Elizabeth Edwards Prefers Hillary's Health Care Plan to Obama's

Elizabeth Edwards has joined Center for American Progress, (home to the excellent Think Progress blog) as a Senior Fellow on health care issues. She'll also be blogging as part of their rapid response team at the Wonk Room.

While she's not endorsing either candidate, she tells Good Morning America tomorrow she prefers Hillary Clinton's health plan to Obama's:

In an interview with "Good Morning America's" Robin Roberts, airing Wednesday, Edwards — who recently began work as a senior fellow at the liberal think tank, the Center for American Progress — said she believed Clinton's health care plan was more inclusive than that of the Illinois senator.

"You need that universality in order to get the cost savings ... I just have more confidence in Sen. Clinton's policy than Sen. Obama's on this particular issue," she said.

Welcome, Elizabeth.

< Tuesday Night TV and Open Thread | SV PA Poll: Clinton Beats McCain, Obama Loses >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This is probably better than endorsing, (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:23:59 PM EST
    realistically. It's more positive, and harder to push back against. If the Edwards endorse Hillary, that will be chalked up to bitterness over this or that.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you, Elizabeth! (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:41:51 PM EST
    Very savvy and very hard to attack Mrs. Edwards!

    sadly (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:22:57 AM EST
    there is a lot of attacking going on over at abcnews.com's comment section on Mrs. Edwards. I'll give you 3 guesses at who's making the attacks, rather who's CANDIDATE'S supporters are making the attacks...and the first two guesses don't count.

    The early ones were attacks, but (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:02:05 AM EST
    there are also several who have posted in support of Elizabeth. The article also reported her saying that she welcomes an "open convention to decide the nominee . . . an opportunity to debate issues . ."

    I guess that's just like saying, "hang in there, Hillary!"


    Agree! Better than Endorsement (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:10:14 PM EST
    It gives her great credibility and objectivity.  Nothing like being a patient as motivation to really analyze healthcare as a national issue.  Navigating the healthcare system as you deal with your particular condition really gives one an inside look at all aspects of the industry.

    I think that Elizabeth Edwards is presidential material on her own.


    And who would attack a cancer patient's (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by blogtopus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:27:23 PM EST
    input on choice of health care plans?

    Good move, Elizabeth. She's a smart, smart cookie.

    See below - a few posts down (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by badger on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:24:14 PM EST
    I didn't even get time to post an answer to your question before the first Obama supporter attacked.

    lol (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Oje on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:24:17 AM EST
    For Republicans and Obama supporters, a major illness constitutes a disqualification from participating in the health care debate!

    Only the fittest shall determine what kind of health care system "Americans" need!


    Sick Need Not Be Heard (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Athena on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:29:18 AM EST
    It's a "preexisting" political disqualification.  LOL.

    This is twice now (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:31:13 PM EST
    This is good.  She may not like Clinton, but likes her health care plan.  I want some changes in health care and there is no chance of any without Clinton.

    Third time (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Grey on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:33:45 PM EST
    When John was still in the race, she was on Hardball and said that the only two people who were proposing UHC were John and Hillary.

    I'm glad she's sticking to her guns, but I thought it appropriate to point out she was saying the same thing during the campaign, too.

    I like Elizabeth a great deal; by all accounts, she's doing very well.  I'm really glad to hear that.

    Glad to hear that Elizabeth Edwards (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by LHinSeattle on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:41:17 PM EST
    is using her expertise in this new position. We need more people like her in advisory spots. I look forward to her blogging commentary, too.  

    diogenes (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:10:37 AM EST
    seems to be under the impression that one requires some magic "professional" license to understand the health insurance industry, and be able to opine intelligentally on it. you don't. most people involved in it directly don't even have a college degree (or if they do, it's in something wholly unrelated, like english), nor any formal training beyond that which their company provided. as well, you needn't be a physician to understand it either.

    actually, the health insurance industry is probably far less complex than the property & casualty insurance one is.

    i dare say anyone who's had a major illness or injury, or had a famly member do so, and had to navigate the insurance world, probably has a fair idea of how it works.

    You dare question the.... (none / 0) (#30)
    by Oje on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:28:47 AM EST
    Social Darwinism of health care reform!

