Edwards Brings Progress to Progressives

[jsamuel]

One of the presidential candidates is gathering support among progressive Democrats at a faster rate than even Denis Kucinich. Why? I believe it is because John Edwards is capable of not only turning progressive ideals into wonderful realistic plans, but he is also capable of advocating for them so that they become mainstream.

---

Presidential Politics and Net Neutrality Big Topics at California Democratic Party Executive Board Meeting

...

At the Progressive Caucus three issues, immigration, how delegates to the national convention will be selected, and net neutrality dominated the attention of caucus members.

...

At the end of the meeting an informal, show-of-hands straw poll was taken on presidential preferences of those in attendance. John Edwards was the clear choice of the getting 47 votes. Next was Al Gore, who is not a declared candidate with 27, followed by Dennis Kucinich (17), Barack Obama and Bill Richardson with 12 each, Hillary Clinton (2), and Joe Biden (1). Six were undecided, and neither Chris Dodd nor Mike Gravel received any votes.

As the meeting came to a close an announcement was made that Elizabeth Edwards will be addressing the General Session tomorrow morning.

At this CA caucus meeting John Edwards won by about 3 times as many votes as any other announced candidate. Is it because he is the most crazy liberal of all the candidates? Of course not. It is because progressives believe that he is the most capable candidate to be successful in implementing their ideals.

This is also reflected by the vote to select the candidate "most likely to succeed in ending the climate crisis" by move on members.

Edwards Wins Straw Poll on Climate Change

Former Senator John Edwards won MoveOn.org Political Action’s poll on the climate crisis which asked, “Which candidate’s position on dealing with the climate crisis do you prefer?” Of the field of eight Democratic hopefuls, Edwards received 33% of the total votes cast–more than twice the support of the next two candidates, Rep. Kucinich and Senator Clinton, who each garnered 15.7%.

MoveOn member vote results:

Edwards 33.10%
Kucinich 15.73%
Clinton 15.71%
Obama 15.03%
Richardson 12.60%
Biden 3.06%
Dodd 3.01%
Gravel 1.78%

...

“The enormous response we got from our members on this issue emphasizes how important it will be for our next president to make solving the climate crisis a top priority in 2008,” said Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MoveOn.org Political Action.

...

“MoveOn members want leaders who will take on the oil and coal industry and create a clean energy economy. That’s probably why Sen. Edwards’ support of cap and auction systems – which force polluters to pay citizens—and his call for more green collar jobs received such strong backing,” added Ilyse Hogue, Campaign Director of MoveOn.org Political Action.

It isn't just progressives who like John Edwards plans and policies. And lets face it, to win the nomination a candidate has to be able to campaign and win over votes on the ground. You can have the best ideas in the world, but you have to be able to gain support for those ideas and win people's support.

Edwards Wins Wisconsin Straw Poll - the vision, the organizing, the experience

For weeks, nay months, leading up to this past weekend's Democratic Party of Wisconsin convention, I had been excited. Not just because the annual convention is a fast-paced, interesting reunion of people I know from past campaigns and current projects and a chance to meet allies for now and the future, but also because I was really excited to have on consolidated weekend to bring to the state's most active Democrats the gospel of John Edwards and to see how well he would poll amongst the likeliest primary voters and most committed activists. The anticipation was not ill-founded, and my excitement to see John Edwards do well in my own state was even underestimated. And I think that what went down this weekend has some lessons for how the race for 2008 might shape up.

...

The big thing at the DPW convention is the annual straw poll by WisPolitics.com. They do different straw polls every year that end up with a sample that generally runs to be about 60% to 75% of convention delegates. Last year, they polled on the contested attorney general's primary (incumbent Peg Lautenschlager versus Kathleen Falk) and this year, they included a question on the race for 2010 (Peg won again) as well as governor (should Jim Doyle not run again...although he hinted on Friday night that he would). But the top of the ticket was the presidential. In the end, John Edwards won by a 2-1 margin over the other top-tier candidates, taking almost 50% of the vote overall. Why does this matter?

