An example of Obama's idea of "Unity"

If this is how Obama has tried to achieve "unity", I certainly "hope" he has "changed". Meanwhile, I'll be sticking with Edwards.


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/23/in_illinois_obama_dealt_with_lobbyists

In Illinois, Obama dealt with lobbyists

When Barack Obama and fellow state lawmakers in Illinois tried to expand healthcare coverage in 2003 with the "Health Care Justice Act," they drew fierce opposition from the insurance industry, which saw it as a back-handed attempt to impose a government-run system.

Over the next 15 months, insurers and their lobbyists found a sympathetic ear in Obama, who amended the bill more to their liking partly because of concerns they raised with him and his aides, according to lobbyists, Senate staff, and Obama's remarks on the Senate floor.

The wrangling over the healthcare measure, which narrowly passed and became law in 2004, illustrates how Obama, during his eight years in the Illinois Senate, was able to shepherd major legislation by negotiating competing interests in Springfield, the state capital. But it also shows how Obama's own experience in lawmaking involved dealings with the kinds of lobbyists and special interests he now demonizes on the campaign trail.

<snip>

The bill originally called for a "Bipartisan Health Care Reform Commission" to implement a program reaching all 12.4 million Illinois residents. The legislation would have made it official state policy to ensure that all residents could access "quality healthcare at costs that are reasonable." Insurers feared that language would result in a government takeover of healthcare, even though the bill did not explicitly say that.

By the time the legislation passed the Senate, in May 2004, Obama had written three successful amendments, at least one of which made key changes favorable to insurers.

Most significant, universal healthcare became merely a policy goal instead of state policy - the proposed commission, renamed the Adequate Health Care Task Force, was charged only with studying how to expand healthcare access. In the same amendment, Obama also sought to give insurers a voice in how the task force developed its plan.


More at http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/23/in_illinois_obama_dealt_with_lobbyists

Without some compromise, it wouldn't have passed at all. It barely passed as it was.

That's the problem with Edwards supporters. They don't understand that the other side gets to vote, too.

Trying and failing is one thing, but the way he solved the problem is what troubles me. It's a different world than it was four years ago, and the people are demanding bigger changes. If this is the way he'll govern, we are in for four (or eight) years of suffocating incrementalism.

You still owe me a counter-example. :P

actually for healthcare but for a commission to investigate ADEQUATE
healthcare with the insurance companies. HA HA. That's really a laugh.

But it didnt do anything for the people of Illinois obviously
and his appeasing ways to the corporations wont do anything for American
middle and lower class.

Sure will help out the corporations though

It was a far worse failure than if he had gotten nothing passed. By passing a sham bill, he undermined any efforts for real reform -- possibly for years.

Edwards had a better record than Obama, the candidate for action and change.

Truth be told, Edwards' record is pretty crappy, and it kept me from supporting him for a long time. But now he's really taking the lead on issues that matter to me, and he's laying out specific things that he will work for and fight against.

Obama has said very little to make me think he'll govern any differently than his record indicates. That's why I'm supporting Edwards.

PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Jan-06-08 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Repost of Edwards' Senate Record notes

Much has been said about Edwards’ supposedly conservative term in the Senate. Like much “common wisdom”, this is largely unfounded.

When remembering that he came as a neophyte from a rather red state, it’s quite surprising to see just how populist he was on many key social issues. (Well, it’s not surprising to many of us, but to those of you who’ve been poisoned with the endless snideness about the “new” Edwards and the “old” Edwards, it should be an eye-opener.)

He only sponsored two bills, but he co-sponsored a whopping 203 in his six-year term. This is a partial list of them (yes, I omitted the Patriot Act and IWR; much has already been said about them) and bears a quick skimming. They’re in chronological order, so details can be found fairly easily. The two bills he sponsored were for research into the “fragile x” chromosome associated with mental retardation, and the “Spyware Control and Privacy Act”, an important early bulwark against attempts to compromise our computer privacy. This last one is a true civil-rights issue, taking on corporations and attempting to secure the rights of individuals, and it’s visionary stuff.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN03180:@@...

