John Edwards is leading the field in Iowa.
Edwards at 30%. Hillary at 26. Kerry 3rd way back at 12%
For the record… this is Kos/Armstrong’s worst nightmare. Mark Warner isn’t even an afterthought. Warner is way down in 7th and no way to gain support in the South with Edwards thriving in the areas Warner needs to make a move.
Warner needed Edwards to disappear to thrive. Warner had to win on Edwards turf. Warner had to have some of Edwards Iowa support, and all of Edwards SC support. Guess what ain’t happening now that Edwards is one of the front runners?
Ooops. Kos/Armstrong’s relevance in this Presidential campaign cycle just lasted a grand total of about 48 hours. I almost feel bad for them. Armstrong must have elaborately planned Warner’s coming out at YKos for months, and this Iowa Straw poll guts any legitimacy as a candidate Warner might have gained two days later. Ouch.
I’ve been saying all along that Edwards is my guy. I love both Feingold and Dean, but realistically, they’ll never get the nod.
Edwards has been doing great work since is failed campaign. If his wife’s health is fine, I say that he’s the nominee.
I particularly like the fact that Edwards isn’t afraid to mention the poor in this country. I think the beltway crowd thinks he can be flicked off like a piece of lint, but Edwards built national recognition in 2004. He excelled in working Iowa and will do well in other rural areas also (like a good part of the South). We’ll see if he can get the attention of the urban coastal voters.
I personally wanted Edwards to get the nomination last election. And for one of the reasons you mentioned Kid. He did it then and has continued to be the only white person who has consistently talked about the poor and race. His continuing work to get minimum waged raised in the states if the federal won’t do plus all the real work he is doing for all wage earners is great.
I do think people have underestimated him greatly-course that could have been partly due to the press basically trying to make him into some kind of pretty boy.
I’m hoping he’ll change his mind about Iraq. I know he know believes that wasn’t the right vote but he hasn’t gotten all the way to simply denouncing the whole dam thing.
I agree. I’d like to ask him that question; might get the opportunity some day and if he hasn’t changed his tune, he’ll hear about it from me.
Does he have any interest in the Healthcare Crisis? I’ve been poking around his site. Much as I like him and his emphasis on fairness and dealing openly with poverty, I can’t take a candidate seriously who doesn’t make the Health Care Crisis a priority.
This is from the Mission information of the Center for Poverty, Work, & Opportunity that Edwards founded in 2004 at the University of North Carolina:
Yeh, I saw that. But, it’s not very proactive. Compared to his more detailed statements about other issues.
I’m wondering if he’s one of the, “lets phase in something for the children” guys. Or someone who realizes that it should be something everyone has access to.
I don’t think so, but you are right about his “campaign” web site (which is so busy, its hard to find anything). I”m baseing much of my thinking on hearing him during the last election primaries, speak off the cuff very eloquently, and specifically about health care difficulties across the board. This was before he was yoked to Kerry (and silenced, in my opinion)/
I had just heard Dean speak in a small gathering, mostly about health care and race. (Dean was my actual favorite, and the person I worked for extensively as a volunteer). I liked Edwards, but thought he lacked substance. He did impress me a great deal, much more than I expected – though not as much as Gov. Dean. However, as a South-born person, I thought Edwards very likely to be able to speak to southerners about progressive issues. I still think that is the case, and he is my favorite in the next election.
Edwards, I think, sees poverty as a root issue that affects a lot of things, including access to health care. I heard him say last time (again, pre-Kerry)that if you don’t have access to health care that you can afford and that will be of good quality, you are poor. Gov. Dean, of course, said much the same thing only much more specifically, with cred related to health care beyond any politician in our lifetime. I’d like to hear Edwards say what he said then, now, and more openly.
We’ll see. The Iowa poll is going to give him more attention by the media, and the blogosphere. He’ll either get with it, or get his sails trimmed very quickly.
Your comment is almost worth a diary.