    How cynical of you!


    opining intellectually (none / 0) (#113)
    by diogenes on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:31:49 PM EST
    Actually, what I am doubting is why Elizabeth Edwards' lay opinion of how and at what speed we should reform health care is any more deserving of a front page blog title than yours or mine and whether anyone should be persuaded by it.  Of course we are all entitled to our opinions and our votes--that's why we're a democracy and not an oligarchy.    

    I posted this link to Paul Krugman before, (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by RickTaylor on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:42:35 AM EST
    but it's relevant to this topic. It tells how not everyone was able to get the public option in Obama's health plan until progressives heckled him for it. I'm hoping Obama will continue to take other peoples good ideas.

    Wow - a really good article! (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:13:51 AM EST
    Makes me wonder how many other progressive issues Kos and Marshall & Co. had to abandon or twist in order to support Obama's positions.
    It's all about profits!

    Move over Diebold!  We should just have state primary call-in days to select the best rockstar president - similar to format used on American Idol.
    It's a winner - think of the money it would save!


    "Using her cancer"? (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:54:32 AM EST
    Is that what you think she is doing?

    Do you think she has any authority to speak on this issue outside of the fact that she has cancer?

    I am confident that the vast majority of posters here would not stoop to the level of suggesting that she was "using" her disease, or else I wouldn't be here. If you think that little of the posters here, why do you bother trying to engage us?

    Maybe your "anti-Hillary" comments are deleted because you insult people. Like you did in this post.

    There's one other thing (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Andre on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:56:20 AM EST
    about HRC and health care, and it's a very big reason why I voted for her in my state's (MA) Primary. Being 64, I know that the things I have failed at in the past, are either not worth risking again, or if they are worthwhile, I will not fail the next time I try.  In my estimation, when HRC takes on health care again, she will bring it about.  She indeed, unarguably, has the experience, and if this primary season is an indication of nothing else, she has the determination.  If she gets in, she will bring it about.

    I agree wholeheartedly (none / 0) (#87)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:42:19 AM EST
    and besides, some elements of HillaryCare did make it through. Factcheck.org states that Hillary deserves a lot of credit for SCHIP, which, until the Republicans started messing with it, was incredibly successful.

    All the health plans have an option to pay (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by RickTaylor on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:20:10 AM EST
    ones premium to the government instead of a private insurance company (Obama's only after he was pressured). According to Krugman, the Edwards campaign in particular has been clear that this could lead to a single payer system.

    so what? (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by diogenes on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:29:49 PM EST
    On some other issues, Elizabeth Edwards undoubtedly prefers Obama, or else she would have endorsed Hillary.
    In any case, what makes Elizabeth Edwards qualified to be the arbiter of which health plan is the best for the country?  She is no more qualified than Hillary was in 1994, and you know where that got us.

    How is it that she's no more qualified, (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:33:38 PM EST
    exactly?  She just became a fellow at the CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS.  Why, my god, a SENIOR FELLOW.  As a matter of fact, I seem to recall she is a LAWYER!  With a PASSION for healthcare!

    Your question disgusts me with its sexism.  Who are we supposed to be waiting for to usher in healthcare?  You've got to be kidding.

    Kudos to Elizabeth for working on.


    Well, she's a woman.. and what do they (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:34:17 PM EST

    Seriously. (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:36:32 PM EST
    She probably never got an education.  Or studied healthcare issues.  Or worked on a political campaign.  Or occupied the public spotlight.  And if she did, it probably wasn't for 5-6 years.  She definitely can't have any moral authority on this topic.  

    Now Jim Cooper...that guy is cool.


    Obama learned about health care in the (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:38:23 PM EST
    streets of Jakarta. He must know tons of traditional remedies for cancer!

    Classy (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:06:38 AM EST
    counter sexism with racism.

    That's a bizarre charge. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:20:01 AM EST

    Please (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by honora on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:57:33 AM EST
    The comment was obviously in reference to Obama's claim that his experience in Jakarta has prepared him to be CIC.  I thought it was rather funny.

    Nothing racist in that comment (none / 0) (#58)
    by ineedalife on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:12:58 AM EST
    It is getting tedious how any poke at Obama is called racist. The next issue of Webster's Dictionary is going to have to add a new line defining racist: Any perceived slight of Barack Obama.

    not a slight to Obama (none / 0) (#60)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:35:41 AM EST
    but to Indonesians.  Not all racism is black/white.

