run, it will absorb private insurance over time. The public plan will be accountable to the public - no profit incentive to sweep people into cracks. It's a major selling point which should prove compelling.

There can be markets for iPods because there is an obvious way for consumers to know if they are any good or not. There cannot be markets for health insurance because there is no fucking way of knowing whether they are any good unless you get expensively sick, and that happens to only a minority of the population.

I can guarantee you that people will "prefer" cherrypicking private insurance that undercuts the price of government plans. Private plans can afford to lowball prices because not many of their customers will ever be in a position to find out how they resist paying out claims. The end result will be that the government pays for sick people and that the privateers continue to collect money from the healthy and use as little of it as possible for care, thus depleting the available amount of money to spend on actual care.

Since privateers hate the Edwards plan anyway, whythehell does he go for being hung for a lamb instead of for a sheep? I say keep asking for a pony, even if you will eventually accept a kitten.

is so that they don't drag out the "socialized medicine" meme. Next thing you know, he will be called a Communist. That could hurt him in the general. When he gets into office things may change. But until then, this is the smart way to go.

zalinda

They already are. They called the Clinton plan that in 1994, even though it was nothing but a giveaway to big insurance companies. They are going to smear any Dem with the 'far left' meme, so why not be hung for a sheep instead of for a lamb? What did playing it safe in 2004 get us?

I'm sure you can explain why they fought tooth and nail against getting this big gift.

is needed not pay offs to insurance companies. We are the only developed country in the world to not have it.

They debated Hillary's "Health Care Plan" to negate it later on when we really wanted a system like the rest of the wealthy countries.

Consider this...our automobile companies are leaving for Canada because their companies don't pay health insurance. Homes in Detroit are in bankruptcy because of it. Why haven't our representatives addressed this problem since it was mentioned by x-Senator Carol Mosley Brown?

They were the ones with the Harry and Louise ads. Also, the general ideological position of the Rethugs was against it. The lesson of 1994 is that when you sit down at the table with insurance companies, they are going to screw you anyway. And that any plan any Dem comes up with will be called "socialized medicine". That being the case, why not start out asking for the best instead of starting out with a compromise?

Canada, France, Britain, Sweden, Germany...called Communists because of their national health plan?

Insurance companies form monopolies like now to keep prices up? Most the HI corporations aren't competitive. They dumped the "pre-existing conditions" which Congress had to fix. They deny people health care even if they have insurance. They decide which doctor is you need and if an operation and who, etc.

Because of the cost of liability insurance for doctors many are leaving the field (yes..some of them should be outta there). There is little over sight and punishment for bad doctors or insurance companies.

Because everything in now for profit with hospitals today (including religious ones)they are short of nurses and doctors. Their equipment outdated. They over work and abuse them. They import foreign workers who may or may not be good for us. Hospital cleaniness, disease control, etc. is dismal. Hospital disease and death at an all time high. Whatever is going on is not in our best interest. Read about hospitals and care on the Public Citizen web site.

As Senator Durbin discussed on CSPAN our health programs in this country are in crisis.

And about learning from the past...whether it's from his own experiences growing up, or the mistakes he's made. THAT is the sign of good moral character.

to buy a national landmark masterwork of engineering. Sheathed in attractive masonry, it provides access from Manhattan to Brooklyn and back for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. And Brooklyn is so hot right now!

Price is negotiable; payment plans are available. But hurry! This offer is only available for a limited time!

If you can believe a con like that, you're ripe for the picking and really shouldn't be throwing any stones from that crystal veranda...

this race.
He wants health care to be mandated, meaning the government is mandated to supply health care at reasonable rates, and with no exceptions for pre-existing conditions. His plan would subsidize plans for anyone with income under $100,000. a year. It would be subsidized at 100% for the poorest Americans. :applause:

and that's what I'm lookin' for...

Read about him and check it out, or back up your bullshit. Thanks.

...even though I prefer Edwards.

Let's leave Republican smear tactics to Republicans.

Once the dust settles on the nomination I'd like it if the process leaves room for Democrats to work together with out being hypocrites.

pressing their faces up against the glass and making faces (and broadbrush random negative comments) than doing the hard work of seeking actual information on the candidates.

I often read comments dissing those who have thrown in with a candidate, calling them kool-aid drinking groupies and worse, but it seems to me some of the, um, more uninformed trash-talking campaigns played out here at DU are deservedly scorn-worthy.

They let the media pick the primary winners in Iowa, NH, and S. Carolina. Sheep.

Winning a contest and getting to ignore those who didn't share your opinion.

Seems I remember a party and an administration that operates like that.

Oh. That happens to be the REPUBLICAN party.

Is that you'd like? a party like theirs?

Especially if Iowa becomes a major disappointment for him.

But we still have the Cult of Kuch to put up with anyway...

In fact, comparing their resumes, Obama's is the one that stands out for having compassion and a belief in fairness. He did something more than talk. After graduating from Columbia, he spent four years as a Community Activist in one of the poorest neighborhood's in the country. He then went to law school and after graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law,and the first black editor of the Law Review, he spent several years practicing community service law, representing community organizers, taking voting rights cases and discrimination claims. If you don't think Obama could have cashed in, you're not being honest.