I like the way you’re comparing Dean and Edwards. I was also a Dean supporter and it was first because of the Iraq issue and then solidified by his health care plan. Kerry had a very good health care plan, I thought — but he was wobbly on Iraq back then. Plus, Kerry has communication issues (I thought)
Anyway, I always liked the way Edwards speaks about poverty. But, I don’t understand why his so hesitant to address the health care issue. I know, I’m in danger of becoming a ‘single issue Democrat.’ I’ve always resisted the impulse. But, this issue has become very important to me and I’ve pretty much drawn a line.
I’m not really interested in supporting a candidate that says I’ve got to compromise and people who happen to work someplace without health care benefits, just don’t deserve health care.
They’re all worried about stating specifics. The minute anyone states specifics, the Frist-family drops $500 million on “Harry and Louise… If you get National Health Care, YOU WILL DIE!!! ‘Doesn’t everyone on the Canadian National Health Care plan DIE?!?! ads.”
Frist, however, is quite vulnerable on health care. His health care corporation has been in deep legal trouble. His behavior during the Schaivo stuff was off-putting to a lot of people, including more than a few conservatives. Many many physicians, who are as a group conservative, do not like his pandering.
And perhaps worst of all: He Killed Kittens!! to do his medical stuff. I cannot tell you how badly that is going to play. I’d put on a few commercials with older persons and their much beloved pets, talking about their health needs, the trouble with getting their high-priced medicine, and not wondering how a doctor who admitted to a using pets to practice his surgical techniques could be trusted. Brutal, yes, but truthful.
Oh, my mother would be so disapproving. Of me, and of Frist.
O’Reilly would say the Big Red One Infantry Division tortured 400,000 kittens when they landed at Normandy on D-Day, and were proud to do it.
Joe Lieberman would say Democrats don’t understand how kitten torturing makes the world a safer place.
More than 63 Million American households have a pet. The vast majority of these households have a cat or a dog, or multiple animals.
Source: American Pet Products Manufacturers Association. And they know their market.
If Rush or O’Reilly want to become really really unpopular – just attack people’s pets.
Neo-cons are attacking the 9/11 Widows. I would have thought the 9/11 Widows were even more off-limits from attack than kittens and puppies.
I have stopped pretending I have any abilty to gage how shameless neo-cons can be.
Actually, I didn’t see that. It was something else.
This is a quote from an Edwards London School of Economics speech…
“…Another great threat to our competitiveness is health care. America has some of the best health care in the world. But the 46 million uninsured people and the skyrocketing health care costs are putting our companies at a disadvantage.
Just look at how much health care adds to the cost of building an American car — $1,400 per car. In Japan, it’s about $600. That’s just one reason why it’s time to make health care affordable and available to every American….”
link
In the ’04 Campaign, Edwards had a children’s health care proposal I wasn’t too keen on. People over 18 get sick, too. This quote seems to show Edwards’ position on health care is evolving, but it seems to be a work in progress.
I thought I remembered he was one of the, “let’s start with the kids” kind of guys. Well, I think it’s too late to think about phasing something in. We’ve just gotta jump in the pool.
We need National Health Care yesterday.
There’s a whole bunch of Dems that used to be in the “phase-in” camp a couple of years ago that are now very supportive of moving to a National Health Care plan of some sort. This new data that the cost of health care is crushing US business competitiveness seems to heve been the key to bringing many Dems over. It’s WHICH version of National Health Care they support they are trying to avoid making a public committment on right now. They don’t want to get killed on details.
Edwards may be one of the Dems that has moved into this camp, but there’s not enough here to tell.
My recollection is that his “kids” proposal also included their parents. That’s more than a start with kids proposal. Granted, it isn’t everything. However, American’s have been strongly supportive of insuring children in the past. We had that during the final years of Clinton. There was a program, jointly funded federally and through state and local funding. For example, in Michigan it was called MiChild. Not free, but cheap: $5 per child for the first kid for any uninsured family. Some states were also covering their parents, and Gore was proposing to add in parents/guardians. This sort of like what Dean proposed, quoting Kennedy: We shouldn’t let the perfect keep us from getting the Good. He (Dean) intended to expand Medicare at the margins, build positive sentiment, and gradually increase coverage over time to the whole.
Of course I favor single-payer insurance for all – maybe with an opt-out program for wealthy people (although they never seem to mind taking public funds). But I think Dean was right: We won’t get that on the first try, but we could get more than we have now, moving toward still more.