    I didn't think it was offensive, BTW (none / 0) (#61)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:38:03 AM EST
    but an Indonesian might disagree.

    As opposed to (none / 0) (#90)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:56:41 AM EST
    the mean streets of Wellesley.

    I'll counter your racism with a charge of classism.


    Please, 2.0 (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:06:44 AM EST
    We all know you can't choose where you were born or to whom. So claims of 'racism vs. classism' when only considering where the candidates were raised is pointless.

    HOWEVER, when one uses that fact as proof of experience for something like foreign policy, well then you have problems.

    Last time I checked, Hillary wasn't using her upbringing in Wellsley to say her healthcare plan was better.

    Try again. No biscuit.


    Or (none / 0) (#109)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:40:51 PM EST
    The mean streets of Harvard.

    Sexism? (none / 0) (#14)
    by BlacknBlue on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:54:50 PM EST
    How is this sexism?

    Um...the dismissive tone (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by lilburro on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:05:01 PM EST
    (and lack of supporting content) towards our two most prominent female health care advocates?

    Yeah, dismissive=sexist (none / 0) (#33)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:00:17 AM EST
    Check out Elizabeth Edwards' credentials.  She's been a lawyer, an adjunct instructor(but not professor:) at UNC law school, and is now a fellow with both CAP and Harvard.  She's mainly using her visibility to talk about the need for including pre-existing conditions, and attacking McCain !  

    another lawyer (none / 0) (#115)
    by diogenes on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:19:46 PM EST
    So she is another smart lawyer with no experience as a legislator actually getting bills through a state or national senate, no experience schmoozing legislators, and no specialized health training.  Except for being famous, what does she know about whether going for an incrementalist or total approach now would work best?

    Then undoubtedly she will announce (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:43:54 PM EST
    in which areas she prefers Obama.
    I look forwards to it.

    after Obama's lies about Edwards?? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:06:42 PM EST
    Obama even mocked Edwards after he suspended his campaign.
    Don't look for an announcement from Elizabeth anytime soon.

    But I knew you were snarkin anyway.


    Well, i predict that EE will be attacked for (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:11:02 PM EST
    using her status as a cancer patient to weigh in on matters she does not understand.. something like that.
    Do you think I am wrong? I will bet.
    The Republicans make this exact argument any time a sick person speaks out about health care policy; therefore, I expect the same from the Obama campaign or from his surrogates.

    I would like to see them do it to Elizabeth. (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:21:59 PM EST
    She will fight back; defend herself passionately without hesitation.  She is not in the camp of any candidate; she will be able to let loose everything she is capable of as a lawyer and as a human being.  It would be a very stupid thing to attack someone with nothing to loose.  

    You betcha (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by DeborahNC on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:26:57 PM EST
    She will indeed, but Elizabeth Edwards can give as well as anyone. You go Elizabeth! Thanks for speaking out!

    I'm curious (none / 0) (#25)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:41:04 PM EST
    about Sen. Obama's reaction to this.  I hope that his camp is smart enough not to go at her in a personal way.  That would be a terrible mistake. But I do want to see them try it.  

    If asked, he will say something patronizing. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:55:04 PM EST
    I expect it'll be all about (none / 0) (#71)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:45:15 AM EST
    "Poor EE," and her "condition."

    Remember when they attacked (none / 0) (#85)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:37:44 AM EST
    the child who was speaking out for SCHIP? A child who was DIRECTLY AFFECTED by SCHIP?

    The Republicans are disgusting, and I hate to see Obama supporters descending to that level. But then, some of them are Republicans in any case.


    Probably more qualified than Obama (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:17:31 PM EST
    in this issue because she has had the need to navigate the present healthcare system.  She is a very intelligent person; a lawyer and passionate about the cause she believes in.  I am certain that she collaborated with John Edwards in designing the healthcare program that John Edwards proposed which is A UNIVERSAL healthcare policy unlike that of Obama's.

    If I were in her position, and I want to help Hillary, this is the most effective way of doing it.


    Also Harvard (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:45:43 AM EST
    Elizabeth Edwards got several very good mentions for this at DKos in the past week (apparently she's been making media rounds-Morning Joe, NPR), one post included this additional info:

    where she has taken a visiting fellowship at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government!

    So yeah, a fellow with CAP and Harvard (not to mention someone with a pre-existing condition) has excellent qualifications to discuss healthcare.