Russ Feingold said he was a “terrific asset” in getting campaign finance reform through. He was the person who deposed Lewinsky and Jordan in the impeachment trial; quite an important task to entrust to a newcomer in literally his first year in office. His opposition to Ashcroft in the confirmation hearings was vigorous and mesmerizing, even if it didn’t work. This is also the guy who tirelessly fought to keep the sunset provisions from being stripped out of the Patriot Act. His votes on labor and trade are solidly leftist, although he did vote for the China Trade Bill. Then again, since this was something Bill Clinton was solidly for, he was voting with his party. (Funny how Hillary supporters take him to task for this vote…) He also (along with Dodd and Biden) voted against the free trade bills with Singapore and Chile, unlike Senator Clinton, who voted for them.

Here’s a guy who constantly brought up the issue of “predatory lending” even though he hailed from a state with a huge banking and financial services industry. If you listen to or read his stump speeches from late ’02 and early ’03, you’ll wonder what the hell his detractors are talking about when they say that his populism is a new tack; his platform was economic and worker-oriented from the beginning, telling of how the Bush Administration was systematically shifting the burden of taxation from wealth to wages.

So here’s that partial list of the bills he co-sponsored. This is not a list of his votes, just those bills he actively got behind and worked to get passed. This is hardly the stuff of a closet conservative or an opportunist, as he’s been tarred, nor is it the record of someone who was just phoning it in. I would request, in interest of fairness, that the deriders among you at least skim through this VERY long list; it’s all pure fact.

When taking all this in context, it’s interesting to reflect on Kerry’s sneering that he probably couldn’t win re-election had he decided to run. Kerry may have been right on this point, but if so, it’s because of Edwards’ populism and social decency.

Details can be found here; each phrase separated by a comma is a particular bill, and in most cases attempt to use the bill’s title to lessen confusion and give the sense of the legislation.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d107&querybd... (FLD004+@4((@1(Sen+Edwards++John))+01573)):

Sense of the Senate for funding lifestyle research for preventative medicine, Sense of the Senate honoring National Science Foundation, Sense of the Senate to preserve six day mail delivery, designating “biotechnology week”, Children’s Internet Safety Month, Joint Resolution against excessive campaign donations, to protect the civil rights of all Americans, Bi-partisan Campaign Reform, Restrict access to personal health and financial information, Establish a Center for National Social Work Research, provide more effective remedies for victims of sex discrimination in work, provide incentive for fair access to the internet for everyone, require fair availability of birth control, increase the minimum wage (’01), protect consumers in managed care programs, emergency relief for energy costs to small businesses, prohibit use of genetic information to discriminate on health coverage and employment, provide families with disabled children to buy into Medicaid, eliminate the loophole for interstate transporting of birds for fighting, provide funding to clean up contaminated land, informing veterans of available programs, Designating part of ANWR as wilderness, establish a digital network technology program, reduce the risk that innocent people be executed, restore funding for Social Security Block Grants, provide for equal coverage for mental health in insurance policies, amend Clean Air Act to reduce emissions from power plants, establish uniform election technology (sponsored by Dodd), extend modifications to funding for Medicare and Medicaid, Federal Funding to local governments to prosecute hate crimes, reinstate certain Social Security earnings exemptions for the blind, overhaul RR retirement plan to increase benefits, Establish a Nurse recruitment and retention program, amend FDA to provide greater access to affordable pharmaceuticals, Establish African American Museum within the Smithsonian, Federal funding for research of environmental factors in Breast Cancer, Increase hospital benefits under Medicare, Establish Tariff Quotas on milk protein imports, Federal funding for mental health community education, protect patients in managed care plans (again), establish Office on Women’s Health in HHS, increase the minimum wage, allow media coverage of trials, prohibit racial profiling, improve health care in rural areas, protect consumers in managed care plans, prohibiting trade of bear viscera, provide greater fairness in arbitration of motor vehicle franchises, provide adequate insurance coverage for immunosuppressive drugs, provide financial assistance for trade-affected communities, acquisition and improvement of child-care facilities, prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, establish programs to deal with nurse shortage, establish a National Cyber Defense Team to protect the internet’s infrastructure, provide services to prevent family violence, require criminal prosecution for securities fraud, reissuance of a rule on ergonomics, ensure safe pregnancy for all U.S. women, improve investigation and prosecution of rape cases with DNA evidence, improve national drought preparedness, increase the minimum wage (yet again), assistance in containing HIV/AIDS in foreign countries, emergency assistance for small-businesses affected by drought, child care and developmental block grants, provide economic security for America’s workers, enhance security for transporting nuclear waste, FEMA hazard mitigation grants, increase mental health benefits in health insurance, criminal prosecution for people who destroy evidence in securities fraud cases.