And please, don't even try comparing JE's legal career. Yes, he did good work as a plaintiff's lawyer, but it's hardly the same thing. Obama made actual sacrifices to serve under privileged communities and people. You dismiss him with "Oprah, ego, hype". You're full of it.

in a way to prove anything. His work stands for itself. He really is the candidate who's translated concern about social inequities into action. That's just the simple truth, and I'm glad to point it out.

nice. From you. On DU. ;)

Edwards is NOT dropping out. In fact January 9th will be quite the exciting time for him, the campaign, and our country. You can cheerlead for the media-backed corporate-friendly candidate all you want ... and if enough people like you fall for all that, well I suppose we Democrats get what we deserve. But like John and Elizabeth, I'm fighting for the regular guy, not the lobbyists choice. It's going to be an uphill battle what with the upcoming smear job the media will unleash when John wins Iowa. Still, I'm up for the fight ... anyone else ??

He has walked the walk.

and actions say differently.

Pretty sweet.

because they'd be better than a certain other candidate running. I'm not doing it.

He unleashed a smile and his eyes are blue? Ugh.

Edwards is far from being president at the moment.

Have a little sense and tone down the language about other contenders or you're lible to have another miserable eight years.

Unless you happen to like complaining.

Edwards has moved more in his direction over the last four years, which is a good thing.

working for poor people to expand their rights without a fat paycheck?

Starting off with his successful fight to save public power in Cleveland. This cost him his political career--unlike the other far more privileged candidates, he had zero fallback options. He also successfully fought hospital closures.

Edit--OK, Kucinich is older than Edwards, who has also done plenty. Just saying that he's not the only candidate to fight for the underdog. Kucinich was against NAFTA in the 90s when it counted, though of course I am glad Edwards changed his mind on this.

he does not have the direct experience working in poor communities as a community organizer and lawyer championing the disenfranchised that Obama has. Their paths are different.

Obama has hardly been in Congress. He's new Senator who has not even pushed a bill forward let alone sponsor ones for the "disenfranchised". His path has been the same as that of a Senator who came to DC to run for President. He gives a good speech but his actions say little.

Kunicich is the best candidate regarding the issues. I can't support him again though. I'm not sold on his wanting to win. I wish Edwards was more on board regarding health care (as I stated previously).

This is from the inside, not from the perspective of a privileged outsider.

"Clinton reported her assets at $10 million to $50 million"

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/17/candidates.wealth/index.html

"Edwards' campaign put his assets at $29.5 million.

The report showed that Edwards, a lawyer, made $1.2 million in income in 2006 ..."


CNN (one of Hillary's biggest fans) loves calling Edwards "a lawyer" or "trial lawyer" , yet rarely Senator or Vice Presidential nominee. Don't want to ever miss the opportunity to miss using those hot button labels, and all. By the way, I wonder how often they've reported on how much Hillary pays for her haircuts/make-up jobs/stylists ? Hmmmm ...

germane to anything. In terms of wealth, it's Romney than Edwards, Guiliani and Clinton. They all have large personal fortunes.

As of late many are getting rich by just running for public office. Book deals,etc. seem strange to me. They get millions. How many "people" read their books anyway? Seems like money laundering to me for their vote and Neo Con support.

Boy, how conservative Democrats love those types. They trust them intuitively, somehow believe they're more honest, compassionate, and fair.

America has a majority of white Protestants? Are you going to dismiss him because of his race and religion? You are in trouble with your reverse discrimination.

You need all races and religious people to run our democracy. Like it or not...you can't win without them. The race and religion means little if they abide by their oath of office to represent everyone. Black, RWers, or Catholic leaders haven't always done that.

I agree some candidates and leaders represent their own self interest (such as Lieberman) you have to do some research on their record, etc.

Reverse discrimination? That's Reagan's term.

I have nothing against Edwards, but he's part of the establishment that has ruled this country since its inception. If it wasn't for a continued willingness to give men like Edwards the benefit of the doubt, but hold women and people of color to a different standard, we would probably have a better nation. Let's open up the presidency to all Americans and in time our choice of candidates will double.

means those of a minority group who discriminate against the majority. Believe me when you talk about Edwards being a Protestant White guy like that it is a negative.

It is just plain hate and not good for anyone. How do you know he will not serve your best interest?

White Protestant guys formed this democracy. No it isn't perfect and we have many miles to go. But it was the first of it's kind in the world. Are you going to support the "We are one" or divide our country?

Obama showed 'compassion and belief in fairness' as a community organizer in one of the poorest places in the country. Obama showed 'compassion' when he was against the illegal war that Edwards promoted. Obama shows his 'belief in fairness' as he fights against the lobbyists and special interests.

Outside of talking about it, when has Edwards showed either of these qualities since he was elected to the Senate?

I'll start paying attention to him.

(sorry, Dennis) who is talking about THE issue that undergirds all other issues in this nation -- corporate power and control of government . . .

he is, therefore, the only viable candidate (sorry, Dennis) telling the American people the truth . . .

???

Obama after Katrina while their own floated in the flood waters of New Orleans? While they begged for water and food for four or five days locked in that statium? Many black children missing.

Oh..vacation like the rest of Congress and our President\VP. Weren't they AWOL in a time of crisis for America?

with the strength and determination needed to take over the mess left by Bush and change this country for the better.

Power to the People!