    Beause (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by facta non verba on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:21:12 AM EST
    it matters to her, because it is a moral imperative to some of us, because Elzabeth & John Edwards have chosen to devote a rather substantial portion of their lives and energy in service of their country and their fellow citizens.

    According to my doctor... (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by esmense on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:18:46 AM EST
    who is an Obama supporter, it got us the first substantial funding for research into women's health issues and led directly to the treatments for breast cancer that have made the illness I'm dealing with now survivable. Furthermore, her persistence and willingness to press ahead, to continue to make incremental progress, has led to increased health care coverage for children and for our National Guard members. In other words, she has sure as hell "got" us a lot more than the many my way or no way piss ant "progressive," mealy-mouthed, frightened "moderate" and in the pocket of the health insurance conservative Democrats who were too stubborn, too greedy or too frightened by Harry & Louise to pass health care reform in the early 90s when they still controlled the legislature and had the chance.  

    A lot of Democrats who were around then want to put all the blame on Hillary -- but they know in their heart of hearts they were too comfortable indulging themselves at the House Bank and abusing their privileges to take a risk on an important issue like health care.

    They let Clinton and the whole country down. And they deservedly lost their majority because of it.


    Can you elaborate? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Josmt on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:31:37 PM EST

    I love this site, but... (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Dave on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:09:50 AM EST
    I used to check Talkleft daily for crim law insight.  Since it's become a Hillary rules/Obama sucks show, I rarely come back. This is the first time I've ever posted a comment, though, because a once-wonderful resource is alomost comical.  Obama will be a good candidate this election.  There will be another woman next election who won't, well, be Hillary, and she will do fine.  The race is over. Please stop the anti-Obama stuff. It's cringe-worthy to read some of the stuff on a once-great place for information,

    Obama will be a great candidate.. for (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:20:56 AM EST
    the GOP to attack.
    It's tragic that he ran this cycle, because he is completely unqualified to be President.
    In 10 years, sure. Today? No way, and the voters know it.

    It's not over (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:24:37 AM EST
    until all the votes are counted, all the way to the convention.  And you should have checked the rest of the topics:  just in the last twenty four hours, three legal issues are discussed/posted where you might have commented.  

    THIS IS a wonderful resource and very well moderated.  Characterizing it as 'comical' betrays your surprise that there are Hillary and Obama supporters here who manage to discuss/post/comment in a relatively civil manner.


    Relatively civil (none / 0) (#47)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:23:55 AM EST
    is a matter of opinion.  As an Obama supporter, I recognize it's a hostile environment for me here.  I'm usually polite and typically avoid the trolls, but what makes my blood boil is when there's wrong and misleading information presented as fact.  I try to bite my tongue as much as I can.  I still visit to understand where people are coming from and post corrections whenever I feel particularly inclined.

    If it's too hostile (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:48:41 AM EST
    For an Obama supporter here on this blog, perhaps one should consider being a Clinton supporter and spending a moment or two on dailykos.com.

    That is if one wanted to acquaint themselves with REAL hostility.


    Outside (none / 0) (#49)
    by marcellus on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 03:52:20 AM EST
    In the real world, I think the party is united.  Most people don't pay that close attention to the details.  I lurked at a right wing site for a while, and I have reason to believe that the GOP/527s literally hire college students as ringers/long term trolls and give them a script to follow (seems like a waste of money, but who knows...it was after the fact that I learned about Swiftboating).  For my sanity, I choose to believe that the worst commenters at dailykos, here, and elsewhere (but I won't accuse anyone specifically) would most easily be described to fit into that category.  This is why I keep reading/posting despite being compared to Hitler, Bush, and other obscenities here.  But I might stop too at some point, since you really have to fight through the clutter to get to the dialogue.

    I also don't think the race is over yet.


    Not outside (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:00:58 AM EST
    In the real world.

    Clinton supporters have had it.  I'm serious.  

    A lot of them will make a rational decision.

    Some won't.

    If the GE is close.... "some" might matter.