Is this the record of a corporate appeaser? Is this the record of someone just loafing about and collecting a paycheck?

Funny what you find when you read a little, isn’t it?


PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec-30-07 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
14. Here are some things to think about

This is an exchange from earlier this month:

DODD: : Back in 2001 the congress passed I think one of the worst pieces of legislation of all time: the so called the Bankruptcy Reform Act. Senators Clinton, Biden, and Edwards voted for that bill, which drove a lot of people working class families into poverty, & made it very difficult for them to manage their lives & to get back on their feet again. John, you made a big issue of poverty, something you have dedicated your life to. So could you explain to me why you'd vote for a piece of legislation like that which did so much damage to so many families in our country?

EDWARDS: Yeah, I was wrong. I was wrong and you were right Chris. I should not have voted for that bankruptcy bill. It was a bad, bad piece of legislation. I think any of us who voted for it were wrong to have voted for it. I think there were some good provisions in it but I think on the whole when you look it at it actually did damage to low income families and working families in this country.

Source: 2007 Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum Dec 1, 2007

Why did he vote for it? For one thing, it also included AN INCREASE IN THE MINIMUM WAGE, something that has been a pet issue for him from the beginning.

I don't find any explanations from a quick web search, so even this is putting words in his mouth. Since I've already started to do so, I guess I'll continue.

The bill was novel in its means testing, which made it more difficult for people to completely wipe the slate clean if they had some ability to repay some of the debts. It didn't mean that people would be completely denied bankruptcy and made debt-slaves for the rest of their lives, just that they'd have to repay up to 25% of the debt if they could. The bill has been sweepingly mischaracterized as one that would deny ANY protection for individuals in a tight spot, and that's not the case.

It also tried to cap the homestead rules at $125K, so rich people in Texas and Florida couldn't play the time-honored game of the rich of piling up a huge mountain of debt by (among other things) buying a mansion and then welshing on their obligations and keeping the house. (Why do you think Kay Bailey Hutchison voted against it?)

Another big provision was the changing of rules on privacy brought in by Leahy. This actually gave a form of protection to those filing bankruptcy that they'd never had before. You may not be aware of it, but this is a big early cause of Edwards, with one of the two bills he sponsored being the "Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act of 2000".

Legislation is often a rearguard action against looming legislation that could be worse, and there was a great deal of tactical maneuvering done in the sculpting of S.420. In the end, it wasn't a good bill, but the idea that some accountability should be had by those seeking protection from their creditors is hardly complete submission to corporations.

There are also the less pleasant aspects to it: it was a bill with overwhelming support, so perhaps it wasn't a battle worth fighting, especially coming from a state with a huge banking industry. I don't like to think that this was a major reason, but it would be disingenuous to not point out such a thing as an influence.

Please do remember, though, that he repeatedly used the term "predatory lending" in his stump speeches in '03 and '04, so he certainly stuck out his neck in the face of the powerhouse industry back home.

I would welcome any comments he's made on the bill, but I couldn't find any.

Once again, he has come down very specifically on the side of the little guys with his current proposals, and that should be taken into account.

PurityOfEssence (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec-30-07 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #15
24. I agree; the repeated "fact" that he wasn't a populist to start with is simply wrong

If one looks at his record, one sees populism as a very clear through-line.

People wave the bloody shirt of Stephanopoulos' grilling of him as some kind of proof of his calumny, when those same people seem to forget that little Georgie's a Clinton operative of the first rank. His leap to prominence came from being a key member of Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign, and he's a friend as well as a rooter. He has no more journalistic objectivity than James Carville does, and it's a form of deception to not have it tattooed on his forehead as he masquerades as a reporter.

Edwards is a classic Southern populist: pro-affirmative action, constantly trying to raise the minimum wage, for civil rights, for healthcare for the poor, pro-union and on and on. His Senate record is actually quite good, and I've posted to that effect. Anyone who has issues with this should look up the 203 bills he co-sponsored as a Senator.