First, it shows that good organizing has an impact. We worked the state for a month or two beforehand, put together a campaign operation around the convention, and even organized delegates at the convention to vote in the straw poll (our own little GOTV operation). Hillary robo-called on Thursday evening and that's about it. Obama hasn't even been a factor in this state yet, besides getting two token endorsements in the Milwaukee-area (Gwen Moore, and Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett, who some cynics say endorsed Obama to shore up his support in the black community for his mayoral race upcoming). Our team knew what we were doing and carried out a strong plan. Organizing matters. So does savvy. And partially because of that we won. In 2008, the primary, from Iowa to Nevada and beyond, will be won by people who know how to organize a campaign. If this is any indication, Edwards' superior organization in those two earliest states will be very impactful.

...

Now, not to fault Kucinich, but one of his supporters has taken it upon himself to try to tear down John Edwards from the left. This wouldn't be a bad thing, if his arguments didn't use a underhanded conspiracy theory that John Edwards is really none other than Dick Cheney himself. These two stories make strong allegations:

John Edwards' Money and His Health Plan says "John Edwards' health plan would 'require all American residents to get insurance' from private companies." While John Edwards' Fortress says "His own financial interest in keeping private insurance companies in existence and boosting their profits may have nothing to do with his motivations" but the whole piece suggests exactly the opposite. Both are by David Swanson.

He even faults Edwards supporters for, heaven forbid, arguing that Edwards plan is better than Kucinich's. These attacks are very venomous and are ususally found in more mainstream sources against our Democratic candidates. But unlike Swanson, I am not going to condemn Kucinich for a supporters action, even though he was part of the Kucinich 2004 campaign and a consultant for the Kucinich 2008 campaign. However, I think the major points he brings up need to be addessed.

John Edwards' health plan would "require all American residents to get insurance" FROM THE GOVERNMENT LIKE MEDICARE-PLUS or, if they wish, from a private company.

Excluding that part makes this whole piece a complete farce. The part that is omitted is WHAT MAKES IT UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE! The main requirement to even entertain this piece is that John Edwards' plan will actually benefit private insurance. This is false. But that didn't go with the agenda of the writer.

John Edwards' true Universal Health Care plan will require every person to be covered. The writer would like you to believe that this would cause everyone to sign up with Humana. This is simply a total distortion of John Edwards' plan. His plan will implement a Medicare-Plus program for every person run by the government. This program is the one that John Edwards wants everyone to sign up for. If he wanted to keep Humana at the top, he wouldn't need to do a thing. The current system is the best for them. Creating a government competitor is a direct challenge to the system that may be fatal to it. In creating this new system, every person can be covered by the government, and if Humana can't compete, it will go out of business or change it's business model.

He even attacks John Edwards for proposing tax credits for low income people to pay for their health insurance as if John Edwards was giving that money to the private industry.

The flyers claim that under Edwards' plan tax credits to low-income citizens will create universal coverage. But that money will, of course, go to private insurance companies, including those Edwards' own personal finances depend on.

For some of the conspiracy theorists, realize that probably some 95% of mutual funds are invested in Heath Care, which probably include companies like Humana. Anyone who invests is almost certainly investing in health care.

Why does a Kucinich supporter feel the need to attack John Edwards' UHC plan given that his is more progressive than both Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's? The answer is simple, because John Edwards ability to bring in a progressive solution threatens Kucinich's base of support. I also believe this is why Kucinich came out so strongly particularly on John Edwards as opposed to Hillary Clinton after the open mic moment saying that John Edwards shows a "consistent lack of integrity.". This is reminiscent of how he tried to get attention by attacking the John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama for refusing to attend the debates hosted by Fox News which Kos decried.