    Someone else said it better than I could. (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:41:19 AM EST
    A comment on Corrente:

    I've noticed an emerging good cop/bad cop dynamic: nice Obama supporters are beginning to admonish observers of the movement's behavior (sometime banked in an apology, sometimes not so much). "That's not fair, that's not ME, I'm a nice Obama supporter, you are being unfair with your broad brush!" Sometimes, they will suggest that the bad eggs are not real Obama supporters, but infiltrators. The correct response, it seems, is to reach out and hug the nice Obama people and say some variation of: "oh yes, of course you're right, you're the change we've been waiting for!" And that is, indeed, nice. But it also short-circuits the reflection process, and since Obama will be the change we're waiting for, likely for 8 years plus a legacy beyond, it's time to go a bit further.

    So, nice people surely acknowledged, this tactic avoids any fundamental reflection on exactly what kind of movement has been purposefully manufactured. The nice folks don't seem to address some fundamental sticking points. They do not acknowledge that the not-so-nice Obama fans could be connected to the "reaching out" strategy, the very concept that has kept some of us from conversion. We don't know what effect "reaching out" to independents and Republicans will have for LGBT rights, climate change policy, choice, affirmative action, health care, and so on. We are not encouraged by the results so far - if, in fact, the ugly Obama fans are infiltrators, they are partly the luggage that comes along with the "reaching out" process. It makes me, for one, less inclined to reach.

    When the nice Obama supporters... (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by lambert on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:16:12 AM EST
    ... start cleaning up their own threads, and in particular start addressing the Hillary hate and misogyny, I'll take them seriously.

    Until then, in my book, they're just sitting back and letting others do the dirty work for them, and then clutching their pearls and saying "Goodness, how dreadful!"

    Pas si bete....


    What an excellent comment. (none / 0) (#88)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:45:15 AM EST
    It explains why many Hillary supporters don't take the "let's all be friends now" Obama supporters seriously.

    marcellus, respectfully, I disagree w/this (none / 0) (#106)
    by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:00:33 PM EST
    In the real world, I think the party is united.  Most people don't pay that close attention to the details.  

    While they may not follow the minutia, they do follow overall arcs, such as media treatment, and issues, esp. healthcare. Healthcare is a huge deal. Please don't think that the failure of Dems in Congress to act on it and the Iraq war hasn't resulted in frustration and anger.

    I'm going by the volunteering at local caucuses and such, conversations with friends and neighbors, and the phonecalling I do for Sen. Clinton. I don't ask if they're angry, they just come right out and tell me.

    Could be me, though. I consider myself charming and reasonable, but maybe not.

    Whether the anger will last or be felt in the fall, though, is a separate question. I think you'd agree that is incumbent upon the Democratic nominee to win these voters to her side.

    Heh---see how I snuck that pronoun in there?

    I also don't think the race is over yet.

    Completely agree. And I think this is actually for the good.


    False information? Your 4 part opus on (none / 0) (#104)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:23:33 AM EST
    race-baiting was an excellent example of that.
    Please, don't lecture us. You come her to spread vicious falsehoods---I don't appreciate it.

    what you won't find at Talk Left (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:57:43 AM EST
    is hate-filled anti-Obama diaries.

    Oh, that line again - yuck (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:36:50 AM EST
    "There will be another woman next election who won't, well, be Hillary, and she will do fine."

    A. Yes, it's always about this particular woman, not every woman. That's what everyone who justifies the demeaning and vile commentary towards her always says - it's just OK for this woman, not every woman. She, in particular, deserves it. Whatever.

    B. You must be prescient in your ability to predict that there will be another woman in the future who will "do fine". It's actually hard for me to believe that a woman will have the courage to run again after the treatment that Hillary has received. If one does, seems like we'll just see once again that there are no bounds to the discourse, on the right or the left, when attacking a woman running for the highest office.


    I once read a letter (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:13:21 AM EST
    on the NY Times that spoke against MoDo's attack of HRC.  It said "If not this woman, then there won't be another in my lifetime. If not this woman, then we will always find something wrong with another. Not this woman. Or that one.  Or that one either"

    Do you mean (none / 0) (#84)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:37:36 AM EST
    this op-ed piece by Gloria Steinem?

    It was actually a letter (none / 0) (#101)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:03:20 AM EST
    from a reader in response to a Modo attack.

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by esmense on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:40:15 AM EST
    Who is that woman? And do you and the party's major funders have your check books ready? How much serious, respectful national media coverage has she received? Show me the major media ready to declare her "viable" and "credible."

    Name some names AND demonstrate that those names are taken seriously and supported enthusiastically by big money, big media. the "progressive" blogosphere, the netroots, etc.