Priorities for me would be to change the wretched Medicare D debacle, add kids and their uninsured families, gradually add in all uninsured folks and the upper and lower ages until we covered all.
I’ve always fallen between the cracks, for just about any federal benefits you could name. And our kids are grown now, old enough that we aren’t allowed to buy their insurance anymore.
The thing is, I will be eligable for my pension in 2 years. But, I lose health care. And I think it sucks that I’m supposed to agree with politicians that I’m not a priority.
You are right, it’s not fair. Given the combo of age and years put in, I, too could quit in 1-3 years and take my pension, with terrible medical coverage that would eat my pension totally, of course. I can’t afford to quit.
I have another brother who is already pension eligible but not retired and had no plans to do so. He’s just been diagnosed with a very rare form of pancreatic cancer. It’s a real question whether he can afford to beat the cancer should that prove possible – he’ll be without insurance once he is too sick to work, so even if the medical folks will continue to treat him, it will eat up his pension, kill his kid’s college funding, and leave him with a widow who has next to nothing to live on. If he survives, his employer will have replaced him and will give him at best part time work that will not include health coverage.
I told my husband in a cynical moment that my brother better died fast. I can’t tell you how sadistically gruesome that feels to say such a thing, but realistically, he is going to lose his medical coverage in about 9 months.
It is not right. The entire idea of insurance is to spread the risk. So years of being pretty healthy and paying in to cover the costs of less healthy people, should mean that when you need coverage, you get it!
And that’s another thing. Why can’t we put anyone we want on our health care policy if we want to pay a bit extra? Who the HELL are they to tell us who we can support and who we can’t?
Why can’t whole extended families and/or households buy insurance together?
(SCREAMING)
I can’t agree more! I don’t understand why not. For a very brief period, we had a county wide health care pool for persons who did not have coverage through work, that was glorious, if modest. A bit more costly than MiChild, but where I worked, we could afford to cover our childcare workers, who earned a princely average 14K annually! Childcare pay is truly embarrassing.
Staff could go to the doctor before they became really ill, and lost fewer days of work. Several women lost weight – we had many with Type II diabetes that was untreated. Well, that program is gone. Cut, mostly due to loss of federal blockgrants, plus our repub lege and outgoing repub gov cut state income taxes from 4% to 3%. That 25% cut in state revenues has devastated so many areas of funding, and yet they are crying for more tax cuts.
Medical savings accounts that might be worth $10.00 by years end if you were lucky! What stupidity!
{{Kidspeak}}
I’m so sorry. I wish I could help. I wish I could do something.
And I hate the people who could help, who could have changed this situation years ago, but haven’t. And won’t.
There’s big new evidence that the cost of US health care is crushing the ability for US businesses to compete with nations that have national health care plans.
It’s moved a whole lot of wavering Dems into the National Heath Care camp.
It’s pretty new evidence. Many have not had a chance to do anything but agree that National Health Care is the way to go, and they are all scared of getting killed on the specifics of a NHC proposal.
(sigh)
(sigh)
I’m sickened by the people who make this a negative image.
I’ve said too much, and off topic. I’m shutting up.
Thanks for bringing these results to our attention, they are important.
I was just coming in to apologise for hijacking the thread. I really think it was me who did it.
And I am sorry about that. But I learned a lot and did like talking to everyone here.
(sorry)
Good to hear that Edwards is not the lost forgotten loser like his runnin mate. The best part about Edwrads for me was his pledge to not go negative in the campaign.
God I hate negative campaigning, almost as much as I hate TV political advertising.
Satirical and/or humorous campaigning ok–
Edwards has a chance, especially as he no longer qualifies for the heavily starched, well coiffed pompous idiot’s burden of being a “Senator.”
Did anyone see Edwards on ABC’s This Week on Sunday? He was really amazing!! I think getting away from the Kerry campaign advisors is really the key. He’s so comfortable and at ease with himself and eloquent about the issues. I think in the “retail” political setting – he’ll blow the competition away. But if the media keeps dismissing him, I worry about the voters who’ll focus on his “electability” – oh how I’ve come to hate that word! But then Clinton did it – even tho he was being dismissed by the media, so maybe there’s hope.