It's all very convenient to say that he was a hawkish Democrat who changed his ways, but you'll note that the media NEVER tries to foist off the lie that he was a corporatist or anything of the sort. Except for this series of bills--which are hardly clear-cut, as I point out above--his record has been solidly for the little guy from the beginning. He voted for the China Bill, but that was Bill Clinton's pet and he was voting with his party. He voted AGAINST free trade with Singapore and Chile, and he's consistently voted for worker's rights, union rights, ergonomic rules, environmental protections and the usual "little guy" concerns. It's simply a chickenshit lie that he's only now become some kind of populist; his record shows that he has been all along.

Lest we forget, voting against tax cuts isn't that much of a personal risk for a John Kerry from Massachusetts, but it sure as hell is for a first-termer from North Carolina.

People constantly try to make complex situations simple, but they fall into one of the most despicable and self-congratulatory traps of human hypocrisy: flatly dismissing others as mere caricatures while demanding that they and their champions be given break after break and accorded the elaborate complexity of the gods. It's human nature, and it's the sucky part of human nature.

As for your primary point about admitting one's mistakes, I fully agree: the macho, blockheaded, uber-male approach of most politicians (regardless of gender) is tiresome, and to them, admitting a mistake is tantamount to admitting sheer worthlessness or admitting that they might occasionally pull over and ask for directions. Many people decry the inability of people to admit a mistake, but when someone actually does it, he/she gets pounced upon and torn limb from limb. It's vulgar and immature.

Why I shied away from addressing this first is that letting the conversation veer that way tacitly reinforces the big ugly stupid black-and-white lie that he's truly changed. He hasn't. He was good then and he's good now. Yes, he got suckered with the IWR, but Tenet looked him right in the eyes and lied to him. Others did too. Can you trust a man who changes his mind? Hey, at least you know he HAS one. He's done something truly courageous, and deserves a point or two for it. He also deserves points for addressing the issue of poverty; it's a sure vote-loser, but it's THE RIGHT THING TO DO and it's been his cause from the beginning.

Things aren't black or white, and those who insist they are are either fools or skunks. The very way bills are characterized is a good illustration of this, and it's important to try to see things in their totality and in their historical context.

Oh, and welcome to the board. I'm in LA; where are you?

One could pick and choose and create a great progressive record for him, too.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/party-voters/

was only 1% behind Kerry - while Edwards was around 60%.

in addition to the non-Clintonness.

As the Obama campaign's politics of smear and tear toward Edwards, especially on the netroots, has so ably demonstrated. :)

Nice link. According to it Hillary votes the right way more often than Obama.

And yes, according to that, Hillary is indeed a better party-line Democrat than Obama. You won't find me saying many bad words about her.

That can't be forgotten. There are also parochial issues in each state, such as the textile industry in North Carolina as PurityofEssence outlined in his posts. He had to vote the way the people back home wanted him to on some things. So did Hillary, Obama and every other member of Congress. The difference is the people in their states were already progressive so they weren't pressured to deviate from the script as often as someone like Edwards from a Republican state. I don't think it is wrong that red state Democratic senators vote different on some issues unless they go to extremes like Ben Nelson or Lieberman. On the big issues, especially relating to economic issues Edwards was good. Edwards has always been an economic populist, not a social issues crusader. On that he has not changed a lick since his days in Washington.

Sen. Edwards is, I think, far closer to a hypothetical President Edwards than his current re-invention is. Which would be fine, mind you.

I'm not supporting Edwards because of his record. In fact, I think his record kind of sucks. But he's the only candidate who's shown the slightest bit of evolution in his views.

What he's saying now is exactly the kind of message we need to hear from a Democrat. He may have some splainin to do over his Senate votes, but right now he's the most progressive candidate out there (*).




* standard Kucinich exception applies.

Obama has sponsored over 60 bills and cosponsored more than 300 in the 110th Congress alone.

It will get NO traction with any of his detractors around here, but it was very nice to see.

Dennis is so far ahead of the pack addressing issues that most effect our society and pushing forth plans of action to solve the problems. I don't believe we will ever get a candidate worthy of our vote..until we stop listening to and parroting the media. Maybe by that time, our vote will actually count.

This time round, I'll settle for doing fewer things but having them done right.

I think we're all looking to set our sights a bit higher this time.

While Pres. Hillary leads the "Yes you did, No you didn't" Washington circle jerk.

The New Unity includes everyone, with certain less than important exceptions.