    What women are TPM and Kos touting for the presidency?


    Probably Condi Rice (none / 0) (#80)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:23:49 AM EST
    Seriously, I would like Boxer. Would Boxer do  since she is not Hillary? Stephani Tubbs Jones? Maxine Waters? Pelosi? No, not her for sure. I always thought and have said on DK before, that Elizabeth would make an excellent President.

    As for Condi running for VP, that would keep the GOP women & AA's in line in the GE. But I think she would be a horrible VP. She has been a horrible Sec of State. I admire her intelligence and loved her boots, but don't think she is ready for that position either.

    Nope, Hillary did her time first and was shown to be an excellent Senator. She is THAT woman who should be President.


    If the race is over (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:03:18 AM EST
    Then please implore your candidate to stop attacking and begin his best effort at re-uniting the party.

    Which is his job.  If he's the winner.


    Here's a legal question (none / 0) (#89)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:53:08 AM EST
    I saw an op-ed, I believe it was in the LA Times, which outlined arguments for why the Clinton health plan would be unconstitutional (and to the extent that there are any mandates, so would Obama's).

    The government can say that if you operate a motor vehicle on public streets you must have car insurance. You don't have to operate a motor vehicle. But it can't say that as a condition of living in the United States you must buy health insurance from a private company.

    This would have been an argument for McCain if Clinton had won the nomination (she won't), but it's still going to be an issue for any healthcare plan advanced in Congress next year.

    To Republicans this will be a means to destroy any healthcare plan. To me it suggests another reason for a real single-payer Medicare-like plan.


    Just like (none / 0) (#103)
    by eric on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:17:17 AM EST
    Social Security is unconstitutional.  Or, maybe see Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619.

    The John Birch Society is apparently alive and well.


    Hillary's Is Marginally Better (none / 0) (#20)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:18:42 PM EST
    Although I think both candidates health policies are a small step in the right direction, with Hillary's slightly better, neither of them go far enough to fix the problems we now encounter.

    Marginally better? (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:34:38 PM EST
    I hope you are kidding.  Or perhaps you are at an age where healthcare does not yet concern you that much.  

    Yes Marginally (none / 0) (#31)
    by CoralGables on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:38:02 AM EST
    Anytime you are involving insurance companies you can't get much more than marginally better.

    Until the middle man is eliminated the cost of health care will continue to skyrocket. Until computer models and schmucks sitting in cubicles deciding what tests should be done are eliminated, marginally better is what you will get. The true concept of universal health care does not include insurance companies.

    Eventually (not in my lifetime) our health care system will be similar to the public school system. There will be places to get your health care needs taken care of for free....or if you prefer you can go to someone else and pay out of your pocket.

    Baby steps towards this end shouldn't include working with insurance companies. Rather, they should start with free health care for every child in the entire country. If you need a smaller step, have free pre-natal care for all pregnant women and free health care for all children ages 5 and under. Both of these approaches would be far superior to what either candidate is offering.


    A big complaint about HRC and JRE's (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by hairspray on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:04:24 AM EST
    plans were that they forced people to buy into health care which provided profits for the insurance companies. Yes, but there are alternatives and over time the system will tilt to those alternatives, forcing the big blues, Aetna etc. to compete for their business.  In that process the system WILL change. But it has to be done gradually.  Just read about the problems in ME and MA in trying to provide enough services for the rapid influx of people into the public plans. It is not selling out it is simple logistical sense to do it that way.  With Obama's plan there will not be enough in the system to provide the floor of financial support to begin this process.  We will diddle around again for 5-8 years.

    The idea of universal health care (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:31:43 AM EST
    is that it covers everyone. The problem with Obama's health care plan is that the people who end up needing the coverage are the ones who will not be participating. By including all, you force the issue and get them coverage even if they go screaming and kicking. But, I bet if there is a major emergency or health crisis, they will sure be glad they voted for Hillary.

    But writing a law (none / 0) (#92)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:01:08 AM EST
    that forces a citizen to buy something from a private company is unconstitutional.

    What if there is the option of (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:14:58 AM EST
    public plans as there will be? The law is requiring people to have health coverage. You have your choice as to what you want to purchase, it's not saying you must buy it from Brand X.

    Do they have public options for car insurance?