I don’t think I’m a Clarkie any longer…..I find my gaze shifting to Edwards. I’m ready to work my tail off for the right person who will really turn all this horror around!
I think I’m putting people into yes, no and maybe categories at this point. Here’s my list for today:
Yes – Edwards and Feingold
No – Clinton, Bayh, Kerry, Warner and anyone else who hasn’t take a strong stand about Iraq
Maybe – Clark
What would really knock my bells would be someone who, like Dean, demonstrated an ability to work with and listen to the people. Like someone who was really interested in re-building democracy in this country.
an Edwards / Clark ticket might be pretty good — focus on the economic issues of the non-elites, with a strong foregin policy/security backdrop.
Guess, I’m the only one here who has reservations about Edwards. (In the interest of full disclosure, his boyish Southern thang causes a really negative visceral reaction in me. But I digress.)
My Concerns:
Yes, Edwards talks about the poor. During his time in office what did he DO to help them?
How is it, as one of the author’s of the Patriot Act, Edward’s became a darling of liberals? He also voted for No Child Left Behind and the authorization of force in Iraq. (I know he admits his error on the latter.)
Finally, given he served only on term in the Senate, what legislation did he successfully sponsor that give us some sense of his competency as a member of government. What in his background would allow us to gauge his competency as an executive?
My mind isn’t completely closed about Edwards, but I’d take a lot of persuading.
As an aside, I think the 2008 primary season may cause a lot of dissension among us. I think the reference to Kos in this diary was kind of unnecessary. I hope we can argue our points both passionately and respectfully.
Kennedy and other Dems tried to make the best of a bad situation with NCLB. Then Bush violated the law and refused to spend funds budgeted by Congress to the parts of NCLB that Bush had not wanted. So on NCLB, you’re going to have to challenge Ted Kennedy first.
Patriot Act? I agree. Big screw-up.
The big problem we have got is the supposed “progressive” in the campaign, Feingold, isn’t all that progressive, particularly on economic issues. Feingold has pushed campaign finance reform, but Feingold has said almost nothing on voting reform. Hillary has a better position on voting reform than Feingold. Brad from the BradBlog asked Feingold at lunch about where he stood, and Feingold claimed he didn’t know much about the issue other than telling a story about how he personally won an election early in his political career after a recount.
We have a big pile of centrists running in ’08. It’s going to be awful difficult to sort them out and tell one from another. We’re going to be mostly doing the sorting based on campaign rhetoric, unfortunately.
He hasn’t really had to confront the issues, as we’ve kept the process open in Wisconsin without need for his intervention. Elections here are run buy a tri-partisan State Elections Board (The Libertarians got a seat with Major Party status earned by topping 10% in the 2002 Gov. election.) I coached the LP designee who pushed through decertification of touchscreens in 2003.
The legislature recently passed a requirement for a paper trail, and recounts use the paper.
The strongest feature here is at the polls registration, which we shgare with Minnesota. This gives us consistently the highest turnout, even more so among the youngest voters, which has been crucial to Russ’ victories.
If you are telling me that Russ Feingold is incapable of figuring out the voting rights issue without having the personal experience of watching voting irregularities happen in an election he is in, you are then telling me Russ Feingold is a Bush-like mental incompetant.
I somehow don’t think you are trying to argue that someone should support Russ Feingold because he’s just as clueless about things he doesn’t directly experience in life as Dubya.
So drop this “It didn’t happen in Wisconsin” stuff now. It doesn’t wash. Feingold is just as minimally capable of seing what happened in Ohio in 2004 from Wisconsin as I was from Oregon. If I noticed the mess in Ohio from here in Oregon, a US Senator from Wisconsin saw what happened, too.
Feingold saw what happened in Ohio in 2004. Feingold has an opinion about what happened in Ohio in 2004. Feingold needs to state that opinion honestly. If Feingold continues to treat people who care about voting rights like we are stupid, then Feingold will be treated by those who care about voting rights as is appropriate for the situation. Voting rights supporters will treat him as if he’s just like every other centrist Dem who will avoid taking controversial positions and say anything to win.