Posted at: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/15/144331/856

[HereSince1628]

1. So did I count that right? 112 people voting?

[pioneer111]

6. Yes, at the California Democratic Party Executive Board Meeting

It was the leadership board meeting. Probably an influential group, I would think.

[maximusveritas]

7. It was just the Progressive Caucus meeting

Not nearly as influential as you're trying to make it seem. And it was an "informal, show-of-hands straw poll", hardly scientific.
The WI poll wasn't much better with just 389 voters.

[PATRICK]

8. Mole hill or mustard seed?

Which analogy is appropriate? As of today you can hold either opinion. Growth is all.

The difference is in the organic nature of movement and growth and it is my opinion that this is genuinely a good sign the author of the post is on target though the arrow has just left the bow on true.

The progressive movement in peace and policy was deflected by dean's loss and flew instead toward the heart of part organization. If we want to build on THAT deflected success we need to get on target with actually providing winning momentum to someone. Edwards would be that that person. The others appear to want to "rise above" any indebtedness or commitment to progressive goals and make what is true a sideshow of the grandiose election circus. And join the crowd of minority groups, labor and any commoner "special interest" shoved aside in favor of corporate money power and fantasy-land capitalism(which ally themselves only with the most puerile shallowness of American myth).

Setting aside the "anybody but" negative wolf call, we need to find and settle on the best who can and pledges to deliver the most and most sincerely believes that is not just expedient but right and necessary. If you choose a candidate who regards progressive policy as "fringe" benefits what is necessary for America and humanity will be watered down and under all the greater continued threat.

The post above is as much a matter of beginning to knock our heads against the wall on what will be obvious in a few months but as a rebuttal to the studied and pertinent Swanson article. Both raise the question. Who will the progressive activists support and what will the corporate party interests continue to ask for from the party regardless? And what a l,long haul that will be without someone actually committed to real reforms.

[benny05]

2. Amen

Thanks for the post. :thumbsup:

[zazzle]

3. Where is Swanson's retraction?

Has he apologized? Will he write a CORRECTED article?

[benny05]

4. Good q

We'll see what he does. Meantime, Edwards is very progressive in thinking. I'm in his camp for that reason.

[iamjoy]

5. Thank You For Clarifying

I had been under the impression that John Edwards's health plan did require buying from private insurance companies, but the government would help people with low income afford the premiums. I didn't care, because, despite seeing Michael Moore's "Sicko" and acknowledging problems with insurance for profit, I am not ready to scrap the whole system. I think it can be better regulated and give us the best of both worlds.

Anyway, you know how they sort of came up with "Compassionate Conservative" for George Bush :puke:
Well, since then, I've liked liked to call myself a "Logical Liberal." In further keeping with alliteration, Edwards is a "Pragmatic Progressive."

Idealism is great, but the fact is, things get done by compromise. And while sometimes we get pissed off at the compromises our leaders make, we also get pissed when they are so stubborn and unyielding that nothing gets done.

I think Edwards would fall into that first category, Kucinich the second.

[waiting for hope]

9. Great Post - Thanks!

K&R!!

[jsamuel]

10. My pleasure!

[illinoisprogressive]

11. I am a progressive who supports Obama but, I really like Edwards

[jsamuel]

12. Thanks, I appreciate the good will.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

13. Great post, K and R! nt

[Hieronymus]

14. My thought is that by giving people a choice between a government

run insurance and private insurance would cause the gradual disinterest in private insurance when people see how well the single payer works.
More people are apt to go for that than a sudden discontinuance of private insurance.

[penguin7]

15. How does this square with Edwards votes on the Bankruptcy bill,the patriot act, Iraq war

And where is Edwards on Nafta?

And why not support universal health care?

What is this crap about compromise, before there is any need to compromise?

[jsamuel]

16. This thread is about UHC, please stay on topic.

John Edwards' plan is true Universal Health Care. Like the subject of the op, you suggest otherwise, but that is not true.