    Good example (none / 0) (#105)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:36:48 AM EST
    Yep, the law says we must have car insurance. Seems to work most of the time. And who are people suppose to get their health insurance from? The Federal Government? Well, maybe, if we had not squandered so much on our Iraqi credit card.

    Bob in Pacifica (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:19:01 PM EST
    Paul Krugman (thanks Rick for the link) looked at all the plans:

    The Edwards and Clinton proposals actually include a public option -- that is, people can buy into a Medicare-type plan administered by the government. They are not forced to go to private insurance companies. In fact, the public option was what originally made people like myself and Ezra Klein enthusiastic about the Edwards plan.

    The Obama plan includes a public option for everyone as well -- but thereby hangs a tale. You see, when it was first announced, it didn't: the public option was there only for selected groups -- others would have to go with private insurance companies. It was only after several days of hectoring from progressive health care wonks that the Obama people said, in effect, "OK, we'll make it available to everyone." I was told that they really hadn't thought about that -- which is amazing, considering how important the public option is. (the Edwards campaign has been clear in stating that it might eventually lead to a single-payer system.)

    This was one of the episodes that led health wonks I talk to conclude that Obama may just not be that committed to universal care.

    Regarding your statement that the Clinton healthcare plan would be unconstitutional. Would you please show me proof of this assertion?

    Isn't constitutionality something for the courts to decide?

    Regardless, no one said it would be easy. Somebody will file a lawsuit on every possible facet of any plan. The forces arrayed against any healthcare plan are formidable.

    But that doesn't mean it's not worth doing, right?


    The public school system (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 02:01:27 AM EST
    Is broken too.

    But one thing I think you have to consider, (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:09:42 AM EST
    beyond whatever marginal differences you see in the plans, is the committment of the candidate to the plan, and to the cause.  That's where, for me, Hillary wins - hands down.

    My impression is that Obama has a health care plan because he couldn't be in this race without one, but he is not committed to that plan, or to the issues it addresses.  If John Kerry has been bold enough to proclaim that Hillary's plan would be DOA in Congress, can anyone truly see Obama - and his supporters like Kerry - making health care reform a priority?

    That's the difference for me - that she is likely to fight like a dog for reform, and he is likely to let it just wither for lack of attention.


    Like she did (none / 0) (#93)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:02:02 AM EST
    after her healthcare plan was knocked down in 1993?

    Wrong! (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by alexei on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:32:16 PM EST
    She pushed SCHIP and then worked on other health care issues for instance the National Guard are now in TriCare.  

    It Would be Radical . . . (none / 0) (#52)
    by Doc Rock on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 05:56:39 AM EST
    . . . to pick a candidate based on issues rather than personality!

    dave, (none / 0) (#53)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 06:08:39 AM EST
    The race is over.

    please don't tell the voters in PA, NC, PR, etc. this, ok? the sillies still seem to think their votes might matter.

    Maybe they are silly (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:00:07 AM EST
    Cause we know that the votes of the citizens of FL and MI don't matter so why should anyone else?

    Question. Would Trina Bachtel (none / 0) (#59)
    by ding7777 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:28:57 AM EST
    have been covered and able to afford insurance under Hillary's plan?

    Would Trina Bachtel still be uninsured under Obama's plan?

    Will it make a difference? (none / 0) (#62)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:47:08 AM EST
    Are there that many people who on on the fence over universal heathcare?  I would think most people who have this as a primary voting issue have made up their minds.  I'm not dismissing the importance, but I think both candidates positions have been thoroughly explored, anyone who favors Hillary is probably already onboard.

    Im not so sure (none / 0) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:29:34 AM EST
    they have been thoroughly explored.  any light that can be shined on this, the most important difference, is only a good thing.
    but this is not really that new.  Elizabeth has been going on teevee and saying exactly this for a while.
    I put it in the threads here last week. (or the week before)

    But they will never let Hillary succeed. (none / 0) (#63)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 07:50:51 AM EST
    Getting any kind of reform in our health care will be very difficult, but the Right is not going to let Hillary WIN on the healthcare issue because they killed it once and their egos won't let them give her the credit.

    I really believe that if Hillary is elected, stopping every good thing she could do will be their mission in life, as it was in the 90s with Bill.

    So, Obama has a better chance to get something done.

    So it's all personal??? (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Dave B on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:25:12 AM EST
    They will fight Hillary tooth and nail because of who she is, but they will roll over for Obama?

    That's an interesting alternate reality.


    Yes, but we want it for the Democrats (none / 0) (#67)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:24:36 AM EST
    If a bill that he will sign has to appease every Republican Senator and Congressman, then it becomes a watered down version. Hmmm, just like it is now.

    They will try to stop any Democrat (none / 0) (#74)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:48:18 AM EST
    They're going to give Sen. Obama a pass because he's what, more likeable? Highly doubtful. There's plenty of small-minded thinking in Washington, but the bottom line is that people protect their interests. Whether it's Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton in charge and challenging those interests, there will be oppostiion.

    that pathetic (none / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:20:18 AM EST

    Project much? (none / 0) (#70)
    by plummy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:30:08 AM EST

    ah (none / 0) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:19:15 AM EST
    cant say anything anti-Hillary.
    try the street corner.

    No (none / 0) (#72)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 08:45:44 AM EST
    But we'd certainly think she was a fool for supporting his much weaker version over hers.

    Edwards is being logical.

    Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#83)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:32:04 AM EST
    Or just here to push buttons?

    Elizabeth Edwards certainly wouldn't think herself fortunate to have cancer that isn't going to be cured, but she knows she is fortunate to be in a position to study the issue, to be able to talk with people at the highest levels of the chain, and have the means to be able to devote the time necessary to understand the problems and work on finding solutions.  What people like Edwards and Clinton know is that it is wrong to decide who can live and who will die, based on an ability to pay.

    I've heard Obama speak about his mother's cancer and her worries about paying for her treatment and the drugs, so I expected more from him than a plan that still leaves people out; it makes no sense to me that he would accept that some people would just have to go on worrying about whether they could afford to get well.

    Apparently, it makes no sense to Edwards, either - and you don't have to have cancer to see that.

    Ms. Edwards (none / 0) (#95)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:05:14 AM EST
    was quite adamant about not endorsing either candidate when she was on NPR the other day.

    I guess that either the Clinton supporters are delusional or calling her a liar.

    Wuh? (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 11:04:47 AM EST
    Did you not read the part of Jeralyn's post that said EE is not endorsing either candidate? Sen. Obama has tried to claim his plan is universal.  EE calls BS on that and says she prefers Sen. Clinton's plan. Jeralyn didn't say it was an endorsement of Sen. Clinton's whole candidacy.

    I agree with you on one thing: someone on this thread is delusional.


    Both Obama and Clinton (none / 0) (#97)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 10:07:19 AM EST
    have gotten hundreds of thousands in donations from health insurance companies, Hillary slightly more. I don't think it's so much ideas as much as IOUs.

    Elizabeth Edwards (none / 0) (#110)
    by KevinMc on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 01:57:18 PM EST
    I thought she previously said she prefers Hillary's plan on Morning Joe last week; at least I took it that way.

    Elizabeth Edwards stays on message

    Cancer victim.. (none / 0) (#112)
    by alexei on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:37:09 PM EST
    is not what Elizabeth Edwards is all about.  And, I don't think that Clinton supporters would bash her saying she was playing the "victim".  Sure, they may be a few - but I believe that the vast, vast majority would not and would not tolerate it.  

    I am not surprised that YOU are the one (none / 0) (#114)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 09:05:31 PM EST
    who chose to attack EE in this grotesque manner.

    "women" (none / 0) (#116)
    by diogenes on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:24:01 PM EST
    Every conservative Republican would have voted for Margaret Thatcher in 1988 as Reagan's successor if she were available.  
    The problem isn't that Hillary is a woman.  It's that Hillary's Hillary.  
    A lot of people had a visceral hatred of Nixon (even before Watergate) that had nothing to do with his being a white man.  This is the same thing.

    Ah, now you are talking about something (none / 0) (#117)
    by esmense on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:44:07 AM EST
    entirely different. Conservatives might support a woman if she is sufficiently conservative. Not because they are less sexist than progressives but because conservative female leaders tend to indentify almost exclusively with men and recognize no unique political issues for women. There is something consistently wacky in the way conservative women are always denying that other women should have the rights and powers that they are happy to grab for themselves. Phyliss Shaffley's (spelling?) high powered career against other women having high powered careers, Ann Coulters expectation that she will be taken seriously as a political commentator while claiming women should not be allowed to vote or participate in politics, etc., etc.